Transcript No Slide Title

Teacher Compensation Research and
Policy Overview
Education Commission of the States
2006 National Forum
Tony Milanowski
Consortium for Policy Research in
Education
Wisconsin Center for Education Research
University of Wisconsin-Madison
CPRE Work on Teacher
Compensation Innovations
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.
www.wcer.wisc.edu/cpre
Teacher Compensation Innovations
What are they?
Where are they being used?
What do we know about how they work?
Compensation Innovation Menu
Strategic Need
Innovation
Signing bonus, ‘add-on’ to base pay,
loan forgiveness, housing assistance,
extra retirement credits
Recruit & retain in shortage areas Signing bonus, ‘add-on’ to base pay,
higher placement on pay schedule
Recognize & reward teacher
Differentiated pay
leaders
Improve skills of current faculty Knowledge & skill-based pay
Recruit & retain in hard-to-staff,
high need schools
Motivate effort, focus on goals,
common sense of purpose
School-based performance awards
Motivate, ‘reward the best’
Individual performance awards based
on outcome measures
Incentives for Teaching in Hard-tostaff or High-Need Schools
Where?
California (National Board Certified teachers)
New York
Nevada
Houston
Philadelphia, Baltimore, Hamilton Co, TN
Miami-Dade, Palm Beach, FL
Charlotte-Mecklenburg, NC
Charlotte-Mecklenburg’s Equity
Plus Program
Signing Bonus ($2,000)
Deferred Accountability Bonus ($500-750) (to be
replaced with performance pay 2006-07)
Master Teacher Incentive ($1,500-2,500)
Reduced class size and extra resources
Paid/subsidized Master’s degree tuition
Pay incentives to help retain quality school
leaders
Incentives for Teaching in Hard-tostaff or High-Need Schools
Relevant Research
Teachers tend to move out of poor, non-white, low
achievement schools
 Both pay and working conditions affect teacher job
choice
Econometric studies suggest relatively large financial
incentives would be needed to influence teacher choice
No large scale studies of targeted incentives; anecdotal
evidence positive from some districts
Hiring/Retention Incentives for
Teaching in Shortage Areas
(Math, science, special education)
Where?
North Carolina (program discontinued)
Charlotte-Mecklenburg
Baltimore
Blue Valley, KS
Austin, TX
‘Covert’ programs (bring in at higher step)
Incentives for Teaching in Shortage
Areas
Relevant Research
Some evidence that math/science teachers have betterpaying alternatives outside education than other teachers
Significantly higher base pay (at least 25%) would be
needed to attract a significant number of Wisc. math,
science, and technology majors to teaching
Evaluation of NC program concluded that modest
incentives can have a positive effect on recruitment of
math & science teachers
Differentiated Pay
 Recognizes & rewards additional responsibilities
Applications:
Mentors
Peer coaches
Lead teachers
Instructional Coaches
Additional responsibilities vs. differentiated
staffing
Differentiated Pay - Examples
Lead Teachers in Cincinnati: + $5,000-6,000
Mentors/Evaluators in Toledo: + $5,000
Mentors in LA: + $4,300
Differentiated staffing in Milken TAP:
Career Teacher
Mentor Teacher (+ $2,000-5,000)
Master Teacher (+$5,000-11,000)
Additional responsibilities & longer year
Differentiated Pay
 Little research currently available
 Similarities to existing pay for extra-curriculars
 Similarities to 80’s career ladder programs
Issues:
 Eligibility & selection criteria
 Need to carefully distinguish between compensable
and ‘expected’ responsibilities
 Supplemental performance evaluation?
Knowledge & Skill-based Pay I
Incentives for National Board Certification
 Most states and many districts provide them
 Range from assistance with application costs to
bonuses, 10-15% pay increases
 Research suggests:
– Mixed evidence on whether NB teachers produce
higher levels of student achievement
– Incentives raise rate of NB participation
– NB teachers may not be teaching where most
needed
Knowledge & Skill-based Pay II
Incentives for Professional Development
Participation
 Iowa, Minneapolis, Douglas County, CO,
Plymouth & Menomonee Falls, WI, Delaware
- Moderate participation, relatively low cost, and
perceived effectiveness in Douglas County
- Shaky start in Minneapolis due to district leadership
changes, implementation problems, and new
direction from state level
Knowledge & Skill-Based Pay III
Pay for Demonstrating Competencies in the Classroom

Based on a comprehensive model of what teachers
should know and be able to do
- Explicit standards, multiple practice levels, and behavioral
rating scales
- Multiple classroom observations & multiple lines of evidence
- Danielson’s Framework for Teaching popular starting point
 If periodic assessment shows practice is at a higher
level, teacher receives a base pay increase or salary
add-on, and in some cases the potential for more step
increases (otherwise capped)
Knowledge & Skill-Based Pay
Demonstrating Competencies in Classroom
Where?
Vaughn Charter School, Kyrene, AZ
Cincinnati, Philadelphia, La Crescent, MN, Steamboat
Springs, CO
CPRE Research Findings:
 Trained evaluators can provide reliable ratings
 Evaluation ratings from well-designed & run system are
correlated with student achievement
 Evaluation process affects teaching practice
Knowledge and Skill-based Pay
Demonstrating Competencies in Classroom
CPRE Research Findings

Requires attention to teacher development
- Feedback, coaching
- Aligned professional development

Can be costly and time-consuming to administer

In typical district, many teachers are likely to be
uncomfortable with uncertain pay and higher
expectations for teaching practice
School-based Performance Awards


Bonuses provided to all teachers (and
others) in a school when that school
achieves pre-established performance
goals
Longest-running ‘new’ compensation
innovation
 North Carolina, Charlotte-Mecklenburg, Dallas,
Cincinnati, Vaughn Charter, several Arizona
districts in response to Prop 301
 Kentucky, California
CPRE Research Findings
 Programs help focus attention & emphasize
performance goals
 Low to moderate motivational impact
-
Small bonus amounts
Limited attention to ‘enablers’
Uncertainty about effort-goal link
Uncertainty about funding
 May increase turnover in schools identified as lowperforming
 Performance pay option least preferred by students
preparing to be teachers in Wisc.
 May be most effective as a symbol rather than a
motivator
Incentives for Individual Teacher
Performance

“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

Current approach: pay increase or bonus based
on achievement of individual teacher’s students,
often calculated using ‘value-added’ approach
- Colonial, PA
- Charlotte-Mecklenburg, Houston?
- US DOE TIF grants
Research on Individual Incentives
Based on Student Achievement
 Very limited; mixed evidence from Mexico, Israel
and US
 Only very best and worst teachers can be
reliably differentiated due to small samples
 Not all teachers teach tested subjects (Denver
approach?)
 Students not assigned to teachers at random
US DOE TIF grants  more experimentation
Our Take on Teacher Pay Innovations

Incentives for teaching in high-need schools look
promising, especially when coupled with working
condition improvements

Incentives for shortage areas: common sense to policy
makers but a dilemma for teacher organizations

Incentives for professional development can be useful
as a ‘soft’ way to more strategic use of pay, but danger
is loose administration

KSBP based on demonstrating competencies in the
classroom could work, but needs streamlining and
careful implementation
Our Take….
No huge effects
Problem may be skill, not will
Pay change has often been seen as an end in
itself, or as another simple solution
Need to use pay change to support other reform
strategies that impact instruction; pay by itself is
not a strong reform strategy
- HR Alignment needed to support pay change
Strategic Pay Alignment
District Instructional Strategies &
Program Initiatives
What Teachers Need to Know & Be Able To Do
Pay for
Skill Behavior Results
Human Resource Management Systems
Staffing, Induction/Mentoring, Professional Development,
Performance Evaluation, Leaders