Teachers: No merit to merit pay arguments

The argument is located in the Atlanta Journal Constitution’s opinion section. Legislators propose a bill , which will pay teachers based on student performance. That is to say, both students and teachers will be evaluated solely on test scores. As a result, Jordan Kohanim and Ashley Ulrich discuss their opposition to merit pay. They are Northview High colleagues who share similar beliefs.

"What is the problem with using testing data to determine teacher effectiveness? It hurts students. First, most educational research argues that testing does not measure student achievement, progress, or even potential. In fact, these numbers are so easily manipulated that they can be skewed for political agenda and end up demoralizing children that do not deserve such labels as “failed.” For decades, research has also argued that standardized tests disadvantage large populations of students. By measuring teacher effectiveness partly on this testing, schools that work with these student populations are already set behind, as well. The reverse is also true: schools (and students) at the top of the testing range have difficulty showing substantial gains. How do we quantify a gain when students are already earning “exceeds standards” marks on the CRCT or the EOCT?

Tests also do not measure skills that will be essential in an evolving global marketplace. If schools are to emphasize 21st century skills like innovation, creativity, technical skills, and critical thinking—standardized testing actually discourages them.

Another cause for concern is that curriculum, in response to increased accountability to testing, will pare itself down to test-prep. This has been proven by other states, like New York, who have seen this detrimental shift because of the emphasis on testing. How are students going to compete nationally, let alone globally, if they can only think inside the box (or in this case—inside the bubble)?

Beyond this testing issue, merit pay also presents other drawbacks. The role of educators is multi-faceted and it includes objectives that are immeasurable. For example, one colleague said, “If a student enters my ninth grade classroom at a fourth grade reading level, I may not be able to get him to gain substantially in test scores, but I’m definitely going to keep him from dropping out.” Isn’t that an important goal too?

Merit pay also attempts to reward or punish teachers for factors far out their control. Teachers cannot control student homelessness, transferring into the school late in the year, or the lack of academic culture in which a student is raised.

At the same time, merit pay will ignore those few factors that are within a teacher’s control: pursuit of upper-level degrees and continuing education. By leaving out raises based at least partly on degrees earned, it will create a void of teachers earning their Masters, Specialist, or Doctoral degree."

Conclusion: Testing data should not be used to determine teacher effectiveness.

Premise 1) It hurts students because educational research proves against testing data

Premise 2) Attempts to award or punish teachers for factors far out their control such as: student homelessness, transfer students, and uneducated environments

Premise 3) It ignores a teacher’s decision to obtain an advanced degree

The argument is in Serious Condition because it contains some fallacies. Appeal to emotion and Appeal to Authority are apparent in this argument. The authors evoke emotion when homeless children and helpless students are discussed. In addition, the authors state, “testing does not measure student achievement, progress, or even potential.” However, the authors fail to provide evidence. You can find the argument here.