New Approaches to Teacher Compensation: Research Results

and Policy Applications

Herb Heneman & Tony Milanowski Consortium for Policy Research in

EducationWisconsin Center for Education Research

University of Wisconsin-Madison

1991: Odden & Conley, “A New Teacher Compensation System to Promote Productivity”

1995-97: Exploratory design meetings with National Board for Professional Teaching Standards, leading edge states & districts, national teacher organizations

1997: Odden & Kelley, Paying Teachers for What They Know and Can Do (2nd ed. 2002, Corwin Press)

1996-2005: Research on school-based performance awards & knowledge & skill-based pay; National Conference.

2007: Odden & Wallace, How to Create World Class Teacher Compensation (Freeload Press)

www.wcer.wisc.edu/cpre

 

CPRE Work on Teacher Compensation Innovations

“Merit Pay”– variable annual pay increases based on principal’s subjective

evaluation of last year’s performance – Problems with evaluation, funding– Programs died out except in a few wealthy districts

Career ladders - Stipends or raises for taking on extra duties- Access restricted by some sort of selection process- 22 states at one time

 

Waves of Teacher Compensation Innovation Since 1980

School-based performance awards- Bonuses provided to all teachers (and others) in a school

when that school achieves pre-established performance goals

- Sometimes $ given to school for improvements

Knowledge & skill-based pay- Bonus or pay increase for participating in specified

professional development- Bonus or pay increase for certification by National Board for

Professional Teaching Standards- Bonus or base pay increase for demonstrating competencies

in the classroom

 

Waves of Teacher Compensation Innovation Since 1980

Incentives for teaching in high-need or hard to staff schools

Incentives for teaching in shortage areas

Differentiated pay for teacher leaders

Pay increases or bonuses for teachers with high classroom value-added

 

Next Wave of Teacher Compensation Innovations?

School-based Performance Awards

• School level performance pay plan

• District or State establishes school-wide goals for student achievement (level or growth) and other performance indicators such as graduation, advanced placement, and attendance rates

• Goals are annual or multi-year and require performance maintenance or improvement (relative to a base, relative to a standards, or value added)

• There are pre-determined bonus amounts and payout criteria• Bonuses paid to teachers and other staff, or into a school

activity fund• Full bonus (typically $500-$1,500) is paid to teachers and

administrators; smaller (often half) bonus paid to other school staff

• Single salary schedule remains intact

Knowledge & Skill-based Pay

Base pay increase or bonus (typically $300 - $3,000) for competency demonstration

- skill blocks – technology, student assessment, curriculum unit design, etc.

- portfolio completion- dual certification- graduate degree in subject taught

Base pay increase or bonus for NBPTS certification ($1,000 - $15,000)

Base pay increase or bonus for classroom performance mastery (typically $1,000 - $3,000), as measured by standards-based teacher evaluation

May involve changes to single salary schedule- fewer steps- fewer or redefined lanes- performance-linked career ladder progression

Combined Plans – Denver ProComp

Additional pay on top of salary index amount ($34,200) for: Knowledge and skills (up to $4,762)

- professional development units- graduate degree/national certificates and license- tuition reimbursement

Standards-based teacher evaluation (up to $1,366) Market incentives (up to $1,025) for hard-to-staff subjects and

schools Student growth (up to $2,052)

- student success in meeting two annual learning objectives- state test score growth- distinguished school

Funded in part by a $25 million referendum on the plan, not time-limited and inflation adjusted over time

Single salary schedule is replaced

CPRE Research on School-based Performance Awards

Sites: Charlotte-Mecklenburg, Kentucky, Vaughn Charter School, Maryland

Timeframe: 1998-2002 Methods: Interviews, surveys, analysis of

motivation-achievement relationship

Theoretical Framework - Teacher Motivation and Performance Awards

School

Teacher Effort Achievement Teacher

Intensity Goals/Targets Consequences

Persistence Positive

Focus Enablers Negative

Competencies

InstrumentalityExpectancy

When do performance incentives motivate?

Teachers perceive that goal achievement leads to consequences they value (instrumentality)

– Positive (rewards)– Avoiding negative consequences (sanctions)– The value of positive consequences must outweigh the

negatives such as stress, less freedom, and working harder.

They understand and accept the goals They perceive a strong link between their own efforts and

achieving the goals (expectancy)

– They believe they possess the competencies– They perceive the presence of performance enable

CPRE Research FindingsMotivating Outcomes

- Goal Attainment (e.g., bonus, public recognition)- Learning (e.g., seeing student achievement improve,

working cooperatively with other teachers)- Sanctions (loss of pride, state or district intervention)

Demotivating Outcomes- more pressure & job stress- putting in more hours- less freedom to teach things unrelated to goals

CPRE Research Findings

Expectancy averages- CMS 62% - KY 53%

Instrumentality averages- CMS 73%- KY 54%

CPRE Research FindingsLow to moderate motivational impact

- Small bonus amounts- Limited attention to ‘enablers’ & competencies- Uncertainty about effort-goal link- Uncertainty about funding

Schools in which teachers had higher levels of expectancy were more likely to meet performance goals (one std. dev. increase in expectancy associated with .2-.3 std. dev. increase in goal attainment)

CPRE Research FindingsRewards helped focus performance by defining goals

Focus, but do not drive performance due to low to moderate motivational impact

May increase turnover in schools identified as low-performing

Bonus or base pay increase for demonstrating competencies in the classroom via performance evaluation

Knowledge & skills defined by standards-based teacher performance evaluation systems based largely or in part on Framework for Teaching

Primary Sites:- Cincinnati Public Schools- Vaughn Next Century Learning Center (LA charter school)- Washoe County (NV) School District

Secondary : Anoka & La Crescent, MN, Coventry, RI, Newport News, VA

 

CPRE Research Findings on Knowledge & Skill-Based Pay

Evaluation ratings predicted value added student

achievement in reading and math Teachers accepted the teaching standards used to

evaluate performance, but had mixed reactions on the fairness and validity of evaluation ratings

Administrators accept the teaching standards, reported increased workload in implementing new system, & had difficulties providing sufficient feedback and coaching

Implementation glitches were frustrating to teachers and administrators

Research Findings on Knowledge & Skill-Based Pay

Impacts on teaching practice were primarily on planning,

classroom management, and attention to state and district standards

There was a lack of a broader strategy in the districts to use the pay system to drive teacher and student performance improvement

There was a lack of alignment of human resource systems (recruitment, selection, induction, mentoring, professional development, compensation, performance management, instructional leadership) to the teaching standards

Teachers resisted linking the teaching evaluation results to pay

Research Findings on Knowledge & Skill-Based Pay

Bonus or pay increase for certification by National Board for Professional Teaching Standards

Incentives increased applications for NBPTS certification Students of National Board Certified Teachers (NBCT’s) had

higher value-added achievement in reading and math than students of non NBCT’s in two studies; a third study showed fewer and smaller positive effects

NBCT’s are not used much differently than other teachers by most states & districts

Rewarding NBPTS certification can be expensive (teacher preparation time, cost of application, salary increases or bonuses for certification), raising questions of its cost-effectiveness.

Research Findings on Knowledge & Skill-Based Pay

Bonus or pay increase for participating in specified professional development

Little research on these plans; District experience suggests:

- Teachers find them acceptable

- They increase participation in targeted professional development

- Increased participation builds a cadre of teachers with needed skills

Research Findings on Knowledge & Skill-Based Pay

Guarantee Stable and Adequate Funding

- One reason for teacher suspicion of new pay plans is tendency of states and districts to lose interest in bad budget times.

- Funding need not be just external infusions of new dollars. Resource reallocation, teacher attrition and reduced back-loading of the single salary schedule (Odden & Wallace, 2007).

Provide Competitive Total Compensation Build Strong Measurement Systems

- Reliability

- Fairness

- Timeliness

Guidelines for Policy & Practice

Gauge Likely Teacher Reactions to Performance Pay Plans

- Acceptable degree of pay differentiation among teachers

- Motivation to improve performance- Fairness of procedures and outcomes- Acceptance of overall plan

Guidelines for Policy & Practice

Engage the Teachers' Association Include Principals and AdministratorsBuild CapacityDevelop a Performance Improvement Strategy and Plan

Align Human Resource Systems to the Performance Improvement Strategy

Guidelines for Policy & Practice

Strategic HR Alignment

Student Achievement Goals

Performance Improvement Strategy (Programs, Plans)

Performance Competencies (What Teachers & Administrators Need to Know & Be

Able to Do)

Human Resource ProgramsRecruitment - Selection - Induction - Mentoring

Prof. Development - Compensation - Performance Management - Leaders

1. Identification of a designated "champion" and formal leader for the plan;

2. Continual engagement by top management with the plan;

3. Attention to details and "drill down" of plan requirements to all systems involved;

4. Constant communication with teachers and principals.

5. Conduct a Pilot of the Performance Pay Plan

Guidelines for Policy & Practice: Implementing the Innovation

Pay increases or bonuses for teachers whose individual classrooms show high value-added

Incentives for teaching in high-need or hard to staff schools

Incentives for teaching in shortage areas

Differentiated pay for teacher leaders

Looking Forward

Motivational impacts:- Bonus sizes need to be valuable enough to balance

increased job demands - Need to address teacher suspicions of achievement

reward link (instrumentality)- Many teachers don’t believe they can reach a higher

standard of practice (expectancy)- Need to attend to performance enablers

Importance of smooth implementation & teacher fairness perceptions in maintaining acceptance

Need to address measurement reliability (e.g., small samples make classroom value-added estimates unstable)

Implications for Rewarding Teachers for Classroom Value-added

Motivational impacts:- Incentives need to be valuable enough to balance perceived

negative working conditions - Need to provide enablers that help educators succeed in

challenging schools

Reliable definition of “high need” or “hard to staff”

Need to align HR systems- Publicize incentives as recruiting tool - Select high potential teachers - Professional development tailored to skill needs

Implications for Incentives for Working in High-Need Schools

Why do we know so little about teacher pay innovations?

Many didn’t get fully implemented, changed frequently, or disappeared quickly

No comparison groups, no randomization; before/after comparisons obscured by other simultaneous reforms

Policy makers have shown little interest in evaluation

Will TIF improve the situation?