Many public institutions of learning continue practicing the traditional way of determining the pay of a teacher based on the years of service and their level of education. However, many public schools are now practicing the system which ties the salaries and bonuses on the performance and success of the teachers. The practice is in a bid to make teachers work hard to ensure performance of their pupils. If students do not excel in their examinations, it is assumed that the teacher is not putting much effort. Teachers who put a lot of effort in educating their students are rewarded since the pupils are expected to perform better. Organizations can measure the effectiveness of this plan. First, the plan is meant to ensure that the teachers are committed to their work and on improving the achievement of the students (Podgursky, 2007). Institutions, therefore, see pay for performance as a way of making educators meet their threshold while at the same time keeping the high-quality teachers within the organization. An institution can therefore determine whether the plan is working within the education sector. First, teachers are expected to acknowledge the plan as a way of improving the performance of the institution at large. If the teachers are rebellious to the plan then the chances of it working are minimal. Its effectiveness starts with persuading and sensitizing the tutors on the importance of this plan. The effectiveness can also be measured on how the management is willing to reward the teachers based on the achievements. Some organizations are hesitant when it comes to rewarding the teachers fairly even after they have delivered their mandate. If this happens, then the goals of the plan will not be achieved. Finally, the effectiveness of the plan can be measured by the performance of the pupils (Muralidharan, 2009). If the students perform better than before then the plan is working; if they perform dismally, then the plan is not effective.
There are disadvantages of the pay for performance plan on the employers as well. First, the merit pay will make teachers jump though the required hoops to make children perform by all means. They will also deviate from the curriculum and teach the way they think it will make students excel in their examinations. For instance, the teachers might decide to set cheap and easy exams for the children. This will all the students perform well but it is failure in disguise. Also, teachers may decide to be so lenient when grading the students; their main goal is to make these students excel which will also reflect in the incentives they receive. The merit pay is also disadvantageous to the employers in that it is expensive and few schools can afford it. It is costly to implement the merit pay and in some districts because there is little cash in the financial plan to finance learning materials (Meier, 2002). If the budget cannot finance the basic leaning resources, it would be difficult to compensate teachers on the merit pay. The merit pay also results in a public relations nightmare. When the names of the teachers who obtain the performance-based reward are posted, parents may be disturbed with the list because they could be disagreeing with it. They may also sense bias in the method used to select the teachers. The list may also result in hard feelings and an embarrassment among other staff who feel that the process was flawed and that they also deserved the pay. It may also result in legal action for parents who want the best teachers for their children (Muralidharan, 2009). Education is not a trade and this merit pay will unlock ways for the comparison between teaching and commerce. It is inappropriate to compare business to education because teaching is a service profession.
References
Podgursky, M. J., & Springer, M. G. (2007). Teacher performance pay: A review. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 26(4), 909-949.
Muralidharan, K., & Sundararaman, V. (2009). Teacher performance pay: Experimental evidence from India (No. w15323). National Bureau of Economic Research.
Lavy, V. (2004). Performance pay and teachers' effort, productivity and grading ethics (No. w10622). National Bureau of Economic Research.
Hanushek, E. A. (1994). Making schools work: Improving performance and controlling costs. Brookings Institution Press.
Meier, K. J., & O'Toole, L. J. (2002). Public management and organizational performance: The effect of managerial quality. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 21(4), 629-643.
