FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W208356516> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W208356516 startingPage "26" @default.
• W208356516 abstract "As education policy churns through fad after fad, merit pay is really hot right now. The U. S. Department of Education asked states to include proposals for implementing teacher merit pay--pay based on classroom performance--in their 2010 applications for Race to the Top (RttT) monies, and many applicants promised action on this front. In Washington, D.C., former schools chancellor Michelle Rhee negotiated a strikingly original merit-pay plan, despite strong union opposition. According to the latest Education Next poll, public support for merit pay gained significant ground over the past year and now outdistances opposition by a 2:1 margin. Replacing the standardized salary schedule, where the only factors that determine teacher salaries are the number of years on the job and academic credentials, seems a worthwhile goal. In theory, pay-for-performance plans both provide a clear monetary incentive to teachers to find the best way to motivate and instruct their students and, over the longer term, attract and retain those more-effective teachers who wish to work in a field that rewards professionals for the quality of their efforts. But enacting high-quality performance pay plans in the United States is easier said than done. Last year, the Florida legislature enacted one of the more stringent proposals any state has ever attempted--only to have the bill vetoed by Governor Charlie Crist as a way of jump-starting his ultimately doomed bid to become Florida's first independent U.S. senator. That is not the only time a merit pay bill has seemed on the verge of success, only to founder or be undermined by the need to compromise. In general, merit pay plans are more likely to be symbolic than substantive and more likely to be promised than delivered. Most often, they are not even promised. Even if one counts the most token of performance pay plans, they are to be found in no more than 500 school districts out of some 14,000 districts nationwide, a mere 3.5 percent of the total. When new merit-pay plans are proposed, teachers unions often block their enactment or water down their provisions. In Cincinnati and Philadelphia, for example, merit pay policies were blocked just before they were about to be implemented. Denver's Professional Compensation for Teachers (ProComp) plan, widely heralded as the leading national example of performance pay, awards more money for earning another degree than for demonstrated performance in the classroom. In Houston, merit was defined so broadly that it included an overwhelming majority of the teachers. In Florida, Iowa, and Texas, the legislatures have encouraged local districts to enact performance pay plans. But unions have been able to dissuade local districts from participating in the state-authorized programs. Only a handful of Florida districts participate in merit pay, for example, even though state funds cover the cost of the initiative. A strong, well-designed merit-pay plan requires more than offering a bonus to high-performing teachers while paying the remainder according to the standard schedule. To be truly effective, pay for performance must mean in education what it does in other industries--salary increases for the successful, and salary reductions, even dismissals, for poor performers. State laws governing teacher tenure in most states make implementation of such plans unlikely. All of this leads us to measured skepticism about the merit of merit pay, unless it is coupled with school choice innovations hefty enough to instigate sustained competition among schools and school sectors. Only then would local districts have the incentive to both lobby states for changes in state laws and to negotiate tough contracts with teacher unions. Only then would they find it important, if merely to retain their student enrollments, to structure their pay systems so as to attract top-notch employees and give them strong incentives to strive for excellent performances. …" @default.
• W208356516 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W208356516 creator A5015363955 @default.
• W208356516 creator A5079789496 @default.
• W208356516 date "2011-03-22" @default.
• W208356516 modified "2023-09-26" @default.
• W208356516 title "Blocked, Diluted, and Co-Opted" @default.
• W208356516 hasPublicationYear "2011" @default.
• W208356516 type Work @default.
• W208356516 sameAs 208356516 @default.
• W208356516 citedByCount "1" @default.
• W208356516 countsByYear W2083565162018 @default.
• W208356516 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W208356516 hasAuthorship W208356516A5015363955 @default.
• W208356516 hasAuthorship W208356516A5079789496 @default.
• W208356516 hasConcept C162324750 @default.
• W208356516 hasConcept C175444787 @default.
• W208356516 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W208356516 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W208356516 hasConcept C2778766559 @default.
• W208356516 hasConcept C2780090960 @default.
• W208356516 hasConcept C2780668109 @default.
• W208356516 hasConcept C29122968 @default.
• W208356516 hasConcept C3116431 @default.
• W208356516 hasConcept C39549134 @default.
• W208356516 hasConcept C83009810 @default.
• W208356516 hasConcept C94625758 @default.
• W208356516 hasConceptScore W208356516C162324750 @default.
• W208356516 hasConceptScore W208356516C175444787 @default.
• W208356516 hasConceptScore W208356516C17744445 @default.
• W208356516 hasConceptScore W208356516C199539241 @default.
• W208356516 hasConceptScore W208356516C2778766559 @default.
• W208356516 hasConceptScore W208356516C2780090960 @default.
• W208356516 hasConceptScore W208356516C2780668109 @default.
• W208356516 hasConceptScore W208356516C29122968 @default.
• W208356516 hasConceptScore W208356516C3116431 @default.
• W208356516 hasConceptScore W208356516C39549134 @default.
• W208356516 hasConceptScore W208356516C83009810 @default.
• W208356516 hasConceptScore W208356516C94625758 @default.
• W208356516 hasIssue "2" @default.
• W208356516 hasLocation W2083565161 @default.
• W208356516 hasOpenAccess W208356516 @default.
• W208356516 hasPrimaryLocation W2083565161 @default.
• W208356516 hasRelatedWork W130519885 @default.
• W208356516 hasRelatedWork W1497380493 @default.
• W208356516 hasRelatedWork W1563859231 @default.
• W208356516 hasRelatedWork W1596773955 @default.
• W208356516 hasRelatedWork W1941778777 @default.
• W208356516 hasRelatedWork W1954969109 @default.
• W208356516 hasRelatedWork W1995079444 @default.
• W208356516 hasRelatedWork W1998832676 @default.
• W208356516 hasRelatedWork W2021992199 @default.
• W208356516 hasRelatedWork W2058991818 @default.
• W208356516 hasRelatedWork W2074687063 @default.
• W208356516 hasRelatedWork W2112426606 @default.
• W208356516 hasRelatedWork W230610092 @default.
• W208356516 hasRelatedWork W2410023161 @default.
• W208356516 hasRelatedWork W297108281 @default.
• W208356516 hasRelatedWork W334678983 @default.
• W208356516 hasRelatedWork W436659612 @default.
• W208356516 hasRelatedWork W57207325 @default.
• W208356516 hasRelatedWork W74063237 @default.
• W208356516 hasRelatedWork W342613009 @default.
• W208356516 hasVolume "11" @default.
• W208356516 isParatext "false" @default.
• W208356516 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W208356516 magId "208356516" @default.
• W208356516 workType "article" @default.