T Chapter V HERE ARE several major points which may be discussed in terms of the material presented in the preceding chapters. Basically, these points are concerned with the need for a careful delineation of goals, policies, and procedures through which merit salary programs emerge from the area of principle into operational existence in a given school system. And as has been suggested, the value of a merit policy over any other salary policy should be determined by the goals of that policy. Thus, there must be a careful distinction between accepting or rejecting merit salary policies on the basis of (1) merit programs as opposed to (2) the merit salary principle. The future of merit salary programs as being a partial, or total, solution to the entire teacher compensation problem might better be discussed on the basis of the goals of the merit salary program rather than upon the program itself. The Distinction Between Merit Programs and the Merit Certainly a good deal of the controversy which surrounds discussions of merit salary programs for teachers centers on the techniques and devices through which a teacher is rated and then paid in accordance with that rating. The rating procedure, the amount of the salary differential, and the frequency of the observations exemplify such program characteristics. Although these regulatory tools are important and necessary, they are only a method of implementation and must follow rather than precede any discussion over the need for a merit salary program. It is assumed that merit salary programs are established because of a need which has arisen out of a dissatisfaction with current salary policies. And, too frequently, dissatisfaction with current salary policies has centered on characteristics of the school program whose causal relationship with salary policies is open to question. It has been stressed within this text that the need for and the existence of sound staff evaluation, supervisory, and development programs are not necessarily a function of the salary program. It is true that one procedure for the improvement of these programs may be a change in salary policy. However, this change need not be viewed as the sole alternative. A second major dissatisfaction with current salary policies has been stated as their inability to reward superior service. Merit salaries are then proposed as a means of encouraging, identifying, and rewarding such service on a differential basis. In both of these two areas of dissatisfaction, there may exist a lack of distinction between merit salaries and the rating, or evaluation, through which the salary is determined. If this distinction is accepted, it becomes possible to look at the merit salary policy concept as something discrete from other reward programs. The question then centers around the nature of the uniqueness of a merit salary program which no other salary structure has to offer and to which there is no alternative. The issue of merit salaries becomes solidified. The acceptance of the uniqueness of the principle of merit salaries for teachers may take the following route. First, it may deny the previous refutation of a one-to-one relationship between improvement of instruction and differentiated salaries on the basis of performance. The relationship is accepted through the assumption that such a salary differential does indeed motivate superior performance. Second, and perhaps more important, is the effort to establish the goal of a merit policy outside the instructional improvement area. This, of course, is exemplified by the position which views the automatic salary schedule as being contradictory to the economic system of this Nation and for which the teacher should serve as a model. This is not a position frequently utilized during salary discussions. Yet, one interesting feature of it is that in a Nation with a highly decentralized educational system, relying upon the resources and aspirations of the individual community, it has received little attention as a support for a position favorable to merit salary programs. It has the advantage of providing both the uniqueness which is necessary for a justification and it also is outside of the "burden of proof" question. The issue of merit salary programs for teachers becomes more solidified as this question of uniqueness is resolved. Their value can be better discussed when, or if, such a uniqueness can be established and then weighed against the alternatives. The Search for Objectivity in Evaluation The effort by many districts with merit salary programs, and this may well apply to those without, to strive for a high degree of specificity in their evaluation procedures is apparent when these procedures are examined. Perhaps this effort is associated with the rather 1 large testing programs carried on in the schools, or with the developments in more efficient teaching devices. And, certainly, salary advances in industry have been closely related to increased productivity per employee. To assume that teacher performance can be measured may be the reflection of a need for greater efficiency in the educational system. To implement this assumption, there must be developed descriptions of the goals of education as well as the responsibilities of the teacher in fulfilling those goals. Whether this can, or more important should, result in the development of measurable criteria of teacher effectiveness as has been suggested is a question worthy of study. A criticism of the attempt to measure teacher effectiveness does not in any way suggest a lack of importance of staff evaluation programs or that differences in effectiveness are not identifiable. Yet, the apparent difference in approach to determination of effectiveness as evidenced within the preceding chapters is a significant one. Whether one is to be considered as an "interim" procedure en route to the other is a proposition which was not discussed within the text. But for any group considering teacher evaluation programs, an early decision on which of the two approaches to follow should be quite necessary. The Future of the Teacher Salary Structure The entire reward system for teachers is a complex of such factors as salaries, fringe benefits, status, class load, responsibility, and security, among others. The salary structure is obviously an important segment of this total structure. The need for a general elevation of salaries as a means of improving instruction through the recruitment and retention of capable teachers is well known. The directions which these improvements should take are of local, State, and national concern. Of important concern within the total teacher compensation problem is the provision of adequate maximum salaries for teachers which will serve as one incentive to the extent that the schools can compete more satisfactorily than now for their staff. One solution would be to elevate the maximums for the entire profession, assuming that the Nation would be able to support such an effort. If this elevation is to be of a significant amount, it is apparent that necessary funds would be of a prohibitive amount, even if it were a desirable goal. One alternative to this general raising of the maximums is to provide for some differentiation on a selective basis, presumably according to the performance level. It is at this point in the much larger problem of teacher compensation that the issue of merit salaries enters the discussion. The fact that the encouragement and rewarding of superior performance on a differential salary basis may be accomplished through means other than merit salary policies has been previously stated. Which is the best means is another question. The school districts cooperating with the preparation of this bulletin have accepted the merit salary approach as the most appropriate salary policy. Other districts have approached the problem of salary differentiation through other means. The merit salary question is but one part of the entire reward system and of the total salary structure. However, it is of sufficient interest as an innovation to warrant its inclusion as one part of any discussion of the total teacher compensation problem. THE Chapter VI Extracts From Programs HERE ARE certain features which particularly highlight each of these six districts. One such feature from each program has been selected for presentation in the form of a reproduction of written material from each district. Canton History of the Development of an Evaluation Program for Teachers in Canton, Conn. A few years ago the teaching staff in Canton, Connecticut, considered at some length the relative merits of an evaluation system for teachers; that is, a system enabling the responsible powers not only to reward more adequately those who do an excellent job and those who are competent as the years go along, but also to improve teachers who are not doing satisfactory work or otherwise to release them. A few meetings were held involving the superintendent, the principals, and representatives from the teachers group. A considerable amount of spade work was done and a draft of an evaluation sheet was drawn. After further analysis it was decided by all concerned-board of education, school administration and teaching staff-that the town was not ready at that particular time to incorporate a system of evaluation which would be reflected in salary. In the next next two or three years, evaluation was discussed informally but no particular progress was made. Nevertheless, a representative group from the teachers and the board of education did meet periodically to discuss various personnel problems. Such meetings established a closer relationship and brought about a clearer understanding of the functions of each in the operation of a school system. (Understanding is of primary importance before evaluation of teaching personnel can be seriously considered.) In the latter part of 1956, the teacher-board committee met again to discuss future salary adjustments. Part of the discussion centered about teacher evaluation and the effect it would have upon the system. Both the board of education and the teacher representatives agreed that two factors form a basis from which merit springs-one, an adequate salary base, and the other, useful and sound criteria that define the attributes of a competent teacher. It was considered paramount that the evaluation should not, and could not, be placed on a competitive basis. Teachers would have to be evaluated in relation to established criteria and not in relation to each other. An adequate salary base, meeting with the approval of the board of education and the teachers, was established. An Evaluative Criteria Committee, consisting of seven teachers, four board members and four administrators, was formed to |