I agree that merit pay shouldn't be based only on test scores. If a teacher does an incredible job on some random project, s/he should get some kind of appropriate bonus. If a teacher consistently takes on extra work and does it well, s/he should be rewarded (such as with a promotion to a higher pay grade). I don't understand why there's so much resistance to this idea.
I support merit pay and oppose tenure, but the systems used reward and terminate teachers should be realistic. An NYT story about the Washington D.C. public schools describes a system that appears unrealistic in some respects.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/28/education/28evals.htmlTeacher Grades: Pass or Be Fired
By SAM DILLON
June 27, 2011
'But some educators say it is better at sorting and firing teachers than at helping struggling ones; they note that the system does not consider socioeconomic factors in most cases and that
last year 35 percent of the teachers in the city�s wealthiest area, Ward 3, were rated highly effective, compared with 5 percent in Ward 8, the poorest. �Teachers have to be parents, priests, lawyers, clothes washers, babysitters and a bunch of other things� if they work with low-income children, said Nathan Saunders, president of the Washington Teachers Union. �Impact takes none of those roles into account, so it can penalize you just for teaching in a high-needs school.�
Jason Kamras, the architect of the system, said �it�s too early to answer� whether Impact makes it easier for teachers in well-off neighborhoods to do well, but pointed out that Washington�s compensation system offers bigger bonuses ($25,000 versus $12,500) and salary enhancements in high-poverty schools.
�We take very seriously the distribution of high-quality teachers across the system,� he said.'
<end of excerpt>
The notion that the achievement gap will be closed by having only great teachers in poor schools is unrealistic. There will be average teachers, just as there are average people in other professions.
