detailed, evaluative criteria which may be checked or rated and then weighted in the summation of a final numerical score. The other is to rely almost entirely upon descriptive statements of the evaluator and evaluatee-statements which are based upon some prescribed criteria but which are narrative in nature rather than statistical and which do not produce a final numerical rating. It would be inappropriate to use the terms "objective" and "subjective" to contrast these two approaches. A subjective evaluation is, by definition, inclusive of personal bias. An objective one is, by definition, impersonal and unprejudiced. Each of these six districts would accept the apparent fact that a degree of subjectivity must exist within their evaluation procedures, regardless of the degree of specificity of criteria. Each would also stress the effort to be as unprejudiced and consistent as possible, regardless of the absence of measurable data upon which the evaluation might be based. The evident contrast between the two evaluation approaches might be stated as one of "quantification" rather than subjectivity or objectivity. Within this text, then, quantification is used to describe the extent to which an arithmetical score is compiled, weighted, and summed as an indication of the performance level of the teacher. Six School Districts Studied A brief description is given here of each of the six school systems having a salary policy which recognizes competency on the basis of an evaluation of past performance and whose merit programs are studied. The superintendents, or their representatives, met twice in the spring of 1962. The Office of Education was invited to have a representative attend each of these meetings. At the conclusion of the second meeting, these six districts agreed to cooperate in the preparation of this publication. Their cooperation was defined as (1) the provision of the necessary informational material for the compilation of a statement, and (2) a review of the data in regard to omissions, additions, and corrections of factual statements relating to each individual school district's merit program. The six school systems include: Canton, Conn.-The Canton schools are located at Collinsville, a Hartford Rich Township High School, Park Forest, Ill.-Park Forest is a Chicago Weber School District, Utah.-Weber is a county district surrounding the city Organization of the Bulletin The six merit programs are presented through an analysis of three major topics. First, attention is given to the goals of the salary program. Second, the salary schedule itself is examined, including the provisions for the merit awards as well as the basic salary schedule. Third, the evaluation procedure through which the merit award is determined is discussed. In addition, one chapter is devoted to extracts or examples of material and forms currently utilized within these six districts. The major portion of the material is, of course, a collection of direct statements from pamphlets and regulations prepared for use within each of the six districts. The reliance upon such a source has resulted in a highly mechanical approach to staff personnel administration. Therefore, the description of the evaluation procedures in impersonal terms should be viewed in light of the source of the information-the printed materials-which are in themselves impersonal. The salary schedules listed are for the 1962-63 school year. Chapter II Some Major Considerations UCH OF THE MATERIAL in the chapters to follow describes the six merit programs in such a way as to point up differences in policy and regulations. It should be emphasized, however, that above and beyond these obvious differences, some of which are of fundamental importance, there is one major area of agreement—the commitment, in each of the six districts, to a salary policy which attempts to differentiate salary on the basis of superior performance-a search and a subsequent reward for meritorious service. Subsidiary to this commitment is the belief that only through a merit salary program is it possible for a school to offer the type of maximum salaries which can place the school in a defensible competitive position for the selection and retention of highly qualified college graduates. Within the areas of major salary policy disagreement, as evidenced within the selected systems, there are two of critical importance. The first is the purpose of the merit salary program. Although this is a, or rather the, basic question facing all salary policies, including those of nonmerit as well as merit districts, the policies as stated within these six districts establishing the goal of the merit program are of particular significance. The second major concern is more of an internal question within districts operating merit programs. This question is one of the feasibility as well as the desirability of attempting to define teaching effectiveness in rather specific statistical terms. This attempt to quantify the evaluative criteria underlies the vital issue of measurement versus evaluation. There are several issues of importance which also need some examination but which are of lesser concern than these two. These include the definition of the limits of the teaching role which are to be evaluated for merit-rating purposes. The use of a single column schedule, negating the importance of an advanced degree, is another example. These, and a few other such issues, are examined in this chapter. Purpose of the Merit Salary Program The purpose for which each of these six districts maintains a merit program has been ascertained only through examination of the written statements available from each of the districts. The most obvious purpose, of course, is to replace or supplement a single automatic salary schedule policy which has been deemed, by the particular district, to be unsatisfactory for the needs of that district. This purpose also applies, in an inverse sense, to other schools which have abandoned merit programs for a single salary schedule. However, within these six districts the goals are examined in a positive sense of addition rather than negation. It is appropriate to emphasize again the distinction between the merit salary and the evaluation through which the merit salary is established, the merit rating. The need for this emphasis is apparent as one attempts to differentiate the goals of a merit salary program which are unique from those of a single salary schedule. For example, "An orderly plan for the compensation of teaching services" is not unique to a merit program. The payment of salaries "commensurate with performance" is a goal which may be considered unique. Yet, these two goals are both listed within the objectives of a merit program in the same district. Within these six districts, the stated goals of the merit programs tend to fall within three classifications. The first-individual initiative-would relate the existence of a merit program with the preservation and growth of an economic system in a democratic society, holding that salary recognition of performance is an axiom of the American way of life. The second stresses the instructional improvement objective. The third relates the goal to the recruitment and retention of superior teachers. Individual Initiative The term "individual initiative" is used to include a variety of goals, or principles, upon which merit programs may be justified. One such goal would be the importance of paying individuals on the basis of their contribution to society. Such a justification is difficult to accept as a principle because of the practical matter of determination of the value of the contribution, not only for teachers but for all individuals. It is more justifiable to consider a wider concept of compensation for services rendered which stresses the traditional American principle of individual initiative, with freedom of the individual to pursue his livelihood, restrained only by the laws and moral codes of his society, and with a reward system which does not negate the importance of that initiative and freedom. Only one of the six districts has included this factor of individual initiative with the written material describing the goals of its merit program. Ladue has done this by defining the purposes of American education rather than the purposes of the merit program. The Ladue statement notes that a goal of American education is the promotion of democracy as a "way of life" and a plan of government. This plan has certain delineated political, social, economic, and moral aspects. Since the economic aspect is significant for the salary program, with the emphasis upon a competitive economic system which rewards and encourages individual initiative, the position is that a single salary schedule stifles such initiative, slows the pursuit of excellence, and encourages the transfer of personal responsibility from the individual to the State. Although this position is related to the frequently stated principle of equating merit salary plans with a pure free enterprise system, such a relationship is not basic to the Ladue statement. If teachers' compensation programs were to be conceived in terms of a free enterprise philosophy, it could logically result only in an individual bargaining arrangement between the teacher and the board of education or, in the absurd extension, between the teacher and each individual parent, as Lieberman1 has pointed out. The Ladue position would deny any such goal of individual bargaining for salaries. Instead, it argues that (1) teachers are not unique in their desire for recognition of superior performance; (2) teachers are no less motivated by the economic reward as a form of recognition than individuals in other occupations; and (3) a basic principle of American society is to encourage such superior performance through the absence of any governmental restraints. Thus, this position would ultimately rest upon the belief that a merit salary plan is consistent with the economic system of this Nation and that it is difficult for our youth to accept this principle if their instructors are, through their daily existence, denying its vitality, just as it is difficult for the instructors to teach effectively about an economic system to which they are not a contributor nor a recipient of its strength. Ladue would not, of course, deny that the instructional program would be improved through a sound merit program. Certainly better teachers may be recruited and retained in the classroom. However, Ladue would argue that these factors are extraneous in the more basic position and, hence, can ignore any "burden of proof" question. They are considered extraneous to the goal of providing an absence of governmental restraint on the individual's personal aspirations and ability. The automatic single salary schedule is viewed as providing both a governmental and a moral restraint. 1 Myron Lieberman, Education as a Profession, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., Prentice-Hall, 1956. p. 402. |