By 02/24/2011

1 Comment | Print | NO PDF |

Most people are familiar with RhINOs (Republicans in Name Only), which is a pejorative for Republican officials who differ from other Republicans on certain key issues.  With a new piece in Education Next, Stuart Buck and I would like to introduce to the policy lexicon the term MPINO — Merit Pay in Name Only.

Few merit pay programs for teachers manage to overcome union-fueled political opposition to be adopted and implemented.  We estimate, based on data from Vanderbilt’s National Center for Performance Incentives, that no more than 3.5% of all districts have anything even remotely resembling merit pay.

But even the few programs that aren’t blocked are largely co-opted and diluted so that they are little more than MPINO.  They tend to define merit as additional credentialing, such as paying for national board certification or simply additional degrees.  The bonuses tend to be small add-ons to the traditional salary schedule based entirely on seniority and credentials.  And the plans are frequently not fully implemented or quickly reversed.

The problem is that merit pay programs are trying to simulate the compensation systems that one might develop in a competitive market. But without the pressure and discipline of the market there is nothing to keep these plans sensible or permit the constant tinkering necessary to address gaming or other design weaknesses.  In short, we hold out little hope for merit pay improving achievement in the absence of meaningful choice and competition given the union ability to block, dilute, or co-opt merit pay proposals.

In addition, we suggest that the most powerful form of merit pay is the concern that inadequate performance might cause one to lose one’s job.  Without ending tenure and burdensome fair dismissal procedures, merit pay is unlikely to do much to change a teaching workforce that cannot lose jobs for sub-par performance.

Even if we see more programs that are called merit pay, we are unlikely to get more than MPINO.  Unfortunately, this won’t even result in  SAINO (Student Achievement in Name Only).

-Jay P. Greene

Comment on this article
  • Alli says:

    In our large school system we had merit pay in the 1980s. These were the results:
    1. The 8 standards upon which teachers were observed and eventually evaluated were of a “one size fits all” type. This doesn’t work in education.
    2. Teacher observers were trained well, but the final decision was the principal’s. This often resulted in principal’s “pets” receiving merit pay, leading to resentment.
    3. Teachers became very protective of their best ideas and techniques, no longer willing to share with other teachers.
    4. We had NEA and AFT in our county; the teachers who received merit pay started a 3rd organization, further dividing teachers.

    The county ran out of money for the program and dropped merit pay after about 5 years.

  • Comment on this Article

    Name ()


         1 Comment
    Sponsored Results

    The Hoover Institution at Stanford University - Ideas Defining a Free Society

    Harvard Kennedy School Program on Educational Policy and Governance

    Thomas Fordham Institute - Advancing Educational Excellence and Education Reform