Teacher Quality, Not a Year-End Bonus, Produces Quality Students
Despite Terry Moe's enthusiastic endorsement ("Management 101 for Our Public Schools," editorial page, Oct. 31), there is nothing "revolutionary" about an idea that has been around since the 19th century. England tried it, Canada tried it and several U.S. school districts have tried it -- linking teacher pay to test scores has never worked.</br></br>The "Management 101" philosophy advanced by Mr. Moe is grounded in assumptions about pay that are misleading and incorrect. Southwest Airlines has never used individual incentives, and it is the cost and productivity leader in its industry. After surveying companies that experimented with different ways to tie pay to individual performance, consulting firm William M. Mercer concluded that "most individual merit or performance-based pay plans share two attributes: They absorb vast amounts of time and resources, and they make everybody unhappy."</br></br>The strongest incentives for teachers and all working people are competitive salaries and good working conditions. Connecticut adopted this view some years ago when its schools were in serious trouble. Today Connecticut consistently ranks above the national average in math and reading, a turnaround made possible by higher salaries for qualified faculty, increased licensing standards and mentoring for all new teachers.</br></br>While Mr. Moe and others are riding on the hope that an end-of-the- year cash bonus will translate into student success, teachers and those who know better will continue working to transform teacher quality at its core.</br></br>Reg Weaver