1

Daniel Cole, Anahita Sharma, Katy Evers

Dr. Stitzlein
Save Our Schools
4/27/15
Merit Pay and Teacher Evaluation

I.

Introduction
One of the most controversial and polarizing topics in the world of education is merit pay

and teacher evaluation. Merit pay refers to the system that rewards teachers bonuses or salary
increases based on performance, which is measured through evaluation. Currently, most teachers
in the State of Ohio are paid on a pay scale based on experience. Teachers are evaluated through
the Ohio Teacher Evaluation System (OTES) which is graded from student test scores and
observations. Teachers are paid their scheduled salary regardless of their students performance
or their evaluation score. This report will analyze why Ohios system of evaluating and paying
teachers is a problem, examine the different aspects of merit pay and OTES, and will put forth a
proposal to implement a holistic merit pay program with a revision of the Ohio Teachers
Evaluation System.

II.

The Problem
Teacher contracts are negotiated in each school district between the administration,

school board and the teachers. Currently, teachers are paid based on a steps and lanes salary
schedule where teachers are put into lanes based on their degree and obtain salary raises from the

number of years working. This is an issue because its core assumption is that all teachers at the
same age are all equal in terms of ability. As in all things in life, there are some really effective
teachers and some really ineffective teachers. By paying all teachers the same, the system
rewards those teachers who are underperforming while also punishing teachers who are going
the extra mile and whose students are learning. The current system also provides no incentives
for teachers to grow or work on their craft as a teacher. If poor teachers continue to be rewarded,
our states children will continue to not receive the best possible education that they deserve.
Unfortunately, many merit pay programs across the country have been unable to solve
this problem. For example, New York City Schools $75 million dollar experiment based on
standardized test scores had no effect due to the reliance on standardized tests and how the
money was distributed (Green). Portland, Maines merit pay program, Professional Learning
Based Salary System, was nearly opposite, focusing raises and bonuses strictly on professional
development (Rosales). A presentation by the University of Arkansas Department of Education
Reform called Implementing Merit Pay, Overcoming the Obstacles: Lessons from the
Achievement Challenge Pilot Program brings up basic obstacles to merit pay. These include the
fact that it only benefits teachers of top performing students; it involves teaching to the test;
there can be extra testing involved; it can be impossible to involve art, music, or physical
education teachers; it discourages the cooperative interaction among colleagues; and some
teachers do not believe that the incentives are worth the extra work (Ritter).
Along with how teachers are paid there are problems with how they are evaluated. A
teachers evaluation in the State of Ohio has no effect on how they are paid. However, OTES
provides a framework for evaluation so that all teachers are graded on the same playing field.
The simplest explanation for OTES is that 50% of a teachers evaluation is based off of

observation from an administrator and the other 50% off of student growth demonstrated from
value added data (Teaching Evaluations). This data is collected from state test results and
measures student growth during the time that a student was in the teachers class. The idea
behind this is that if the student is improving and growing, the teacher is doing his or her job
correctly. The problem with using value added data to measure a teachers effectiveness is that
standardized test scores are often based off of poverty. According to Donald C. Orlich, a
researcher from Washington State University, Parental income can account for 80 percent of the
variance in those college entry exams. As a child's parental income goes up, so do the ACT and
SAT scores, and vice-versa (Ortega). This achievement gap is common across nearly every study,
so it should be the hope of legislators to get their best teachers in the lowest income schools.
However, OTES promotes just the opposite. A teacher looking for a strong evaluation is more
likely to work in a high-income level school, as their evaluation scores will likely be higher.
For classes with no value added data, the school district can select from a range of
approved vendor tests or district created measures to issue to its students. Many districts in Ohio
decide to use Student Learning Objectives, teacher-created measurements to demonstrate student
growth. Other problems that arise are that not all courses can be tested. In some instances, this
means the teacher is evaluated by the entire districts test score. For example, a music teacher
that is very active and engaged with the students could do well on his or her observations, but
will not be evaluated well if the district test score is low, something out of their control.
These issues ultimately lead us to believe that OTES does not accurately measure teacher
performance. The weight on standardized test scores does not always reflect how well the teacher
is doing their job. This becomes an even bigger issue if districts within the State of Ohio want to

enact merit pay initiatives. If the system we use to evaluate teachers cannot evaluate accurately,
how can a fair merit pay system be created that holds teachers accountable?

III.

Aspects of Merit Pay and Teacher Evaluation

Education reform does not happen in a vacuum. There are many different factors which
influence how policy is shaped and created. Teacher Evaluation and Merit Pay have been debated
by a number of different policy makers and stakeholders. Any plan that is created to solve the
problem of how our teachers are paid should try to align with these interests.
a. Teacher Perspectives
Teacher unions often strongly oppose merit pay. Representatives of both the Ohio
Federation of Teachers and the Ohio Education Association believe in the current structure of
paying teachers. The unions defend this structure by saying that a salary schedule helps teachers
know what their economic outlook will be like as they pursue the profession[letting] them
know that pursuing additional degrees to become a better teacher will pay off (ODonnell). In
fact, in Cincinnati, after years of planning a new teacher evaluation and compensation program
was proposed in 2001. The plan was based on teacher portfolios and five classroom observations
done by principals and colleagues. If teachers believed that their standardized evaluations were
unfair, they had the ability to appeal to a panel of teachers and administrators (Delisio). The last
step before implementation was union approval, but was rejected by a 96.3% vote (Delisio). A
union survey revealed that teachers did not think that the evaluation system was objective
enough, and they were wary of anything that could cause a pay decrease.
b. Political Views

Politically, the idea of merit pay has received support from both Democrats and
Republicans. Race to the Top, created by the Obama Administration, makes changes such as
[encouraging] states to implement performance pay systems (Rosales). Teachers are often
concerned about test scores being an inaccurate reflection of their teaching ability, citing too
much testing and not enough freedom to be creative (Gasbarra). Obama echoes this, calling for
better systems to track student progress. Republicans, on the other hand, also show support for
merit pay programs. Gerald Stebelton, former Republican chairman of the House Education
Committee, wanted to end the requirement that Ohio schools increase pay based on years of
experience and degrees earned by a teacher (ODonnell). He cited the best interests of students,
saying, Right now, if two teachers who start on the same day and one is a terrible teacher and
one's a really good teacher, they're still lockstep with their pay. It's an easy decision for schools
to do the lockstep thing, but it's not in the best interest of the kids (ODonnell). Merit pay first
saw a spike in interest in 1983, when Ronald Reagan said that teachers should be paid and
promoted on the basis of their merit and competence. Hard-earned tax dollars...have no business
rewarding incompetence and mediocrity (Springer).
c. Race to the Top
This bipartisan support for merit pay programs is demonstrated in the most recent
national education legislation created by Barack Obama, called Race to the Top. One of the
major issues addressed in Race to the Top is teacher evaluation. According to the National Center
for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Race to the Top has stated that evaluation
systems need to do the following (Hallgren):
1. Establish clear approaches to measuring student achievement growth for individual students.

2. Design and implement rigorous, transparent, and fair evaluation systems for teachers.
3. Differentiate effectiveness using multiple rating categories that take student achievement
growth into account as a significant factor and are designed with teacher involvement.
4. Conduct annual evaluations that include timely and constructive feedback and provide
teachers with data on student achievement growth for their students, classes, and schools.
5. Use evaluations to inform decisions about staff development, compensation, promotion,
tenure, certification, and removal of ineffective teachers.
House Bill 362 was passed for the 2014-15 school year, and it included several changes
to meet these requirements. First, OTES allows districts to choose a system that incorporates an
alternative framework for evaluation. With this system, teacher performance evaluations by an
administrator and value added data are both weighted equally at 42.5%, but there is a 15%
alternate component of measurement (Teacher Evaluations). This can be any number of things
including teacher self-evaluation, peer evaluations, student portfolios, or a student perception
survey.
d. Business Interests
The current and sweeping trend in education right now is the business model and
sometimes rightfully so. Private business has been the backbone of the American economy, and
the economic principles behind it make sense. Competition between businesses creates better
products or services and eventually the weaker businesses die out. This invisible hand has been
the staple of the capitalist system. It is a very popular belief among education reformers that the
business model is the key to fixing Americas schools; people will choose to go to better

performing schools and the low performing schools will have to improve to stay alive. The
business model also is in stark contrast to how most teachers are currently paid. The step scale
that teacher salaries are based off of is not common in most of the business world. Merit pay
programs are supported by businesses because they believe incentives and competition create
better teachers.
e. Stakeholders
There are many stakeholders in every education reform bill. The most important
stakeholder to consider is the students. Students in Ohio deserve to have teachers who are
committed to improving their students learning, not simply putting in time and getting raises.
Another obvious stakeholder is teachers. These issues affect how they are evaluated and how
they are paid so they are at the center of the issue. A shift in the current system could put more
pressure and stress on teachers as their salary increases would become dependent on their
students performance. New merit pay initiatives and revised teacher evaluation programs would
also require more effort from administrators to accurately evaluate teachers and adjust their
salary accordingly. Lastly, voters are an important stakeholder in merit pay initiatives because
they often require more funding to implement. The voters will have to decide if investing in
merit pay programs to improve the school system is worth the extra tax money.

IV.

Our Proposal

As future educators, we had the original intention of taking on the issue of merit pay and
arguing against it. The idea of test scores being used to determine teachers salaries year-to-year
feels wrong. Despite our reservations, we recognize the momentum the business model has in the
educational world and merit pay programs are on the rise. It is our goal to propose a holistic

merit-pay program that aligns with national standards and the business model, strives for
excellence, closes the achievement gap, and has the support of teachers. In order to accomplish
this, we are putting forth a two-part proposal to the legislators: a revision to OTES and increased
funding to districts using a merit-pay system based off of Denvers Professional Compensation
System for Teachers (ProComp).
a. Ohio Teacher Evaluation System Revision
In order for districts to use a sound merit pay program, OTES will need revised to more
accurately measure teacher performance. Instead of scrapping the framework completely, we
propose revisions within the current 50/50 framework. Instead of measuring student growth
strictly from standardized test scores we propose dividing Student Growth into 25% ValueAdded measures from standardized tests and 25% based off the results of Student Learning
Objectives. According the Ohio Department of Educations website, A student learning
objective is a measurable, long-term academic growth target that a teacher sets at the beginning
of the year for all students or for subgroups of students. Student learning objectives demonstrate
a teachers impact on student learning (Teacher Evaluations). For teachers whose students do
not have standardized test scores, we propose requiring these teachers to submit student
portfolios which would replace the 25% of Value Added measures. The student portfolios are
graded off a rubric already created by the Ohio Department of Education. These student
portfolios are simply building off the alternative evaluation passed by the Senate in 2014; it just
requires it for teachers without standardized tests.
In regards to the observation, we will still support the original framework of 50%.
However, instead of having all the observations be done by administrators, we propose the

observations be divided by 25% Administrator observation and 25% colleague/department head

observation. The addition of a peer review allows for the collaboration between teachers, which
is something teachers have been asking for a long time. Once again, these observations will be
based off of rubrics already created by the Ohio Department of Education which align with the
Ohio Standards for the Teaching Profession. These rubrics include lesson planning, delivery,
professionalism, differentiation, and many more aspects of teaching.
b. Merit Pay Program
This revised OTES framework more accurately measures teacher performance which will
allow districts to tie teacher pay with their evaluation. In regards to merit pay, we are proposing
to the legislators their promotion of sound merit pay programs through increased funding.
Although the legislators have very little control when it comes to negotiating contracts with
teachers, the legislators can help better fund districts who create merit pay initiatives. These
merit pay initiatives should be negotiated between administrators and unions, should strive to
place the best teachers in the most needed areas and define teacher performance broadly,
including results from test scores, professional development, and evaluations. Through our
research, we have studied the Denver Professional Compensation System for Teachers
(ProComp) and are proposing that legislators help fund programs which reward teachers in a
similar way to ProComp. It is important to note that the dollar amounts we are proposing are
from the ProComp plan. In Ohio, districts should negotiate these dollar amounts with their
respective teacher unions so both sides are in agreement.
Instead of defining teacher performance strictly by student test scores, Denver ProComp
defines teacher performance broadly. Donald B. Gratz, describing ProComp writes, Only one of

10

the new plans four components directly addresses academic achievement goals - and that one is
based significantly on teacher-set objectives, not just standardized test scores (Gratz).
ProComp allowed for teachers to earn both permanent salary increases and one year bonuses in a
variety of categories. However, the traditional steps and lanes salary schedule is not used. All
salary raises come from completing some type of incentive.
The first category of incentives is Student Growth. Student Growth is a more traditional
merit pay program, basing bonuses off of student performance. The four different incentives in
the Student Growth category are Top Performing Schools, High Growth Schools, Exceeds
Expectations, and Student Learning Objectives. The first three are one time bonuses of about
$2,500 dollars, while the Student Learning Objectives are a salary increase of $381.1 dollars
(ProComp Handbook 5-9). If teachers teach in a school which ranks in the top 25% of the
district on test scores or in a school that made a significant leap in performance then teachers will
receive a bonus of $2,500 dollars the following year (Pro Comp Handbook 5-9 ). In regards to
the Student Learning Objectives, if a teacher passes two of them, they will receive a salary
increase. To pass the Student Learning Objective, the students must reach the measurable goal
set by the administrator and teacher. In Denver, many teachers were ineligible to receive Student
Growth incentives due to the lack of a standardized test. However, with our revised OTES
framework, the student portfolios make all teachers eligible for incentives.
The ProComp plans second and most well received category is called Market Incentives.
This is essentially using a higher salary to attract teachers to high-stress, high-needs, and hard-tostaff schools. If a teacher works in a school in the top percentage of children with free and
reduced lunch, they will receive a bonus of $2,500 dollars the following year (ProComp

11

Handbook 10-13). The same goes for teachers who work in hard-to-staff assignments. These
are determined by the district based on job availability. Often, Math and Science teachers as well
as Special Education teachers are the most common to receive this bonus.
Along with the Market Incentives, teachers can also earn salary increases and bonuses by
completing professional development, earning new degrees, and by passing their evaluations. For
example if a teacher completes a district approved Professional Development Unit they will
receive a salary increase of $762 dollars. Just like traditional salary schedules, there are large
salary increases for the completion of a new degree or license as well as tuition reimbursement.
Lastly, teachers receive a salary increase for scoring a Skilled or higher on their OTES
evaluation. There are few limits to what a teacher can earn. If they happen to meet all incentives
then they will be paid for all of them in either bonuses or salary increases. In this plan, the
average second year teacher in Denver earned a salary nearly $9000 dollars higher than those in
surrounding districts (ProComp Handbook 2).
It is important that this model be adapted by each district in their own way, however, to allow
for collaboration between all the stakeholders. The union and administration need to negotiate some
of the finer details in order for both sides to compromise. It is also important to allow current
teachers the option to join ProComp or not, as it is drastically different from the current system. Most
importantly, the voters need to be given a choice in how the teachers are paid. It is ultimately the
taxpayer money which is funding this plan so giving them an opportunity to decide and collaborate is
important. Lastly, the legislators can promote merit pay programs similar to ProComp by providing
additional state funding to districts that use it. Denver voters passed a $25 million dollar levy on
property taxes to implement ProComp and in todays economy that may be difficult to pass.
Therefore, increased funding can help bring programs like this to districts throughout the entire State.

12

V.

How This Solves The Problem of Teacher Salaries and Evaluation

We believe that the revised OTES framework is fairer for evaluating teachers than the
original framework. Splitting the 50/50 framework also reflects a more accurate measure of a
teachers ability. By dividing the observation into administrator and colleague evaluation, there
are now two different opinions on a teachers performance, which means twice the feedback for
teachers. Often, teachers complain that administrators are delusional about what life is like in the
classroom. However, a colleague, who works with the exact same students, may be more
understanding of the situation a teacher is in.
Also, by tying evaluations to salary increases, administrators and teachers will begin to
take their evaluations more seriously which will lead to stronger teaching. According to a 2009
study by The New Teacher Project, satisfactory and unsatisfactory were the only ratings
available to school administrators in many districts, and that more than 99 percent of teachers in
those districts were deemed satisfactory (Steinberg and Sartain). There is absolutely no way that
99% of teachers are satisfactory, so a change must occur. By improving the observation program,
we believe that student achievement will increase. For example, in Chicago, The Excellence in
Teaching Project was begun in 2008 and was based on the Danielson framework for observations
(Steinberg and Sartain). Schools in Chicago who implemented this program saw large
improvements in reading for the year-long experiment (Steinberg and Sartain).

13

Dividing the Student Growth portion into 25% Value Added data and 25% Student
Learning Objectives better represents actual student progress. Student Learning Objectives may
reveal actual growth in ways standardized tests cannot. If a teacher has a classroom full of
students on IEPs or students who are so far behind there is nearly no way they will perform well
on the standardized tests. However, their growth may be better measured in different types of
assessments that the teacher can create with administration. One size does not fit all and the
Student Learning Objectives attempts to individualize this. Student Learning Objectives also
grant the teacher some power in how they are evaluated because they are setting their own goals.
Gratz writing about Denvers Student Growth Objectives says, Denvers plan also involves
teachers in setting objectives for their own students, an approach that engages both their
professional judgment and interest. Such opportunities have often been missing from teaching in
the past (Gratz). Ultimately, the Student Learning Objectives empower teachers to strive for
student achievement.
Along with the revision to OTES, our merit pay program solves the issue of ineffective
teachers being paid the same salary as effective teachers. There are now incentives for teachers to
improve in their profession in order to continue receiving a higher wage. Teachers will not be
able to increase their salary without completing these incentives. However, ProComp is still a
balanced approach that provides accountability for teachers, but also rewards teachers for their
effort. Despite teachers reservations regarding high-stakes standardized testing, reality is that the
tests are not going away. However, Student Growth categorys bonuses based on standardized
tests are weighted equally with the market incentives which recognize teachers working in tough
conditions. Also, the most commonly achieved salary increase, Student Learning Objectives, are
created by the teacher, not by a standardized test. This gives teachers a lot of leeway, but also

14

holds them accountable to show student progress to receive a salary increase. The Student
Learning Objectives also help promote collaboration. Most merit pay programs are based on
competing against one another, however with Student Learning Objectives teachers are not
working against one another, but instead working towards completing a goal in their own
classroom. If one teacher is successful with a group of students, struggling teachers will be
incentivized to learn from them.
In many of the urban cities across Ohio, filling teaching positions has been so difficult
cities have resorted to programs like Teach For America to fill spots. By offering $2,500 dollar
bonuses to teachers working in Hard to Staff Assignments or High Needs Schools the chance for
teacher retention is much higher. Education researcher, Larry Cuban writes that teacher retention
is one of the most important criteria for a good school (Cuban 48). Therefore, ProComps
commitment to raising teacher retention will lead to stronger schools in Ohio. We strongly
support the Market Incentives because the ultimate purpose of schooling is to teach all students,
regardless of race, language, income, or ability level. The Market Incentive promotes this belief
among teachers and strives for equity. The bonuses pay out the exact same amount as the Student
Growth category, shining equal importance between equity and excellence. This rewards teachers
who sacrifice for their students and also helps provide a solution to the research presented earlier,
that standardized test scores are based off income level (Ortega). Ultimately, the ProComp
incentives will help get some of Ohios best teachers to stay in the schools that need them the
most.
The ProComp plan we proposed led to an increase in student achievement in Denver.
Denver is an urban district with a high impoverished population so the scores on state

15

standardized test scores showed little to no progress. However, the Student Learning Objectives
were passed with a rate of 75% and ProComp teachers scored on average 11 to 14 points higher than
their colleagues on the traditional pay scale (Briggs 3). Clearly teachers on ProComp were putting
forth more effort to have their students pass the Student Learning Objectives than other teachers.
Lastly, even teachers who are struggling are rewarded for their effort to become better
teachers. By giving teachers a salary increase for the completion of Professional Development Units,
ProComp is incentivizing teachers to get better at their jobs. Many merit pay programs simply reward
teachers who perform the best, while ProComp tries to make teachers better. A better trained teacher
force could help improve our struggling education system and leave no children behind.

VI.

Conclusion

In conclusion, todays students are being left behind and often teachers do not have the
incentive to improve. However, merit pay is often a controversial issue that has not worked in
many states. Our plan puts forth a new way to evaluate teachers, which is fairer, invokes their
professional judgment and ties that evaluation to a holistic merit pay program that rewards
teachers for their performance and effort to improve. We believe that this plan can be supported
by teachers, administrators, and politicians as it is a compromise between all sides. Teachers are
held accountable, but are also given rewards for teaching children in high-needs areas. Teachers
will also support the devalued standardized tests because in our plan they are given a say in how
they are evaluated and rewarded through Student Learning Objectives. We are calling on the
legislators to revise OTES to a framework similar to our proposal and increase funding for

16

districts adopting the ProComp model. We can all work together for a new education system that
rewards teachers who work hard for our States children.

Works Cited
Briggs, Derek C., and Et. Al. Denver ProComp Evaluation Report: 2010-2012. Rep. Colorado
Assessment Design Research and Evaluation (CADRE) Center, University of
Colorado, Boulder, 28 Feb. 2014. Web.
Cuban, Larry. Why Is It So Hard To Get Good Schools? New York: Teachers College Press,
2003.
Delisio, Ellen R. "Pay for Performance: What Went Wrong in Cincinnati?" Education World.
Web.
Gasbarra, Paul. "Obama Challenges Teachers' Unions on Merit Pay: Feat or Folly?" The Public
Agenda Archives. 10 Mar. 2009. Web.
Gratz, Donald B. "The Problem With Performance Pay." Educational Leadership 67.3 (2009):
76-79. Print.

17

Green, Elizabeth. "Study: $75M Teacher Pay Initiative Did Not Improve Achievement." Gotham
Schools. N.p., 2011. Web.
Hallgren, Kristin, Susanne James-Burdumy, and Irma Perez-Johnson. STATE REQUIREMENTS
FOR TEACHER EVALUATION POLICIES PROMOTED BY RACE TO THE TOP.
Issue brief no. ED-IES-10-C-0077. Web. Prepared for the National Center for
Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance.
O'Donnell, Patrick. "House Republicans Seek -- Again -- to Change Teacher Pay Structure."
Cleveland.com: Covering Northeast Ohio. 13 Nov. 2014. Web.
Ortega, Maria. "Parental Income Linked to Students Standardized Test Results." Research News
& Features. Washington State University,. Web.
ProComp Handbook. Denver Public Schools. 2014 Web.
<http://static.dpsk12.org/gems/newprocomp/ProCompHandbooksept2013.pdf>.
Ritter, Gary W. "Implementing Merit Pay, Overcoming the Obstacles: Lessons from the
Achievement Challenge Pilot Project." University of Arkansas Department of
Education Reform, 24 July 2007. Web.
Rosales, John. "Examining Merit Pay." National Educators Association. Web. 26 Apr. 2015.
Steinberg, Matthew, and Lauren Sartain. "Does Better Observation Make Better Teachers?
Teacher Evaluation Pilot in Chicago." Education Next. Web.
"Teacher Evaluations." Ohio Department of Education. N.p., 2015. Web.

18