Merit pay—the idea is not exactly popular, but nevertheless, it is one that needs to be addressed.

In a 2007 report coordinated by the Stanford institute for Research on Education Policy and Practice, California’s K-12 school finance and governing system was described as “irrational,” “fundamentally flawed” and in need of major reform. The report points out that California K-12 system is lagging behind other states in terms of both student achievements and data analysis of student progress and teacher performances.  Furthermore, the report directly criticizes the current salary system—which pays teachers based on seniority and levels of education—for its inability to weed out bad teachers and attract good ones. One of the possible solutions is straightforward and already widely used: merit pay.

The goal of the merit pay system is to not only boost student performance and achievements, but to offer teachers opportunities for increased pay. Already widely practiced in Asia, the United Kingdom and private schools, the merit pay system is now gaining momentum in United States public schools. President Barack Obama has already announced his support of the merit pay system in his 2007 campaign.

The very first school system to experiment with merit pay in America was the Cincinnati public school system. In 1999, Cincinnati ran a ten-school pilot program which utilized peer and administration evaluations on class preparation and presentation clarity, and with these evaluations teachers were placed into five salary categories. Although originally faced with begrudging consent from the teacher union, the success of the pilot convinced the union members to adopt the program in 2000.

Denver, Colorado has taken a more controversial approach to merit pay, and directly links student scores to the teachers’ salaries.  The principals and teachers make an agreement in the beginning of the year for student score achievements, and determine at the end of the year if the goals are met. Of course, linking test scores to salaries provokes many protests and arguments.  In an effort to placate some of the issues, lawmakers developed less radical programs. Austin, Texas’s program rewards all teachers for school-wide gains in test scores; and the state of Iowa gives bonuses to all teachers in schools where students do well on standardized tests, with the biggest bonuses going to the school’s top rated teachers. These programs’ rules will then diminish the competition within teachers and increase collaboration since by helping others improve performance they actually help themselves too.

The implementation of merit pay will require trial and error, and it is not something that can be done overnight, especially in busier and more complex cities such as New York and Los Angeles, where opposition is the greatest.  However, the success stories, including that of the Vaughn Next Century Learning Center, which, after implementing merit pay, went from a failing school to an awarding winning one, prove the “merit” of merit pay.

Interestingly enough, some of the biggest arguments against merit pay have all been argued before, in the 1980s. In the 1980s, international competition was undermining U.S. businesses and corporations, and in an effort to stay competitive, the merit pay system was enacted. The new rules include awarding employees based costumer service reviews, supervisor evaluations and group achievements, things that may seem “subjective” or “hard to measure,” the same criticisms thrown at merit system today. Bombarded by criticism and assaulted by the unions, the system nevertheless proved to be successful. After trial and error, half of all major American used similar merit pay incentives by the mid-1990s. The fact is, these incentive programs encouraged the workers to work hard and overcome challenges, and similar programs could do the same for America’s teachers.

K-12 public schools should strive for the brightest, most capable educators—not the ones who have simply been around for the longest amount of time. Or should the U.S. not react to the growing international competition in education and just sit out on the race to educational progress? The answer is no.