The Merits Of Merit Pay For Music Education By Billy Baker
Jersey City University
wbaker1@njcu.edu
throughout the United States. This method of remuneration is typically based upon years of experience and professional growth opportunities including workshop credits and graduate degrees. Despite its predict- ability and objectivity, critics have scruti- nized the fixed salary schedule’s effectiveness in retaining excellent teachers and reward- ing achievement. According to Greene and Foster (2008), the inherent lack of monetary incentives in this model “pushes high performers out of the profession” and rewards time and service instead of perfor- mance quality. Such concerns have led to the passing of state and federal legislation including Louisiana’s “Educator Effective- ness Initiative “and the U.S. Department of Education’s “Race to the Top” competitive grant program. While New Jersey has yet to adopt a statewide merit pay program, New- ark has implemented performance pay for teachers and Governor Christie has advo- cated for such programs to award the state’s “best” teachers.
A A poll of 10,000 teachers sponsored
by Scholastic and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (2012) revealed that only 16% of the teachers felt that performance pay helped to retain good colleagues while only 26% of the respondents felt that per- formance pay had a strong or very strong impact on student achievement. Addition- ally, in a recent anonymous online survey of 619 New Jersey music educators, I found that a majority of respondents opposed fac- ulty merit pay based upon school perfor- mance. Such findings indicate reluctance among education professionals within the state to accept merit pay initiatives. Several performance-based proposals for compen- sating music teachers have been suggested by professionals within the field including Cowden (1988) and Elpus (2011), but re- search and scholarship related to music teachers’ acceptance of such policies seem to
TEMPO
fixed salary schedule remains the most common form of compensation for teachers
be nonexistent. It would behoove us to con- sider the ramifications of merit pay in the field of music education and to formulate an official stance on the benefits or setbacks of these proposals prior to their possible implementation.
Accountability Angst Any attempt to quantify the nuances of teacher effectiveness in music education may seem futile. It is difficult, if not impos- sible, to measure the constantly changing aspects of student and teacher backgrounds, abilities, and personalities. The field of mu- sic education includes a combination of complex and diverse social, cultural, and ac- ademic settings. One of my survey respon- dents commented: “Music is such a field that is both subjective in its nature as well as difficult to measure objectively.” How- ever, educational research has provided us with common characteristics and qualities among effective music teachers. According to Townsend (2011), such teachers exhibit content mastery of technical skills, empa- thetic and positive communication abilities, reflective teaching practices, dedication to excellence and professional growth, consis- tent structure in planning and organization, and a respectful, ethical, and fair sense of character. While these character traits may seem to be “subjective” or impossible to measure, a variety of models have been de- veloped to assist teachers and administrators with the evaluation process. Recent implementation of the “Dan-
ielson Framework” as a feedback tool has resulted in varying degrees of skepticism, anxiety, and discomfort. Rather than view- ing this tool as a “hoop” or a “fad,” Santoro (2014) encourages music educators to ac- cept the evaluative criteria as an opportu- nity to “invite administrators and colleagues in to see how we teach.” He further argues this framework provides non-music admin- istrators with a baseline for measuring effec- tive instruction. While many content areas track student progress over multiple years
22
via standardized test scores and several dis- tricts are now adopting such measurement tools in music, non-music administrators may not understand the relevance or value of formative assessments in the context of classroom musical performance. An addi- tional survey respondent commented: “so much of what we do is in the process, not the product, yet everyone wants to make a judgment based on the product. . . how far have the students come since rehearsals be- gan?” The unintended consequences of test- ing and exclusively focusing on the product may include “polished performances” in which “performing groups can sound good when using such methods as teaching by rote therefore actually rewarding bad teach- ing.” It is therefore critical that the “Dan- ielson Framework” is utilized as a process- oriented educational tool for administrators and teachers. Opportunities to reflect upon the framework as an ongoing means of as- sessing instructional strategies and tech- niques may result in more open commu- nication and understanding between music educators and non-music administrators.
The Perils Of Pay For Performance The federal “Race to the Top” program encourages competition between states for federal block grants and advocates for them to “shine a spotlight on and reward excel- lence in teaching through compensation and promotion” (United States Depart- ment of Education, 2009). While Indiana, Rhode Island, and California have adopted a “top-down” approach to evaluating music teachers, several states like Florida are en- couraging cooperation and consultation be- tween policymakers and classroom teachers (Perrine, 2013). Such an open dialogue in the state of New Jersey might also mitigate the resistance to mandated evaluation ap- proaches attaching pay to performance. Nevertheless, most music educators
in my survey expressed reservations about endorsing and supporting monetary incen- tives for student performance and identi-
OCTOBER 2014
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76