Dear Mr. Corbett, how do you do institute merit pay when you can't determine merit?

Dear Mr. Corbett,

I wasn't going to write tonight. Really, I wasn't. I was going to catch an extra hour of sleep instead.  However, one of my private sector friends brought up the idea of using state testing to determine merit. Since my friend has a considerably better educated background than the average voter (small, private college, just like your alma mater, LVC), it is clear that many Pennsylvanians will struggle with this concept.  Mr. Corbett, let's talk about it.

1. First, the current state testing model provides math and reading tests in grades 3 through 8 and 11. 
2. Writing is tested in grades 3, 5, 8, and 11.
3. Science is tested in grades 4, 8, and 11. 
4. Schools are held accountable only for their math and reading scores. 
5. They are also required to show a certain percentage of successful graduates and have a certain percentage students taking the test.
6. Any subgroup of 40 or more students (including special education, despite IEPs that state they are unable to proficiently read at their age level) is required to demonstrate the same level of proficiency as the school as a whole.
7. By 2014, all students in every tested grade are supposed to score at or above a "proficient" level. By the way, Mr. Corbett, when was the last time a legislature of upright, educated politicians worked with 100% proficiency? I'm just curious. I won't even ask what the efficiency level is in a state government that takes so long to pass a budget that many otherwise employed individuals get paid unemployment to wait for a budget to pass. I'd hate to also mention the constant repeal of laws by opposing parties when they get back into power, which seems to be an ongoing trend in all legislatures.

So what makes the state testing a horrifically inaccurate measure of merit?  What doesn't?

Let's play with an analogy:

A scientist buys his mice from a high quality supplier and runs a maze experiment. However, the supplier runs out and his next batch of mice come from a third-rate supplier (you know, like Wal-Mart's goldfish graveyard?).  The experiment fails miserably. No scientist would stand up and conclude, "Ah ha! The maze experiment has stopped working!" So why do people blame the teacher when the next batch of students has more students with baggage than the previous batch? Plus, where is the control group that is always used for accurate measurement?

Why is the PSSA not a legitimate "measurement" of individual teacher merit?

1. The experimental group changes every year, and, if you had stuck with teaching for more than a year, Mr. Corbett, you'd understand: you cannot assume that every group of students is the same. This year, I have a fantastic group, so I sit quietly and listen to the horror stories about previous classes I had.  Example: I can give my students a completely optional challenge that may not earn any points, but at least 20% of them will do it this year. Last year? Not so much.
2. There are more uncontrolled variables than there are questions on the PSSA.  I'll remind you of these later.
3. There is not a test for every subject in every year. How does a kindergarten teacher prove "merit" when the test isn't until third grade?  What about the gym teacher? Should his pay be based on the math or the reading test? If the students don't do well in reading English, does their Spanish teacher get penalized?  Would you suggest we take even more time from teaching to do a standardized assessment in each? Should special education teachers, with their heart of gold, make less because their classrooms don't get as good of scores?
4. Teaching is not an individual effort. Teachers must work together to identify struggling students, coordinate lessons, establish parent/teacher conferences, set parameters, etc. Should one teacher be rewarded for the combined efforts of a community?  Should another be punished because the combined efforts don't exist? What a ridiculous system! Can a teacher decide whether the previous year's teacher is a fantastic teacher (thus making it impossible to get a decent raise), or a horrible teacher (thus making it easy to get a raise)? I could go on, but I'm just shaking my head in disbelief at this point.
5. All aspects of teacher success are not tested. The reading PSSA has been broken down to three, I repeat, THREE anchors. The writing test doesn't count towards AYP. Mr. Corbett, as a law scholar, certainly you know that the entire language arts curriculum could never be assessed with a measly THREE anchors. Hmm, seems like this is a good time to transition to....

Teacher and student skills worthy of "merit" that are not on the PSSA:

1. Critical media literacy. Name ONE publication without some type of political or commercial spin.  Even maps of Pennsylvania will soon be replacing Rendell's mug with yours, Mr. Corbett. Our students need to be able to look at both the old and new media with a critical eye. When we ran an April Fool's issue of the school newspaper with a photoshopped "renovation" to the school, community members drove out to see it, even though the article was right next to one warning about the dangers of shoe eating. The next generation needs some basic weapons to defend themselves from gullibility! The best that the PSSA offers is fact vs. opinion and the classic propaganda techniques. We're not ready for the Internet. Bad news: it's here.
2. Spelling. Even the SAT essay doesn't require much skill in spelling. Should I stop teaching students that it is important to spell words properly because I won't be getting a raise if we talk about it?
3. A strong internalization of the relationships of numbers. When my octogenarian grandmother was interviewed by a nursing home, she was able to process equations faster in her head than the interviewer could do on a calculator. Where has this skill gone? Five questions on the math PSSA does not determine a student's ability to process numbers quickly and look for patterns. How will these students be ready for the GRE, or even the SAT, if they are unable to see how numbers affect each other?
4. Respect. Many students grow up without learning it at home. As a former wilderness counselor (and I worked there for eleven months five years ago, not just the nine months that you did as a teacher 40 years ago, so I clearly know far too much about every such program ever made), I can attest that some students have never even had the chance to learn self-respect, much less respect of others. Can you teach respect at a cyberschool?
5. Critical thinking. Perhaps more important than any one single standard, the students need to be able to create a mental network of their knowledge and use it in real problem-solving applications. You know, like in real life, where there is more to it than one right bubble among four wrong bubbles?
6. Literature. Should we no longer expect our students to be able to access and assess the great canon of classical literature that has shaped Western culture for centuries? What will happen when there are no works of art left to which to allude?
7. Parenting. Perhaps the two most memorable comments would be, "No, ma'am, your son sticking his face into his shoe and inhaling deeply to distract the whole class isn't just him 'being a kid,'" and "I hate to have to tell you this, sir, but your student hasn't been telling the truth to you, either." Perhaps this is why the collaboration between schools, community organizations, and parents always has a positive effect on student learning.
8. Et cetera, et cetera, ad infinitum. Do I really need to continue? Clearly, you'd reduce the multi-faceted task of teaching to three simple standards that can be taught with really expensive materials from testing companies.  Thing is, we won't be making productive citizens anymore.  We'll be making mindless drones. Maybe we can separate them at birth like they did in A Brave New World. Do you think soma is covered under Obamacare?

Before I go, Mr. Corbett, how will you address these variables in determining merit?

1. Poor administrative leadership/strong administrative leadership.
2. The level of parental support.
3. The level of community support.
4. The socioeconomic status.
5. Test day abnormalities.
6. Home life issues.
7. Proper nutrition.
8. School bullying and other issues.
9. Access to quality professional development.
10. The differences in test administrations across thousands of classrooms. (It's simple logic, if you dangle a $2000 raise in front of the proctor, and all he needs to do is to get the students in the classroom to pass, eventually, you'll wear down his morality).
11. The teachers a student had previously.
12. The student's prior attitude toward school.
13. The student's reading ability. Yes, Mr. Corbett, our state expects its students with exceptionalities to test at an age-appropriate level even if they are only capable of reading at half that level. This has done quite a toll on smaller schools that drift in and out of that magical subgroup number of 40: they can't prove improvement because the records aren't there; instead, they must get students who struggle to understand the words in front of them to reach age-level proficiency.  How does that make sense?

Oh, and I forgot to mention, Mr. Corbett, that studies have already shown that merit pay does not work:   http://news.vanderbilt.edu/2010/09/teacher-performance-pay/

Sounds like this is a fool's idea, Mr. Corbett. Please don't fall for it.

Sincerely,

Nately Scott