Transcript No Slide Title

Teacher Compensation Research
and Policy Overview
SEDL Policy Forum 2005
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
Recruit & retain in hard-to-staff,
high need schools
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
Knowledge & skill-based pay
Improve skills of current faculty
Motivate effort, focus on goals,
common sense of purpose
School-based performance awards
Motivate, ‘reward the best’
Individual performance awards based
on student achievement
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
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
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
Hiring/Retention Incentives for
Teaching in Shortage Areas
(Math, science, special education)
Where?
North Carolina (program discontinued)
Charlotte-Mecklenburg
Baltimore
Blue Valley, KS
‘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
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:
– NB assessment does identify teachers with higher
levels of student achievement
– Incentives raise rate of NB participation
– Mixed evidence on whether NB improves skill
– 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
- Dallas? Houston?
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
 Students not assigned to teachers at random
 Control for student characteristics or not?
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….
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
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
Teacher Acceptance Is Important
Why are teachers suspicious of performance
pay?
Long experience with traditional schedule
- Simple, predictable, objective
Distrust of state/district will and ability to continue
to fund innovations
Many teachers don’t believe they can reach a
higher standard of practice
Teacher ‘sunk costs’ after 7-10 years in traditional
schedule
Better Research on Pay Innovation
Effects is Needed
Why do we know so little about teacher pay
innovations?
Many don’t get fully implemented, change
frequently, or disappear quickly
No comparison groups, no randomization;
before/after comparisons obscured by other
simultaneous reforms
 Academic incentives vs. policy maker needs