Tags: merit pay,

Download the evidence file  Harvard PF Institute

Resolved: That merit pay based on student achievement should be a significant component of K-12 teacher compensation in United States public schools.

Introduction

The December Public Forum resolution asks a straight-forward question: Should merit pay based on student achievement should be a significant component of K-12 teacher compensation in United States public schools?

This resolution has a number of benefits:

First, it is very straight forward. None of the terms in the resolution are awkward or confusion.

Second, it includes key terms that limit the affirmative advocacy. For example, it doesn’t allow the affirmative to defend any merit pay system, but one that is tied to improvements in student achievement.

Third, it identifies what type of schools (K-12 and pubic). These are the schools that most of the literature speaks to when discussing merit pay.

Despite these benefits, there is one significant drawback: Unlike the resolutions of the last three months, this resolution does not eliminate counterplan options. In fact, I think the resolution invites a negative counterplan. By asking the question of whether or not merit pay should be a “significant component” of K-12 teacher compensation, it encourages the negative to develop a counterplan that argues that it should be a component of K-12 compensation but not a “significant” one.  Also, because the resolution specifies K-12 education, the negative could develop an argument that says it works best at particular grade levels (such as 9-12) but not at others (say 1-8).  Third, the resolutions invites a considerable debate about what to base merit pay on. More crafty negatives will argue that they agree that merit pay is good but that it should be based on something other than student achievement, such as teacher effort and/or participation in the school beyond the classroom.

While I believe it is possible to debate merit pay “straight-up” and simply argue it is bad, the more crafty counterplans/alternative advocacies will be more difficult for all but the best affirmative teams to debate. More evidence will be available in the release for these advocacies as the month of December approaches.

Background

In this section I will briefly discuss each of the terms of the resolution so that debaters will be able to develop the best possible understanding of what they are debating.

Merit pay. Merit pay is the idea that teachers should make more than their base salary if students perform to a given standard.

Student achievement. Students achievement is simply the measurement of a student’s ability to set the standard set.  Although this definition is not very controversial, one question the resolution does leave unanswered is how the merit pay systems should define student achievement.  One way to define it is the overall ability of the group to obtain a given standard.  Another way to define it is the ability of the group to progress.  The latter standard is less difficult to defend, and it is the place that I would start as the affirmative.

Significant component. This is the most ambiguous and problematic phrase in the resolution. It is unclear what it means for merit pay to be a “significant component” of compensation. Does it mean that a person’s salary would be largely based on merit, entirely based on merit, somewhat based on merit. Is there a reasonable negative argument that merit pay should be a component but not a significant component? After all, merit pay is usually at most a couple of thousand dollars of a $40-$50,000 salary. Is that significant? Is there really a case for it to be a significant component of a salary?

Compensation. Compensation is simply a fancy word for the amount of money that one earns.

K-12. K-12 is grades kindergarten through 12^th grade.

Public schools. Public schools are schools funded by tax dollars.

Arguments for Merit Pay

There are a number of different arguments for merit pay.

Conceptual/Theoretical.  The basic argument for merit pay is theoretical – if people are given an incentive to do a better job then they will do a better job.

Studies. Some research studies, particularly those from Florida and Arizona, provide evidence of at least a strong correlation between merit pay and educational outcomes.

Attracting better teachers. Arguably, better people may be attracted to education if they think that their pay will improve with their accomplishments.

Professionalization of education. In other professions, people are generally paid based on merit; the better you are at something the more you make and the more bonuses you are eligible to receive.

Arguments Against Merit Pay

There are a number of arguments against merit pay:

Theoretical. The main theoretical argument against merit pay is that it will undermine cohesions in the school, pitting teachers against teachers.

Evidence. There is evidence from a recent student of a Texas merit program that indicates that merit pay does not improve educational outcomes.

It’s not fairly measurable. Merit determinations are generally measured on based on overall improvements in standardized test scores. Standardized testing is a heavily criticized method of measuring educational success.

It’s not fair. Teachers who teach the developmentally challenged and socioeconomically disadvantaged generally have a more difficult time at getting students to achieve according to determined standards.

It encourages cheating. Merit pay encourages teachers to help students cheat on standardized tests.

Tips for the Affirmative

The basic advice that I would give to the affirmative is to define achievement as progress and to minimize the extent to which merit pay is a “significant component.”  As long as teacher base salaries remain high, and the bonus is not particularly high, the advocacy is less vulnerable to some of the criticisms that are made.

Tips for the Negative

I have two basic pieces of advice for the negative:

Criticize the workability of merit pay. There is very limited empirical support for the workability of merit pay. It could create friction within schools and undermine the focus on other reforms.  At least for judges that do not like counterplans/alternative advocacies, I’d prepare a general case against merit pay.

Argue for an alternative advocacy. Ad discussed in the introduction, the resolution sets-up many counterplan possibilities for the negative.  These include tying the merit pay to something other than student achievement, arguing it should be included in  teacher compensation but not that it should be a “significant component,” and arguing that it should be sued in K-12 education but not in all of the grades. Follow-up releases on Planet Debate will included evidence on these counterplan opportunities.