Some thoughts

I recently came across a blog that argued the dangers of merit pay and standardized testing. Here is my response:
I sympathize with your frustration. As an educator in Southern California, I too see the tremendous barriers to achievement that plague our system. However, I disagree with several of your contentions about Race to the Top, merit pay, and standardized testing. Let's examine them point-by-point.
1) You contend that Race to the Top assumes the biggest problem in education is teachers. While it might not be the biggest, it is substantial. Though I cannot possibly know what your particular school or district is like, I do know that there are plenty of unqualified teachers where I come from. These teachers refuse to use data to drive instruction, neglect to use research-based approaches (best practices), and fail to incorporate innovative learning strategies in the classroom. Any new approach is an affront to what they have always done. An effective teacher maintains best practices throughout their career, and incorporates new, research based ideas when appropriate (not fads, but tried and tested methods.) Even more disheartening, is the poor quality of teacher candidates being churned out from California's credentialing programs. The problem is two fold. First, teachers don't earn a high enough salary to attract the most qualified candidates (this is especially true for math and science; few of these majors would choose teaching when they could earn six figures in computer science or engineering.) Second, a staggering number of candidates in the credential programs struggle to pass basic competency tests in a reasonable number of tries. For example, in my credentialing cohort alone (completed recently within the last 3 years), over half the candidates could not pass the writing portion of the CSET on the first attempt. Many took the test 3 or 4 times before passing. Despite the fact that they were obviously lacking in several of the testing areas and required serious remediation to pass, many of these teachers are now employed in my district. I cringe when I think about their exceptionally poor skills (which I witnessed first hand through group projects) and that they will be teaching these to students. Though I wish I could say that this was only a handful of candidates, I can say with confidence that only about half of those who went on to be hired met standards to be minimally proficient. Where could these students have been trained? Cal State University San Marcos, part of the CSU system, which trains the majority of teacher candidates in the state. Clearly, California has much to do to improve its teaching workforce.
2) Merit pay is the catalyst we need to abolish the abundance of mediocrity in California. Many opponents believe it is unfair to compare the test scores of wealthy schools to other schools where students lack social capital. It would appear that the teachers at the wealthy school must be working harder because their students are proficient. The teachers at the school in the barrio must not be doing their jobs because less than half their students are proficient. As educators, we know the many factors that impact student achievement. However, a teacher evaluation can be linked to pay, by showing growth. Any teacher, at a high performing school or at a low performing school, can show growth with their students. I say this as a teacher in a school with the highest percentage of ELL's in the district (73%) and lowest SES (95% of students on free and reduced lunch). Though our API is not where it should be, we grew by 20 points over the previous year, through targeted interventions and modifications to instruction. Individual teachers can do this and should be compensated for it, much like businessmen are given bonuses for positive performance. Ideally, teachers should have a base pay (like the step schedules many districts currently have,) and should be awarded with bonuses for showing student growth.
3) The argument that teachers will choose to work where students are already proficient in order to earn merit pay makes it blaringly apparent that these teachers aren't confidant in their own abilities to promote student growth. Rather, they would prefer to work with students that manage to maintain proficiency regardless of the quality of teaching (students with lots of social capital do this very well.) Granted, I want to earn a buck too, but I wouldn't leave my underprivileged kiddos for anything. I am confidant that I can improve their test scores (as I have done consistently since I began.)
4) See #3
5) You contend, "all teachers know" that standardized tests are bad for students. Actually, I think they are quite important, and I believe many of our colleagues would agree. Data is essential to make instructional choices at the classroom, district, state, and federal levels. It was through state data that my district and school developed targeted interventions that ultimately led to increased achievement. Though we can agree that an overabundance of testing is unwarranted and can be a hindrance to classroom instruction, the state testing that is in place provides valuable information about our students and guides the instructional choices we must make. Though my ELL's struggle on these tests, it is important to continue teaching the standards and develop solid plans to help them reach proficiency. They CAN and they DO. We must believe that it is possible. We cannot afford to waste time by making excuses for why they do not perform well on tests. Though the barriers are vast, they CAN be broken. As for creativity, who says you can't creatively teach the standards? I see creativity every day in classrooms that are focused on the standards and high achievement.
Bottom line, we have many great tasks before us. Our current system is broken and change is necessary to meet the dynamic and diverse needs of our students. Change is possible, we must believe in it. Besides, there are so many AMAZING teachers out there, how can it not be possible?