The Washington Times
  • Subscribe
  • Times News Services
  • RSS
  • Mobile Headlines
  • e-edition
  • E-MAIL ALERTS
  • REGISTER
  • LOG IN
  • E-MAIL ALERTS
  • WELCOME
  • Your Profile
  • Log Out
  • Front Page Image
  • Classifieds
  • Autos
  • Real Estate
  • Jobs
  • Special Sections
  • Customer Service
  • Home
  • News
  • Opinion
  • Sports
    • NFL
    • NBA/WNBA
    • MLB
    • NHL
    • Tennis
    • Golf
    • Motorsports
    • Soccer
    • NCAA
    • Olympics
    • Outdoors
    • Other
  • Culture
    • Home & Living
    • Family & Kids
    • Fashion
    • Food
    • Travel
    • Health
    • Washington Visitors
    • Books
    • Military History
    • Life
    • Auto
    • TV Listings
    • Movie Listings
    • Death Notices
    • Entertainment
  • Themes
  • Communities
  • Shopping
    • Stores
    • Coupons
    • Daily Double
    • Promotion
    • How It Works
  • Videos
    • Two Guys
    • Birnbaum on Washington
    • Liz Glover
    • Amanda Carpenter
    • Morning Briefing
    • Documentaries
    • Joe Giganti
    • Video Game Minute
  • Podcasts
    • About Headlines
    • Audio and Radio
    • America's Morning News
  • National

    WILLIAMS: Finding gratitude in difficult times

  • Sports

    Leonsis in line to buy Wizards, Verizon Center

  • National

    3 airlines fined $175,000 for stranding passengers

  • National

    Ruling hanging was a suicide leaves bloggers at loss for words

  • Business

    Low-cost buses fill holiday travelers' needs

  • Politics

    A-listers, fundraisers attend White House state dinner

  • World

    Keeping focus key for Marines going home

Home » Opinion » Commentary

Monday, October 22, 2007

Why not upgrade excellence?

Rate this story

Average 0.00
after 0 votes
Login or register to rate this story

  • Font Size -+
  • Print
  • Email
  • Comment
  • Tweet this!
  • Share
  • Article
  • Comments ()
  • Click-2-Listen
  • Videos

More Commentary Stories

  • Border barriers lower rates
  • Another government debacle?
  • A safe harbor for our foes
  • Declaring Palestine

By

An employee who works harder than his colleagues, produces more and generally excels at his job should be paid more than one who is mediocre, or worse, a downright failure, right? Most employers reward good workers with promotions, bonuses and higher pay in order to keep them. But in the one profession you would think excellence should be rewarded, namely, teaching, it's often difficult to do so.

Teachers unions have been the main obstacle to paying teachers based on their performance, but change may be on the horizon. It's been a long time coming.

This week, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg reached an agreement with Randi Weingarten, president of the nation's largest local teachers union, the United Federation of Teachers (UFT), which will allow the city to recognize that some teachers are worth more than others — well, sort of.

The plan took months of negotiations to finalize and will provide bonuses for good performance as measured by improved students' test scores in the city's poorest schools. The hitch is, the money won't go directly to teachers whose students improve dramatically but to schools to be divvied up by compensation committees, which could choose to give it only to the best teachers or divide it among staff.

The idea for merit pay for teachers is an old one. Ronald Reagan actually campaigned on the issue in his 1984 re-election bid, following release of a dramatic report on the decline in U.S. educational performance, "A Nation at Risk." Al Shanker, a longtime president of the UFT and the American Federation of Teachers, was the first national union leader to signal willingness to consider the idea.

In his excellent new biography — "Tough Liberal: Albert Shanker and the Battles Over Schools, Unions, Race, and Democracy" — Richard Kahlenberg notes Mr. Shanker took the first steps toward union acceptance of merit pay more than two decades ago. At a union conference in 1985, Mr. Shanker told members, "Most people in this country believe hard work and better work ought to be rewarded, and opposing this makes us look like we are not interested in quality. So we ought to think about ways of handling [merit pay] while avoiding the pitfalls."

Mr. Shanker endorsed the concept of a new class of teachers, so-called master teachers who would be certified by an independent board applying rigorous standards. As Mr. Kahlenberg points out, Mr. Shanker knew such an idea would be resisted by his rivals at the National Education Association, so he enlisted the help of the Carnegie Forum on Education and the Economy, which set up a task force on teaching and ultimately released an influential report recommending creation of a private board to certify excellent teachers who would qualify for higher pay.

The resulting National Board for Professional Teaching Standards has certified 55,000 of the nation's 2.5 million teachers, and about one-fourth of school districts offer financial incentives to those teachers who achieve certification. And of course President Bush's "No Child Left Behind" legislation requires states to ensure that all teachers meet minimum qualification standards.

However, not one state has reached the administration's goal of having 100 percent of teachers in core academic subjects meet its "highly qualified" standard, and the administration has had to back off penalizing them, opting instead to give credit toward progress in meeting the standard.

New York's plan is a first step toward rewarding excellence on a large scale. But UFT President Randi Weingarten's silly disavowal at the press conference, announcing the agreement "shuts the door on the individual merit pay plans that I abhor," suggests she's no Al Shanker.

Merit pay makes sense, most of all to the really good teachers who should be rewarded for their excellence. If top-performing schools should receive rewards, why not go the next step and reward specific individuals who show they can make a difference even if their colleagues lag behind?

Linda Chavez is a nationally syndicated columnist. She worked for Al Shanker from 1974-1983 before joining the Reagan administration.

Post a comment

There are comments on this article, submit your opinion!

Please login or register to post a comment

Ask a Question

You Report

Do you have another point of view, photos, audio, video or more information about a story?

Top Stories

Most Read

  1. EDITORIAL: Hiding evidence of global cooling
  2. Top Republican lawmakers not attending State Dinner
  3. Fenty trails Gray in D.C. poll
  4. Conservatives seek test for RNC funds
  5. Food snobs fork over $225 for taste of heritage turkey
More Top Stories »
  1. Company that repaired Chairman Gray's house lacked license
  2. Religious leaders vow civil disobedience on anti-life issues
  3. PRUDEN: Obama's due process doctrine
  4. KELLNER: New Apple mouse really is 'Magic'
  5. Green energy stimulus growing few jobs

Most Shared

  1. EDITORIAL: Hiding evidence of global cooling
  2. The United Socialist States of America
  3. PRUDEN: Obama's due process doctrine
  4. Top Republican lawmakers not attending State Dinner
  5. Fenty trails Gray in D.C. poll
More Top Stories »
  1. Conservatives seek test for RNC funds
  2. Food snobs fork over $225 for taste of heritage turkey
  3. EDITORIAL: Terrorists use Democratic talking points
  4. LETTER TO EDITOR: When family ties die
  5. Religious leaders vow civil disobedience on anti-life issues

Most Commented

  1. EDITORIAL: Hiding evidence of global cooling
  2. Top Republican lawmakers not attending State Dinner
  3. Conservatives seek test for RNC funds
  4. PRUDEN: Obama's due process doctrine
  5. Lobbyists spending big to shape health care debate
More Top Stories »
  1. Schumer: Dems will pass health bill alone
  2. EDITORIAL: Terrorists use Democratic talking points
  3. Green energy stimulus growing few jobs
  4. WH: Obama Afghan decision 'within days'
  5. EDITORIAL: Schumer's change of heart

Listen to Washington Times Radio

  • America's Morning News

    with John McCaslin and Melanie Morgan

Question of the day

White House officials and Senate Democrats met in private three times last week to craft health care legislation. Do you think these discussions should be more public?

Blogs & Columns

  • Hot Button Blog

    RNC: Breast cancer recommendations may lead to 'rationing'

  • Belief Blog

    Evangelicals OK civil disobedience

  • Out of Context

    Foods that might kill libido

  • On the Fly

    United lifts some 'award' blocking

  • Technology

    Facebook wins round against phishing spammer

  • Redskins 360

    Gray spends day in Memphis

  • SNOBlog

    Beyond 'Woody'

Videos

Advertising Links
TWT Store
  • e-edition
  • Print Edition
  • Weekly Washington Times
TWT Affiliates
  • Middle East Times
  • Golf
  • UPI
  • Arbor Ballroom
  • Washington Times Global
  • About TWT
  • Press Room
  • F.A.Q.
  • Work for TWT
  • Advertise
  • Sponsors
  • Contact Us
  • Privacy Policy
  • Site Map

All site contents © Copyright 2009 The Washington Times, LLC.