Ogden teachers have two more days to decide whether to sign a new contract that moves away from step pay increases, based on years in the classroom, toward merit pay increases, based on professional performance. Any teachers who do not sign the individual contract will be out of a job.
The Ogden Education Association is predictably upset, characterizing the move as an attack on teachers.
We disagree. The district's unilateral action after two years of failed collective bargaining may well be a swipe at the teachers' union, but certainly not at teachers per se. Supporting the idea of merit pay and supporting teachers are not mutually exclusive — in fact, a properly designed merit pay system would be a long-overdue boon to good teachers and students alike.
Teachers sometimes complain that they are not treated — and especially paid — like the professionals they are. But what other industry compensates professionals based simply on showing up, year after year? The current system of paying teachers and making layoff decisions based on seniority, by not differentiating between good and bad teachers, keeps some bad teachers in the classroom while good teachers are let go. It's not a system for a serious profession.
Merit pay can help elevate the teaching profession out of the ranks of blue-collar workers punching a clock and into the ranks of true working professionals who are required to be good at their jobs. The comprehensive teacher evaluation systems that go along with merit pay make it possible to recognize and reward excellent teachers (something lacking in the current system), provide for appropriate professional development and address poor performance.
But the real priority is students. Research has demonstrated that effective teachers are one of the most important — if not the most important — factors in improving student learning and performance. Given this, why wouldn't a compensation system be based on effectiveness?
A common criticism of merit-based pay is that teachers shouldn't be judged on how well their students perform on standardized tests. We agree, and note that an appropriate evaluation system incorporates a robust set of standards, not simply student achievement. It appears that the Ogden School District is intent on developing a thoughtful, comprehensive system over the next six years, seeking input from teachers, parents, students and other parties. Similar innovations have been underway for years in districts across the country, and Ogden should draw on lessons learned.
The district was well within its rights to circumvent the teachers' union, and it made teachers a generous offer of a 3 percent raise, an additional cost of living increase and no change in the cost of insurance. That's more than most professionals are getting these days.
It is understandable that mailing a new contract containing significant changes in July may upset teachers who don't feel they have time to find a new job if they do not wish to agree to the new terms. But whatever other issues exist with the new contract, Ogden is moving in the right direction with merit pay. It would have been ideal to have the new system well in place before announcing the change, but in today's take-no-prisoners, give-not-an-inch negotiating environment, moves like this may be the only way to implement positive change.
Ogden teachers have a choice whether to get on board and participate to make the new system a good one. Change is always difficult, but their unique perspective about what makes an effective teacher will be crucial to the process. There are districts around the country where teachers' associations are cooperating with districts on merit pay, and there are districts where they aren't. It isn't difficult to predict which arrangement is likely to be most successful.