MERIT PAY

.

Merit Pay for teachers

Merit Pay for Teachers

Introduction

The issue of merit pay for teachers in primary or secondary is taking the scale in the United States. Appeared in the early 1970s, this idea remains, however, so far mostly been simple experiments, revealing himself to use less simple to implement as it sounds, even in a country where material success is built in cardinal virtue, where the taste for competition and company values are strong cultural references, where the evaluation of the performance of individual agents has become commonplace in business. A somewhat surprising situation, characterized by a complex which excludes certain simplifications and justifies all the interest of the analysis.

Discussion

It should be noted that it is often minority representatives, faced with particularly difficult conditions of the city schools involving difficult people (communities traditionally vote Democratic majority) who support the various derogations (Goldhaber, DeArmond & Deburgomaster, 2011). But the most dramatic change is due to the NCLB, No Child Left Behind (no students left at the edge of the road), developed in late 2001 that President Bush has championed but was also designed with the support of many Democrats including Senator Edward Kennedy and Representative George Miller became California respectively, since the last election, committee chairmen in charge of education in the Senate and the House of Representatives (Ballou & Podgursk, 1993). The plan, which aims to dramatically improve the level of training, is a wonderful and new federal intrusion into the prerogatives of the States educational even though it does not finance only about 9% of expenditures (Fleming, 2011). The federal government has found a new and extremely powerful lever by conditioning the granting of federal funds to fight against poverty (which can claim the vast majority of institutions) whether they comply. Mainly concerning primary and lower secondary school, the law sets the extremely ambitious goal that by the end of the school year 2013-2014 all students have reached the proficient level on annual tests in reading and mathematics ( and from the end of the 2007-2008 school year in science).

States are responsible for organizing the tests required of CE2 in the fourth and at least once during high school. To comply with the annual growth rate desired (AYP, Adequate Yearly Progress), districts and schools must achieve the targets set for all students and for those from different social or ethnic groups (including those of special education). The law focuses on the empowerment of actors (Accountability) providing increasing sanctions for schools whose students' test results would not progress from one year to another in accordance with these objectives (Little, 2009). Those sanctions are substantial, especially since they are supposed to apply equally regardless of the magnitude of the gap with the objectives: if only one group of students did not experience the expected progress, the school is reported as having improved. No distinction is made between a school with only a particular group of students does not meet the criteria and a school that fails on all points (Hanshaw, ...