University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

A study of the feasibility of merit rating and merit pay for teachers

(USC Thesis Other)

A study of the feasibility of merit rating and merit pay for teachers

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content A STUDY OF THE FEASIBILITY OP MERIT RATING
' AND MERIT-PAY FOR TEACHERS
A Thesis
Presented to
the Faculty of the School of Public Administration
The University of Southern California
In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree
Master of Science in Public Administration
by
Alfred Henry Bird
;/ f
August i960
UMI Number: EP64655
All rights reserved
INFORMATION TO ALL USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will Indicate the deletion.
Dissartation PiablisMng
UMI EP64655
Published by ProQuest LLC (2014). Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author.
Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.
All rights reserved. This work is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code
ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106- 1346
vu» < J j |
This thesisj written by
........ âLEEED...HMRi:..BIBD.........
under the direction of the undersigned Guidance
Committe, and approved by all its members, has
been presented to and accepted by the Faculty of
the School of Public Administration in partial f u l
fillment of the requirements fo r the degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE IN
PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
/ I I Ir-
D ate............ âUgU-S ^-19.6.0.......
Guidance Co?jnrnitAe>
Chm
TABLE OP CONTENTS
CHAPTER PAGE
I. THE PROBLEM AND DEFINITIONS OP TERMS USED 1
The problem................................ 3
Statement of the problem............... 3
Importance of the study ............... 3
Delimitation of the problem 6
Definitions of terms used ................. 7
Merit rating............................ 7
Merit-pay . . . .............. 7
Supervisory merit rating ............... 7
Evaluation, Appraisal ................. 8
' Uncertainty in definitions of terms . . . 8
Procedure employed ............. 8
Organization of the remainder of the thesis 9
II. THE DEVELOPMENT OF MERIT RATING CONCEPTS . . . 11
Historical overview ............... 11
The reasons for merit rating of teachers . . l l j .
Teacher tenure....................... l5
Salary schedules ................. 1$
Promotion to a higher position .......... l5
Teacher growth and improvement ...... l6
Teacher protection ............. l6
Personnel reports to superior officers . . 17
Pupil welfare............................ 17
ill
CHAPTER PAGE
The methods and devices used in merit
rating.............................. 18
Check lists . . .................... I9
Rating scales . ....................... . 20
Diaries, anecdotal records, personal data
records, recommendations, and written
statements ..... ..................... 20
Interviews, questionnaires, and inventories 20
Voice recording instruments and steno
graphic reports ................. 21
Tests . . . ........................ 21
Intercommunication systems ........ 21
Cumulative professional records ............ 21
Measures of pupil growth and development . . 22
Administrative practices in merit rating . . . 22
Purposes of merit rating ..................... 23
Who performs the merit rating? .............. 25
Other administrative practices ............ 26
Problems which developed from merit rating . . 27
Problems arising from administrative
factors.................................... 28
Problems arising from environmental
factors.............. . 29
Problems arising from human relations
factors ........... ..... 30
iv
CHAPTER page
Criteria of a merit rating plan............. 32
III. MERIT RATING FOR SALARY ADMINISTRATION ^ . . . 3l | _
Historical overview............ 3 l | _
Types of merit-pay plans ........... 37
Superior service maximum............... . 37
Accelerated increment ..................... 38
Penalties for unsatisfactory service . . . 39
Combinations of training and experience
^ with other merit factors ............... 39
Measurement devices and methods used in
merit-pay plans ................... I j .1
No formal rating plan ................... i ( . l
Rating scale or check l i s t ............... l j . 2
Written reports by administrators .... l \ l ^
Ratings based upon cumulative professional
records . . ......................... [ j .5
Self and joint evaluation plans ...... l \ . J
Trends in merit-pay practices 1 | . 7
Authorization and initiation............ I 4 .8
Period of u s e ........................... . I j . 9
Extent of application ..................... 50
Current experimentation with merit rewards 5 l \ .
Administrative aspects of merit-pay plans . . 56
Teacher cooperation and participation . . . 57
Rating policies ................. 58
V
OmPTER PAGE
Rating criteria ....... 6o
Current theories and attitudes .. . . . . . . 6l
Views of educational writers . 6l
Views of laymen and boards of education . . 6 l | _
Views of educational administrators .... 66
Views of teachers and teacher
organizations........ .............. .. . 68
A summary of the problems and issues of
merit-pay .......................... 70
Improvement of individual teaching
performance . 71
Attracting and keeping superior personnel
in teaching ........ ............. 73
IV. MERIT RATIHG FOR IMPROVING PERPORBÎANCE .... ?6
Historical overview ............................ ?6
The Rugg rating scale ..... ............. 77
The Moultrie evaluation program ...... 78
The Ohio Teaching Record ................. 80
Other evaluation devices and programs . . . 82
The objectives of supervisory merit rating . 83
Specific aims . .......................... 83
Values to be attained ..................... 8I 4.
The administration of supervisory merit
rating ................................ 85
Authorization and development............... 86
CHAPTER
Rating policies ..................... .
Methods of evaluating teaching efficiency
Scales or guides for self-evaluation
Joint evaluation procedures ...........
Teacher evaluation by students ....
The problems in supervisory merit rating
Problems in the nature of teaching . .
Problems in the methods of measurement
Teacher attitudes toward merit rating .
The place of merit rating in the school
program ................................
Ratings must be used .................
Ratings must be constructive . . . . .
Opportunities for professional growth .
Evaluation plans in operation .........
Supervisory and salary merit rating
combined ..............................
V. CONCEPTS OP MERIT RATING COMPARED: EDUCATION
PUBLIC SERVICE, AND PRIVATE INDUSTRY . .
Purposes and limitations of comparison
Purposes of comparison . .............
Limitations of comparison . , . . . . .
Merit rating in public service .........
Historical overview ............... . .
vi
PAGE
87
88
90
91
92
91+
9k
95
97
98
98
99
100
100
102
105
106
106
106
107
108
vil
CHAPTER PAGE
The objectives of merit rating in
public service 112
The administrative aspects of merit
rating in public service .......... • lli^.
Merit rating trends in the federal
government . ................. Il5
The problems and issues of merit rating
in public service..................... 120
Merit rating in private industry . ..... 122
Historical overview ...... .. ... 123
The objectives of merit rating in
private industry . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
The administrative aspects of merit
rating in private industry ............ 128
Current recommendations and changes in
merit rating programs............ 131
The problems and. issues of merit rating
in private industry ............ 13^ 4-
Summary . ................................ 137
Similarities and differences ...... 137
Theories, techniques, and devices
applicable to education ............ l l \ . 0
VI. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . l i | . 2
Summary ............ llf.2
viii
CHAPTER PAGE
The development of merit rating concepts . llj.2
Merit rating for salary administration . . II 4.3
Merit rating for improving performance . . li |.6
Concepts of merit rating compared:
education, public service, and
private industry..................... . llj .9
Conclusions and recommendations . ..... l50
The probable effect on the educational
process of merit rating for the purpose
of salary administration............... l5l
The probable effect on the educational
process of merit rating for the purpose
of improving performance ........ l51( .
The probable effect on the educational
process of merit rating for the com
bined purposes of salary administra
tion and improvement of performance . . 1^6
Recommendations ........ l58
BIBLIOGRAPHY............ 160
Ix
LIST OP TABLES
TABLE PAGE
I. Date of Adoption of Super!or-Service
Maximum Salary Schedule .......... 5l
II. School Districts Reporting an Authorized
Superior-Service Maximum Salary........... 53
CHAPTER I
THE PROBLEM AND DEFINITIONS OF TERMS USED
1
1
!
At no time in the history of the United States has !
the education of our youth been more thoroughly subjected
to a critical evaluation. Appraisal, moreover, is almost
universal. Those engaged in the process of education find
themselves joined by interested and concerned lay people
in questioning many existing practices and in seeking new
ideas and improved methods.
A sense of urgency exists today, whereas before,
time did not seem to be a pressing factor. In prior years |
the educational problems seemed to belong to us alone; to- •
day they are vitally concerned with our maintaining a posi
tion of strength and leadership in our associations with\
other nations of the world. Today the struggle for world
power is ideological as well as political and economic.
Two recent books,^ one by a distinguished naval
officer, the other by a distinguished educator, have turned
the spotlight of attention upon education in the United
States. Stimulated by these books and by the much publi
cized competitive struggle with the Soviet Union for world
^James Bryant Conant, The American High School To
day (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1959)f and
H. G. Rickover, Education and Freedom (New York: E. P.
Dutton and Company, Inc., 1959TI
leadership, the interested public now may be willing to
accept a leadership which calls for bold action and which
I may include much expansion and change in our educational
: system. The leadership should come from those primarily
concerned with the educational process--educational
writers, boards of education, administrators, educational
associations, and teachers* organizations. It should be a
cooperative enterprise in which support is sought from
parents, students, individual teachers and the public. Of
particular importance is cooperation between administra
tors and teachers since they are the persons immediately
involved.
To further pinpoint the prime person of concern, it
must be emphasized that the teacher is at the center of
the picture. Only the teacher has the direct continuous
contact in the classroom with the student whose ultimate
success is the only justification for public education.
It follows then, that whatever strengthens and improves
teacher performance should be the core of any effort on
behalf of education.
Among the current issues in public education per
haps no single practice is receiving more attention than
merit rating of teachers. Offered as a means of increas
ing teaching efficiency, it has acquired both strong
support and bitter opposition. As happens in all contro-
3
versies, many tend to choose sides without too thoughtful
an examination of the evidence. The problem is a pro
fessional one, yet the lay public is very much involved.
For this reason a comprehensive study of the theories,
techniques, and practices in merit rating is both timely
and important.
I. THE PROBLEM
Statement of the problem. It was the purpose of
this study to assemble evidence about merit rating, to
analyze this evidence, and to determine the feasibility of
' merit rating in school systems of the United States.
I
I Answers to the following three questions were sought:
I 1. What is the probable effect on the educational
I .
process of merit rating for the purpose of salary admini
stration?
2. What is the probable effect on the educational
process of'merit rating for the purpose of improving per
formance ? ,
3. What is the probable effect on the educational
process of merit rating for the combined purposes of
salary administration and improving performance?
Importance of the study. The great problem in
; American education is to design a public school system
' which will meet adequately both the needs of growing ,
4
children and the needs of democratic living. School ad
ministrators, teachers, professors of education, and the
great majority of parents and academic scholars who have
studied the problem can begin their discussions with a firm
body of agreement before passing on to areas of dispute.
One area of agreement is the importance of the teacher in
the educational process. Other points of agreement include
a recognition of the need to secure the highest possible
degree of teacher competence among those,now teaching, the
need to keep in the profession experienced teachers of
superior effectiveness, and the need to attract capable
new persons into the teaching professions. Referring to
the aspect of the superior teacher, Paul Woodring makes
the following comment:
Even among teachers with the same educational
preparation and the same length of experience, some
teachers are a great deal more effective than others.
Some method should be found to identify and reward the
outstanding teacher in order that he will not leave
the profession for other kinds of work which do give
exceptional rewards for exceptional achievement. We
disagree about how this should be done,, even about
whether it is possible; we do not disagree about the
need for it.^
Educators are increasingly concerned with the prob
lem of finding ways consistently to achieve excellence in
the teaching profession. The improvement of teaching per
formance, keeping and properly utilizing superior teachers.
^Faul Woodring, A Fourth of a Nation (New York:
McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., T55T)T~pTTT42.
5
and attracting capable new teachers are three aspects of
this problem. Determining standards of satisfactory per
formance and finding ways to recognize, encourage, and re- *
ward excellence are factors which may contribute to the
solution of the problem. Merit rating has been suggested
as one means of achieving this solution.
Ihe practice of merit rating is not new, but it has
been a comparatively dormant issue until recent years* A
great rise in the volume of writing about the subject and a
revival of interest in merit rating plans coincide with the
general concern for improving our educational system. i
The basic test of merit rating of teachers must be
I
I on the scale of its effect upon the educational process.
1 '
I Does merit rating help to develop standards of satisfactory
teaching? Does it help to improve the effectiveness and
efficiency of the individual teacher? Is it a factor in
keeping outstanding teachers from leaving the profession?
Gan it be a positive factor in attracting a higher caliber
of personnel into the teaching profession? Or, does merit
rating have a detrimental effect on the educational
process ?
No clear-cut answer to these questions is available
and probably none is possible. The many studies of differ
ent aspects of the problem and the great volume of written
'opinion about it furnish evidence of both good and evil in
6
the practice. The studies and writings further indicate
that the problem is a dual one. First, merit rating may be
used as an administrative device for determining such
things as promotion, salary, or dismissal. Second, merit
rating may be used as a tool of personnel administration
for developing standards of satisfactory performance and
discovering training needs, in an effort to improve in
dividual performance.
It is anticipated that answers to many of the ques
tions raised in the merit rating controversy can be deter
mined from an examination and analysis of the available in
formation on the various theories, devices and practices.
It is also anticipated that from this study can be deter
mined the feasibility of merit rating: (1) when used pri
marily for the purpose of determining salaries, (2) when
used for the purpose of improving teaching performance,
and (3) when used for the combined purposes of both.
Delimitation of the problem. This was not a study
of all aspects of the effects of merit rating. It was not
the purpose of this study to inquire into the effects of
merit rating done for the purpose of complying with teacher
tenure laws. It did not include merit rating for purposes
of promotions, personnel reports, or similar administrative
uses. This study also excluded merit rating done in con
nection with supervisory advisement and in-service training
7
programs. These and similar factors were excluded from
the study as being beyond its scope.
The inquiry undertaken in this study related to one
I aspect of administrative merit rating— that done for the
purpose of salary determination. It also included the
broader concept of supervisory merit rating done for the
purpose of improving teacher performance. It was not
possible to separate all aspects of administrative and
I supervisory merit rating since, in practice, the same per-
: sons were usually involved. Therefore, to the extent
!
, which rating for pay and rating for improved performance
were accomplished in the same plan, an attempt was made to
! determine the combined effect of both rating practices
upon the educational program and upon each other.
II. DEFINITIONS OF TERMS USED
X
Merit rating;. For the purpose of this study, merit
rating is defined as the process of assessing the indi
vidual worth and performance of teachers or other employ
ees.
Merit-pay. Merit-pay is pay which is based upon
the assessed individual worth and performance of teachers
or other employees.
Supervisory merit rating. Supervisory merit rating
8
is defined as merit rating for the purpose of improving
performance of teachers or other employees.
Evaluation, Appraisal. Both of these terms are i
defined as the process of determining the amount of worth.
Uncertainty in definitions of terms. For the pur
pose of this study, merit rating and evaluation mean sub
stantially the same thing. However^ in some of the litera
ture examined, merit rating is given a very narrow defini
tion. For example : "Merit rating is a subjective, quali
tative judgment made by a rater without the participation
and with or without the knowledge of the person rated for ;
I o '
; purposes of determining salary, promotion or reward.
i I
I In quoted material, any difference in the meaning of this
! term will be noted.
III. PROCEDURE EMPLOYED
To accomplish the objectives of this study, three
sources of literature on the topic were reviewed. The
first source was a survey of basic educational writings on
the subject, including textbooks and reference books. The
second was a survey of case studies of merit rating and
3Better Than Rating; New Approaches to Appraisal of
Teaching Services. Commission on Teacher Education (Wash-
ington: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Develop
ment, 1 9 5 0), p. 9.
9
merit-pay practices in school districts in the United
States. The third source consisted of current articles on
the subject taken primarily from educational periodicals,
brochures, and research papers.
The great volume of literature on this problem is
indicated by the fact that from 1929 to I95I 4- more than 570
references in teacher ratings had been listed in Educa
tional Index.^ Since 195$ the rate of increase in pub
lished material on this subject has grown even larger.
While it was impossible to examine more than a small part
of the total volvime of available literature on teacher
merit rating, an attempt was made to select a diversified
I sample from the different sources.
IV. ORGANIZATION OF THE REMAINDER OF THE THESIS
This chapter has given the statement of the prob
lem, its importance and delimitation, a definition of
terms used, and the procedure employed. The second chap
ter briefly reviews the history and development of merit
rating concepts. The third chapter presents an analysis
of merit-pay plans and practices. In the fourth chapter
is set forth an analysis of merit rating for improvement
^Harold E. Moore, and Newell B. Walters, Personnel
Administration in Education (New York: Harper and
Brothers, 1955), p. 32S.
10
of teaching performance. The fifth chapter contains a com
parison of merit rating practices in education public
service, and private industry. Chapter six presents the
summary, conclusions, and recommendations.
CHAPTER II
THE DEVELOPMENT OP MERIT RATING CONCEPTS
Merit rating in practice is not made up of a simple,'
well-defined group of activities. It is done for a variety
of purposes; it takes many different forms; and it is sub
ject to many different interpretations. The authorization
of merit rating and the procedure for carrying it out may
be stated in vague general terms, or it may consist of a
detailed formalized plan. In order to understand the
theories of merit rating, to analyze the various practices,
and to determine its effect on the educational process, it :
is first necessary to study the development of merit rating.
I
concepts. i
I. HISTORICAL OVERVIEW
In the early days of public education, the town*s
selectmen visited schools to make sure a teacher was carry
ing out the wishes of the community in teaching reading,
ciphering and writing. The criteria used in measuring the
effectiveness of the teacher * s performance varied accord
ing to the ideas of one official or another, but they
usually centered upon the degree of pupil discipline and
the smoothness of subject matter recitation during the
time of visitation. The appraisal was made by obtaining a
12
general impression of the quality of the teacher's per
formance through the simple means of observing.
Credit for placing the problem of teaching effi-
; ciency in the field of research and objective measure,
rather than leaving it in the field of opinion^is given to
J. L. Merriam. Merriam's study. Normal School Education
' Teaching Efficiency, published in 1905, attempted to
show the relationship between scholarship and teaching
ability.^ The first carefully devised rating scheme
: appeared in 1912 when E. C. Elliott published his Pro-
I 2
, visional Plan for the Measure of Merit of Teachers.
I Studies followed which attempted to show the relation of
; certain individual factors in successful teaching to
i general teaching merit. Other early studies sought to
' determine why teachers failed. This approach to studying
the problem was probably due to the lack of professional
standards, extremely low salaries, and poor teacher-train
ing programs.^
^J. L. Merriam, Normal School Education and Teach
ing Efficiency (Contributions to Education, No. 1. New
York: Teachers College, Columbia University, 1905).
^E. C. Elliott, Provisional Plan for the Measure
of Merit of Teachers (Madison: State Department of Educa
tion, 191^.
^Harold E. Moore, and Newell B. Walters, Personnel
Administration in Education (New York: Harper and Brothers,
1 9 5 5), P- 325. ------------
13
About 1 9 2 0, Interest in teacher appraisal Increased
markedly. Attempts were made to isolate and measure the
!
significant qualities of effective teaching. Many measure-r
I
; ment techniques were devised, most of which involved the
use of some rating form or scale. These scales included
simple off-hand analyses of general merit as well as forms
which attempted to classify many traits on a scale of from
three to ten merit divisions. Some scales gave detailed
I definitions of items; others gave little item information.
I Some were largely self-rating devices, while others were
I designed for inspection and supervision.^
' In the late 1930*s attempts were made at Ohio State,
University to identify the classroom activities revealing
^ teacher competence. This resulted in the development of
the "Ohio Teaching Record" which is diagnostic in its form
j and function.5 it makes no provision for final judgment
I
; of teaching ability. The assumption is made that the
Record will guide the collection and analysis of a large
body of significant evidence which the teacher and super
visor may, together, evaluate in the light of their own
^J. B. Sears, "The Measurement of Teaching Effi
ciency," Journal of Educational Research, L:86, September,
1 9 2 1.
^Ohio State University, College of Education, The
Ohio Teaching Record (Columbus: Ohio State University
Prïïis, i W ) . ------
14
situation and judgment. This is significant of a trend in
thinking, not of rating in its narrow sense, but toward
evaluation as intimately associated with learning and
6
growth.
Currently the American Educational Research Associ
ation has formed a Committee on the Criteria of Teacher
Effectiveness. The National Education Association has a
continuing program of research on merit rating. State com
mittees such as the Utah Public School Survey Commission
and New York State Education Department, Advisory Committee
on Teachers Salaries, have engaged in detailed studies of
merit rating— particularly for salary purposes. Teachers '
organizations are studying the problem; and many school
districts either have made studies of or have indicated an
interest in merit rating.
II. THE REASONS FOR MERIT RATING OF TEACHERS
There are several valid reasons why merit rating
may be carried out in connection with the teaching process.
It is essential that some form of "rating" or "evaluation"
of teachers be done in connection with certain necessary
administrative decisions. In other teacher activities,
merit i^atlng is usually considered a desirable practice.
^Moore, and Walters, op. cit.-, p. 326.
15
still other uses of merit rating are highly controversial.
Teacher tenure. Tenure laws bring the problem of
teacher evaluation to the foreground. The probationary
period of from two to five years characteristically pro
vided by tenure laws becomes a period for passing Judgment.
The claim has been made that tenure provides security for
the incompetent; and that for lack of adequate evaluation
incompetent teachers slip through the probationary period
into permanent tenure and removal is difficult. Thus, the
reason for adequate evaluation is obvious; and even in
states which do not have tenure laws, evaluation is re-
Iquired for re-employment or dismissal.^
Salary schedules* Merit rating for salary deter
mination is a highly controversial subject. This aspect of
merit rating will be examined in detail in chapter Three.
Promotion to a higher position. The comprehensive
evaluation of teachers has value in selecting individuals
for promotion, particularly if promotion is defined broadly
to include the selection of teachers for special projects
as well as the selection of individuals for advancement to
7William 0. Reavis, and Dan H. Cooper, Evaluation
of Teacher Merit in City School Systems (Supplementary
Educational Monographs, No. 59* The University of Chicago,
January, 19^-5), p. 3.
l6
the supervisory or administrative hierarchy. While evidence
of effectiveness in one position does not necessarily
qualify a person for a different position, it should be :
I 1
easier to select a qualified person for promotion on the
basis of a full body of carefully compiled evidence than on
vague general impressions.^
Teacher growth and improvement. The proper use of
merit rating by supervisors remains a problem in the ad-
i
[ministration of an evaluation program. However, it is
‘generally agreed among educators that evaluations may be j
I i
luseful for stimulating teacher growth. This aspect of I
Imerit rating will be examined in detail in chapter four.
I
; Teacher protection. Teachers may be protected by a
comprehensive evaluation in the following ways; (1) against
deliberate injustice, (2) against caprice of school j
officials, (3) against well-meaning but ill-informed judg
ments of administrators, and ( L { . ) against pressures of small
but antagonistic minority groups. A comprehensive, con
vincing body of evidence attesting to the teacher * s com
petence may prove invaluable to the teacher meeting this
type of challenge.^
Qlbld.. p. 7.
9Ibid.. p. 9.
17
Personnel reports to superior officers. In educa
tional administration, reporting to superior officers and
to the public is accepted as a major responsibility of i
I
executives. The public and the board of education have a
right to full, accurate information regarding the quality
of the teaching staff.
The school administrator, on the other hand, should
welcome every opportunity to gain support for the schools
and acceptance of his own efforts by describing the charac
ter and presenting the merits of the staff, and by explain
ing the complexity of their responsibilities.
I
Pupil welfare. Underlying all other arguments for
any practice in education is the welfare of the children. |
I
Ultimately teacher merit rating itself must be justified in'
terms of pupil welfare. The protection of children from
the hazards of poor teaching and the identification of
better teaching for the sake of children cannot be left to
vague general impressions or hastily formulated emergency
decisions. ' Nothing less than a thorough, systematic
attempt to ascertain the quality of teaching is appro
priate.^®
In making a plea for group action by teachers to
help eliminate the unsatisfactory teacher, Patrick points
^Qjbid.. p. 10.
18
out that some group must make this guarantee to parents--
that every teacher retained was a satisfactory teacher.
Teachers may reject for a time the type of merit
I rating which draws the line between satisfactory |
I and more than satisfactory teaching* However, how I
much longer can they reject a merit rating which
draws a line between the satisfactory and the less-
than-satisfactory teacher?H
III* THE METHODS AND DEVICES USED IN MERIT RATING
The informal, general-impression method is still
the one most commonly used. While many impressions may be
: cumulative in effect, single isolated incidents can be
■quite sufficient to spell the difference between the
j success and failure of a teacher. General impressions and .
I
I resulting reactions concerning teachers are so evident as
to be commonplace. Unfortunately, decisions involving
success or failure are too often based on flimsy evidence,
12
hearsay, and personal attitudes.
Efforts to overcome the evils of hasty general im
pressions in teacher merit rating have resulted in the
introduction of a great variety of data gathering devices
from which some objective information could be obtained.
^^T. L. Patrick, "Can Merit Rating Be Long Delayed?"
School and Society. 86:175, April 12, 1958.
l2William A. Yeager, Administration and the Teacher
(New York: Harper and Brothers, 1 9 5 ^ p. 305*
19
The degree of objectivity and effectiveness of these
devices is disputed, but research in this field indicates
that many of them are a definite improvement over the use
of general impressions.^^ Commenting on merit rating by '
supervisors, Barr stresses the need to use scientific
methods of evaluation:
Teaching is a very complex activity, and the hap
hazard, un-scientific and superficial study of
teaching that characterizes much of our supervision
today should not be tolerated. While our means of
studying teachers and teaching are still crude and
most inadequate, the work in this field has pro
gressed to a point where general impressions and
the hit-and-miss methods of studying the teacher
at work can ho longer be justified. Just as we have
developed improved methods of studying pupils and
their habits of work, so we must develop improved j
methods of studying and assisting teachers.14-
Formal methods of merit rating of teachers may in-,
volve the use of one, or several, of the following data
gathering devices:
Check lists. The attributes of the teacher and
I — — —
his work to be evaluated by a rater are listed on this
device. Some check lists contain a great many items to be
checked; others contain relatively few items.
' -^William H. Lancelot et al.. The Measurement of
Teaching Efficiency (Kappa Delta Pi Research Publications,
ed. Helen M. Walker. New York: The MacMillan Company,
1935), p. 137.
S. Barr, William H. Burton, and Leo J. Brueck-
ner. Supervision (New York: D. Appleton-Century Company,
Inc., 1%7), p. 381.
20
Rating scales. The rating scale represents one of
the first attempts to measure teaching efficiency object
ively. In its various forms it still is used as a rating |
: !
device in many merit-pay plans. Because of its assoc- !
iation with administrative uses, the rating scale is not
generally regarded as ân instrument of improvement; but it
can be a source of much valuable assistance in this res
pect when properly used.
Diaries, anecdotal records, personal data records,
! recommendations. and written statements. Some of these
i
I devices consist of records of specific incidents of good
I and poor practices in a teacher*s performance. Others are '
I . “ ■
j records which.contain general or specific information re
garding the merit of an individual teacher. These devices
may be used either for administrative or supervisory pur
poses. Often several are used in compiling a personnel
file for an individual teacher.
Interviews, questionnaires, and inventories. In
formation for these devices usually is obtained from the
teacher. They are generally used for supervisory purposes
I
I
! as part of a program of self-evaluation by the teacher or
joint evaluation by the supervisor and teacher.
I5lbld.. p. 3 5 7.
21
Voice recording instruments and stenographic
reports. The use of these devices as direct methods of
, merit rating is limited, but they can be valuable in some
situations. Examples of acceptable uses are the recording
of teaching activities as a part of a self-evaluation pro
gram, or recording lessons given by experienced teachers
for use in connection with an in-service training or work-
I shop program.
Tests. The use of tests has generally bepn con -
fined to the initial selection of teachers, or to provide a
I basis for promotion to a supervisory or administrative rank.
!
I Intercommunication systems. Teachers generally do
not approve of this device when used as a method of ap- j
praising teaching performance. Because of its adverse
effect on teacher morale, its use in a merit rating plan
I
I is not considered advantageous.
Cumulative professional records. This device re
quires the keeping and maintaining of a cumulative per
sonnel file for each teacher. Evidence of teacher pro
ductivity, teacher health, professional growth and develop
ment, growth and development of pupils, community and pro
fessional service, and exceptional service to boys and
girls might well be included in such a file. In recommend
ing it as a rating device Reavis states: "The cumulative '
22
personnel record system meets the criteria of a good
method of teacher evaluation better than any known program
in use In city schools.
i ’
Measures of pupil growth and development. It has
been pointed out that the ultimate criterion of teaching
success is the number, kinds, and extent of desirable
changes produced in pupils. However, if this devise is
used to measure teaching efficiency, certain important and
highly questionable assumptions must be made: (l) that we
possess adequate measures of the major changes produced in
! pupils, (2) that factors other than teaching ability can
; be controlled, equated, or otherwise held constant as in
[ :
! experimental research. Teaching is only one of the several;
factors conditioning the changes produced in pupils.
Therefore, though theoretically sound, the use of measures
of pupil growth in evaluating the efficiency of teachers is
17
an exceedingly difficult process.
IV. ADMINISTRATIVE PRACTICES IN MERIT RATING
A survey of merit rating practices made by the Re
search Division of the National Education Association In
16
Reavis, and Cooper, op* cit., p. 103.
^"^Barr, Burton, and Brueckner, op. cit., p. 378.
23
1952 indicated that about forty-four per cent of United
States school districts gave annual ratings to classroom
teachers, and that a like percentage gave no ratings at
; all. The other cities rated only probationary teachers.
It pointed out the difficulty of comparing slightly differ
ent statistics of earlier years, but that the data indi
cated a slight decrease in the number of cities giving
ratings as compared with 1 9 3 1, but a slight increase as
T A
compared with 19q-l. From this information it is assumed
that fewer than fifty per cent of the school districts have
a formal method of merit rating and that whatever rating is
! done in the remaining districts is largely on the basis of
j
jInformal general impressions.
j
Purposes of merit rating. The measurement of
teaching efficiency may be for either administrative or
supervisory purposes. lAfhile there are interrelationships
growing out of these two uses of merit rating, the purposes
of each one are distinct and should not be confused. Ad
ministrative uses of measures of teaching efficiency relate
; to the gathering of data upon which to determine the selec
tion, promotion, transfer, or dismissal of teachers; the
' adjustment or determination of salaries; the appraisal of
National Education Association, "Teacher Per
sonnel Procedures, 1950-51 : Employment Conditions in Ser
vice," Research Bulletin (Washington, D. C. : National Educa
tion Association, Research Division, April, 1952), p. i | - 8.
2k
teaching a s a part of the survey of a school system; and
similar uses which relate to the management and direction
of the school. Supervisory uses of the measurement of
teaching efficiency are concerned with the improvement of
the teaching or with the evaluation and improvement of the
supervisory program
In a survey of cities which reported some form of
merit rating, the H.E.Â. Research Division compiled the
following list of uses made of merit ratings in 1950-
1 9 5 1' Uses made of ratings:
In deciding on reappointment of teachers
not on tenure
As a supervisory aid 63 i
As a basis for deciding what to do about j
a teacher whose success is in doubt 6l !
In recommending probationary teachers
for permanent appointment 5l
In selecting teachers for promotion 32
In paying regular increments on the
salary schedule I9
In selecting teachers to receive
super-maximum salaries 11
In fixing size of the salary increment 6
Other uses 2
Number of cities reporting 837
9Charles W. Boardman, Harl R. Douglass, and Rud
yard K. Bent, Democratic Supervision in Secondary Schools
(New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1953), p. 251.
20National Education Association, op. cit., p. i|-9*
25
Referring to the above figures, a trend in the pur
poses of teacher merit rating seems to be toward an in
creased concern for supervisory rating as compared with
administrative rating. Prior to 1930, about fifteen per
cent of the school districts which reported merit rating
plans used them for supervisory purposes. Prom I93O to
19i |-0 the percentage grew to about thirty-six per cent.^^
The figures in the above table indicate that sixty-three
per cent of the reporting districts used merit rating as a
supervisory aid in 1952. Current literature indicates that
the trend toward greater use of merit ratings for super-
ivisory purposes has continued. However during this same 1
period--I9 3O to the present time— the number of school dis
tricts which reported using rating plans for administrative
PP
purposes appears to have dropped.
l#io performs the merit rating? This question must
be considered in the light of the purposes of merit rating.
The responsibility of the administrator— principal or
superintendent— for most administrative decisions is gener
ally accepted. However, opinions and practices differ as
to the responsibility for merit rating for salary purposes.
^0. Raymond Galbraith, "A Survey of Teacher Rating
in California" (unpublished Master's thesis. The University
of Southern California, Los Angeles, 19) 4 . 9 ), P# 37.
26
It was generally agreed that the decision on this matter
should depend upon local considerations in each individual
school district. Merit rating for supervisory purposes is :
generally the responsibility of the building principal,
often with assistance from special supervisors.
In a study of seventy-one school districts which
had indicated that some method was used to appraise the
quality of service of teachers, Coen found that more than
twice as many districts used a rating committee as dele
gated the responsibility to one person. The personnel
making up the rating committees included school board mem
bers, superintendents, principals, personnel officials, |
supervisors, and department heads. Teacher committees were;
generally not used.^^ It should be noted that this portion
'of the Coen study did not attempt to distinguish between
rating for administrative purposes and rating for super
visory purposes.
Other administrative practices. Currently, the .
most frequently used rating form is one on which several
I qualities are evaluated, but no composite comparative score
I
ils shown. The trend toward the use of this type of rating
j ^^Alban Wasson Coen II, "An Analysis of Successful
iMerit Rating Programs," Phi Delta Kappan, 39*395, June, 1958.
27
form has been substantial in the last ten years. Formerly,
predominate use was made of a comparative scale in which
several levels of efficiency were used.^^
Fewer than one-half of the school systems make the
ratings available to the teachers concerned. Although this
is not considered a good practice, there has been an in
crease in the number of systems making ratings available to
the teachers involved since 19I 4.I.
Practically all districts rated permanent teachers
once a year. A very few indicated ratings were made more
26
often— -either twice a year or three times a year.
!
I V. PROBLEMS WHICH DEVELOPED PROM MERIT RATING I
I
i
I
' Merit rating plans are the subject of much dis
cussion, and in many cases the discussion tends to throw
out more heat than light. The whole subject must be ex
amined dispassionately, if individual teachers and the pro
fession as a whole are to benefit from studies and discuss
ions of the topic. It is relatively easy to list the ad
vantages and disadvantages. If the solution were simply to
add the points for merit rating and subtract the points
^Moore, and Walters, o£. cit., p. 331.
^5National Education Association, op. cit., p. I | _ 8.
Coen, op. cit., p. 395.
28
against, the problems would long since have been solved.
, Many times the difficulties are further confused by the
failure to distinguish between merit rating for admini-
' I
I strative purposes and merit rating for supervisory pur- ;
1 !
poses. However, many of the problems pertain to merit
rating as an educational practice regardless of the purpose
for which it may be used.
Problems arising from administrative factors.
Typical of the difficulties which have arisen in the prac
tice of merit rating are those, listed by Aurand, which are
I concerned with teacher and administrator attitude® and !
1
I
objections :
1. Lack of objectivity, due largely to the presence :
of human judgments. i
2. Lack of provision for recognizing and compensating '
variables, such as time, personal factors,
influence, and change.
Lack of statistical accuracy.
Lack of agreement in meaning of terms which
describe the traits to be evaluated.
5. Lack of evidence that traits usually considered
in rating plans bear any significant relation
ship to teaching success.
6. Lack of control over influencing environmental
factors.
7* Lack of support for the scientific approach--
especially by those who believe that good
teaching partakes more of the artistic than
scientific.
8. Lack of adaptability of rating results to pur
poses for which rating is imposed, including
acceptance of teachers of results for purposes
used.
9. Objections based upon mechanical features of the :
rating plan. '
i:
29
10. Objections based upon teacher reactions, usually
audible and violent.27
In counter arguments, the proponents tell why merit
rating is desirable. An example of the advantages claimed
for merit rating is given by Holloway:
1. Merit rating attracts and holds better teachers.
2. It is in harmony with the American tradition of
paying on the basis of value received regard
less of years of experience or training.
3* It stimulates and encourages individual teachers
to improve,
if. Merit rating improves morale.
p. It encourages teachers to be critical of their
own work.
6. It permits the teacher who wishes to work from
eight to four to be paid a lesser amount and
not feel inferior.
7. It keeps the better teachers in the classroom
and does not make it necessary for them to
seek administrative positions for greater pay.
8. It necessitates more administrators and this in
itself is good; schools have always been under- j
staffed administratively. i
9. It enables the teacher to know where he stands in |
the eyes of the administrator. '
10. Merit rating will make the public more willing
to support higher teachers* salaries.28
Problems, arising fi»om environmental factors. The
effect of environmental factors upon merit rating is not
within the scope of this study. Nevertheless, the relation-
H. Aurand, Evaluating Professional Service In
; Public Schools (Teachers College, Columbia University,
Doctor's dissertation project, 19if8), pp. 80-85, cited by
Yeager, o£. cit., p. 311.
^^George E. Holloway Jr., "Objective Look at the
Merit Pay Issue," School Executive, 7o:21, April, 1959#
30
ship of these factors to the success or failure of a merit
' rating plan is important. Two elements are particularly
I important. First, there is substantial difficulty in ;
I reconciling the academic theory of teaching and preferred |
practice with practice under teaching conditions to be
found in many public school systems. The teacher may be
handicapped because of conditions beyond his control.
Examples of these conditions are readily observable in
large classes, lack of textbooks and materials, poor equip
ment, poor classroom facilities, absence of audio-visual
aids, and similar conditions. Second, there may be little
that teachers can do to change or improve the climate of
1
ideas which exists in a school or community without sym- |
PQ
pathetic supervision and community support. ^
Problems arising from human relations factors.
Inevitably, human relations are involved in the rating
process. Thus, it is natural that some of the objections
to merit rating are based upon the personal relationship
between rater and teacher. Here are the problems most
frequently raised: Merit rating often fails to respect
individual personality. In most rating plans, evaluation
is a concern of people in status positions rather than a
cooperative responsibility of all persons affected by the
29
Yeager, op. cit., p. 315#
31
I
' process. It tends to encourage conformity rather than act
ing in an individual manner. Teacher rating plans often
!
; work to prevent, rather than to foster and guide, change in
behavior. If change is directed, it may be imposed with
the plan rather than cooperatively evolved by the group
being evaluated. Most teacher rating plans fail to use co
operative social action. The emotional climate of the
school tends to become one of tenseness, friction, rivalry
and bitterness. As a result the pupils suffer. The rating
is usually intermittent rather than continuous; often
, directly or indirectly imposed from the outside, rather
than developed as an integral part of the teaching-learning
30
situation.
Brickman sees the problem in a different light.
He makes the following observation;
In spite of the difficulties involved in the
process of assessing the abilities of instructors
there are important considerations and values in
objectively determining whether a teacher is ful
filling his function unsuccessfully, adequately,
successfully, or exceptionally. If the calling
of the teacher is to be one of recognized pro
fessional status, the highest standards of prepara
tion, in-service education, supervision, evaluation,
and incentive should prevail.31
^®Better Than Rating, pp. 55-65.
Q n
William W. Brickman, "Merit Rating of Teachers,"
School and Society, 85:313, October 26, 1957.
32
purposes is presented by Gragg. Stating that It is both
illogical and unfair to grant equal rewards for unequal
contributions in service, he continues:
While total objectivity is impossible we should con
tinue to keep on looking at merit pay if for no other
reason than to afford to teachers the chance to look
forward to salaries commensurate with the higher in
come potential of other p r o f e s s i o n s . 32
VI. CRITERIA OP A MERIT RATING PLAN
The relatively short period during which most merit
rating programs remain in use indicates that major faults
may have existed in many of the individual plans* Studies
of merit rating plans have disclosed practices which are
'generally considered to be undesirable and therefore faulty.;
I
I It seems reasonable to assume that the elimination of un-
I
desirable practices might help to prevent the failure of
many such plans. With this objective in view, most studies
of merit rating have offered constructive suggestions
which, if followed, should enhance the chances of success.
Reavis proposes the following criteria in an effort to
assist school districts interested in improving existing
merit rating plans or in establishing a new one:
A. Scientific Criteria
1. Validity
2. Reliability
3. Objectivity
3^W. L. Gragg, "The Logic of Merit Rating," Nations
Schools, 6l:1|.6, February, 1958.
33
B. Subjective Criteria
1. The plan minimizes embarrassment to evaluator
and subject.
2. It impresses teachers and the public by its ;
close connection with good teaching and the I
thoroughness it forces upon evaluators. |
3. In addition to providing a measure of teaching :
ability, it also provides a stimulus to
continuous teacher growth,
if. The process enables democratic processes to
operate in evaluation and in establishment
of the standards for evaluation.
a) The teacher should be heard with reference
to his own evaluation.
b) Democratically organized committees should
find it possible to influence evaluative
decisions and standards for evaluation.
5. The plan allows for variations in the work
which different members of a school faculty
perform.
6. It provides for verification of evaluative
. judgments in case of changes in school
officials or disagreement about judgments.
7. It discourages deceit or connivance by those
. subject to evaluation.
8. The plan thwarts efforts by evaluators to dis
tort evaluations because of malicious
prejudice or unscrupulous motives.
9. It provides noteworthy and reportable data on
the quality of the teaching staff.
10. It is easy to administer, is inexpensive, is
easily routinized, and involves a minimum
of effort.33
33Reavis, and Cooper, op. cit., pp. 80-81.
CHAPTER III
MERIT RATING FOR SALARY ADMINISTRATION
I
It is impossible to isolate completely a study of
merit rating for salary purposes from merit rating for
other purposes--administrative and supervisory. However,
an attempt was made to single out for study those merit
plans which were established as salary plans and also those
broader plans which seem to have salary payment as the dom
inant purpose. The term generally used to describe such a
plan is merit-pay plan.
I. HISTORICAL OVERVIEW
The early use of merit rating for the purpose of
determining salary has been discussed previously. Deter
mined by a general impression, the "worth" of a teacher
was the basis for fixing the amount of her salary or the
amount of a raise. Most of the early attempts at scienti
fic measurement of teaching efficiency were undertaken with
the hope of improving the accuracy of administrative decis
ions.^
The difficulties connected with the measurement of
teaching efficiency caused a majority of school districts
^Sears, o£. cit., p. 85.
35
to base their salary schedules on training and experience*
While this method was an improvement over purely subjective
: salary determination, it was not accepted as satisfactory |
I by some boards of education and administrators. Even |
though training and experience represented a measure of
potential capacity, the feeling persisted that it did not
measure the true value of a teacher's performance.
In a detailed study published in 1933, Young sum
marized the chief reasons given by educators for adopting
teachers' salary schedules based on measures of teaching
efficiency;
! 1. The public demands that the money which it has
given be used to secure and retain the most !
efficient teaching service. j
i 2. Merit schedules are in harmony with principles i
! underlying efficiency in public service; namely, i
1 salary dependent upon service rendered.
3. A merit salary schedule is based upon a funda
mental principle of a salary schedule : it should
be such as to stimulate and encourage indi
vidual improvement and to reward exceptional
merit.
I } . . Merit salary schedules are flexible so that they
may be applied to the exceptional teachers.
5. They stimulate teachers to be critical of their
own work.
6. Merit schedules provide the stimulus and recog
nition necessary to advance teachers beyond
the usual point or plateau of maximum effi
ciency. 2
Other school men disagreed with this reasoning.
I Percy Young, The Administration of Merit-
! TyP® Teachers' Salary Schedules (New York: Bureau of Pub-
! lications. Teachers College Columbia University, 1933),
^ P. 3.
36
They gave reasons why salary schedules could not be based
on measures of teaching efficiency:
1. There is no agreement as to just what constitutes
I . merit, or efficient teaching.
; 2. Ho reliable, scientific instrument has been
developed to measure the various degrees of
teaching efficiency.
3# Merit rating destroys the esprit de corps and
morale of the teaching force.
i ^ . . It hinders the proper relationship between super
visor and teacher.
5. A teacher's work is hampered by merit rating,
and she is prevented from expressing her own
individuality.
6. Merit rating tends to unionize the teachers,
antagonize the administration, and ostracize
teachers who meet the promotional standards.3
The problem of merit-pay has not changed signifi
cantly in the past thirty years. The feeling today is
I
I divided in much the same manner as it was in 1930. The
' historical data show two factors which appear significant,
]
'however. First, there have been continual and persistent
attempts by school men to use merit rating in their salary
schedules in the face of the weaknesses and difficulties
attributed to it. Second, recent writings are more con
cerned with the desirability or undesirability of teacher
merit ratings, while earlier writers seemed primarily con
cerned with the manner and techniques of the rating pro
cess.^
3Ibid., p. i | _ .
^Moore, and Walters, op. cit., p. 328.
37
II. TYPES OP MERIT-PAY PLANS
The types of merit-pay plans may he separated into
i
I four general categories; (1) superior service maximum,
(2) accelerated increment, (3) penalties for unsatisfact
ory service, and (I 4 .) combinations of training and ex
perience with other merit factors. The type of merit-pay
plan used most frequently by school districts involves
penalties for unsatisfactory service. According to the
N. E. A. Research Division survey of cities of 30,000 or
over, about twenty-three per cent of the 556 reporting dis
tricts provided penalties for unsatisfactory service with
no rewards offered. About six per cent offered superior |
; service maximum rewards; and about one per cent offered
other types of rewards. In practice, many of the plans
1 g
I were reported to be combinations of the general types.
' Superior service maximum. In this type of plan the
teacher judged to be superior may advance to a maximum
salary higher than can be paid to the teacher who is not so
judged. The majority of schedules recognize only one level
of superior service; but several districts, such as Ladue,
^National Education Association, Qjual i ty - of - Servie e
.Recognition in Teachers ' Salary Schedules (Washington,
D. C.: National Education Association, Research Division,
Special Memo, July, 1956), p. 2.
38
Missouri, and West Hartford, Connecticut, provide for two,
three, or even four promotional levels which must be quali
fied for successively. I
I The various plans differ on some points. These |
features may or may not be required :
Additional professional study, initiative by the
teacher in seeking promotion to the superior classi
fication, objective evidence of outstanding school
and community activities. Often a formalized com
parative rating of the teacher's classroom perform
ance is made. In all cases some kind of judgment
that the teacher's services are superior is required^—
and is presumed to be the decisive factor in granting
the higher pay. Most of these plans require that the
teacher be at the top of the basic salary schedule.
However, a few provide for recognition of superior
service throughout the schedule after the first year
of employment.^
■ Accelerated increment. Acceleration, as a merit ;
j I
provision, refers to the practice of giving either double i
i increments or any larger-than-normal increment to reward
I
: superior service as the teacher advances from the minimum
to the maximum salary. Thus the superior teacher reaches
the maximum faster than the average teacher; and even
though he may not advance beyond the normal maximum, his
total life earnings are larger than the normal schedule
provides.
^Hazei Davis, "Pacts and Issues in Merit Salary
Schedules," The Journal of Teacher Education, 8:129,
, June, 1 9 5 7.
39
Acceleration may be merely authorized such as: "The
board reserves the right to pay salaries beyond the
; schedule shown on the baisis of merit." Or the possible
'acceleration may be scheduled by a definite pattern such
as; "Not oftener than once in three years, a teacher ren
dering outstanding service may receive a double increment."
Or increments may be graded in size according to rating.
As in the superior service maximum type, some kind of judg
ment that the teacher's services are superior is required.7
Penalties for unsatisfactory service. In this type
of merit-pay schedule, the normal annual increments that
are given on the basis of experience in advancing from the
minimum to the maximum salary are given only to recognize
satisfactory service, or may be withheld if service is un- i
satisfactory. There are differences of opinion as to
whether or not this type of plan is a true merit plan since!
the distinction is only made between satisfactory and less-
than-satisfactory service. However, it is argued that all
such types are merit-pay plans since quality of service is
involved, even though in a negative manner.
Combinations of training and experience with other
merit factors. Provisions such as those in the superior
service maximum or accelerated increment schedules are
Ibid.
40
combined with training and experience in this type of merit-
pay plan. Often the factors which determine payment of a
1
^ larger increment or higher maximum are weighted according
to their relative importance. For examplej in-the Evanston
Township High School, Illinois, plan for professional
growth, four areas are considered important in advancement
to a higher salary level. They are: Success in the class
room (highest priority), service to the school, service to
the profession, and service to the community. After fif
teen years the Evanston teacher is eligible for a status
as a "superior and distinguished classroom teacher,
I Starting from the premise that a basic consideration
! in the adoption of any merit-pay plan is its acceptability
to the teachers, Hertzler recommends the consideration of a
combination type plan. He suggests the following weighted
factors as a basis for determining placement upon a merit
salary schedule: (1) trainings 25 per cent, (2) experience,
25 per cent, (3) pupil growth,30 per cent, (4) extra
activity^ 15 per cent, and (5) miscellaneous factors to be
9
determined by the district, 5 per cent.
Lester S, Tander Werf, How to Evaluate Teachers
and Teaching (Mew York: Rinehart and Company, Inc., 195S),
p. 3 7.
^John R, Hertzler, "A Layman * s Slant on Merit
Rating," School and Society, 86:173> April 12, 1958,
41 '
III. MEÂSURSMEM DEVICES AMD METHODS
USED IN MERIT-PAY PLANS
The general impression method, rather than a formal
rating plan, is the most frequent practice followed by-
school districts in merit-pay systems. Current evaluation
practices may be placed in the following classifications:
no formal rating plan, rating scale or check list, written
reports by administrators— generally following classroom
visitations, ratings based upon cumulative professional
records, self-appraisal by the teacher, and joint evalua
tion by teacher and principal. Self-appraisal and joint
evaluation are concerned primarily with supervisory ratings
and are not used frequently in a rating plan for salary
purposes.
No formal rating plan. This method is the one most
commonly employed in appraising teachers and has had a long
history of use. Impressions of a teacher* s competency are
usually based upon specific acts or groups of acts of the
teacher and the general impression of the teacher-pupil
relationship gained from infrequent class visitations.
Impressions may be influenced disproportionately by a
pleasing personality, good physical prowess, good class
10
discipline, and individual pupil success. Lack of
^^Yeager, op. cit., p. 305.
significant success in the search for measuring devices
which measure teaching efficiency objectively, reliably,
and validly, undoubtedly explains the continued acceptance
of ratings based upon informal general impressions. While
admitting the complexities of the problem and the diffi
culties in finding and applying satisfactory devices, most
writers in the field of education feel that the use of
informal subjective ratings is not justified.
Many administrators feel that the knowledge of a
teacher*s effectiveness gained by a variety of personal
contacts is a better means of measurement than available
rating devices. The following statement of opinion by
Topp is typical of those who find formal rating devices
It is just not humanly possible to rate teachers
with acceptable reliability and validity using the
typical, detailed item check list most of us have
tried to devise. Moreover, it would be unrealistic
to pretend that there was no evaluation of teachers
going on in school systems that did not use a for
mal rating scale plan. Teachers are evaluated. But
it is accomplished in a way that is much more practi
cal, and in a way that does not pretend to be what it
is not. Through repeated contacts with the teacher in
a wide variety of circumstances the building principal,
usually, makes his evaluations of teachers. His
reaction is a "sum total" point of view.^^
scale or check list. This is the device that
is used most commonly in formal teacher-rating plans. It
^^Robert P. Topp, "Let’s Stop Wasting Time on
Teacher Rating Scales!" Education, 79:365, February, 1959.
i w
I may take the form of a man-to-man rating device in which
I
j the rater is evaluated in terms of the "ideal" teacher.
It may be a graphic type on which is checked the degree to
which a teacher possesses certain traits related to effec-
i
tive teaching. It may be a guided comment method in which ‘
the rater checks a number of statements which apply to the
performance of the teacher being rated. It may involve the
use of a forced-choice technique in which the rater is
forced to make discriminatory choices of statements which
i !
reveal a teacher’s characteristics and activities indica
tive of teaching efficiency. It may be a ranking method
i in which the administrator lists all teachers under his
' supervision in order, from highest to lowest, on the basis
I ■ ■ i
'of all-around teaching effectiveness. Or it may be a vari-!
12
'ation or combination of one or more of the above types.
The use of formal rating scales to measure teaching
efficiency requires careful training of raters in order to
secure uniformity in rating practice. There is a danger
that some administrators will be unduly lenient in their
ratings while others will tend to be unduly severe. Also
there is the tendency to rate all qualities of a particular
teacher on the same level. A teacher may be rated as good
for all qualities, whereas in reality some qualities may be
I '
I superior and others only fair. Frequently listed as a
^^Yeager, op. cit., pp. 307-309.
44
fault of rating scales, this tendency has been termed the
"halo effect."^3
Ratings by means of check scales and' rating scales
are based upon the point of view and concepts of the rater.
As different individuals rate the same teacher, variations
in the rating, due to differences in point of view and con
cept will appear. In order to secure a high rating, the
teacher must work in a manner which the rater conceives to
be good. This may have a tendency to discourage the use of
imagination, initiative, and creativeness on the part of
the teacher. Furthermore, it must be kept in mind that
even though ratings based upon character traits and aspects
i *
ot teaching performance provide a reasonably comprehensive !
rating of teachers and teaching services, they do not
adequately analyze successful teaching# It is questionable
whether, in any given situation, any such scale really
defines the elements of superior teaching.
Written reports by administrators. This method of
measuring teaching efficiency either may be a general
statement pertaining to the work of the teacher, or may con
sist of comments on specific aspects of teaching. A
^3d . U. Lintern, and R. J. S. Curtis, Work Measure
ment and Incentives (London: Sir Isaac Pitman and Sons, Ltd.
Ï9FF), p.TâÇ:
! ^4Moore, and Walters, o^. elt.. p. 336.
k-5
quantitative score is not usually given; and in many cases,
specific evidence of unsatisfactory work is required in the
event an unfavorable report is submitted. Plans of this
type may have an advantage in permitting more freedom and
flexibility in the evaluating process. The rater is en
couraged to describe strong points as well as weak points
and to list steps which may improve the effectiveness of
the teacher.
The same criticism of this plan is made that has
been made of plans previously described. The judgment of
>teaching success is still rendered in terms of the personal
[philosophy of the rater. Some administrators may tend to
give everyone a satisfactory report in general, meaningless
I ' i
terms. This may be harmful in that teachers may be led to ;
believe that there is no need for improvement. Of far j
greater importance than the problem of how much teachers
' I
should be paid is the problem of improving teaching
efficiency.
Ratings based upon cumulative professional records.
This plan requires the keeping and maintaining of an exten
sive cumulative personnel file on each teacher. Evidence
of teacher productivity, teacher health, professional
growth and development, growth and development of pupils,
I
iSibid., p. 3 3 8. '
46
community and professional service, and exceptional service
to pupils may be included in the personnel file. Cumula
tive records of this type, when used for merit-pay advance-
! . I
I ment, may give undue recognition to the individual who is
adept in getting publicity for his activities or who is
active and aggressive outside the classroom. The method
of measuring the aspects of pupil growth and development
requires the use of subjective general impressions or the
use of one of the formal measuring devices previously
mentioned.
The teacher’s salary law, passed in New York in
1914. 7, was an example of this type of plan. This law re
quired that administrative officers be advised by a com
mittee of teachers and members of the supervisory and ad
ministrative staff of types of information that should be
' included, how the evidence was to be obtained, standards
for promotional increment, and similar matters. The final
responsibility for evaluating the teacher’s competency and
the granting of promotional increments in salary rested
■ with the board of education. Because of strenuous opposi
tion by organized teacher groups and many administrators,
the New York law was modified in 1951 a.nd was repealed in
1 9 5 6.^^
l6Davis, loc. cit.
^7
Self and joint evaluation plans. Although these
devices seldom have been used in merit-pay plans, there is
i a tendency in current systems to broaden the concept of the
merit rating process to include the improvement of teaching
performance. In some of these plans a self-evaluation
form and a joint evaluation conference is used as a part of
the rating process,
IV. TRENDS IN MERIT-PAY PRACTICES
Perhaps the most significant trend in merit-pay
systems has been toward an increased recognition and appli
cation of human relations aspects. This is shown in an
emphasis upon the need for cooperation in the formulation
and development of merit pay plans. It is shown by the
concern of administrators for individual and group morale
in the application of rating techniques and devices. It
is illustrated in educational writings about current prac
tices in merit-pay systems. For example, Moore says there
is increasing recognition that teacher rating is complex.
Teachers rated without participating in the rating process
tend to develop a feeling of insecurity. This and other
human relations aspects, as well as the needs of children,
must be considered.
Other trends in merit-pay are important also.
^^Moore, and Walters, op. cit., p. 328.
1 4 . 8
Authorization, initiation, period of use, extent of appli- I
cation, and current experimentation include areas of :
i
change. |
' Authorization and initiation. At the present time
no state minimum salary law provides for a merit schedule.
The law in Delaware, which provided for three sizes of
annual increments was repealed in 19il7* A state minimum
salary schedule adopted in New York in 19^7 included four
I promotional salary levels. It specified a cumulative pro
fessional record as the means of determining the level of |
■ teacher competence for salary purposes. Reception accorded
; the New York law was widely varied. Acceptance in seme j
j !
'districts was overbalanced by strong opposition in others, i
: !
In 1951 some mandatory provisions of the law were modified;
in 1956 the law was repealed.A commission appointed by
the Governor of North Carolina to consider the feasibility
of merit rating for salary purposes sponsored a research
study on the subject. In 1952 it reported that it had
failed to find any system of measuring teacher merit which
could be recommended.
For the most part, professional opinion favors local
initiative in the formulation and development of merit
d^Davis, op. cit.. p. 132.
19Moore, and Walters, op. cit. , p. 3^4-2.
ks
rating programs. However, this in no way precludes state
sponsored Inquiry into the subject. To this end, a school
merit rating study committee was authorized in 1953 by the
i |.
{Utah State Legislature. Preliminary reports from this group;
I '
are favorable to merit-pay plans when established as a part
20
of a broad evaluation program. Also, a resolution recent
ly adopted by the Maryland General Assembly requested the
State Department of Education and local boards of education
to study the possibilities of formally recognizing merit
orious service performed by public school teachers. The
resolution suggested that the position of "master teacher"
21
might be established at a higher rate of salary. In the
Los Angeles City School District, a report based upon a
isurvey of administration and supervision included a recom
mendation for the establishment of a group of master teach-,
ers to be paid at a rate above the basic salary schedule.
Period of use. Merit-pay plans have not generally
had a long period of use according to many surveys. In
^^Gale Rose, "Preparation Unlocks the Door to
Successful Merit Rating," Nations Schools, 6[].:52, October
1959.
^^Davis, op. cit., p. 133*
^^Organizing for Tomorrow’s Education Needs, Report
upon Survey of Administration and Supervision Within the
^Los Angeles City School System (Los Angeles: Lybrand, Ross
! Bros., and Montgomery. Peat, Marwick, Mitchell and Company,
'March l^, 19^0), Chap'. Ill, p. 3.
50
1957, the National Education Association, Research Division,
requested reports from eighty-three school districts which
had indicated that they were using a superior service maxi
mum form of merit-pay schedule. These reports revealed :
that almost all of the merit-pay plans had been adopted
within the last ten years, and that a majority were not
more than five years old. Table I shows the dates of
adoption of superior service maximum salary plans by the
reporting school districts.
During the eighteen years ending with 1956-1957,
II4 . 8 different cities have reported a superior service maxi-
' mum salary schedule for one or more years. Only twenty-six
' districts appear on the 1956-1957 list. Only one district ,
j listed in 1938-1939 is also listed in 1956-1957, having
2L
been off the list during several intervening years. ^ It
I should be remembered that the superior service maximum type
[of merit plan is not the only type used. However, it does
represent the kind used most frequently for rewarding
superior teaching.
i
Extent of application. A survey of 686 school dis-
^jvjational Education Association, Super lor-Servi ce
maximums in Teachers Salary Schedules, 1956-1957 (Washing-
ton D. C.: National Education Association, Research Div
ision, Special Memo, July, 1957), P. 5.
^^National Education Association, Qpality-of-Service
Recognition in Teachers’ Salary Schedules, p. 9* I
51
TABLE I
DATE OF ADOPTION OF SUPERIOR-SERVICE
MAXIMUM SALARY SCHEDULE
Number of
Date School Districts
1914. 1-19^2 or before I 4 .
1911. 3-191414. through 19l|.6-19i|-7 3
1914. 7-1914-8 through 1951-1952 25
1952-1953 through 1955-1956 34
1956-1957 17
52
tricts reported to be employing some type of merit salary '
plan was made by McKinley. Results of the survey showed
, that II 4.O districts were using a merit-pay program. The
! I
I size of the district was not an Important factor. His
survey indicated also that the salaries of about one-third
of the teachers in the II 4 .O districts had been affected by
merit provisions
In a continuing survey of superior service maximum
merit-pay plans, the N. E, A., Research Division, reported
on the number of districts using such plans from 1938 to
1 9 5 6. The survey disclosed a trend away from merit-pay
plans but noted a slight rise from the years of lowest use.
! .
: Table II, based upon information accumulated from 1938 to ;
1 9 5 6, shows the number of school districts authorizing
superior service maximum salaries in six selected school
years.A significant factor shown by this survey is that
none of the eighteen school districts of 5 0 0 ,0 0 0 population
or more was using this type of merit-pay plan in 1956,
while six were using it in 1938. The table also shows the
' near elimination of merit-pay systems in cities of 100,000
, to lp99>999 population.
^^Donald R. McKinley, "Merit Pay Districts Report
ing," The School Executive, 7 8:7 2, May, 1959*
^6îjational Education Association, Quality-of-Service
Recognition in Teachers ’ Salary Schedules, p. 33.
53
TABLE II
SCHOOL DISTRICTS REPORTING AN AUTHORIZED
SUPERIOR-SERVICE MAXIMUM SALARY
Six years— 1938-39 through. 1955-56
(Urban Districts, 30,000 in Population and Over)
1938-
194^
5,000,000 - population
1939 194-3
No.Reporting S.S.Maximum 6 6
Total No. Reporting
17
18
1 0 0,00 0-1 4. 9 9 ,9 9 9
No.Reporting S.S.Maximum
13 13
Total No. Reporting
79
80
3 0,00 0-9 9 ,9 9 9
No.Reporting S.S.Maximum
27 29
Total No. Reporting
j
129
139
Total Rep. S.S. Maximum 4.6
48
Total No. Reporting 225 255
Per cent Rep. S.3.Maximum 20^
19^
1 9 4 6-
1947
1950-
1951
1954-
1955
19^^
1956
1
18
2
18
0
18
0 ,
18
8&
10
10I 4.
0
115
2 ■
118 j
11
221
14
181) .
21
294
30
368
16
327
26
306
21
427
32
504
5% 9%
bfo
54
Authorization of superior service rewards to
teachers was not the whole story, however. Of the dis
tricts which authorized merit-pay rewards in 1 9 5 6-1 9 5 7,
fewer than fifty per cent were actually paying the rewards
to classroom teachers. This meant that about eighty
school districts were paying superior service maximum re
wards. In about twenty-three per cent of the districts
paying rewards, less than one per cent of the teachers
were receiving them. In about thirty-three per cent of
the districts, as many as one per cent of the teaching
staff were receiving salary rewards.^7
Current experimentation with merit rewards. There
is a conviction among some educators that rewards to
superior teachers are not justified unless their services
are used more effectively by the school district. With
this idea in view, explorations were made of the possibili
ties for promoting teachers without taking them from the
classroom on a full time basis. In addition to the job of
department chairman, other part-time positions considered
for adoption upon an experimental basis included training
teachers, subject matter specialists, grade leaders, and
^7ihid., pp. 3-5.
55
subject matter coordinators. However, the primary justi
fication for these new types of school positions was not to
. create advancement opportunities for teachers, but rather
i 28 i
i to improve the education of children. I
I I
The selection of teachers for part-time positions
of higher responsibility may be through examination or by
administrative appointment. By either method, only those
who are interested in extra-duty assignments and who have
proven their ability by training and experience should be
considered for appointment. Selection of teachers for
positions of greater responsibility is not usually involved
with a merit-pay salary schedule. However it does involve
some type of merit rating in the process of determining
I which teachers are best qualified for the positions. j
According to Staehle most merit rating proposals do
not recognize differences in responsibility as a factor in
payment of higher salary rewards. He reports in part as
f ollows on some recent experiments along this line :
Recently ’utilization of staff’ experiments in
some schools have given teachers responsibility for
organizing and coordinating the work of other teach
ers and sub-professional assistants. These experi
ments aim at developing new roles and responsibili
ties to help selected experienced teachers function
as key personnel in organizing the work of less ex- 2q
perienced and less talented teachers and assistants. ^
p o
Benjamin Brickman, "Rewarding the Superior Teach
er," School and Society. 87:357, September 26, 1959.
John P* Staehle, "Merit and Responsibility Factors
56
Experimentations with positions of higher responsi
bility represent a different approach to the problem of
rewarding superior teachers. These plans are different
from the usual concept of merit-pay systems; and therefore
they avoid many of the objections to merit rating for
salary purposes. It is noted that several recent recom
mendations for the position of "master teacher" seem to
contemplate this type of merit reward plan.
In describing the advantages of positions of
greater responsibility in granting higher salary rewards,
Brickman writes in part as follows:
It is suggested that the payment of additional
; money to distinguished teachers be considered for
I those teachers who can prove themselves by training
' and examination, qualified to serve our schools
i through new and higher responsibilities along with
their classroom teaching.30
III. ADMINISTRATIVE ASPECTS OP MERIT-PAY PLANS
In a majority of cases the development of merit-pay
plans by school districts ensued as a result of pressure
from the board of education. Studies of current practices
indicated that the typical merit salary plan was developed
by a committee consisting of the superintendent, principal.
in Teachers Salaries," School Life, 14.1:19, December, 1958.
I ^Ogenjamij^ Brickman, op. cit., p. 358.
57
teachers, and representatives of the school board.31 «pRe
most important procedure in the development of the plan
was considered by superintendents tobbe the cooperative
planning of the evaluation system.
From his survey, McKinley determined that superin
tendents considered the following procedures to be most
useful in the successful operation of a merit-pay program--
ranked in order of relative importance :
1. Cooperative planning of the evaluation system
2. Classroom visitations
3. Use of a cumulative personnel folder for each
teacher
I 4 .. Teacher-evaluator conference as part of the
final evaluation
: 5* Teacher-evaluator conference prior to the final
evaluation
6. Use of a rating device P
7. Use of self-evaluations by the teachers-^
Teacher cooperation and participation. The usual
service performed by teachers in the development of a
merit-pay plan was that of developing the criteria to be
used as a basis for determining superior service. About
one-half of the eighty-one school districts which reported
authorizing merit rewards for superior service in 1956-1957
stated that teachers had helped plan the program. Eleven
3^Albert Irvin Karam, "Merit-Rating Salary Plans in
I Public School Systems of the United States 1955-56,"
' Journal of Educational Research, 53:ll|. 6, December, 1959*
j 32McKinley, o£. cit., p. 73& '
58
districts reported that teachers shared some responsibility
in the administration of the program. Several districts
indicated that teachers participated in the evaluation of
their own w o r k . 33
The beneficial results of teacher participation in
the merit-pay program was shown by McKinley’s survey. He
reported that the attitudes of teachers both before initi
ation and after development of the program were better in
those districts where teachers were involved in the
development of the plan. There was a greater degree of
change from opposition to acceptance when teacher coopera
tion was sought in the planning and development stages.3^
A significant trend toward greater teacher co- •
operation and participation was noted both in the liter-
!
ature on the subject and in a comparison of current and
former practices. Young’s survey, published in 1933, re
ported that "no city had teachers help develop the plan of
merit-type salary schedule or the rating plan used."35
Rating policies. The number of groups into which
teachers were rated ranged from two to fifteen, according
to Young. About 75 per cent of the cities used four
33Rational Education Association, Superior-Service
Maximums in Teachers Salary Schedules, p. 5#
34-McKinley, loc. cit »
35young, pp_. cit., p. 93.
59
groups. He also found that about one-half of the school
districts used names such as superior, good, average and
fair in describing a teacher’s efficiency.Little change
in this practice was noted in current merit-pay studies.
However, many educational writers suggest that no composite
comparative score be assigned to individual teachers.
Currently persons serving as evaluators include
superintendents, principals, supervisors, and department
heads. Teachers’ committees are used infrequently. Acting
together or individually, superintendents and principals
perform the rating for salary purposes in more than 75 per
cent of the reporting school districts.^7
In his study published in 1933, Young reported that
80 per cent of the cities had from one to six special
supervisors to rate teachers in the elementary teaching
field. Commenting on this practice, he stated in part:
Adding administrative duties to the work of a
special supervisor places the teacher under dual
control of principal and supervisor and may affect
the sympathetic, cooperative, and professional re
lationship between the teacher and the special
supervisor. Most educators believe that the small
gain in the increase of reliability of the final
rating is more than offset by the possible inter
ference with the work of the special supervisor.
It would be difficult to justify the use of a
special.supervisor to rate teachers for salary pur
poses.38
36ibia.. p, 8 4.
37Karam, pp_. cit., p. 1I 4 . 7; and McKinley,op.cit. ,p.72.
38Young, o£. cit., p. 78.
6o
Rating criteria. A majority of rating systems in
clude formal written criteria for measuring teacher per
formance. However, most do not have evaluative policies
I and procedures reduced to written form. On the basis of
I information from sixty-nine school districts which reported
merit-pay plans in active use, Karam divided the criteria
.for choosing superior teachers into seven general cate
gories. Listed in order of the relative weight given each
factor, they are as follows: teaching ability or effect-
jiveness, personal qualities, pupil-teacher relationships,
I relationship with staff members, contributions to the com
munity, contribution to total school program, professional
growth. Though implied in many cases, only one plan men-
j tioned pupil achievement as a means of appraisal. Fifteen
I ^ '
per cent of the plans had no definite rating criteria other
than the subjective statement "superior teaching."39
School districts are generally attempting to quan
tify the evaluative process by developing rating devices or
guides, personnel folders, teacher conferences, and co
operative evaluation. About two-thirds of the reporting
districts use a conference between teacher and evaluator.
, Fewer than 20 per cent use self-evaluation.^^ This same
trend is reported by Coen. He stated that practically all
39Karam, op_. cit., p. l l | _ 6.
4-%[cKinley, loc. cit.
6i
the reporting districts used several methods of evaluation;
and that all included the provision that evidence of teacher
performance be deposited in a cumulative record. He states:
1
I
One general conclusion appears tobe that progress
is being made toward objective subjectivity, by em
ploying a variety of rating methods to supplement
or replace subjective judgment alone*
V. CURRENT THEORIES AND ATTITUDES
Attitudes towards merit-pay plans are important be
cause they influence greatly the operation of such plans.
The possibility of success of any plan is slight if the
teachers as a group are opposed to it or if the admini
strators responsible for its operation do not favor it.
An example of the result of strong opposition to merit-pay
plans is seen in the abandonment in 1956 of the ambitious
and comprehensive New York state teachers salary law* On
the other hand, successful merit-pay plans such as those
in West Hartford, Connecticut, and Ladue, Missouri, have
achieved general acceptance and approval by the teachers
and enthusiastic support and leadership by the administra
tion.
Views of educational writers* This group, appar
ently without exception, is strongly favorable to the
^IPoen, op* cit., p. 396.
62
concept of merit rating in the broad sense— for supervision
and for most aspects of administration. Merit-pay is
usually favored only as one aspect of a comprehensive ,
; evaluation program. It is generally felt that evaluation
must be an integral part of the school program for improv
ing the educational process. Too frequently the rating and
testing process is considered an end in itself, with the
Up
sole objective being a recorded score or rank*^
Yeager’s views are typical of the opinions expressed
by many writers in the field of education. His statements
'in part are as follows :
Teachers differ in native and teaching abilities,
j There are marked differences in regard to their con- |
I tributions to the success of the school. Teachers i
I who excel should not be denied the economic rewards ;
j attained by their own efforts. i
It may be a part of wisdom to delay temporarily the
application of the merit principle as applies to
teacher’s salaries until (a) there can be common agree
ment as to the essentials of competency for good teach
ers and good teaching, and (b) an instrument can be
devised which is scientifically determined, suffi
ciently conclusive, initially acceptable, and ban be
cooperatively administered. This is not meant to
imply that this task is impossible of achievement;
rather that if the principle in general is sound, the
profession should make every effort to achieve it.43
Opinions as to the acceptability of the principle
of merit-pay differ. The dangers and difficulties which
4-2Moore, and Walters, op. cit., p. 3if6.
^Yeager, opl cit. p. 3 5 5.
63
attend the adoption of merit pay plans are pointed out by
Sheldon Moore as follows: "Since many teachers work as a
,team to educate the child, it will be nearly impossible to
! i
! Judge objectively and fairly the contributions of any one
single teacher." He concludes as follows: "It is clear
that any merit-type plan for evaluating teaching for the
purposes of salary requires far better than average admini
strators. "Wl
Some writers believe that merit-pay schedules are
essential from a professional point of view. Lawson
believes that the profession does not offer sufficient
financial rewards. Oommenting on the need of the teaching
i i
profession to attract and keep gifted young men and women, !
ihe reasons as follows: •
I
If the gifted teacher knows that he will be buried
forever in a mass of mediocrity with no chance of
special recognition or reward, he will often turn
away to seek a position where merit is recognized.
If we pay the same price for poor teachers that we
pay for good teachers just how honest are we handling
the taxpayers’ money?"q5
Strong opposition to the merit-pay principle is
reflected in the writing of Gurrien Smith. It is noted
that he uses the terra merit rating as synonomous with
merit-pay in the following statement:
Wi-Sheldon Moore, "Administrative Problems Under a
j Merit Plan," The Journal_of Teacher Education, 10:31,
j March, 1959*
I ^^Douglas E. Lawson, "Society’s Stake in Merit
64
Inconsistencies, contradictions and insults to
human dignity and intelligence always accompany true
merit rating. A good hard look at merit rating from
a scientific democratic point of view will reveal it
to be (1 ) untenable intellectually, (2) distintegrative,
I psychologically, (3) punitive philosophically, (E^) !
I destitute economically, and (5) oppressive politi- i
I cally.lj.6 '
Views of laymen and boards of education. As the
problem of school support has become a public concern due
to an increased school population, teacher shortages, and
I inflationary conditions, public demands for evaluation of
I teacher effectiveness have been increasing* State legis-
; lation and state-supported study groups have been concerned
I with the problem. Regulations of boards of education have
I
I attempted increasingly to deal with the problem during the
' ■ i
I past few years. It is argued that sufficient financial re-:
I
! wards to attract the potentially gifted teacher cannot be
offered if the standards of pay are the same for poor
teachers as for good or superior teachers* It is believed
that higher pay for superior teachers offers a way of keep
ing them in the classroom without promoting them to admini
strative positions, for which they may not be qualified, or
losing them to industry where greater financial reward is
Rating of Teachers," School and Society, 85:ll).l, April 27,
1957.
Gurrien Smith, "Why Teachers Dislike Merit
Rating," Overview, l:i|-3, February, 1 9 6 0.
65
offered,
A very small percentage of the fifty thousand plus
, school districts now use merit rating for salary purposes. ;
: i
) Hertzler feels that it should be used in more school dis- |
tricts. To be used effectively, however, a district must
employ enough classroom teachers whose teaching assignments
are comparable--not all positions should be rated,In
the Los Angeles City School District, California, a recent
administrative survey included a recommendation for the es
tablishment of a "master teacher" program,
i As Executive Secretary of the Massachusetts Associ-
I
ation of School Committees, Whitehead speaks on the subject:
■ of merit-pay as follows: '
It is possible in theory and practiceits going
on all the time. The time has arrived when teachers
everywhere must make up their minds whether they desire
'equal pay for equal work* or will encourage 'better
pay for better teaching.'1|.9
A similar view is stated by Rickover:
Can anyone seriously maintain that it is democratic
to single out teaching from all other occupations for
such allegedly 'democratic' salary scales where merit
counts for nothing and the relative difficulty of the
subject taught is considered irrelevant ?...The best
is never cheap. We have been getting our children's
education at bargain rates, and the quality of educa
tion has been affected by our failure to reward
^^Hertzler, op. cit., p. 1?1.
Organ!zing for Tomorrow's Education Needs, loc.cit.
^9 "Merit Pay for Teachers : Pros and Cons," National
Parent-Teacher, 5l:21, June, 1957*
66
excellence in teaching.50
Views of educational administrators. Opinions ex
pressed by this group are divided. The strongest advocates
of merit-pay plans are the administrators in districts !
where such plans are currently in operation. On the other
hand, administrators are generally opposed in school sys
tems where merit-pay plans have been tried and have proven
unsuccessful. The following reasons are usually given by
administrators who oppose merit-pay: (1 ) the responsi
bility it requires of them, (2 ) the large amount of time
that it takes, and (3) the opposition of teachers gener
ally,^^
Speaking in favor of merit-pay, W, A. Early, Super
intendent of Schools, Savannah, Georgia stated:
A rigid salary schedule tends to perpetuate medio
crity, As an administrator I love it. It makes my
job easier. But it's no good. I lose my best people.
Every superintendent should be given enough leeway to
reward superior performance, 52
E, H, Thorne, Superintendent of Schools, West Hart
ford, Connecticut supports the same view:
Higher pay for superior teaching keeps the fine
teacher in the classroom and is an incentive to
G, Rickover, Education and Freedom (New York:
E. P. Dutton and Company, Inc., 1959)* P* 110.
^^Yeager, loc. cit.
"Merit Pay for Teachers: Pros and Cons," loc. cit.!
67 :
I teachers to become superior teachers. As a matter of
pure justice, there is nothing more unfair than paying
unequals equal pay.
i !
1 Administrators where successful merit-pay plans
\
are in operation generally agree on two important points:
(l) an adequate general salary schedule must he established
before embarking on a merit program; (2) the standards for
teacher evaluation must be developed cooperatively with the
participation of teacher representatives.
In explaining why the merit-pay plan was abandoned
in the District of Columbia, Deputy Superintendent
M. J. Nelson wrote as follows:
Î '
In June, 1950^ after three years of experience with ;
the incentive salary plan, the superintendent and
administrative officers concluded that the plan was not
necessary, that it disturbed professional morale, and
that it was almost impossible to administer. Legisla
tion eliminating the plan was adopted in 1951.
James A. Hazlett, Superintendent of Schools, Kansas
City, Missouri, indicated that among the basic factors in
fluencing the abandonment of the merit-pay plan in Kansas
City were the following: (1) subjective evaluation of the
quality of instruction, (2) arbitrary limitation of the
numbers eligible for any one classification, (3) misunder
standings among teachers within school faculties, and (4)
53
Ibid.
^^*’ Why Merit Salary Schedules Were Abandoned, " The
Journal of Teacher Education, 8:186-87, June, 1957.
68
misinterpretations of the true role of the principal in
; the improvement and supervision of instruction.^^
i Views of teachers and teacher organizations.
' i
Teachers generally react toward merit rating with an atti-;
tude of fear and suspicion. This has grown in part out of
the subjective nature of past and present rating tech
niques, and in part out of the administrative use of the
, rating process. Teachers recognize that the subjective
rjudgment is influenced by bias or prejudice, even though
I unintentional, on the part of the judge, that the rell-
i
I ability of such judgments is subject to variation, and that
I the rating by subjective standards is open to q u e s t i o n . 5 6
' There are exceptions to this general attitude of î
fear and suspicion, however. In school districts where
merit-pay plans are operating successfully, surveys of the
teacher groups concerned indicate that most of them favor
the plans. Studies also indicate that the attitude of
teachers changed from objection to acceptance of merit-pay
plans in districts which involved the teachers in the
formulation of the plans
While exceptions may be found in individual teacher
groups, the major teacher organizations seem to be in
% b l d . , p. 1 8 7.
56
57
^"Boardman, Douglass, and Bent, op. clt., p. 254.
McKinley, op. cit., p. 73.
69
I
agreement on the question of merit-pay. They are uniformly
opposed to the practice. David Guhl, President, Department
' of Classroom Teachers, N.E.A., stated the position of his i
I organization as follows:
The normal pressures and prejudices, the likes and
dislikes, the bias of everyday humanity prevent the
actual accomplishment of fair and Impartial objective
rating. Rating for salary purposes, where it has been
tried in the pastj has inevitably resulted in a break
down of rapport between supervisor and teacher and in
the destruction of school morale. Friendly coopera
tion and mutual assistance between teachers is stifled;
petty jealousies are inflamed; vying for favor becomes
the smart thing to do; and real education is relegated
to second or third p l a c e ,5©
Statements by the American Federation of Teachers
: also indicate a mistrust and opposition to merit-pay plans..
'A number of the reasons for opposing such plans are sum
marized as follows by their research department: (l) there
is no professionally sound method of rating all teachers
on one scale. Subjective rating is not a defensible or
workable plan even among a small group of teachers, (2)
the flaws in subjective rating are magnified when used as
a base for salary gradations, (3) merit rating runs
counter to standards of professional conduct. It dis
courages teamwork and professional cooperation, (4) merit
rating is infinitesimal in importance in comparison with
5 6"Merit Pay for Teachers: Pros and Cons,"p. 22.
70
the problems facing public education.
VI. A SUMMARY OF THE PROBLEMS AND ISSUES OF MERIT-PAY i
I The problems involved in the adoption and use of a |
■ i
merit-pay plan are primarily concerned with its probability
of success or failure in a particular school district.
These problems have been discussed previously. They in- !
i i
I elude the techniques, methods and devices used in the I
I
formulation and operation of a merit-pay plan. Assuming
that successful operation of a merit-paid plan is measured
■by its acceptance and approval by the board of education,
: the administrators, and a substantial majority of the
teachers concerned, a number of school districts now have
I successful merit-pay plans. Also, studies indicate that '
many more districts could have successful merit-pay plans
if democratic procedures and other desirable practices
were followed in the process of formulating and operating
the plans. It is generally agreed that local considéra- .
tions are of the greatest importance in determining whether
or not a merit-pay plan will succeed or fail. Thus,
solutions to the problems of merit-pay plans must rest
finally with each individual school district.
More basic than the problems of technical success or
failure in the adoption and use of a merit-pay plan is the
HQ
American Federation of Teachers, Research Depart
ment, "Dangerous Mirage or Master Plan?" The Education
Digest, 24:6-8, February, 1959.
71
question whether or not such a plan is the most effective
means of accomplishing certain improvements in the educa-
’ tional process. The proponents of merit-pay present argu-
- ments in which they claim it will effect such improvements.
These arguments are primarily concerned with two ma. j or
issues. The first issue deals with the improvement of
; individual teaching performance. The second issue deals
with attracting and keeping superior personnel in the
teaching profession.
Improvement of individual teaching performance.
Proponents of merit-pay contend that the rating process can
I
I be an instrument for improvement--that a teacher will see
I his weaknesses and take steps to improve. It is said that
ratings by ■ administrators keep teachers working hard to get
good ratings. It is argued that a fair remuneration for a
good job done is the strongest incentive for improvement.
The opponents claim that merit rating for salary
purposes does nothing to help a teacher improve his per
formance --that the burden of improvement is upon the teach
er with little assistance from the administrator. It is
contended that ratings tend to freeze the pattern of teach
ing to conform with the views of the rater and thus stifle
creativity and experimentation aimed at improving teaching
procedures. It is argued that incentives other than
financial reward are often more effective in achieving
72
improved performance.
Several factors tend to invalidate both the argu-
; ments and the counter-arguments. First is the factor of
1 I
: differences among individual teachers. An effective tech- ;
nique in rating one teacher may result in a tense and ner- '
vous reaction in another. Some teachers may be inspired
and stimulated to higher efforts by the rating process,
while others may be depressed and their morale lowered.
I
Second is the factor of environmental influences on
teaching performance. Large classes, poor classrooms and
; equipment, lack of books, teaching aids and materials are
1 elements over which the individual teacher has little or
!
: no control— yet such elements strongly affect teaching per-
I
I formance. A third factor is the nature of the teaching
I
assignment. A teacher may be able to do a superior job in
one subject field, yet be ineffective in another. A teach
er may do well with a group of high-ability students while
the same teacher may perform poorly and become quite frus
trated with a group of slow-learning students.
Gan the effect of merit-pay upon teaching perform
ance be determined? It seems apparent that while the above
mentioned factors tend to invalidate the arguments for and
against merit-pay, they also invalidate any rating process
from which an administrative decision, such as salary
determination, must be made. Other elements also furnish :
73
evidence concerning the adverse effect of merit-pay upon
individual teaching performance.
^ For instance the periodic, once-a-year or once-a-
I semester rating method, which almost always characterizes
administrative merit rating, can have little beneficial
effect upon teaching performance. The burden of self-im
provement is placed largely, if not entirely, upon the in
dividual teacher. To expect improved teaching efficiency,
one must make the questionable assumption that upon re
ceiving notice of weaknesses and deficiencies a teacher
, will have the knowledge, ability, time, energy and money to
I embark upon a program of self-improvement. ,
i :
Î Finally, the rating of teachers for salary purposes ;
)
is essentially a negative process in that it grades some
thing done in the past rather than attempting to guide
future activities. The rating given to a teacher is the
end result of a job already completed. A good merit rating
represents a goal toward which a teacher must point. The
emphasis is upon the rating rather than the means to
achieve a higher degree of teaching efficiency.
Attracting and keeping superior personnel in teach
ing. Proponents of merit-pay argue that payment of higher
salaries based upon merit will attract highly capable
young men and women into the teaching profession. It is
maintained that superior teachers will remain in the class-
7k
, room rather than seek supervisory or administrative posi-
I tions if the financial rewards are sufficiently high. It
i
; is claimed that teachers will not leave the profession for
j i
I Jobs in industry if salaries are competitive. They argue |
that the taxpaying public will be more willing to support
high salaries if they feel that salary payments are based
upon merit.
The opponents of merit-pay contend that a satis-
I factory basic salary schedule with a starting salary com-
! mensurable with the education and training required is the
I most effective means of attracting capable new personnel
i
' into the teaching profession. It is maintained that in-
I
centives such as social approval, self-respect, job
security, and a challenging and rewarding occupation are
more important than premium salary payments in keeping
superior teachers in the classroom. They point out that it
is of much greater importance in the educational process
to improve the general level of teaching competency,
rather than to single out a few individuals for premium
payments. They claim that the difficulties involved in
determining what constitutes superior teaching often lead
to dissatisfaction and a lowering of group morale.
What evidence exists that merit-pay offers the
most effective means of attracting and keeping highly
i
capable persons in the teaching profession? To answer |
75
this question it is necessary to refer to the types of
! merit-pay plans discussed previously. It was noted that
the most common type of merit-pay system involved penalties;
for unsatisfactory service, with no rewards for superior I
I I
service. This type of merit-pay plan obviously is not in- I
tended to attract persons to teaching by payment of higher-
I I
' than-norraal salaries, Superior service maximum plans and
I
other reward-type plans do offer greater-than-normal
j financial rewards to superior teachers. While the extent
I !
I of application of these plans is quite small, there seems !
I '
j to be an increasing use and growing interest in them.
I :
Information taken from current plans which offer |
I
greater-than-normal salary rewards is not sufficient to !
infer that highly capable personnel will be attracted to |
and kept in teaching. There is no indication that any
school districts offer sufficiently high super-maximum
salaries to attract persons to teaching instead of pro
fessions such as medicine, law, and dentistry. Keeping
the superior teachers in a particular school district may
be the result of a good basic salary schedule and of
capable administrators as well as of a merit-pay pro
vision. However, there is evidence that older teachers
who had attained the maximum regular salary achieved
higher morale and were stimulated to new efforts to im- ,
' I
prove performance when a super-maximum salary was offered..
I CHAPTER IV
I MERIT RATING FOR IMPROVING PERFORMANCE
I '
j The improvement of teaching performance is accepted ^
I as a responsibility of the supervisory staff . Since the |
I
: teacher-principal relationship is both that of administra- |
tor and supervisor, the latter often finds himself in a
I
I dilemma in attempting to reconcile the performance of
necessary administrative functions with a program of
teacher growth and development. Teachers may be reluctant :
•I
to participate in any evaluation program which they feel i
might be used against them, while at the same time they are!
I
anxious to participate in such programs which further their
own professional competence.
The use of merit rating for supervisory purposes has
increased substantially in the past thirty years. In (
educational writing the weight of opinion supports evalu
ation as a service to the teacher. However, in order to
better understand current theories and attitudes concern
ing supervisory merit rating, it is desirable to study j
briefly its historical development. i
I. HISTORICAL OVERVIEW
i
Early attempts to measure teaching efficiency were
primarily concerned with enabling superintendents and
77
principals to be more objective in arriving at administra
tive decisions. Many of the rating devices were discussed
in chapter three. However, some of the early rating in-
; I
:struments were developed for supervisory purposes; and i
I
some, often in more modern form, are in use today. Some of
these teacher measuring devices are discussed in the follow
ing paragraphs.
The Rugg rating scale. Progress in the teacher
rating movement was slow and spotty in the early 1^20's.
In many cities teacher rating plans failed. Rating scales
I
jwere introduced, tried for a year or two and then dropped
I
I as unsatisfactory. Nearly always they were opposed by the
I teachers themselves. Frequently the principal and super- i
intendant were skeptical of their value. Rugg listed three
causes of the lack of success and acceptance of early
measurement instruments: (1) Rating schemes were not aimed
primarily at self-improvement. The basic reason for fail
ure was the element of rating from above by an administrator.
(2) Qualities of teachers were vaguely described, unobjec
tive, and indefinite. (3) There was much duplication—
traits on rating forms often overlapped.
The purpose of the Rugg rating scale was self
^H. 0. Rugg, "Self Improvement of Teachers Through
Self Rating," The Elementary School Journal, 20:671^,
February, 1959 «
78
improvement by teachers through a process of self-rating.
Rugg felt that improvement of teachers in service rested
upon the initial step of self-criticism. While he conceded
that personal exhortation by the principal might stimulate
some teachers to improve their teaching, he believed that
in practice this rarely happened. A desire and a plan to
improve efficiency could be stimulated from within more
helpfully and continuously, provided objective, impersonal
schemes were developed by which teachers could be made
2
critically conscious of their strengths and weaknesses.
The Moultrie evaluation program. Evaluation of
the growth of teachers in service takes on added meaning
when the changes occurring in individuals can be viewed in
relation to changes in the staff generally, in the students,
in the curriculum and in the community. The program
carried on by Moultrie High School, Georgia, was under the
sponsorship of the Commission on Teacher Education. It
represented an evaluation of an ongoing program of teacher
education as well as of individual teacher growth*
The study, carried out in 1939* focused attention
on the competence required of teachers in the fulfillment
of their responsibilities. A statement of point of view
which was to indicate the direction the study would take,
^Ibid., p. 676.
79
included the following goals :
1. Teachers should grow in social understanding.
2. Teachers should grow in understanding of child
growth and development.
3. Teachers should grow in the ability to work demo
cratically with others.
i j . . Teachers should grow in the ability to utilize
community resources.
5. Teachers should increase their understanding of
the total school program.
6. Teachers should improve in physical, mental, and
emotional health.
7. Teachers should grow in ability to promote learning
on the part of boys and girls.3
Efforts of the teacher study groups were orientated
towards the needs of the children rather than towards their
own needs. They worked bn such problems as school and com
munity health, local and countrywide recreational needs,
and school, community, and home beautification programs.
Various committees were set up--a committee on the induc
tion of new teachers, on health, recreation, distribution
and care of instructional materials, care of buildings and
grounds, beautification of community and homes, cafeteria,
and several others. Teachers could choose the ones on
which they wished to serve.
Reports of the teachers to the Commission indicated
considerable accomplishment, not only in the direction of
the seven goals listed above, but also towards the dis-
^Maurice E. TS’ oyer, and C. Robert Pace, Evaluation
in Teacher Education (Prepared for the Commission on
Teacher Education. Washington, D. C.: American Council on
Education, I9W 4.) » pp. 28i|.-5*
8o
covery of some additional achievements--for example, an
increased desire to improve and an increased willingness
to experiment. The conclusive opinion of the teachers of
Moultrie was that conditions conducive to growth or learn
ing or increased teaching effectiveness are heavily weigh
ted with considerations of human relationships, personal
security, social acceptance, and respect.^
The Ohio Teaching Record. The diagnostic nature of
this device was described previously. Its use is best
illustrated by briefly describing a workshop in teacher
education held on the campus of Ohio State University in
19il-0, and the evaluation project which followed it.
Teachers participated in the experiment on a volun
tary basis. It was agreed that teachers would be observed
once a week for ten weeks, that anecdotal evidence from
each observation would be discussed with the teachers, and
that the copies of the Ohio Teaching Record on which the
observations were recorded would be sent to Ohio State
University for further study. Nearly six hundred teachers
from forty-one schools took part in the project.
At the end of the project a conference of repre
sentative participants was held to review and appraise the
outcomes. It was agreed that many positive outcomes had
4Ibid.. p. 301.
8l
resulted. It was felt that the experiment had actually
contributed to the improvement of teaching in many schools.
Forty-six per cent of the teachers said they enjoyed being
observed as much as once a week for ten weeks; twenty-six
per cent did not like it; the others had no definite
opinion. Liking or disliking being observed was clearly
related to rapport between observer and teacher; to such
factors as note taking during the observation, and the
nature of the follow-up conference
It was frequently emphasized that the Ohio Teaching
Record was being used as a tool and a guide, rather than
as an end in itself or as a "rating device." In spite of
this there were a number of teachers who continued to re
gard evaluation as something done to them which might
affect their security and status. If such an attitude had
been widespread, it clearly would have prevented the ex
periment from yielding positive results. The experiment
was designed to improve teaching. Working together in
this experiment the teachers and observers believed that
they developed increased ability and desire to discuss
common problems, greater awareness of educational phil
osophy and values, and greater readiness to encourage
5Ibid.. p. 254.
82
pupil participation in their classroom activities.^
Other evaluation devices and programs. Many types
of rating devices may he used for supervisory rating pur
poses. These include point rating scales, man-to-man
rating scales, teaching quality rating scales, and others.
Most of these devices, previously described in chapter
three, are generally associated with administrative ratings.
For this reason they are often regarded with suspicion and
mistrust. If properly presented, however, they can be of
much assistance in a supervisory evaluation program.
Boar dm an has this to say about the value of rating scales:
In spite of their many weaknesses, rating scales
are a valuable means of assisting teachers and super
visors in making a better evaluation of instruction.
They aid in directing attention to various aspects
of teaching which otherwise might be overlooked. It
should be understood, however, that check marks placed
on a scale opposite various items do not constitute a
pattern of teaching, but do furnish a basis for
evaluating total teaching.7
The cooperative approach to teacher evaluation, in
volving active participation of both teacher and super
visor, received considerable stimulus as a result of the
report of the American Council on Education in I9W 1 - * Pre
pared by Troyer and Pace.^ Evaluation is most effective
6Ibid., p. 255.
^Boardman, Douglass, and Bent, 0£. clt., p. 271.
^Troyer, and Pace, o£. cit.
83
in stimulating teacher growth when it is focused on prob
lems about which teachers are personally concerned--their
relationships with pupils, their effectiveness in the class
room, their own programs, and their part in school and com
munity life.
II. THE OBJECTIVES OP SUPERVISORY MERIT RATING
Tbe fundamental purpose of supervisory merit rating
is to evaluate all the aspects of the teacher's person
ality, knowledge, ability, and teaching techniques in order
that means may be found to improve any aspects which may be
lacking in effectiveness and thus increase the total teach
ing efficiency. Such a merit rating plan should be a part
of a broad guidance and in-service training program. In
the evaluation process, the criteria of good teaching,
rather than the rating techniques or devices used, must be
uppermost in the minds of those concerned. This criteria
should be developed by the administrator with his teachers
and members of his staff in terms of the local educational
program.9
Specific aims. While improvement of teaching
efficiency may be stated as a general objective of super
visory merit rating, it should be separated into more
9Moore and Walters, 0£. cit., p. 3^5*
84
specific aims which will serve as starting points for
group activities. Specific objectives, determined by each
group concerned, will vary according to local situations.
However, as suggestions for possible lines of attack upon
the larger problem of improving teaching efficiency. Board-
man offers the following goals :
1. To determine elements of teaching strength.
2. To locate causes of teaching problems, diffi
culties, and weaknesses.
3. /To direct teachers' attention to and stimulate
[ cooperative study of teaching problems and
difficulties and the elements of good teaching.
I 4.. j To stimulate teachers' self-study, self-criticism,
/ and self-evaluation of their teaching in order
' to capitalize strength and seek to overcome
; weakness.
5* To provide a basis for effective teacher-super-
visor cooperation for the improvement of teach-
ing.
6. To provide the supervisor with data so that he may
more effectively direct his efforts to aid
teachers.
7. To provide standards of teaching efficiency as
goals for teacher attainment.10
Value8 to be attained. In the past, measurement of
teaching efficiency was used too frequently by the super
visor as a basis for conferences in which teachers were
criticized or told how to teach. At present the emphasis
in the use of ratings is on cooperation and self-appraisal,
the supervisor merely acting as a consultant of advisor to
the teacher. Teachers should evaluate themselves, criti
cize their own efforts, set their own goals, and devise
10
Boardman, Douglass, and Bent, 0£. cit., p. 25l.
85
their own techniques for attaining them. The principal
may stimulate and help teachers to use the instruments for
measuring themselves and may offer suggestions and counsel
concerning means for strengthening the teacher's capacities.
In supervisory merit rating the emphasis in the pro
cess is not upon rating the teacher as efficient or in
efficient for purposes of administrative action, but upon
the attempt to aid the teacher in improving himself. In so
doing, it recognizes the strong points of the teacher as
the foundation upon which he may be encouraged to improve
further. When based upon means of gathering data which are
unbiased, impersonal, and as objective as possible, super
visory merit rating tends to create confidence on the part
of the teachers in the worth of the evaluation itself. It
provides for teachers' cooperation in the effort to improve
their efficiency. It directs the attention of the teachers
constantly to the study of their efforts in teaching as a
means of bringing about continued growth in effective-
11
ness.
III. THE ADMINISTRATION OP SUPERVISORY MERIT RATING
Unlike the question of merit pay, the impetus for a
supervisory merit rating program does not generally come
from boards of education or the public. This is probably
^^Ibld.. p. 252.
86
true because it does not have the dramatic and emotional
elements which characterize much of the merit pay contro
versy. It also lacks the simple, practical approach of
payment for value received.
Credit for the increase in use of supervisory merit
rating must be given to many groups, most of whom are
directly concerned with the educational process. Educa
tional writers, professors, administrators, organized
teacher groups, and boards of education have made signifi
cant contributions to the practice. The Commission on
Teacher Education of the American Council on Education has
done much to further supervisory evaluation programs. In
many instances, local committees on school improvement may
have helped to advance the program.
Authorization and development♦ Authority for any
formal supervisory rating program necessarily would have
to come from the board of education. There seems to be no
disagreement in the theory that any plan should be designed
to fit local school and community needs. It is also
generally agreed that the formulation of the rating program
should be a cooperative enterprise which would involve
boards of education, administrators, supervisors and
teachers. When voluntarily assumed as a cooperative re
sponsibility of the group, the determination of objectives
assists the individual in identifying himself with the
87
evaluation program and creates a vital interest in progress
12
toward the objectives.
Rating policies. In organizing to encourage pro
fessional growth of the individual teacher, the school com
munity should realize that school personnel must be taken
where they are and as they are. Nothing can be done about
previous preparation of individuals. When employed, these
persons presumably were considered competent and suffi
ciently well prepared for their duties. Moreover, the pro
gram of appraisal should be continuous and comprehensive.
Techniques of appraisal must be flexible and adaptable to
change, since goals set by the school community are also
13
tentative and subject to change as varying needs develop.
Teacher evaluation should be a process for at least
three persons--the teacher, the immediately responsible
administrator, and a special supervisor. Persons whose
special responsibility includes teacher evaluation must be
selected for their positions with great care. They must
be trained adequately and prepared for their responsi
bility; and enough time must be provided for adequate
appraisal to be made. School boards which expect valid
judgments of staff members from superficially conceived
1 p
"^Moore, and Walters, loc ♦ cit.
^^Better Than Rating ; New Approaches to Appraisal of
Teaching Services. Commission on Teacher Education Washing- Teaching Services. Commission on Teacher Education Washi
ton: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Develop-
88
and partly sensed responsibility can be reasonably sure of
not getting them.^^
In practice, supervisory merit rating programs
seldom conform to policies recommended as desirable.
Studies indicate that the usual practice is to rate perma
nent teachers once a year. A very few districts rated
teachers two or three times a yearThis type of rating
usually involves filling out the required forms and a
supervisor-teacher conference--then the entire process is
forgotten until the next year. It is obvious that little
or no improvement in teaching efficiency is probable unless
ratings are made on a continuous basis; and unless the
ratings are put to a constructive use.
IV. METHODS OP EVALUATING TEACHING EFFICIENCY
In an opinion survey, Hicks and Jameson contacted
school leaders and representatives of colleges and uni
versities to find out what procedures best typified current
practices in evaluating the work of teachers. Six tech
niques were ranked as follows from most representative of
current practice to least representative:
ment, 1950), pp. 68-9.
^^Vander Werf, op. cit., p. 50
^5coen, op. cit., p. 395*
89
1. No formal rating plan
2. Rating scale or check list
3. Verbal reports by principal to superintendent
i j . . Written reports following classroom visitation
by administrator
5. Self-appraisal by the teacher
6. Group evaluation by teachers and principal
The last two techniques, self-appraisal by the teach
er and group evaluation by teachers and principal were
rated quite low among current practices. Thus the dilemma
in which educators find themselves is that these two prac
tices are least utilized even though there exists within
the structure of these procedures the greatest possibili
ties for judging teaching competence.
Why should this be so? Three reasons are suggested
by Vander Werf: (1) In spite of verbal acceptance to the
contrary, many so-called practical men believe that people
need external controls. Some must be pushed or pressured
into working up to standard. (2) Administrators may be
doubtful about encouraging creativity or their own abili
ties to deal with it. Creative people are often desig
nated as "characters" or "troublemakers," Basically,
creativity and conformity are diametric opposites. All of
this may derive from a static concept of administration in
^^William V. Hicks, and Marshall G. Jameson, The
Elementary School Principal at Work (New Jersey: Prentice-
Hall, Inc., 195?)* P* 222.
l?Ibid.
90
which regulations, smooth operation, and efficiency are
keys. (3) Some administrators misunderstand the nature of
professional growth. Growth is a subtle, often evasive
process, deeply grounded in personality patterns, most
facets of which are present when a teacher first assumes
his responsibility. Growth is not necessarily related to
external manipulation by supervisors. Normally, growth in
teachers can be encouraged only in an atmosphere of freedom
to learn and inquire, through the behavior of stimulating
leadership, and in cooperative attacks on problems of
*1 o
mutual and significant concern.
Rating devices were discussed in the previous chap
ters. Their application to supervisory rating is feasible,
provided they are properly used and they are acceptable to
the parties concerned--teachers and supervisors. Three
merit rating procedures deserve amplification, however,
because of their particular adaptability to the supervisory
rating process.
Scales or guides for self-evaluation. These usually
consist of a list of characteristics which teachers may use
to rate themselves. The teacher rates himself, usually on
a three to five point scale, on questions comprising the
list of traits. 3elf-evaluation devices are valuable if
^^Vander Werf, o£. cité, p. 23
91
all characteristics comprising the major areas of teaching
and the teacher»s qualities are included, and if the scale
is properly constructed. Any plan of self-evaluation is
limited in purpose, especially if intended primarily for
the teacher's growth and development. It does direct the
teacher»s attention to desirable elements in teaching with
suggestions for self-improvement. The plan lacks emphasis
on pupil growth and achievement factors, and on wholesome
and impartial supervisory criticism.^9
The teacher himself is in the best position to know
whether or not he is achieving desirable results, hence
should be the primary individual in appraising his own
effectiveness. Evaluation must not stop at this point,
however. The self-appraisal should be but one aspect of a
complete evaluation, guidance and in-service training pro
gram.
Joint evaluation procedures. In plans of this type,
the work of the teacher is evaluated by the teacher and the
rating officer, usually the principal. In some forms used
in joint evaluation, traits or good practices for teachers
are listed or described, enabling the teacher to know what
the school system considers necessary to good teaching.
Many times conferences on the results of the evaluation are
held. In many instances, the teacher and principal ex-
19Yeager, op^. cit., p. 310,
92
change forms, enabling the teacher to learn of his defici
encies as viewed by the administrator.
Joint evaluation can be of considerable value if
mutual respect and confidence exist between the teacher and
principal. If the teacher feels that he must conform to
the ideas of the principal in order to get a good rating,
then the use of this type of procedure is of little value.
Joint evaluation plans should be based on educational goals
cooperatively developed and mutually acceptable to both
teachers and administrators. An understanding of what con
stitutes good teaching and good learning should be reached
by all concerned. Like self-appraisals, joint evaluation
plans are inadequate if used alone. They should constitute
PO
only a part of the complete evaluation program.^
Teacher evaluation by students. In this type of
evaluation plan, the teacher may ask his students to
appraise certain aspects of his performance. It is not
recommended for inclusion in a formal evaluation program.
However, its use may prove beneficial to individual teach
ers who wish to verify their own impressions of specific
teaching methods and techniques. The device may be used
to appraise certain aspects of a teacher*s characteristics
and personality as well as of his performance. It is
^^Moore, and Walters, o£. cit., p.
93
pointed out that many teachers continually evaluate their
own work for the purpose of planning and developing im
proved methods of subject matter presentation. In con
nection with such a self-appraisal, a carefully planned
student evaluation of teaching performance may serve to re
inforce or revise a teacher*s views.
An example of a formal plan of teacher evaluation by
students was that developed by Oosgrove in a study at Ohio
State University. The rating instrument devised in con
nection with the study was called "The Descriptive Ranking
Form for Teachers." In experimental applications of the
form, college professors were rated upon four specific
factors: (1) knowledge and organization of subject matter,
(2) adequacy of relations with students in class, (3)
adequacy of plans and procedures in class, and (I 4 .) en
thusiasm in working with students. Students were asked to
consider and mark the relatively strong and weak aspects of
each professor's performance. While individual profiles
were constructed as a result of the student ratings, the
form was not designed to indicate how one teacher compared
with another. Oosgrove felt that the results of the study
proved to be interesting and significant to the professors
^^Don J. Cosgrove, "Diagnostic Rating of Teacher
Performance," Journal of Educational Psychology, $0:200,
October, 1959*
94.
who participated.^^
V. THE PROBLEMS IN SUPERVISORY MERIT RATING
The measurement of teaching efficiency is a very
complicated process. However, some of the difficulties
which are inherent in merit rating for salary purposes do
not occur to the same degree in the supervisory evaluation
process. Nevertheless, the difficulties are very real and
very large, notwithstanding the study and research already
focused on the subject. For purposes of better understand
ing, the difficulties may be classified into three broad
types: (1) those inherent in the nature of the teaching
process, (2) those relating to the means and techniques of
measurement, and (3) those arising from teacher attitudes
and opinions toward the merit rating process.
Problems In the nature of teaching. Many complex
inter-relationships enter into the teaching process. On
one side are the characteristics of the teacher himself—
his physical make-up, his knowledge and attainments, his
professional skill and abilities, and his psychological
traits and characteristics. On the other side are the
pupils with all their variations in home background, in
tellectual abilities, emotional attitudes, physical
^^Ibid., p. 2$4. .
95
characteristics, and their degree of interest in school and
education. Related to the teacher-student aspects are:
the nature of the subject to be taught, the character of
the instructional equipment, and the administrative and
supervisory activities and procedures.
Teaching involves the constant interplay of all of
these varying and changing factors. With present measure
ment techniques, it is impossible to isolate the effect of
these varied elements upon teaching efficiency. From the
complex aspects of the teacher-pupil relationships, it is
exceedingly difficult to select the basic elements, fac
tors, and characteristics which make for teaching success.
Gommenting on this problem, Boardman gives the following
illustration:
Probably every teacher or administrator of ex
perience has seen teachers apparently fail in some
school or with some class under one set of condi
tions, and succeed in another school or with another
class. The very nature of the teaching process and
the complexity of the relationships involved makes
the evaluation of teaching efficiency extremely
difficult. 24.
Problems in the methods of measurement. The
measurement of teaching efficiency in the past, and to a
large extent in the present, has been based upon data
gathered through casual observations or general
^^Boardman, Douglass, and Bent, op. cit., p. 2$3.
96
impressions. Ratings made on the basis of these data re
flected the personal experiences and opinions of the rater
and wore subject to error and prejudice. With the growth
of the scientific movement in teacher rating, many devices
were developed in an attempt to set objective standards
for the measurement process.
The problem in these attempts at objective measure
ment was two-fold. First, it was necessary to select the
critical elements or items which related so closely to
teaching efficiency that measurement of them would repre
sent a valid measure of the total efficiency of the teacher.
Second, it was necessary to devise means by which to
measure these critical elements or items accurately and
objectively. The intricate relationships in the teaching
process made it extremely difficult to analyze and dis
entangle such critical elements and to measure them. For
many elements which are believed to be most significant in
teaching, such as personality traits, no objective means
of measurement has been devised. Consequently, the evalu
ation of teaching efficiency must still depend largely upon
subjective judgment.
The subjective nature of much of the measurement
process does not mean that scientific rating devices should
be abandoned. It has been shown in tests of reliability
97
and validity that many such devices are definitely superior
to general impressions. Furthermore, the objections to a
rating device when used to determine salaries do not
necessarily apply to the same device when used for super
visory purposes.
Teacher attitudes toward merit rating. Growing in
part out of the subjective nature of techniques for the
evaluation of teaching efficiency, and in part out of the
administrative uses of the evaluation made, teachers
generally have developed an attitude of fear and suspicion
toward merit rating. It is unfortunate for supervision
that the administrative uses of the evaluation of teaching
have been so emphasized, for the attitude of the teacher
toward such an evaluation often affects the supervisor-
teacher relationship. This is particularly true when the
supervisor is also the administrator, as is the situation
in a majority of the high schools. The result is that the
principal as supervisor faces problems arising out of the
teachers* antagonism toward the attempts to measure teach
ing efficiency and must find means to overcome their fears
and to establish an attitude of cooperative effort to im
prove teaching.
^^Ibid.. p. 255.
98
VI. THE PLACE OP MERIT RATING IN THE SCHOOL PROGRAM
Merit rating must be an integral part of the school
program for improving the educational process. The objec
tives of merit rating cannot be attained unless the true
purpose of the rating process is improvement and growth
through the analysis of strengths and weaknesses of the
person evaluated. Too frequently, rating is considered an
end in itself, with the sole objective being a recorded
score or rank. Often teachers feel that the principal or
other rating supervisor is sitting in judgment and render
ing a final verdict. Instead, the appraisal program should
be one of counseling and guidance, giving inspiration and
encouragement that will lead to self improvement.
Ratings must be used. Evaluation is of little
value unless the weaknesses revealed are corrected.
Evidence as to the effectiveness of a teacher has value
only to the extent it is understood, accepted, and used by
the teacher in self-improvement. Collecting information
for a personnel file is of little value, unless the in
formation in the file serves as a basis for action. More
over, information collected or noted is of little value
in teacher improvement unless it is timely. Teachers
should have the opportunity to know their weaknesses, to
overcome their difficulties, and to defend and justify
99
their work. To be meaningful, suggestions and comments
concerning the work of the teacher should be made as
situations are noted and not allowed to accumulate for the
once-a-year or once-a-semester conference. Complimentary
remarks are as important as those of fault finding. This
process will require time of the administrator but will be
well worth-while, especially as it makes the teacher a
more efficient part of the program.
Ratings must be constructive. Cooperative develop
ment and use of an evaluation program may provide a means
for promoting good relationships within the school. If
properly handled, such a program provides the administrator
with an opportunity to reveal himself as a source of help
rather than a source of judgment. Ratings involving com
parisons between teachers create extremely precarious
situations. Such ratings may become a real menace to staff
morale and careless use may destroy completely the "team
work” in a school system. To be worthwhile, merit rating
must be a part of a total evaluation plan which is designed
as a guidance and assistance program to promote the growth
and effectiveness of individual teachers. Moore sums up
his beliefs on the subject in these words:
Teacher evaluation is an opportunity, not just a
^?Moore, and Walters, o£. cit. , p. 34-7.
100
responsibility. \%ien done to_ teachers it is generally
harmful; when done b% teachers in cooperation with
administrators it is desirable.28
Opportunities for prefessional growth. Merit
rating must play an important part in a comprehensive pro
gram of guidance and in-service training. Such a program
should provide opportunities to acquire new ideas and im
proved methods; and should encourage teachers to do their
best work. Opportunities of this kind can best be planned
and developed through a cooperative effort by the school
community.
Details of a total enrichment program are not with
in the scope of this study. However, the following are
some activities which may be provided as part of such a pro*
gram: local workshops and projects, local and national
conferences and meetings, visits to other school systems,
professional classes at colleges and universities, teaching
in summer sessions and university extension classes,
writing for professional magazines, representing the
schools on public committees, and experimentation in class
room procedures*^9
Evaluation plans in operation. A relatively small
body of information was available in regard to supervisory
^Qjbld.. p. 3 1 4. 9.
29Setter Than Rating, op. cit., pp. 70-4-*
101
merit rating as used in a program separate and distinct
from a merit-pay plan. The lack of literature on this
phase of the subject indicates that formal evaluation pro
grams of a comprehensive nature for the purpose of improv
ing teaching performance are few in number.
Two supervisory merit rating programs seem worthy
of special mention. First is the teacher evaluation plan
of the Cincinnati School District, Ohio, which dates back
to about 1934- was revised in 194-0 ^nd 1952. This plan
is described in a pamphlet on teacher evaluation by Vander
Werf.^^ Second is the Glencoe School District, Illinois,
Gareer-Teacher Plan which was started in 194-6.^^ A few
of its unique elements are described in the following para
graphs :
Probably the most significant feature of the Glencoe
plan is that teachers are employed on a twelve month basis.
A five week period, following the end of school in June
until August 1, is a period of professional growth for all
Glencoe teachers. Curriculum materials, methods, and
other phases of the school program are evaluated, studied,
and revised during this period. Workshops are conducted
by Glencoe counselors, administrators, and teachers.
30vander Werf, op. cit., pp. 33-7.
Jack Cushman, "The Glencoe Car:eer-Teacher Plan,"
The Journal of Teacher Education, 8:l$4-“8, June, 1957*
102
Workshops and study groups may be led by experts brought
In from universities, other school systems, and lay groups.
At the time that new teachers and about half of the
experienced staff members are engaged in the on-campus
activities, the remainder of the staff is involved in other
programs of professional improvement. Graduate work and
domestic or foreign travel are the usual pursuits of other
staff members. Foreign travel is encouraged by a $2$0 pay
ment toward expenses by the Board of Education. Some
teachers also elect to take part in the recreation program
conducted for the Glencoe children during the summer.
The Glencoe Career-Teacher plan is described as
follows by Jack Cushman, Administrative Assistant of the
Glencoe public schools:
It is not an individual merit-pay plan. Rather, it
is a plan that attempts to reward the merit of an
entire faculty. Today it is an integral part of the
Glencoe School System. To imagine operating the educa
tional program without it would be a disconcerting
thought to the faculty, the administration, the Board
of Education, and to the community.32
VII. SUPERVISORY AND SALARY MERIT RATING COMBINED
It was noted in chapter three that the trend in
merit-pay plans is toward a broader concept of evaluation
which includes a positive effort to improve teaching
32ibld., p. 154.
103
efficiency. Whether these two purposes of merit rating,
combined in one plan, are compatible is a debatable ques
tion. Rose, Assistant Superintendent of Schools, Ogden,
Utah, believes that they may work together in harmony.
Speaking in reference to the comprehensive study made by
the Utah School Merit Rating Committee, he stated in part:
The committee started from the premise that the
whole process was not worth the time and effort un
less it could lead to improvements in teaching* If
the only purpose of the program were to make a few
salary decisions, this detailed, thorough evaluation
approach could not be justified.
Sound personnel evaluation and merit salary pro
grams for teachers, and others in the schools, are
feasible if a district is willing and able to pay the
price in terms of leadership, time and effort to gg
develop and use the necessary criteria and procedures.
On the other hand, many writers in the field of
personnel administration in education feel that merit
ratings must be a part of a guidance procedure, directed
at helping the teacher do a more effective job of teaching
children. Concerning its application to salaries, Moore
writes in part as follows:
Ratings involving comparisons between teachers
create extremely precarious situations. Such
rating may become a real menace to staff morale and
careless use may destroy completely the *teamwork'
in a school system.%
^^Rose, op. cit., pp. $2-3.
34-Moore, and Walters, op. cit. , p. 34-9*
104.
There Is relatively little information available
concerning the effectiveness of a combined supervisory and
salary merit rating plan. Studies indicate that there has
been an increased use of merit rating as an aid to super
vision; but they do not indicate the nature, frequency, or
comprehensiveness of the supervisory rating process. How
ever, the general policy of rating once-a-year or once-a-
semester furnishes an important clue to the current status
of supervisory rating plans. A system which depends upon
this periodic procedure for teacher-supervisor contact and
advisement can have little positive effect in improving
teacher effectiveness*^^
^^Ibid., p. 34-8.
CHAPTER V
CONCEPTS OP MERIT RATING COMPARED: EDUCATION,
PUBLIC SERVICE, AND PRIVATE INDUSTRY
One of the basic problems in any organization is the
determination of the relative efficiency or service value
of its members* So important is this process that the
literature dealing with the subject has assumed voluminous
proportions. Yet despite the attention it remains probably
the most intractable problem facing the staff administra
tor. Despite frequent disillusionment in the past, it
presents a formidable challenge and one which is being
taken up on all sides today. The problem is one which will
not be put down either in the public service or in large
commercial establishments, for it is a central one upon
which depends the solution to many others*^
The barriers in the way of an adequate solution to
the problem of employee ratings are great, owing both to
its complexities and to the technical difficulties in
volved* Nevertheless they must be faced, for the only
alternative is to rely upon uncontrolled, subjective
Iwilliam E. Mosher, Donald J. Kingsley, and 0.
Glenn Stahl, Public Personnel Administration (third
edition; New York: Harper and Brothers, 1950), p. 364. .
lo6
evaluations for management and personnel purposes. Etoploy-
668 are rated and will necessarily be rated, whether for
mally or informally, comprehensively or casually, continu
ously or periodically. The problem is to devise a method
whereby the ratings will be as unprejudiced, objective and
uniform as possible.
I. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS OF COMPARISON
From the introduction above it is apparent that many
similarities in merit rating exist in education, the public
service and private industry. The purpose of this chapter
is to study and compare certain aspects of the subject.
Purposes of comparison. A detailed study of merit
rating in the public service and private industry was not
within the scope of this thesis. The comparison made in
this chapter had two main purposes: (1) to ascertain the
degree of similarity of merit rating and merit-pay plans
with reference to objectives, administration, and problems
encountered, and (2) to determine whether any theories,
techniques, or devices used in the public service and
private industry might prove desirable for application or
additional experimentation in the field of education.
Limitations of comparison. This study did not
attempt a detailed analysis of merit rating and merit-pay
107
in the public service or private industry. A review of the
literature in the field was selective and limited. An
attempt was made to study the latest available basic text
and reference materials. Recent periodical and case study
materials were also examined. Furthermore, the comparison
has been limited to a. relatively few aspects of merit rating
and merit-pay.
II. MERIT RATING IN PUBLIC SERVICE
The development of merit rating or service rating
concepts in the public service followed a pattern similar
to that in education and industry. Adoption of the Civil
Service Act of 1883 and the creation of the Civil Service
Commission resulted in the start of a merit system for the
selection of federal employees. Later, in 1 9 1 2, the
authority to prescribe a system of efficiency ratings was
given to the Civil Service Commission. In I923 the federal
Classification Act included two sections which clarified
the purposes of efficiency ratings and the procedures to be
followed in their application.^ Concurrent with develop
ments in the federal government, civil service systems and
personnel agencies were established in other large units
------
^0. Glenn Stahl, "Overhauling Federal Efficiency
Ratings," Personnel Administration. 6:13, September, 194-3*
108
of state and local government.
Historical overview. The first extensive use of
efficiency ratings occurred during World War I, when the
Army established an appraisal system for officers. This
marked a real advance over earlier experiments which had
usually involved the use of a school-type of grading
system on a scale of 0 - 100 or A - P. The Army system
was a man-to-man type of comparison scale which listed a
number of personal traits or qualities. It sought to
objectify judgments by prescribing that the rating officer
should visualize the best and the poorest and three inter
mediate steps in terms of individuals whom he knew when
marking each trait on the form.^ For a number of years
the man-to-man rating scale was acclaimed and adopted by
other public agencies and by private business as well.
However, it proved to b e deficient in two important
respects: (1) It specified qualities of too general a
nature which meant different things to different super
visors. And (2) the visualized "yardsticks" of various
' k
supervisors might or might not be comparable
Difficulties which arose with the use of the man-
^0. Glenn Stahl, Public Personnel Administration
(New York: Harper and Brothers, 1956), p. 32$.
4lbld.
109
to-man device led to further experimentation and the de
velopment in the 192O's of the graphic rating scale. This
form included a list of traits or qualities which were sub-,
divided into appropriate descriptive categories. By check
ing the graphic form the rater indicated his Judgment of the
degree to which the trait or quality was possessed by the
employee. The graphic scale offered a valuable aid to
making a quantitative analysis of the employee. However, it
was open to objection on two major grounds : (l.,)MRating8
made on the basis of graphic scales tended to be very sub
jective. (2) Raters disagreed on the interpretation of the
phrases which described the traits. On the other hand the
graphic scale had an advantage over many other rating
devices. It was relatively easy to administer. The super
visor had to rate a large number of employees. He was a
busy man, and he became discouraged if he found the rating
system very complicated.^
In a recent pamphlet of the Public Personnel Associ
ation, Robert Batson stated: "Probably the most common
evaluation method in the public service consists of rating
a number of traits or personal characteristics, each trait
being rated on a numerical or adjective scale.Why is
5pelix A. Nigro, Public Personnel Administration
(New York; Henry Holt and Company, 1959)f P* 2 9 8.
^Robert J. Batson, Employee Evaluation: A Review of
Current Methods and a Su^pcested New Approach (Personnel
Report No. $71. Chicago: Public Personnel Association,
June, 19$7), p. 6.
110
the graphic rating scale so widely used at the present
time ? Presumably because it is just as good as most other
rating devices; and it is easy to administer. Using the
graphic rating scale, one supervisor can quickly rate
dozens of employees. The form itself is also easy to con
struct, and paper work is kept at a minimum.
Another rating device which played an Important part
in the development of merit rating concepts was the Probst
Service Rating System. It was developed in the 1930 * s by
J. B. Probst, who was then Chief Examiner of the St. Paul,
Minnesota, Civil Service Commission. He listed about a
hundred characteristics which were considered objectively
observable. Unfortunately, in spite of its advantages, the
sheer burden of considering so many items, added to some
other shortcomings, led to its decline in use.^
The Beyle-Kingsley Evaluation scale represented a
variation of the Probst device. Items were scaled by the
psychophysical method developed by Thurstone. It consisted
of landmark statements of observable behavior characteris
tics in an employee, the presence or absence of which could
be readily reported by a supervisor. This rating instru
ment seems to have had a maximum of objectivity. However,
experimentation with this approach has been limited.^
7Stahl, Public Personnel Administration, pp.3 2 6-7.
P. 3 2 7.
Ill
A comparatively recent development in the merit
rating process has been a plan based upon performance
standards. The United States Civil Service Commission
defines them as follows: "Performance standards are state
ments that tell the employee how well he must perform a
task to be considered a satisfactory employee. Standards
cover how much, how accurate, in what time period, or in
what manner the task is to be performed. They also tell
the employee how performance is measured, whenever the
Q
standard is not expressed in terms of quantity.The
standards are prepared by the supervisor, after consulta
tion with the employee.
Many personnel technicians believe that the sub
jective nature of merit ratings are reduced substantially
by using a performance standards system. Another ad
vantage results from the requirement of an evaluation
based upon how the employee executes each major task in a
j obi This element makes it much more difficult for the
supervisor to give a final rating based upon his general
impression of the employee. Another desirable feature of
performance standards is that they make it easier for the
supervisor to explain his ratings to the employee. If the
9civil Service Handbook 8-809, Instructions on Civil
Service Commi ssion Performance Rating System (Washington:
U. S. Civil Service Commission, August, 1954-)> P* 4-> cited
by Nigro, op. cit., pp. 300-1.
112
standard is clear and the subordinate has not met it, there
should be no argument. In contrast, character trait ratings
have proven very difficult to defend.
As in the field of education, there has been a per
sistent effort on the part of personnel officials in the
public service to use merit rating systems in spite of the
difficulties encountered. Also, there is a similar trend
toward an emphasis upon improving employee performance in
stead of merely rating character traits and past activities
for the purpose of making administrative decisions.
The ob.1 ectives of merit rating in public service.
There are two approaches to the subject of employee evalu
ation. The first is the traditional management approach
which leans heavily upon the judgment of supervisors as
expressed by efficiency reports or service ratings. The
gedond approach is what might be termed the performance im
provement approach wherein the employees are analyzed by
supervisors for the purposes of placement and guidance
rather than on a competitive or punitive basis.
Current writings in public personnel administration
indicate a definite trend toward improvement of employee
performance as one of the basic purposes of a good system
^^Nigro, op. cit. , pp. 30i j . - 5.
John M. Pfiffner, The Supervision of Personnel
(New York: Prentice-Hall, 19$1 ), p. 282.
113
of evaluation. Stahl states that performance reports,
like other personnel tools must be adapted to the ends
they are to serve. He lists the more important purposes
of employee ratings as follows :
1. To develop standards of satisfactory performance--
clarifying what quality and quantity of work of
a given type is acceptable and adequate for the
interests of the service.
2. To improve employee performance by identifying
and measuring strong and weak points of in
dividual performance, recording evaluations in
objective terms, encouraging employees in their
work, and giving constructive counsel to employ
ees concerning their shortcomings.
3. To refine and validate personnel techniques--
serving as a check on qualification requirements,
examinations, placement techniques, training
needs, or instances of maladjustment.
I 4.. To objectify the application of personnel
policies— in selecting candidates for placement
and promotion, in administering salary advance
ments within grade, in determining the order of
separation under necessary reductions in force,
and in otherwise recognizing superior or inferior
service. 12
One of the objections to merit rating systems in the
past has been directed at the effort to serve too many pur
poses with a single tool. An evaluation method that is
specific enough to be valid and yet broad enough to serve
all the purposes listed above may be impossible to achieve.
The question is not whether administrative and supervisory
actions should be guided by relatively objective measures,
but whether all such actions can be covered by one com
prehensive system.
l^stahl. Public Personnel Administration, p. 331*
114-
The administrative aspects of merit rating in pub
lic service. Evaluation methods and devices will not work
unless they have the full understanding, participation,
and acceptance of the supervisors and employees. Many ob
jections to rating systems in the past arose from the
mantle of secrecy and mystery which was characteristic of
their use. Every effort should be made to explain the
operation of the system to the employees and to build their
confidence in it. In fact it would be well if they could
participate in establishing it.13 Some public personnel
agencies have made significant contributions to the element
of supervisor and employee understanding by the development
of instructional materials and uniform guides for raters.
Evaluation and efforts to improve employee perform
ance should be continuous rather than an infrequent,
periodic process. Recording of the judgment calls for
periodic action, however. The frequency of reports should
depend upon local considerations and needs. It may be
desirable to report frequently on new employees but let
reports on longer-term workers depend upon changes in per
formance or other special considerations.^4-
Employees should be informed of their evaluations.
13Stahl, Public Personnel Administration, p. 331
115
and supervisors should be encouraged totalk them over
with employees individually. This provides an ideal oppor
tunity for personal counseling and guidance and for the
improvement of employee morale. Also there is an opportu
nity to enlist the participation of the employee in the
evaluation process. Experiments with self-rating by em
ployees have shown that they are generally more severe in
estimating their performance value and determining areas in
which improvement is needed than are their supervisors.
Many difficulties and objections to the rating process can
be overcome if the evaluation is made a Joint enterprise--
a responsibility of the employee as well as the super-
15
visor.
Finally, performance reports 'should not be instru
ments of discipline. Merit rating should be directed to
improving employee effectiveness, not to analyzing personal
attitudes or motives. Currently there is a trend toward
greater use of an evaluation system as a tool of super
vision rather than for the purpose of determining admini
strative actions*^^
Merit rating trends in the federal government. Be
fore 1 9 5 0, one uniform trait rating plan was used through-
^^Ibld.. p. 3 3 2.
l^Higro, op. clt.. p. 2 9 7.
Il6
out the federal service. The Civil Service Commission
formulated the plan and devised the rating form. The
federal departments and agencies were required to rate all
employees covered by the Classification Act of 1923 in
accordance with this system. Each agency administered its
own rating program, the commission's role being to offer
advice and suggestions. Five levels of rating were pro
vided: excellent, very good, good, fair, and unsatis
factory.^^
Thousands of federal employees were rated by means
of this one form. But, although relatively easy to ad
minister, it proved generally unsatisfactory as an evalu
ation system. Its weaknesses were clearly stated by the
Task Force on Personnel of the first Hoover Commission.^^
First, a major fault of the system was the mandatory
requirement of a "public reward or a public penalty. " The
law made it impossible for the employee to be promoted or
given a within-grade increase unless his last efficiency
rating was good or better. Furthermore, he had to be dis
missed if it were less than good. The task force found
p. 307.
1 ft
^Task Force Report on Federal Personnel. Com
mission on Organization of the Executive Branch of the
Government (Washington: Government Printing Office, 19i|-9)»
pp. 6 0-2, 7 1-2, cited by Nigro, op. cit., p. 3O7.
117
that supervisors were unwilling to assume the responsi
bility of reward or penalty decisions. Therefore the
ratings were meaningless.
Second, so many appeals were allowed from the im
mediate supervisor's rating that this made every rating
the possible beginning of a long battle between employee
and supervisor. Hearings held on these appeals frequently
were time-consuming and tended to put the supervisor on
trial. Rather than face all of this, many supervisors
simply gave ratings which would satisfy the employee.
Third, the system did not encourage the supervisor
to use the periodic ratings as a means of helping the
employee to improve his performance. Since he could not
express his true opinions, all he did was comply per
functorily with the mechanics of the rating system.
To remedy these faults, the first Hoover Commission
made the following recommendations:
1. That summary adjective ratings be eliminated.
Instead of them, supervisors would be required,
at least annually, to evaluate each subordinate
on three counts: (a) his past performance; (b)
his progress in improving his work; and (c) his
growth potential,
2. That the supervisor should have a frank, con
fidential chat with the employee after making t
this evaluation. In this discussion, he would
give his opinion as to not only the latter's
weaknesses but also his strengths. Furthermore,
he would work out with him a concrete program
for correcting his deficiencies and speeding
his future development. . .
3. That supervisors should be trained in how to
evaluate employee services. Relatively little
118
attention had been given to this phase.
I 4. . That the connection of ratings with within-grade
Increases and other "public rewards and penal
ties" should be ended. The supervisor would
report separately on the employee in relation
to each possible change in his status. . .1 9
All of these recommendations were approved by the
first Hoover Commission. Some of them were then incor
porated shortly thereafter in the Performance Rating Act
of 1 9 5 0, There is almost unanimous agreement that the
1950 law is a substantial improvement over the previous
legislation. However, it too has failed to produce a
satisfactory system of employee evaluation. The law states
a purpose— to base ratings on actual performance and to
strengthen supervisor-employee relations--but then makes
it impossible for this result to be achieved. It con
tinues to tie in salary advancements and other personnel
actions with the ratings. Congress attempted to com
promise. It adopted some of the recommendations of the
first Hoover Commission but not all. It did not enact
into law the most important of these proposals, the one
which is the key to all the others. The root cause of the
difficulty--namely, the system of "public rewards and
penalties"--was not eliminated.
The second Hoover Commission Task Force on Per-
^^Mgro, o£. cit., pp. 3 0 8-9 .
^Qjbld.. p. 3 1 0.
119
sonnel and Civil Service, which reported the results of
its studies in 1 9 5 5^ came to the same conclusions as its
predecessor. The task force explained the weaknesses of
the 1950 law as follows:
If a performance system is to be useful, it must be
an adjunct of good supervision and not an end in it
self. The task force, therefore, suggests that the
emphasis be shifted from the rated to the raters,
and that efforts be concentrated on getting super
visors to know and understand their people. The
emphasis should also be changed from abstract ev'alu-
ative judgments, that end in a rating for the record,
to judgments on which the employing agencies should,
could, and would act.^l
The task force recommended the abolition of the
present rating system. However, it did not propose the
elimination of employee evaluation. It suggested a differ
ent approach: simply requiring every supervisor to report
significant facts about his subordinates periodically. He
would report to his own superiors and the personnel office
on the following points:
1. Those employees who give promise of being able,
after appropriate training, to assume posts
of higher responsibility. He would also pre
pare specific steps for developing the potenti
alities of such employees. . .
2. Those subordinates who deserve meritorious
awards. . • given for exceptional accomplish
ment. . .
3. Those who should not receive within-gr§de salary
increases because their services are unsatis
factory.
21
Task Force Report on Personnel and Civil Service,
Commission on Organization of the Executive Branch of the
Government (Washington; Government Printing Office, 1955)j
p, 9 2, cited by Nigro, 0£. cit., pp. 311-12.
120
1 ) - . Those who are misfits in their present assign
ments and should be transferred to other work.
5. Those who should be dismissed from the service.22
These reports would be required at least once a
year, but the supervisor would be expected to report more
often as he saw fit. If he came to the conclusion that an
employee should be discharged, he would make this recom
mendation without delay. In all probability, it would not
be feasible for him to include his observations on all five
points in one report. The second Hoover Commission approved
all of these recommendations of the task force, but no
21
action has been taken on them by the Congress.
The problems and issues of merit rating in public
service. The problems and difficulties which arise con
sistently in the application of merit rating systems may be
divided into three groups: (l) problems resulting from
the various purposes for which the rating process is used.
(2 ) problems developing because of the weaknesses of rating
techniques and devices. (3) problems arising because of
personal attitudes and abilities.
There is a strong conviction held by many personnel
officials and writers in the field of public personnel
administration that the approach to employee evaluation
^■^Nigro, o£. clt., p. 312.
121
should be clinical, constructive and theraputic rather
than competitive and punitive.^^ Current emphasis in
evaluation programs has been directed toward two main ob
jectives: (1) improvement of individual employee perform
ance and, (2) the recognition in employees of the growth
potential for executive training and development. Further
more, there is much evidence to indicate that an employee
evaluation program should not be a basis for making admini
strative decisions on matters such as salary.
Criticisms of rating techniques and devices
developed primarily from the administrative purposes for
which they were used. The use of adjective ratings such
as excellent, good, and fair have led to invidious com
parisons among the rated employees. This has often re
sulted in a lowering of employee morale and has tended to
vitiate the rating process. No rating technique or device
so far developed has proven to be sufficiently accurate
to provide a meaningful score or grade for individual em
ployees. However, criticisms of many rating devices are
not too serious if there is no summary rating score and if
the device is used merely to facilitate a conference be
tween supervisor and employee following the application of
Pfiffner, op. cit., p. 28l
122
self-evaluation and joint-evaluation techniques.
The need for full understanding, participation, and
acceptance of the evaluation program by both supervisors
and employees has been discussed previously. The crucial
role of the supervisor is emphasized particularly in much
of the current literature. Acquiescence by the supervisor
in the rating process is not sufficient. He must see its
need andv alue and he must be thoroughly trained in how to
use it properly. To do a good job of rating the supervisor
must be permitted and must be willing to take the necessary
time it requires. Nigro points out the importance of the
supervisor as follows:
Admittedly difficult of solution, with many thorny
aspects, the problem of rating employee performance
remains a major challenge for personnel administration.
In all likelihood, since it is an inextricable part
of supervision, future progress in this field will
largely depend upon the advances made in the selection
and development of supervisors.25
III. MERIT RATING IN PRIVATE INDUSTRY
As Pfiffner points out, evaluation and guidance are
rendered only lip service and practiced only hiaphazzardly
in current personnel administration. Yet Frederick W.
Taylor, the father of scientific management, writing a
half-century ago said clearly that individual appraisal.
Nigro, o£. clt., p. 317'
123
guidance, and training are an Integral part of the manage-
Q ^
ment process. Concerning the need to study each employee
as an individual, Taylor wrote as follows :
When one ceases to deal with men in large gangs or
groups, and proceeds to study each workman as an in
dividual, if the workman fails to do his task, some
competent teacher should be sent to show him exactly
how his work can best be done, to guide, help, and
encourage him, and, at the same time, to study his
possibilities as a workman. So that, under the plan
which individualizes each workman, instead of
brutally discharging the man or lowering his wages
for failing to make good at once, he is given the
time and the help required to make him proficient at
his present job, or he is shifted to another class
of work for which he is either mentally or physi
cally better suited.2?
Taylor and others who followed him developed pro
cedures that doubled the output of the workman and mach
ines. However, it is one thing to measure and improve the
efficiency of machines and production lines, but quite a
different matter to evaluate and increase the effective
ness of human beings. Perhaps people have been unrealistic
in expecting that scientific management could accomplish
so soon the same degree of improvement in personnel re
lations as took place in production matters.
Historical overview. Early attempts to apply the
principles of scientific management to the process of
26pfiffner, cit. , p. 28I 4 . .
^^Prederick Winslow Taylor, The Principles of
Scientific Management (New York : Harper and Brothers, I9II),
pp. 69-70, cited by Pfiffner, o£. cit., p. 28 1| ..
12k
appraising employee efficiency resulted in the development
of a variety of measuring devices. Many of these have
been discussed previously. The types of rating devices and
methods used were generally the same as those in education
and the public service. The development of merit rating
concepts has been concurrent; each unit--education, public
service, and industry--contributing ideas and techniques
to the evaluation process.
Widespread industrial interest in merit rating
lagged until about 1925* At that time a wave of formal
evaluation programs began to sweep the country. Prior to
that time the wage and salary structures of most companies
were largely based upon training and experience or the
dictates of the competitive market. Early merit rating
procedures were concerned primarily with the development
of personal trait-rating devices designed to measure em
ployee efficiency for the purpose of making administrative
decisions on salary matters. Later, the following three
purposes were introduced: (1 ) to inform employees of
strengths and weaknesses as a stimulus to self-improvement,
(2) to discover where further training was needed, and (3)
to provide information for making promotions based upon
PR
merit.
pR
Walter Dill Scott e^ al^., Personnel Management
(New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., ), p. 2^6.
125
Phillip Kelly divides the development of employee
evaluation concepts into four action phases. First was the
phase which centered around management's interest in making
and recording decisions on salary matters. Second was the '
phase in which were emphasized the use of psychological
tests and attitude surveys generally aimed at improving
morale as a means to increasing productivity, lowering
costs, and cutting down absenteeism. The third action
phase began in the middle 1930's, It developed primarily
as a result of research into problems of employee attitudes
and work behavior in which the Western Electric Company and
the Harvard Graduate School of Business Administration col
laborated, As a result of this research, considerable
emphasis was placed on the use of employee interview-coun-
selors to encourage two-way communications between manage
ment and worker and thus increase both morale and. pro
ductivity,^^
According to Kelly, the fourth phase in the develop
ment of employee appraisals came into national prominanee
at the close of World War II, when many companies found
that they were woefully thin in managerial talent, because
of upheavals produced by the war and unexpected post-war
^Burleigh B, Gardner, Human Relations in Industry
(Chicago: Richard D, Irwin, Inc., 1^1^^), pp. 2l|T-53; and
Phillip R, Kelly, "Reappraisal of Appraisals," Harvard
Business Review, 3 6:6 0, May, 1956.
126
expansions. It was also about this time that recognition
became widespread that, with the growing complexity of
modern management systems, seasoned, high-caliber execu
tives are not born but can and must be developed. Thus,
management development programs began to receive con
siderable attention for the first time.
The ob.1 ectives of merit rating; in private industry.
According to Benjamin, there are two different philosophies
of merit rating. The first, and older concept, views it as
a device by which management may be provided with a record
of each individual employee's performance and potentiality.
In theory, an objective review of these records serves as a
basis for determining who should receive pay increases, who
should be promoted, and who should be laid off in periods
of slack employment. The second is a newer and broader
concept which views merit rating as a management tool that
can be used most effectively to determine promotability and
to motivate employees to improve their performance.
A comprehensive view of merit rating is reflected
in Wolf's statement of its goals. He lists them as
follows :
6%elly, loc. cit.
63^Roland Benjamin, Jr., "A Survey of 130 Merit-
Rating Plans.," Personnel, 2Ç :291^ November, 1952.
127
1. To give employers an idea of how employees are
doing
2. To identify promotable employees
3. For purposes of salary administration
i | . . To provide a basis for a supervi sor-employee
interview
5. To help train supervisors to know their workers
better
6. To discover areas where additional training is
needed
7. To identify employees for layoff in bad times
8. To identify employees who may be in wrong jobs
9. To help check the effectiveness of the company's
selection procedure
10. For selection during rehiring periods
11. To comply with union contract provisions
12. For use in grievance interviews
13. To focus executives* attention on the effective
ness of their organization and to provide a
foundation for organization planning and
development
l l [ . . To aid in assuring employees of appropriate
individual recognition and to assist in the
development of competent personnel to carry
out the company's operations efficiently and
successfully
15. To obtain a check on all probationary and
terminated employees 32
Concerning the use of merit rating to improve
supervisor-subordinate relationships. Wolf offers two
specific objectives: (1) An effective plan should be de
signed to personalize the relationship between subordinate
and supervisor. It cannot be administered as an impersonal
grade sheet or scoring system. The subordinate should
know where he stands and why. (2) The plan should be
3^William B. Wolf, Merit Rating as a Managerial
Tool; a Simplified Approach to Merit Rating (Seattle:
Bureau of Business Research, College of Business Admini
stration, University of Washington, 1956), p. 3.
128
designed to bring worker and his superior together in an
environment that breeds mutual trust and understanding.^^
The use of merit rating as a basis for making ad
ministrative decisions requires careful consideration.
Wolf believes that it may be a useful tool in arriving at
decisions such as who is to be promoted, who is to be
transferred, and who is to be laid off. However, it should
never be used as the sole and only basis for making such
decisions. The use of merit rating in wage administration
involves greater difficulties. Wolf states that unless an
organization is in a position where the workers will
accept without challenge all wage decisions, almost any
action taken with respect to wages may antagonize somebody.
He concludes: "Neither a flat pay-rate system nor a
seniority system is ideal. But they are more manageable
than merit rating and much of the confusion, conflict, and
dissension may be avoided.
The administrative aspects of merit rating in
private industry. The problem of designing a technically
satisfactory merit rating procedure has become increasingly
complex, according to Benjamin. When a union represents
33Ibid.. p. 17.
3lj-lbid.. p. 11-l i j. .
129
the employees, its attitude must be considered. While
this has always been true in a practical sense, it is now
also true in a legal sense because the National Labor Re
lations Board and the courts have held merit wage increases
and merit ratings to be a proper subject of collective
bargaining.35
Examples of union-management cooperation in apply
ing a merit rating plan have shown its feasibility, however.
Extensive difficulties between management and labor at Air
Associates Inc., led to changes in personnel practices
which included job evaluation and merit rating. Those
changes were given credit for a great improvement in
morale and for decreasing unit costs. A second case of
union-management cooperation was reported by Cummins Engine
Company. In this company the labor agreement provides for
pay to be determined in part by the result of merit ratings
and in part by seniority. Under the agreement the union
is provided with a copy of each completed rating form.^^
In a survey of current merit rating practices of
seventy-five selected companies, Benjamin found that one
hundred thirty plans were in common use. Many companies
35Matter of J. H. Allison & Go., 70 H. L. R. B. 377;
165 F. 2d^ 776 (C. C. A. 19^ 6), cited by Benjamin, op.
cit., p. 2 9 0.
3^Thomas Willard Harrell, Industrial Psychology
(New York: Rinehart and Company, Inc., 1958)> PP. 73-&#
130
used two or more plans for different employee groups. The
employees concerned with merit rating included manual,
clerical, administrative, professional and supervisory.
The main purposes of merit rating, listed in order of
greatest use, as reported by the companies, were as
follows: (l) in connection with merit increases, (2) to
tell employees where they stand, (3) to determine training
needs, (1|_) to determine promotability, (5) to evaluate
employees, (6) to determine advisability of transfer.37
According to Benjamin, a majority of the companies
rated employees at six-month intervals. In forty-five of
the plans ratings were discussed with employees after com
pletion. Four reported that ratings were not reported to
employees. In the remaining plans, no answer was given to
the question of discussing ratings with employees. The ^
number of traits to be rated varied from five to nine in
most plans but was as low as two in some cases and as high
as thirty-two in one case. The types of rating devices
used in connection with the merit rating systems were as
follows : graphic rating scale 87 per cent, check list 9
per cent, forced choice 2 per cent, man-to-man comparison
1 per cent, ranking method 1 per cent.
37Benjamin, o^. cit., p. 2 9 2.
38Ibid.. p. 2 9 3.
131
Benjamin concluded his survey with the following
observation:
It is of utmost importance that raters accept the
plan and understand its use. Supervisors will never
give the rating process the time and effort it re
quires until the plan has been 'sold* to them and
they understand and respect it. Without that respect
and understanding even a superior merit rating plan
can quickly degenerate to the point where it is re
garded merely as 'more front-office red tape.'39
Recent trends in merit rating plans appear to favor
the use of fewer traits in the rating devices than were
included formerly. The trend in the purposes of the rating
program toward evaluating and improving performance and
determining which employees are suitable for promotion has
led to the proposal that only these two traits need to be
rated. According to Harrell, the simplification of merit
rating forms was based upon a factor analysis of more com
plicated rating systems in which twelve traits collapsed
into the two mentioned above.
Current recommendations and changes in merit rating
programs. A recent merit rating plan developed by Wolf is
called the Performance Sample System. It does not involve
a significant change from older plans in method of appli
cation. In this plan the supervisor must be alerted to
. p. 29I 4 ..
^^Harrell, op. cit., p. 71.
132
detect any actions of the workers under him which are ex
ceptional- -either exceptionally good or exceptionally bad.
Next he must investigate the action, determine the relevant
facts, and discuss the matter with the employee. A fecord
of the event is then made on the performance record form in
sufficient detail to enable identification of the incident
at a later date
Under Wolf's plan, every six months an evaluation
interview would be conducted with each employee, based upon
information contained on the performance record form. The
purpose of the interview should be counseling and guidance,
rather than punitive. The final step is a report by the
supervisor to his superior of the results of the evaluation
interview. In this report he would include the following:
what was discussed, what plan of action was agreed upon,
and any information that might help insure that the worker
and the company would gain the maximum value and satis-
li.2
faction from the worker's employment.^
An example of putting current merit rating ideas
into practice was described by Kellogg, Manager, Employee
Relations, Aircraft Gas Turbine Development Department,
General Electric Company. In this company the merit rating
4lWolf, o£. cit., pp. 2 1- i j . .
^^Ibid., pp. 2 5-6.
133
system was changed from a character-trait rating plan to
a performance rating plan. It Involved only management
personnel, primarily in the field of engineering. In the
new plan, the rating form is prepared jointly by the per
son to be appraised, his supervisor, and the latter*s
supervisor. It includes a rating upon fifteen responsi
bilities which have been determined to be the most impor
tant to the job. The basic objectives of the plan reflect
a broad concept of the evaluation process--the primary
purpose being the improvement of individual employee per
formance .^8
Kellogg reported that after a year of experience
with the new system it was concluded that the plan pro
vides supervisors with an orderly and systematic method of
recording their considered judgment on the effectiveness
of employee performance. It was also determined that there
was a need for more specific data on the promotability of
employees and that greater emphasis should be placed upon
that factor in the evaluation process. An attitude survey
of employees showed that 91 per cent liked the periodic
performance appraisal and the accompanying discussions.
The sentiment was generally expressed that the new system
provided a fair and just means of evaluating performance
^3m . s. Kellogg, "Appraising the Performance of
Management Personnel, " Personnel, 21 March, 1955.
13%
and assessing equitable rewards•%%
The problems and issues of merit rating in private
industry. The technical success of a merit rating plan
depends less upon the methods used than upon three impor
tant fundamentals, according to Harrell. First, the rating
must be taken seriously by line officials rather than be
made the primary responsibility of the personnel depart
ment. If the boss wants it done and done right, the rating
will probably be taken more seriously than if it is con
sidered merely another form to fill out for the personnel
files. Second, all elements of the job being rated should
be thoroughly understood by the rater. Supervisors often
think in terms of personal characteristics or potential
capabilities rather than job performance. Third, the
raters must be thoroughly trained or ratings will not be
accurate. In addition to initial training, it is also
necessary to continue training and to check up on ratings
if they are to be effective
Lintern lists two faults in merit rating procedures
which often cause difficulties. First is a tendency of
supervisors to be unduly lenient or unduly severe in the
^Ibld.. p.
^^Harrell, o£. clt., p. 6l.
135
rating process. This results in a lack of uniformity and
consequent employee dissatisfaction. Second is the tend
ency of supervisors to rate all qualities of a particular
employee on the same level, whereas in reality some quali
ties may be superior while others are only fair. This,
as noted previously, is the "halo effect."
According to Kelly, the important issues of merit
rating are concerned with the purposes for which the plans
are used. He names the following two basic objectives of
an evaluation program: (1 ) recognizing and developing
capable personnel for management positions, and (2) im
proving employee performance. Regarding the recognition
of managerial potential, Kelly states that there is no need
to communicate the personal inventory or appraisal to the
employee involved. The greatest use of this report is to
give top divisional or corporate management a snapshot of
its organization.^'^
Commenting upon the improvement of employee per
formance, Kelly writes as follows:
The primary action step in reviewing and upgrading
performance of people begins with a feview of the
%^D. G. Lintern, and R. J. S* Curtis, Work Measure'
ment and Incentives (London: Sir Isaac Pitman and Sons,
Ltd., 19581, pp. 123-%.
%7Kelly, op. cit., p. 68.
136
total situation in which they are operating. It
requires the manager to consider all the factors
involved in stimulating or retarding performance.
He must be able and willing to assume the kind of
coaching role or relationship with his men that
will permit daily two-way communication and ex
change of ideas. 48
The following conclusions by Kelly appear to be
typical expressions of the new and broader concepts of
merit rating; (1) Conventional merit ratings are of
dubious validity as the sole or major basis for making
salary decisions. (2) No conventional appraisal method
conducted on an annual or semiannual basis can really do
the job of improving an individual’s job performance.
But if skillfully handled and used under the right circum
stances, it may do more good than harm. However, the
reverse is also true when the appraisal is misunderstood,
misused, or mistrusted. (3) The attainment of optimum
performance by an individual involves both factors within
his control and factors largely within the control of
management. Kelly explains this as follows: "The founda
tion of successful performance lies in a triad of indi
vidual ability, job structure, and total job or organiza
tional relationships. Each of these is important, and it
is a primary task of management to review its responsi
bilities as well as those of the individual. The manager
. p. 65.
137
is not only a coach, but also an administrator, and in both
capacities his success or lack of success is reflected in
the performance of subordinates.
IV. SUMMARY
The purpose of the comparison of merit rating in
education, the public service and private industry was two
fold. First, it was to ascertain similarities and diff
erences in merit rating with reference to objectives, ad
ministrative aspects, and problems which developed.
Second, it was to determine which, if any, theories, tech
niques, and devices used in the public service and in pri
vate industry may be applicable to education.
Similarities and differences. Similarities are
significantly great in all phases of the merit rating
process. Objectives and purposes of merit rating which are
parallel include the following:
1. In the development stages, merit rating was con
cerned primarily with the determination of
salaries.
2. An important purpose of merit rating is still
salary determination.
3. In the three fieIds--education, public service,
and private industry--most writers and re
searchers have concluded that merit rating for
%9ibid., p. 68.
138
improving performance is of highest importance
and that the use of merit rating is justified
only if it achieves that result.
%. There is an increasing belief that merit rating
for salary determination dominates the rating
process and that it is impossible to achieve a
cooperative supervisor-employee relationship so
essential to a guidance and improvement program
when ratings for pay and ratings for improving
performance are combined.
Probably the greatest emphasis upon the need to
separate salary determination from the evaluation process
is shown in the Hoover Commission task force recommenda
tions regarding practices in the federal government. While
not yet implemented by Congress, many of the task force
recommendations have been adopted by some state and local
public agencies.50
There have been few differences in merit-rating
objectives in the three fields. But one of the more im
portant ones is reflected in recent trends in merit rating
practices. Both in the public service and in private
industry an important objective is concerned with the need
to recognize, develop, and train capable personnel for
management positions. This need has become very important
in industry since World War II and was noted in the second
Hoover Commission task force report on the federal govern
ment. Its implications are also significant in the field
of education.
^^Higro, o£. cit., p. 31?.
139
Administrative aspects of merit rating in the three
fields which are similar include the following:
1. There is a recognition of the need for co
operative formulation and development of
the merit rating program.
2. Evaluation must be a continuous process--
not an infrequent, periodic check-up.
3. Employees should be informed of their ratings--
the process should present an opportunity
for counseling and guidance.
%. Emphasis in the rating process has changed
from a rating of personal characteristics
or traits to a rating of employee per
formance on the job.
5. The initial responsibility for rating em
ployees has rested generally with the
immediate supervisor or administrator.
Some differences are present in administrative
aspects. Formal rating plans are common in large public
and private agencies. Rating devices are used extensively
in the rating process in these organizations. On the other
hand, the most common practice in education has been to
avoid formal rating plans and formal measurement devices.
This has been particularly true in large school districts.
Problems which have developed in the rating
process are significantly similar also. They include the
following :
1. Problems have developed because of weaknesses in
rating devices.
2. Problems have arisen because of personal attitudes
and abilities of persons being rated and persons
doing the rating.
3. Problems arose due to the strong opposition of
organized employee groups.
! [ . . In all three fields, the problems have been con
cerned primarily with the application of merit
rating to salary administration.
i L | . o
There have been few Important differences in merit
rating problems in the three fields. However, two items
should be noted. In the public service and private indus
try, much more emphasis has been placed upon the training
of raters as a means of solving the personal problems.
Attempts to solve the difficulty of weaknesses in rating
devices have led the public service and private industry
to concentrate more effort upon the development of improved
devices and techniques. In education, many times the solu
tion to this problem was sought by eliminating the devices
or by eliminating merit rating as a formal practice.
Theories, techniques, and devices applicable to
education. The significant similarities throughout all
phases of merit rating in education, the public service
and private industry were noted above. It is a logical
finding, since important developments often have been the
result of cooperative studies and research by persons in
the three fields. However, there are three aspects of the
rating process in the public service and private industry
which are worthy of further inquiry. First is the use of
merit rating as a means of recognizing and developing
capable persons for supervisory and management positions.
Second is a careful consideration of the recommendations
contained in the first and second Hoover Commission task
Ikx
force reports regarding merit rating policies and prac
tices. Third is a rater training program to prepare super
visors and administrators for their responsibilities in the
rating process.
CHAPTER VI
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The proposal that merit rating was and is an effective
S
means of improving the educational process started a con
troversy which has caused many heated discussions without
solving the problems. Agreement is universal that a pro
gram which would improve individual teaching performance
and attract capable personnel into the teaching profession
would be highly beneficial to education. Views greatly
differ as to #iether or not merit rating is such a program.
This study sought to determine the effect of merit rating
for two separate purposes— salary and supervisory--upon
the educational process.
SUMMARY
The development of merit rating concepts. The
measurement of teaching efficiency may be either for ad
ministrative or for supervisory purposes. The purposes
are interrelated; but each is distinct and should not be
confused with the other. This study was concerned with
the use of merit rating for salary determination (one of
several administrative purposes) and the use of merit
rating for the improvement of teaching performance (a
supervisory purpose).
lU
The problems which developed in the application of
merit rating plans were primarily the result of its use
for determining salaries. Objections to its use concerned
(1) technical factors--weaknesses in devices used for
measuring teaching efficiency, (2) environmental factors--
conditions beyond the control of the teachers which in
fluence teaching effectiveness, and (3) human relations
factors--teacher morale, the nature of the individual
teacher and the teacher-supervisor relationship. Criteria,
developed as a result of studies of merit rating practices,
sought to eliminate the objections and to guide school dis
tricts in the establishment of merit rating plans.
Two trends appear to be significant in the develop
ment of merit rating concepts: (1) Formerly, the studies
and writings about merit rating were concerned with the
technical aspects and devices used in the measurement pro
cess. Currently, much of the literature is concerned with
the question of whether or not merit rating is desirable
or possible. (2) Formerly, merit rating plans dealt almost
exclusively with salary determination. Currently, there is
a tendency to broaden the merit rating concepts and thus
include the improvement of teaching performance as one of
the purposes of the rating process.
Merit rating for salary administration. The justi
fication of merit-pay on the grounds that it will assist
IW
in the improvement of the educational process is based
upon two major assumptions: first, that it will result in
improvement of individual teacher performance through a
periodic appraisal of weaknesses and strengths; second,
that, by payment of higher salaries, it will attract highly
capable personnel into the teaching profession and will
keep superior teachers from leaving the profession for
higher paying jobs in industry^^
Many writers, administrators, and teachers deny
that merit-pay will result in improvement of individual
teacher performance. They feel that the use of merit
rating for determining salaries may have the effect of
lowering morale and reducing teachers* effectiveness.They
state that a satisfactory basic salary schedule is the most
effective means of attracting capable personnel, and that
rewards other than financial can be more effective in keep
ing superior personnel in the teaching profession.
Merit-pay plans may be designed to penalize less-
than-satisfactory service with no rewards, or to reward
superior teaching efficiency. Plans which provide penal
ties but no rewards are the most nmnerous. Most school
districts which use merit rating have no formal rating
plan and undertake to measure teaching competency by a
general impression method. While studies and research
have revealed weaknesses in teacher rating devices, they
145
also have indicated that many devices are greatly superior
to informal general impressions. Rating scales and check
lists are the devices used most commonly in formal teacher
rating plans.
There has been a growing concern with the problem
of teacher morale and an increasing awareness of the human
relations aspects involved in the application of merit-pay
plans. A trend toward greater teacher cooperation and par
ticipation in the formulation and development of merit-pay
systems is shown also in studies of current practices.
Participation by teachers in the development of the rating
program usually involves assisting with the formulation of
rating criteria.
Historically, merit-pay plans have been short
lived. A large majority of existing plans are under ten
years old. The number of school districts which currently
use merit-pay plans is substantially less than the figure
of 1 9 3 8-1 9 3 9> but is slightly more than the figure of 1 9 54”
1 9 5 5. A highly significant factor regarding the abandon
ment of merit-pay plans is the near elimination of the
practice in school districts of 100,000 population and over.
The opposition of organized teacher groups to merit-pay
would seem to explain its lack of acceptability in the
large school districts.
The recent interest and increase in the use of
146
merit-pay systems reflect the favorable attitudes of boards
of education. The attitudes of administrators are mixed—
either definitely favorable or definitely unfavorable.
Very few administrators appear to be neutral on the subject.
Educational writers, as a rule, doubt the desirability of
merit-pay because of its tendency to interfere with super
visory merit rating. They feel that until rating devices
with higher validity are available, merit-pay should be
postponed.
Merit rating for improving performance. The basic
objective of supervisory merit rating is the improvement
of teaching efficiency. Its use has increased sub
stantially in the past thirty years. Its purpose is not
an issue. Professional opinion agrees that an important
job of the supervisor is to assist teachers in improving
their performance. The problems which have developed in
the supervisory merit rating process are concerned not only
with the rating process itself but also with the combina
tion of supervisory merit ratings with ratings for salary
purposes.
There is general agreement that the development of
a supervisory rating program should be a cooperative
effort which includes the board of education, administra
tors, and teachers. Local school and community needs
should be given primary consideration. Many writers feel
ll<.7
'that the use of formal rating devices is desirable. How
ever, experience has shown that they must be used with
caution. Teachers must be convinced that no score or judg
ment is involved and that the true purpose of the super
visory rating program is to guide and assist them to
'improve.
The methods of teacher evaluation which are parti-
' cularly suitable for supervisory purposes include self-
, appraisal by the teacher and joint evaluation by the teach
er and principal. Some school districts may use special
supervisors in the joint evaluation process. A method
which may prove beneficial in senior high schools or
colleges is the evaluation of teachers by students. This
method should not be part of a formal evaluation program.
It is a technique, available to teachers who wish to use
it, for appraising certain aspects of their teaching per-
' formance.
I Problems and difficulties which have arisen in the
supervisory merit rating process may be classified into
I three types: First are problems which are inherent in the
nature of the teaching process. The complex combination of
; factors in teaching--teacher, student, subject matter, and
environment— are subject to variations and changes which
' strongly affect teaching efficiency. Second are problems ,
' which have arisen due to methods of measuring teaching
148
efficiency. Research has shown that many measurement
devices lack a high degree of objectivity and validity.
However, they have been proven vastly superior to opinions
formed from general impressions. Third are problems which
have developed as a result of teacher attitudes toward
merit ratings. The subjective nature of measurement
devices and the use of ratings for salary purposes are
factors which have influenced teachers to mistrust and fear
the rating process. In order to establish a cooperative
attitude, it is necessary for supervisors to convince
teachers that the purpose of the rating program is guidance
and help, rather than critical judgment.
The supervisory merit rating program is of little
value unless the ratings are used. Ratings are not an end
in themselves. They are a means whereby teachers may be
guided into a program of self-improvement. Furthermore,
the rating process must be continuous. An infrequent
periodic check-up can be of little value in improving
teaching efficiency. A supervisory rating plan should be
part of a broad program consisting of evaluation, guidance
and training. In an effective program of individual
teacher improvement, evaluation should play an extremely
important part.
The lack of literature on supervisory merit rating
is significant, in contrast with the preponderance of
iîf-9
material on the subject of merit-pay. Emphasis of the
supervisory aspect of rating is comparatively recent and
progress is understandably slow. Nevertheless, current
studies of merit rating plans offer slight encouragement
that progress will be accelerated because they show that
periodic, once-a-sernester ratings are the general practice.
A few districts have developed comprehensive supervisory
rating plans. Examples include Cincinnati, Ohio, and
Glencoe, Illinois.
The advisability of combining supervisory and salary
merit ratings is debatable. The problems concerned with
merit-pay add serious complications to the supervisory
rating process. While some writers believe that the com
bination is feasible, many others feel that ratings for
salary purposes will have a detrimental effect on ratings
for improving teaching performance.
Concepts of merit rating compared ; education,
public service, and private industry* Similarities are
significantly great in all phases of the merit rating
process. However, a few of the differences are worthy of
note. In public service and private industry, a recent
trend in the objectives of merit rating concerns the need
to recognize and develop capable personnel for supervisory
and management positions. This same trend was not found
in education. Also, large public and private agencies
150
have made extensive use of formal merit rating plans and
rating devices. On the other hand, large school districts
have tended to avoid or abandon formal merit rating plans
and measurement devices. A third difference has been the
emphasis in industry and public service upon the training
of supervisory and management personnel responsible for the
rating process. In contrast, no evidence was found of a
rater training program in education.
Three aspects of merit rating in the public service
and private industry may be applicable to education. First
is the possibility of using merit rating to assist in the -
selection and development of capable persons for super
visory and administrative positions. Second is the possi
bility of implementing many of the Hoover Oommission task
force recommendations in the development of merit rating
programs by school districts. Third is the possibility of
adopting appropriate features of rater training programs
for school administrative and supervisory personnel
responsible for the teacher rating process.
II. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
In the light of the evidence which was assembled
and analyzed in this thesis, a number of conclusions can
be made regarding the feasibility of merit rating in educa
tion. It is noted that this study was concerned with only
151
two aspects of merit rating--salary and supervisory. The
distinction between these two uses of merit rating was
pointed out repeatedly in this paper. Within the limits of
this study, conclusions have been reached upon three as
pects of the problem : (1) the probable effect on the
educational process of merit rating for the purpose of
salary administration, (2) the probable effect on the
educational process of merit rating for the purpose of
improving performance, (3) the probable effect on the
educational process of merit rating for the combined pur
poses of salary administration and improvement of perform
ance .
The probable effect on the educational process of
merit rating for the purpose of salary administration.^A
merit rating plan is not Justified if its sole or primary
purpose is salary determination. Its probable effect upon
the educational process is detrimental. Under a highly
capable administrator, its effect may be neutral or
slightly beneficial,
major assumptions must be made in order to
justify merit-pay on the grounds that it will assist in
the improvement of the educational process. First, it must
be assumed that improvement of individual performance will
result through a periodic appraisal of weaknesses and
strengths. Second, it must be assumed that merit-pay plans
152
will result in the payment of significantly higher-than-
normal salaries to teachers. Third, it must be assumed
that payment of higher salaries will attract highly
capable personnel into the teaching profession, and will
keep superior teachers from leaving the profession for
higher paying jobs in industry. The evidence compiled in
this study does not support these assumptions.
The rating of teachers for salary purposes is a
negative process. The rating is based upon a job already
completed rather than upon the establishment of a goal
toward which the teacher may point. The emphasis is upon
a grade or score rather than upon the means to achieve a
higher degree of efficiency.
The periodic once-a-semester rating policy which
characterizes a vast majority of merit-pay plans can have
only a slight effect upon teaching efficiency. Further
more, individual teachers react differently to the rating
process. To some, it may be a momentary inspiration and
challenge. However, to most teachers it is a disturbing
emotional experience.
It is highly questionable to assume that individual
teachers will embark upon a program of self-improvement if
their faults and weaknesses are pointed out. The nature
of individual response to criticism is such that teachers
most in need of help would probably develop a feeling of
153
! persecution and a lowering of morale would result.
Furthermore, it is doubtful that most teachers have the
I
' knowledge, ability, time, energy, and money to embark upon
a plan of self-improvement without the help of a compre
hensive guidance program.
The only types of merit-pay plans which can claim
to attract capable personnel by paying higher salaries are
those which offer extra rewards, such as super-maximums or
accelerated increments. In respect to these plans, there
was no evidence to indicate that merit salary schedules
offered a significant advantage over a good basic salary
schedule. In theory, extra reward salary plans may be
Justified on the basis of giving a fair remuneration for
superior service. However, their Justification is ques
tionable unless the school district utilizes the superior
ability in a part-time position of greater responsibility.
In the application of any type of merit-pay plan,
important technical difficulties must be overcome. Teach
ers must be graded and assigned to a particular position
on the salary schedule. The evidence is substantial that
no measurement device or group of devices has sufficient
accuracy and validity to assign a grade or score to an
individual teacher. The evidence further indicated that
general impression methods, although used in most
districts, were the least valid and most subject to
prejudice and bias.
154
types of merit-pay plans tend to ignore highly
important environmental factors which strongly affect
teaching efficiency. Large classes, poor classroom
facilities and equipment, lack of adequate supplies and
visual aid materials are factors which tend to invalidate
efforts to measure teaching efficiency accurately.3
Finally, merit-pay systems overlook the "satis
factory" teacher. He is too good to penalize, yet not
good enough to reward. It is at this level that the great
est degree of improvement is possible and is vitally
needed. Any merit rating system which seeks to up-grade
the general level of teaching and thereby improve the
educational process must find means of improving the
effectiveness of the "satisfactory" teacher.
The probable effect on the educational process of
merit rating for the purpose of improving performance.
Merit rating for the purpose of improving performance
offers a potential means of increasing individual teaching
efficiency. Its probable effect upon the educational
process is beneficial. However, there are important
qualifications to this assumption. To achieve beneficial
results, a supervisory merit rating program must meet
certain criteria:
The development of a supervisory merit rating pro
gram should be a cooperative effort in which the board of
155
education, administrators, supervisors, and teachers par
ticipate, The plan should be designed in accordance with
the needs of the local community.
The merit rating must be a continuous process, not
a periodic check-up, Its purpose must be to guide and
assist teachers, not to judge or criticise them. It must
be designed to encourage and stimulate individual teachers
toward a program of self-examination and self-improvement.
It should encourage creativity and experimentation rather
than conformity.
Problems ordinarily associated with merit rating
may be dealt with effectively if the teachers are con
vinced that the purpose of the program is guidance and help.
Competent administrators and supervisors are highly im
portant to the success of the program. A feeling of co
operation and mutual understanding must be engendered by
the attitude and activities of the supervisor. The prob
lem of increasing teaching effectiveness must be con
sidered a mutual responsibility in which teacher and
supervisor together seek a solution.
Ratings must be used. This implies the use of some
type of individual cumulative personnel file in which
significant information may be accumulated. Both the
teacher and the supervisor should contribute pertinent
items to the file. The rating process must not stop at
156
this point, however. To be effective, the supervisory
merit rating program must serve as a guide to more effec
tive teaching performance; it must not be an end in itself.
3 rating process should be one phase of a compre
hensive program consisting of evaluation, guidance, and
training. Each part must be integrated with the total
program.^Evaluation by the teacher and supervisor must
lead to guidance by the supervisor and, when needed, to
appropriate in-service training or group study activities.
The probable effect on the educational process of
merit rating for the combined purposes of salary admini
stration and improvement of performance. A merit rating
plan combining supervisory merit rating and merit-pay
would probably fail to achieve a significantly higher level
of teaching efficiency. Its probable effect upon the
educational process would be detrimental. The potentially
beneficial effects of the supervisory rating process tend
to be nullified by the salary rating. However, under
highly (Capable administrators, some beneficial results
might be attained. The degree of emphasis upon the super
visory rating process would be an important factor in its
measure of success.
The problems associated with merit-pay were dis- ^
cussed previously. They apply as well to a combined pro
gram of supervisory merit rating and merit-pay. Also,
157
two additional factors are highly important and should be
listed: First is the fundamental difference in purposes
of each type of merit rating. Second is the typical atti
tude of teachers toward merit-pay.
The purposes and objectives of merit rating as a
tool of supervision emphasize the fact that ratings are a
means to an end and not an end in themselves. Also, a
supervisory merit rating program must be a continuous
process in order to achieve satisfactory results. Further
more, a good rapport must exist between supervisor and
teacher. The relationship is not that of an administrator
sitting in judgment upon a teacher * s past performance.
On the other hand, merit rating for salary determination
is a rating based upon a job already done. It represents
a judgment, the end result of which is placement on a
salary schedule. It would probably be extremely difficult
to keep the rating for salary purposes from dominating the
rating process and thus severely reducing the effectiveness
of supervisory evaluation.
Favorable teacher attitudes are extremely important
to the success of a merit rating program. While there are
notable exceptions, evidence indicates that teachers
generally do not like to be rated. This is true in a
supervisory as well as in a salary rating program. For
supervisory merit rating to b e effective, it is necessary
158
to overcome this fear and mistrust of the rating process—
a fear usually caused by its association with salary merit
rating practices. Because of teacher objections, a plan
combining supervisory merit rating and merit-pay would fail
to attain a satisfactory supervisor-teacher relationship
in most instances.
Recommendations.^"—Th the light of present informa
tion about and experience with merit-pay rating, this
writer cannot recommend the institution of such a system
in any school distri9^ ^ %iwever, the literature reviewed
indicates that merit rating for improving teaching per-
formance is not only feasible, but also highly desirable.-""^
It must be emphasized that the supervisory rating process
should be formulated and developed as one essential ele
ment of a broad, integrated program which includes evalu
ation, guidance and training. Such a program may represent
a significant step toward achieving the goals which have
been set for education in these days of emphasis on "the
pursuit of excellence."
The importance of excellence in formulating and
implementing such a program cannot be over-emphasized.
The system must be sound; the training of administrators
and supervisors must be thorough; and the oriehtation of
teachers must be complete.
Further research is recommended upon two topics
159
related to this thesis. First is a study of supervisory
merit rating plans which do not involve a combination with
merit-pay. Second is a study of supervisory evaluation
practices which include the aspects of guidance and train-
, ing. The significant scarcity of available information
points to an urgent need for further inquiry into both of
these matters.
Nor is a program for improving teaching effective
ness a responsibility which can be postponed indefinitely
by leaders in education. As was pointed out in the opening
pages of this study, an ideological struggle for world
power threatens the democratic conception of the dignity
and Value of the individual person. This country*s teach
ers must be assisted through the most efficient means
possible to excel in their primary responsibility: the
training of students for capable participation and leader
ship in a world dedicated to the preservation of human
worth.
BIBLIOGRAPHE
l6i
A. BOOKS
Barr, A. S. William H. Burton, and Leo J. Brueckner,
Supervision. New York: D. Appleton-Century Company,
inc., 1% 7.
Bartky, John A. Supervision as Human Relations. Boston:
C. C. Heath and Company, 1953-
Boardman, Charles W., Harl R. Douglass, and Rudyard K.
Bent. Democratic Supervision in Secondary Schools.
New York: Houghton Mifflin Company]! 1953-
Conant, James Bryant. The American High School Today.
New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1959#
Gardner, Burleigh B. Human Relations in Industry.
Chicago: Richard D. Irwin, Inc., 1^5-
Harrell, Thomas Willard. Industrial Psychology. New York:
Rinehart and Company, Inc., 1958.
Hicks, Hanne J. Adminlstrative Leadership in the Elemen
tary School. New York: The Ronald Press Company, 1956.
Hicks, William V., and Marshall C. Jameson, The Elementary
School Principal at Work. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall,
ÏE— r i 9F7 . --------------
Lintern, D. G., and R. J. S. Curtis. Work Measurement and
Incentives. London: Sir Isaac Pitman and Sons, Ltd.,
Ï93F:
Luck, Thomas J. Personnel Audit and Appraisal. New York:
McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1955.
Moore, Harold E., and Newell B. Walters. Personnel Admini
stration in Education. New York: Harper and Brothers,
Î93F:
Mosher, William E., Donald J. Kingsley, and 0. Glenn Stahl.
Public Personnel Administration. Third edition. New
York: Harper and Brothers, 195o#
Nigro, Felix A. Public Personnel Administration. New York:
Henry Holt and Company, 1959•
Pfiffner, John M. The Supervision of Personnel. New York:
Prentice-Hall, I n c 1951•
162
Rickover, H, G. Education and Freedom. New York; E. P.
Dutton and Company, Inc., 1959»
Scott, Walter Dill, et al. Personnel Management. New
York: McGraw-HilT“Book Company, Inc., 19i|.l.
Stahl, 0. Glenn. Public Personnel Administration. Fourth
edition. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1956.
Vander Werf, Lester S. How to Evaluate Teachers and Teach
ing. New York: Rinehart and Company, Inc., 1958.
Wilmerding, Lucius, Jr. Government by Merit; an Analysis
of the Problem of Government Personnel. New York:
McGraw-Hill Book Company, IncTT 1935*
Woodring, Paul. A Fourth of a Nation. New York: McGraw-
Hill Book Company, Inc., 1957•
Yeager, William A. Admi ni s tr a t i on and the Teacher. New
York : Harper and Brothers, 1954*
B. PERIODICALS
American Federation of Teachers, Research Department.
"Dangerous Mirage or Master Plan?" The Education
Digest, 24:6-8, February, 1959»
Benjamin, Roland, Jr. "A Survey of I30 Merit-Rating
Plans," Personnel, 29 :28 9-94^ November, 1952.
Boutwell, William D. "What’s Happening in Education:
Merit Pay Plan," National Parent Teacher, 5l:l4, May,
1957.
Brickman, Benjamin. "Rewarding the Superior Teacher,"
School and Society, 8 7:35 6-8, September 26, 1959»
Brickman, William W. "Merit Rating of Teachers," School
and Society, 85:3i3> October 26, 1957»
Campbell, Roald F. "Evaluation and the Rating of Teachers,"
Elementary School Journal, l | . l :671-6, May, 1941*
Coen, Alban Wasson, II, "An Analysis of Successful Merit
Rating Programs, " ' ' Phi Delta Kappan, 39*394“7> June,
1958.
163
! Cosgrove, Don J, "Diagnostic Eating of Teacher Per-
formance," Journal of Educational Psychology, 50:200-4,
October, 1959.
: Cushman, Jack. "The Glencoe Career-Teacher Plan," The ;
Journal of Teacher Education, 8:154-8, June, 1957.
Davis, Hazel. "Pacts and Issues in Merit Salary Sched
ules, " The Journal of Teacher Education, 8:127-35:»
June, 1 9 5 7.
Engleman, Finis E. "Problems of Merit Rating," National
Education Association Journal, 46:240-1, April, 1957.
Fawcett, Claude ¥. "Merit Rating— A Complex of Admini
strative Problems," School and Society, 87:40-1,
January 31, 1959.
Gragg, ¥. L. "The Logic of Merit Rating," Nations Schools,
6 1:46, February, 1958.
Hertzler, John R, "A Layman’s Slant on Merit Rating,"
; School and Society, 86:171-3, April 12, 1958.
Holloway, George E., Jr. "Objective Look at the Merit Pay
Issue," School Executive, 78:19-21, April, 1959.
Jones, Howard R, "Workable Merit Rating," School and
Society, 86:178, April 12,
Karam, Irvin Albert. "Merit-Rating Salary Plans in Public
School Systems of the United States 1955-56," Journal
of Educational Research, 53:144-8, December, 1959.
Kellogg, M. S. "Appraising the Performance of Management
Personnel," Personnel, 21:442-55, March, 1955.
!
Kelly, Phillip R. * * Reappraisal of Appraisals," Harvard
Business Review, 36:59-68, May, 1958.
Lawson, Douglas E, "Society’s Stake in Merit Rating of
Teachers," School and Society, 85:140-2, April 27,
1 9 5 7.
Lieberman, Myron. "A Foundation Approach to Merit Pay,"
Phi Delta Kappan, 4l:118-22, December, 1959.
Mahler, Walter R., and Guyot Frazier. "Appraisal of
Executive Performance. The ’Achilles Heel’ of Manage
ment Development," Personnel, 31;429-41, March, 1955.
l6 I| .
McKinley, Donald R. "Merit Pay Districts Reporting," The
School Executive. 78:72^3, May, 1959.
"Merit Pay for Teachers: Pros and Cons," National Parent-
Teacher, 51:20-2, June, 1957»
Moore, âieldon. "Administrative Problems Under a Merit
Plan," The Journal of Teacher Education. 10:28-31l,
March, 1959•
Patrick, T. L. "Can Merit Rating Be Long Delayed?" School
and Society. 86:174"5r April 12, 1958.
Reed, Roberts. "Blueprint for Merit Rating," The School ^
Executive, 77:52-5, June, 1958.
Rogers, John R. "Any Merit in Merit Rating," School and
Society, 86:173-4» April 12, 1958.
Rose, Gale. "Preparation Unlocks the Door to Successful
Merit Rating," Nations Schools, 6L:5l-3a October,
1959»
Rugg, H. 0. "Self Improvement of Teachers Through Self
Rating," The Elementary School Journal, 20:670-84®
May, 1 9 2 0.
Sears, J, B. "The Measurement of Teaching Efficiency,"
Journal of.Educational Research. 4:81-94» September,
1 9 2 1.
Smith, G. Currien. "Why Teachers Dislike Merit Rating,"
Overview, 1 February, i9 6 0.
Staehle, John F. "Merit and Responsibility Factors in
Teachers Salaries. " School Life, 14.1:18-9. December,
1 9 5 8.
Stahl, 0. Glenn. "Overhauling Federal Efficiency Ratings,"
Personnel Administration, 6:12-l4® September, 1943#
Stegman, William H. "Some Historical Comparisons of Merit'
Rating in Industry and Education," California Journal
of Secondary Education, 34:205-12, April, 1959•
Stevenson, Margaret. "Not Merit Rating, but Sound Per
sonnel Policies," National Education Association
Journal, I 4. 6:242-3® April, 19571
165
Thorne, Edmund H* "Teacher Merit Rating Really Does WorkJ
Here Are Sixteen Tested Requisites," Nations Schools,
61|,:70-1, November, 1959*
Topp, Robert P. " Let’s Stop Wasting Time on Teacher
Rating Scales.*" Education, 79 063-6, February, 1959*
"Why Merit Salary Schedules Were Abandoned," The Journal
of Teacher Education..8:186-91, June, 19571
G. UNPUBLISHED MATERIALS
Coate, Sylvester G. "Problems Related to Improving
Instruction Through the Evaluation Conference."
Unpublished Master’s thesis. The University of
Southern California, Los Angeles, 1958.
Galbraith, G. Raymond. "A Survey of Teacher Rating in
California." Unpublished Master’s thesis. The Uni
versity of Southern California, Los Angeles, 19ii-9*
D. PUBLICATIONS OP ORGANIZATIONS
Batson, Robert J. Employee Evaluation; A Review of
Current Methods and a Suggested New Approach.
Personnel Report No. 5?1* Chicago: Public Personnel
Association, June, 1957*
Better Than Rating; New Approaches to Appraisal of Teach
ing Services. Commission on Teacher Education.
Washington: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development, 1950.
Elliott, E. G. Provisional Plan for the Measure of Merit
of Teachers. Madison: State Department of Education,
1 9 1 2.
Lancelot, William H., et al. The Measurement of Teaching
Efficiency. Kappa DeTïïa Pi Research Publications, ed.
Helen M. Walker. New York: The MacMillan Company,
1935.
l66
Merriam, J. L. Normal School Education and Teaching
Efficiency. Contributions to Education, No. 1.
Hew York: Teachers College, Columbia University, I9 0 5.
National Education Association. Quality-of-Service
Recognition in Teachers’ Salary Schedules. Yfashington,
D. G.: National Education Association, Research
Division, Special Memo, July, 1956,
National Education Association. Super!or-Service Maximums
in Teachers Salary Schedules, 1956-1957. Washington,
D. C.: National Education Association, Research
Division, Special Memo, July, 1957*
National Education Association. "Teacher Personnel Pro
cedures, 1 9 5 0-5 1: Employment Conditions in Service,"
Research Bulletin. Washington, D. C.: National Educa
tion Association, Research Division, April, 1952.
Ohio State University, College of Education. The Ohio
Teaching Record. Columbus: Ohio State University
Press, 194. 1.
Organizing for Tomorrow’s Education Needs, Report upon
Survey of Administration and Supervision Within the
Los Angeles City School System. Los Angeles: Lybrand,
Ross Bros, and Montgomery. Peat, Marwick, Mitchell and
Company, March I9 6O.
Reavis, William C., and Dan H. Cooper. Evaluation of
Teacher Merit in City School Systems. Supplementary
Educational Monographs, No. 59* The University of
Chicago, January, 194-5*
Troyer, Maurice E., and C. Robert Pace. Evaluation in
Teacher Education, Prepared for the Commission on
Teacher Education. Washington D. G.: American Council
on Education, 1944-*
Wolf, William B. Merit Rating as a Managerial Tool; a
Simplified Approach to Merit Rating. Seattle: Bureau
of Business Research, College of Business Administra
tion, University of Washington, 1958*
Young, Lloyd Percy. The Administration of Merit-Type
Teachers ’ Salary Schedules. New York: Bureau of
Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University,
1933.
^University of Southern California Ltorary

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

A study of councilmanic backgrounds, interests, and attitudes in California council-manager cities

PDF

An analysis of the theory and practice of contemporary corrections as a professional activity

PDF

Hospital care for home patients

PDF

Legal aspects in the development of health maintenance organizations

PDF

History of the organization and functions of the Office of the Auditor General of the State of California

PDF

A suggested program for consumer health education for the health services delivery centers in the San Luis Valley

PDF

Origins and nature of regional planning, U.S.A.: An history, an evaluation, and a projection

PDF

The development of a comprehensive health service (314E) program at Red Lake, Minnesota

PDF

Rural health care delivery systems with emphasis on the health maintenance organization concept

PDF

A new approach to solving water disputes: The Long Beach case

PDF

Local governments' role in consumer protection

PDF

Aspects of judicial administration in California, Ohio and New Jersey

PDF

A study of the Soviet state

PDF

Community organizations and general plan adoption: a critical evaluation of the effect of community organizations on the adoption of an urban general plan

PDF

A brief history of the Suicide Prevention Center of Los Angeles, 1950-1964

PDF

Institutionalized elderly: design, community, and management effects on life quality

PDF

Orthodontics: A new field in public health

PDF

The significance of job status upon voluntary termination rates

PDF

The role of the psychiatric social worker in psychiatric hospitals and clinics

PDF

Familial, occupational, and social characteristics of three generations of Japanese Americans

Asset Metadata

Creator Bird, Alfred Henry (author)

Core Title A study of the feasibility of merit rating and merit pay for teachers

School School of Public Administration

Degree Master of Science

Degree Program Public Administration

Degree Conferral Date 1960-08

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag education,OAI-PMH Harvest

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c39-112590

Unique identifier UC11312437

Identifier EP64655.pdf (filename),usctheses-c39-112590 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier EP64655.pdf

Dmrecord 112590

Document Type Thesis

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Bird, Alfred Henry

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA