Perhaps one of the most discussed and debated issues today facing teachers, teacher evaluators and academic leadership, in general, is the determination of the most useful method of assessing instructional effectiveness. Certainly this is neither a new idea nor a novel focus. The concept and process of evaluating a teacher’s impact on student achievement has been a topic of interest to the field of education for some time, but one aspect of the current emphasis is directly related to the determination of appropriate methods for the monetary rewarding of educators for their level of instructional influence. The discussion among invested parties appears to suggest that the single-salary schedule model of remuneration for educators is losing some of its support in favor of a differentiated compensation approach. Whether one refers to this orientation as “merit pay” (Evans, 2001, p. 48), “performance-related pay” (Podgursky & Springer, 2006, p.4) or “pay-for-performance programs” (Burns & Gardner, 2010, para. 4), the message is clear: Educator compensation is a topic of critical importance to the school reform discussion. Although conversations “about pay for performance for teachers go back as early as 1867 and were part of almost every decade of the last century” (Springer & Gardner, 2010, p.8), this practice has taken on intensified importance, due in no small part, to the legislative reform agenda associated with the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) and the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), also known as the No Child Left Behind Act.
"ESEA’s Proposed Pay-for-Performance Option: Potential Issues Regarding the Evaluation of Special Educators,"
Academic Leadership Journal: Vol. 8
, Article 20.
Available at: http://scholars.fhsu.edu/alj/vol8/iss4/20