I. IntroductionConflict over merit pay for teachers has existed for decades in many countries around the world. The debate was particularly heated in the United States. Since the 1920s, public schools began awarding compensation primarily based on title and seniority rather than merit. Many attempts were made to introduce merit pay systems throughout this period, but they never gained national popularity. But today, political leaders such as Barack Obama support merit pay for teachers. This reignited the debate, with many groups siding with one side or the other. The National Education Association, for example, has opposed merit pay, while the United Federation of Teachers supports the idea. Modern merit pay or pay-for-performance programs provide teachers with monetary bonuses for student achievement on annual standardized test scores. Merit pay conflicts with the way we teach in today's schools and cannot be fully effective. This form of motivation, for teachers, will be impossible to be impartial, and the broad term "merit" does little to contribute to the long-term success of students. No “good” teacher is in it for the money anyway. This newly rediscovered answer to public education could set back and delay the entire system.II. Summary of the article III. Multidisciplinary Analysis As the public becomes more concerned about the quality of education, so will its interest in teacher accountability and performance. A recent survey reveals that there is considerable public interest in linking student performance to teacher accountability (Wright, 2003). According to merit pay guidelines, the teacher has the sole responsibility to determine whether a child succeeds in education......in the middle of the test......(2010). Public opinion on merit pay: Self-interest versus symbolic politics. program on the Education Policy and Governance Working Paper Series. Program on Education Policy and Governance, 1.17. Hulleman, CS and Barron, KE (2010). Pay for performance and teacher motivation: separating myth from reality. Phi Delta Kappan, 91(8), 27-31.Moore-Johnson, S. and Papay, JP (2010). Expecting too much pay for performance. School Administrator, 67(3), 22-27.Moore-Johnson, S. and Papay, JP (2010). Merit pay for a new generation. Educational Leadership, 67(8), 47-52. Protheroe, N. (2011). Performance-based pay for the teacher. Principal, 90(4), 28-34. Ramirez, A. (2011). Merit pays for failures. Educational Leadership, 68(4), 55-58.Wright, R.E. (2003). Difficulties in marketing the concept of merit pay for primary and secondary teachers. Research for education reform, 8(3),8.38-45.