The teachers and school board of Springfield, Massachusetts are debating already what's being touted as the first citywide merit pay system in the state, more which might be more aptly described as merit-pay lite.

First off, student achievement would only count for 25 percent in the consideration of a teacher's eligibility for the bonus. The remaining three quarters would be contingent on a combination of two factors: first, whether the teacher just shows up for work on a regular basis, and second, an ambiguous category called "knowledge and skills." In effect, what's on offer here is the typical salary schedule with a "merit pay" garnish. Springfield's proposal continues to be mired in the mistaken presumption that experience and advanced degrees distinguish great teachers. The truth is, experience and education can make a good teacher much better, but they can only make a mediocre teacher--well, much better paid.

The garnish isn't even edible, either: the student achievement portion would be based strictly on how well the students tested--not, that is, on gains in performance. Okay then, why would a teacher choose to teach a low performing group of kids? The local teachers' union has offered its own proposal, which would make merit awards on a school-wide basis. This isn't a great idea, either--but it's hard to say which is worse.