Is merit-based pay for teacher a good idea?

The fraser institute thinks so (article 1) and so does the state of Louisiana (article 2). At first glance it might makes sense. An economist would probably tell you that people are motivated by incentives so merit-based pay would improve teaching and therefore education.

Why is such a value proposition flawed?

1) There needs to be consistent criteria for measuring merit of a teacher. It cannot be on students evaluation of a teacher or the teacher would cater to pleasing students rather than teaching effectively. It cannot be a non-standardized testing method or else teachers will simply inflate their students grades to earn more money. Thus we are left with standardized testing. This leaves teachers with little ability to diversify curriculum and the teacher ends up teaching towards success on the test rather than on learning for learning’s sake.

2) Unions are against merit-based pay. Unions would lobby it to death because the teaching union pays on seniority, education, and job category.

3) There is an assumption that money is sufficient motivation especially in the amounts of a few hundred dollars. Other factors such as purpose, autonomy and mastery are intrinsic motivators. In fact, money as a motivator has been shown to decrease performance in tasks that require cognitive ability.

The carrot and the stick are outdated. In this case, the carrot is simply harming students and teachers.