The rejection Wednesday by the nation's largest
teachers union, the National Education Association, of
even tepid experiments with performance-based pay
initiatives shouldn't cause too much worry for those
concerned about education reform. Sure, the NEA is
again on record as favoring to keep education a
profession where educators aren't held accountable or
rewarded for the quality of their product; however, in
this case their opposition is almost irrelevant. Here's
why.
First, the trend toward performance-based pay for
educators is a growing one. States and school districts
nationwide are showing a greater willingness to
experiment with various ways to reward schools and/or
individual teachers for performance. Researchers are
developing ways to measure the impact teachers have
on student achievement while controlling for other
factors. And, Vice President Al Gore has proposed
piloting programs to reward high-quality teachers using
student achievement as one component of a rigorous
evaluation. Sooner or later this energy and willingness to
innovate at the grass-roots level will reach Washington,
D.C.
Second, the NEA's sister union, the American
Federation of Teachers, is not as dogmatic in its
opposition to experimenting with performance-based
initiatives. While not endorsing the concept, AFT
President Sandra Feldman, in a largely overlooked
speech to the Economic Club of Detroit in January,
urged a greater willingness among teachers to look at
alternative pay schemes as a way to raise teacher pay
and reward excellence and high skill. Feldman urged
teachers not to automatically oppose innovations that
sound like merit pay and argued that to attract and retain
high-quality teachers schools will have to offer
"additional incentives for new knowledge, new skills,
new responsibilities, outstanding performance and [for]
taking on the toughest assignments." The AFT has often
led on issues of reform, including the standards
movement.
Last, although Democrats too often forget this,
organized interest groups often don't speak for all or
even most of those they claim to represent. A recent
example from England is instructive where Prime
Minister Tony Blair decided to experiment with a
pay-for-performance plan for teachers. The arguments
raised by teachers unions there were almost identical to
the ones expressed by the NEA. However, Blair called
the unions' bluff and let the teachers decide whether they
wanted to participate. In the end, 80 percent of the
nearly 250,000 teachers eligible to participate opted for
Blair's program.
This doesn't mean all pay-for-performance plans are
good. Many in the past, as Feldman has pointed out,
were underfunded, poorly planned and without objective
standards and fair systems for determining who qualified.
In addition, the jury still is out as to whether rewarding
individual teachers for student achievement is
constructive or whether rewards and bonuses should be
school-based. However, one doesn't have to look far to
conclude that change is necessary and that to attract and
retain high-skilled professionals we need innovative
ways to financially reward them.
Unfortunately, reflexive opposition to new ideas slows
the pace of education reform. However, the public's
appetite for reform, coupled with growing attention to
these issues from policymakers, means change is
coming. It's now more a question of political leadership
than union opposition.
