The NEA has “declassified” a “classified document” which surveys 6 school districts across the country on variations of merit pay (hat tip to Joanne Jacobs). Their take is that the best models are those that reward teachers for, say, earning Masters degrees or special certifications, and the worst are those tied to student performance. The 51-page report includes a page of “Recommendations and Policy Implications,” including a statement that articulates their strategy for coping with the relentless call for performance incentives:
NEA should create strategies in the context of today’s political reality. Despite sparse evidence to support “merit pay” and “pay for performance,” many educators, researchers, and policy makers continue to support experimenting with performance incentives. The Association needs to carefully craft a message that recognizes this strong support, while continuing to promote salary structures that are consistent with sound compensation in a way that allows us to emphasize the elements that may hold promise: Advocating for skill-and knowledge-based programs that pay for things like embedded, relevant professional development and teacher career ladders.
In other words, redefine ed reformers’ terminology and, thus, redefine their trajectory. Very post-modern of them.
