EDITORIAL: Merit pay, incentives can help boost low-performing schools

The lack of “teacher equity” in education systems across the country — including the Clark County School District — is by design. School districts and teacher unions have long embraced contracts and policies that ensure a steady flow of exceptional, experienced teachers to stable, higher-achieveing, higher-income, less-violent campuses where parents are more involved. Meanwhile, lower-achieving, lower-income, more-violent schools with higher minority enrollment and less parental involvement serve as training grounds for the newly hired — and the last stops for poor teachers who should be fired.

Although some incredibly dedicated, remarkable teachers choose to stay in at-risk schools, where they feel they can make the biggest difference, they are the exceptions. A California court declared as much last month when it ruled teacher job protections unconstitutional because they ensured the least-effective educators remained in the classroom — and the only jobs open to them are the ones no one else wants, in low-performing schools. Indeed, a national survey by The Education Trust found core classes in high-poverty schools were twice as likely to be taught by out-of-field educators as classes in higher-income campuses.

U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan on Monday announced a new federal intervention in local schools, partly in response to the California ruling, partly to fulfill a requirement of the No Child Left Behind Act: an initiative to provide poor and minority students with equal access to excellent teachers. States have until April to submit to Washington plans that address their “teacher distribution.” Those plans will be considered as part of requests for NCLB waiver renewals. Last week, Nevada received a one-year extension, through the 2014-15 school year, on its NCLB waiver.

“All children are entitled to a high-quality education, regardless of their race, ZIP code or family income,” Mr. Duncan said. “It is critically important that we provide teachers and principals the support they need to help students reach their full potential.”

We couldn’t agree more. But school districts and states rightly have little control over “teacher distribution.” Thousands upon thousands of teachers choose where to teach. If they are unhappy with their principal or their work environment, they apply for openings at different schools.

In Clark County, as in other unionized school districts, they have no incentive to remain in a hostile or especially challenging environment, because they will be paid the same no matter where they teach. Their salary is based on how much education and experience they have. Clark County School District teachers who have special assignments, such as “Turnaround” or “Zoom” schools with longer school days, can collect slightly more pay, but they otherwise can’t boost their salary by accepting a high-need position.

You can see where this initiative is headed: a heavy-handed federal mandate that forces teachers out of some high-performing schools and into low-performing ones. If that happens, watch teachers quit the profession — and watch taxpaying middle- and high-income parents grab their torches and pitchforks.

If the federal government and the Clark County School District are serious about changing “teacher distribution” and tackling “teacher equity,” they will embrace merit pay and encourage a more flexible, incentive-based salary structure that offers experienced teachers a salary bump for accepting hard-to-fill jobs in low-performing schools.