They are politically tough to eliminate, not
correlated with teacher effectiveness outside the math and science fields, and generally unaligned with districts» priorities for professional development.
The state is on the right track by requiring job performance to be a significant factor in compensation, but the language is too vague to ensure that performance will be prioritized over other factors that are not
connected with teacher effectiveness.
For evidence that experience does not directly
correlate with teacher effectiveness, and therefore should not be the sole determinate of the highest steps on a pay scale, see the following: J. King Rice «The Impact of Teacher Experience: Examining the Evidence and Policy Implications.»
Researcher Marguerite Roza and others have produced considerable evidence that teachers in schools serving the most - disadvantaged students have lower average salaries... [and] there is also evidence that these schools tend to have more teachers with emergency credentials and without regular certification... The problem is that these readily measured attributes of teachers have virtually nothing to
do with teacher effectiveness.»
Never mind that research shows neither correlates
with teacher effectiveness.
We are paid using the same antiquated system established four decades ago: incremental salary increases with every new contract, automatic raises for time in the classroom regardless of our success, and rewards for graduate school classes that are required by law but have shown no correlation
with teacher effectiveness.
The issue in this goal is not whether requirements for certification or continuing status are associated
with teacher effectiveness, but rather it is about the grounds and process for dismissing clearly and chronically underperforming teachers.