What I've Learned About Merit Pay (insert disclaimer here)

The Push for Performance Pay

In today’s rapidly changing world, many organizations have had to review their traditional structures and adapt their practices in order to stay viable and relevant.  As we see this transformation take hold in our society, we cannot help but reevaluate the long held practices and traditions within education and consider what is working effectively, and thus worth keeping, and which practices and traditions could be allowed to be abandoned for a research-based better way.  In the ever-rising culture of school accountability and effectiveness one such structure that is being called in to question is the traditional pay matrix many schools have had in place for decades. 

            The American public school has, for the last few decades at least, seen increased government attention regarding the effectiveness of schools and the ability of the school to prepare a well-educated and knowledgeable citizenry. As Gratz notes, “Predictions of disaster based on low productivity have been sounded since A Nation at Risk in 1983, but American workers have actually been more productive since the 1990s than in any period in history” (2010).  Yet the push for education reform has continued in the manifestation of government-led programs like Goals 2000 and the No Child Left Behind legislation.  Even in Obama’s administration there has been a focus on education reform with Race To The Top rewarding a select few states that are able to meet the requirements for a shot at additional funds.  Administrators and teachers who have faced these changes have adopted a skeptical perspective on such reforms, mandates, and new initiatives.  These viewpoints aren’t without their merit.  Teachers who have seen reform after failed reform begin to adopt the perspective that such changes will not last any longer than a new fashion trend.  In the minds of these educators, the reform will be embraced for a short while but won’t be implemented with fidelity and thus, it will fall apart.  Therefore, the teacher can keep doing what she has done for her career and life will go on uninterrupted. 

            However, when the discussion shifts to the topic of restructuring the method through which professionals are compensated, it becomes more personal for some than perhaps the restructuring of curriculum, expectations, or the daily business of the school.

The majority of school districts in the United States operate on a single salary schedule and have done so for decades.  In fact, “97% of all schools had adopted the single salary schedule by 1950. By the 1999-00 school year, nearly 100% of teachers were paid according to the single salary schedule” (Springer & Gardner, 2010).  So what is wrong with this system if it was finally something that everyone in education could agree on?

 Some argue that “teachers are now paid according to criteria that researchers suggest have little connection to actual performance of teachers in the classroom” (Springer & Gardner, 2010).  It is viewed as unfair that “The only way a teacher can earn more on this scale is to pursue additional education” (Johnson & Papay, 2010).  On the other side of the argument are those who make the case that “Enticing people into teaching who are primarily motivated by money may change the climate of education in unhealthy ways” (Hulleman & Barron, 2010).

            Regardless of where you may fall on the spectrum, it cannot be ignored that effective educators are vital to the success of the students to whom they are entrusted.  This focus on effectiveness has pushed some school districts to adopt the model that many businesses have established wherein compensation is based upon the measurable results that gauge the ability and impact of individuals upon the organization as a whole.  In a time when many districts and states are rearranging curriculum and reviewing the intended outcomes in education, the structure of pay should not go ignored. 

The Case for Performance Based Pay     

            A few school districts have taken the bold step toward implementing a performance based pay system.  One such district, Harrison District Two, a system with 11,000 students outside of Colorado Springs, “this fall will be among the first in the nation to replace the traditional salary schedule with a pay system based entirely on observations of teacher practice and student-achievement results” (Sawchuck, 2010).  Why break with tradition? Perhaps this desire for restructuring comes on the heels of the fact that “Harrison School District Two was under "academic watch" by the state four years ago. Its students scored 160th out of 178 districts on a state achievement measure” (Sawchuck, 2010). 

As a system that is in danger of being viewed as ineffective, irresponsible, and whose students are non-proficient, it would be necessary to look at current practices and identify what could be done differently to curb this trend. But how exactly are educators in this district to be judged? “Teachers receive eight to 16 "spot" observations annually by their principals or assistant principals of 10 to 15 minutes each, in addition to several formal, class-long ones” (Sawchuck, 2010). It is important to note that teachers in Harrison District Two are not alone in being paid based on performance.  “Accountability for principals in supporting the improvement of their teachers comes mainly in the form of twice-annual reviews conducted on-site by Mr. Miles,” the superintendent, “and a core team of district administrators. Teachers' perceptions are taken into account in the reviews, too” (Sawchuck, 2010).    

Harrison District Two is among a growing list of districts such as Denver, Austin, Nashville, and New York that are in the process of adopting or implementing some form of performance pay either in a reconfiguration of the salary structure or an incentive program.  Beyond the local level, “Florida, Minnesota, and Texas have allocated over $550 million to incentive pay programs that reward teacher performance… and the Obama Administration’s 2011 budget request designated an additional $950 million for a new Teacher and Leader Innovation Fund” (Springer & Gardner, 2010).

   Perhaps this is a sign that schools are attempting to adopt models that seem to be successful in the business world.  If performance pay is the objective, we must first consider how performance is defined and then how performance is measured.  Do we simply base performance on test scores?  In this writer’s opinion, absolutely not.  What other indicators could be significant?  Perhaps a focus is placed upon the implementation of effective instructional techniques.  What does a teacher do well in his classroom and how great is the impact on the students?  As Reeves points out, “The central question is not, "What were the test scores?" but rather, "Once you knew what the test scores were, how were your teaching strategies adjusted to meet the needs of students" (2010).

Other determining factors for pay could include, “those who transfer to hard-to-staff schools, teach subjects in which there are shortages, or work longer school days” (Johnson & Papay, 2010).  The root of the discussion comes down to teachers who desire to earn a livable wage and districts that would like to be able to better predict the expenditures for salaries based on a more focused scale than the single schedule allows currently. 

Standing Firm on the Single Salary Schedule

“Although schools have employees, budgets, and bottom lines, the product of education is not simply a good or service, but rather a quality of student that is difficult to measure and not universally agreed on” (Hulleman & Barron, 2010).  This perspective is important to note, especially when comparing education to business.  Attempts have been made over many years to identify common themes between practices in business and education and thus allow them to work more in unison, rather than as separate islands.  The problem with this is that these two are very different from each other.  A business, when shipped poor quality materials, can send them back to the producer of the materials and demand some of better quality or throw out the defective materials.  This isn’t possible in education.  Our job is to teach every child regardless of the baggage they may bring with them to school.  Our belief should be clear: that every child can learn and it is our job to make sure that learning happens.   

The single salary schedule first debuted in 1921 when “Denver, Colo., and Des Moines, Iowa, successfully negotiated and introduced the position-automatic or single salary schedule for teachers. In this system, a teacher’s salary was based on two criteria deemed most important: degree held and years of teaching experience” (Springer & Gardner, 2010).  The creation of this pay system was necessary in order to level the playing field for educators.  Prior to this, educators were compensated quite differently based on gender and race.  Female teachers often lived with families of students and taught elementary grades, whereas male teachers received older students and earned at least double the salary of their female counterparts.  It was also common for African-American educators to earn substantially less than their Caucasian colleagues. 

After ninety years, the single salary schedule is getting some pressure by those who want to see educators paid based on performance indicators.  The problem many find with performance pay is that it may attract individuals to the field of education who solely want to teach students who statistically test well, such as gifted and talented students, students enrolled in advanced placement courses, and students in college preparation courses.  Which leads one to wonder, who will sacrifice pay and be willing to teach special education students who may not score as well on standardized tests?  Hulleman & Barron assert, “This sorting effect… may also operate on personality characteristics and select teachers with motivations at odds with the overarching mission of education — to make money rather than to educate students” (2010).

            What makes the entire issue of performance pay increasingly difficult is the question of what can and should be measured. As Springer & Gardner identify, “Compared with other professionals, teacher performance is more difficult to measure in valid, reliable, and fair ways. For instance, a salesman can be measured by his total sales, and a doctor can bill according to her hours. But how do we measure student learning and attribute this learning to an individual teacher” (2010).  The constant refrain is that measureable results are provided to schools and communities via standardized test scores.  If scores are the incentive for teachers to teach better, what is the incentive for students?  Students surely aren’t paid on how well they perform, but they may have test data used to place the student in leveled classes or for some other purpose.  Colleges don’t (and shouldn’t) look solely at test scores to determine whether or not to admit a student to their institution.  Therefore, if a student knows that a teacher’s livelihood is linked to the student’s performance, couldn’t the student purposely perform poorly to impact a teacher they have negative feelings toward? 

            As Reeves observes,

“The worst result of any pay-for-performance program will be those consequences that are the opposite of what leaders intended. Rewards for test scores, for example, create financial incentives for excellent teachers to migrate to the least needy schools. Rewards for gains do not solve this problem, but they may create financial incentives for teachers to focus only on students who potentially can move from non-proficient to proficient status, disregarding transient students, those whose scores are so low that even great improvement will not lead to a proficient score, and high-scoring students who need extra challenges” (2010).

            Making districts and individual schools change how they do the work they are trusted to do, is a much larger task than rewriting curricular goals and standards.  It is important to remember, “that NCLB and Adequate Yearly Progress were also supposed to encourage districts to change. Just like NCLB and AYP, performance pay puts a premium on raising student test scores. That’s only a carrot of a different color” (J.R., 2010).

                Additionally, questions arise regarding content area teachers who teach subjects that aren’t measured by standardized tests. How will a district determine what a music, art, industrial technology, or physical education teacher is paid when these content areas are not measured by standardized tests?  In fact, “roughly 70% of educators don’t instruct a course or a grade covered by a standardized assessment” (Springer & Gardner, 2010).  This is yet another area that needs to be addressed by researchers and school districts prior to adopting a change in salary structure.

What Could Performance Pay Look Like?

So let’s say your district is toying with the idea of changing the compensation structure from single salary schedule to a performance based system.  There are some key considerations to keep in mind as this process unfolds. 

Primarily, many teachers and administrators will be questioning the role of evaluations and the specifics of how performance will be measured.  Reeves recommends, “…evaluate teachers not on data alone, but also on their response to data. We cannot control the genes that influence our blood pressure readings when we are born. But we can influence our responses to blood pressure data” (2010).  When reviewing data, it is critical to keep in mind that the information provided is a limited scope on student ability.  We need to consider that what is represented by the data can help us identify areas that need more concentration in our daily teaching.  For example, if the data that suggests that students have a difficult time making inferences, we can respond by instructing students on what an inference is and how to infer based on information provided.  Additionally, as districts address how performance will be measured, “there needs to be a continued push for more accurate and reliable tools for assessing individual and team performance... far more happens in a classroom than can be measured on a standardized assessment” (Springer & Gardner, 2010).

Secondly, teachers, administrators, and community members will wonder what the pay structure will look like.  Johnson & Papay recommend a tiered system.

“The tiered pay-and-career structure we envision is designed to attract strong candidates to teaching, support their development, and offer substantially higher pay to those who perform well and take on responsibility for improving instruction beyond their classroom. The structure would reward teachers for effective instruction, ongoing learning, successful leadership, and continual commitment — all behaviors that advance the interests of students” (2010). 

            Whether your district considers a tiered structure or some other form of performance pay such as incentives, fellowships, or scholarships, it is necessary to keep in mind that “Compensation reform is just one element…alongside reforms that retool resource allocation and deployment norms; teacher hiring, tenure, and dismissal practices; and the standards and assessments systems, among other areas” (Springer & Gardner, 2010).  It becomes evident that restructuring pay systems is not a standalone issue.  Curriculum, policies, procedures, and other practices held by district must also be reshaped as part of a systemic overhaul. 

Remember the Unions

No matter the direction a district chooses, it is important to remember that a overwhelming number of teachers belong to unions at the local, state, and national level and these groups should be included in any discussion regarding a shift in compensation structures because, “Teacher unions play a critical role here. They can shape teachers’ views about new forms of compensation…unions can serve as crucial partners in designing and implementing new pay programs, or they can apply the brakes and stop plans from moving from paper to practice” (Koppich, 2010).  This is an important consideration for districts with high union membership who are considering a break with traditional practices in compensation.

The two major unions, the National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers, have their own perspectives on performance pay. “The NEA favors compensation for increased teacher knowledge and skill, for teaching in hard-to-staff schools, and for assuming added professional responsibilities, such as mentoring. The organization opposes pay for teaching in hard-to-staff subjects and for using student test scores in any form to set teacher pay” (Koppich, 2010).  Because both unions are concerned with the best for students and teachers, it is not surprising that they agree on many points.  However, the two groups disagree on some key areas as “The AFT supports teacher pay based on teaching in hard-to-staff subjects, as well as group pay for school-wide improvement, including improvement as measured by student test scores…the AFT opposes calculating individual teacher pay on the basis of student test scores” (Koppich, 2010).  Keep the communication lines open with members of the community, faculty, staff, and unions.  In developing these positive school-community relations, it may help the district and community find common ground in a time when many are questioning the practices being implemented.

The Reality

While much of the research is still being conducted in regard to merit pay or performance pay, there are good indications that such structures may be a reality for many districts sooner than many educators would have assumed.  However it is necessary to remember, “Organizational change is a deep and complex process” (J.,R., 2010).  Any change worth doing is worth doing correctly.  It would behoove school districts to carefully review any possible change being made to salary structure and weigh the intended and unintended outcomes for such a change.  It is necessary to consider that “Teacher pay alone will not improve the quality of teaching and, by extension, improve levels of student learning” (Springer & Gardner, 2010).  No matter what takes place in the next five to twenty years as school district debate this issue, it is key to be cognizant that “Pay for performance programs aren’t about rearranging current dollars on the existing salary schedule. New pay programs require new dollars. They also require sufficient dollars to meet their obligations. Nothing will kill a pay program faster than running out of money before all teachers who earned the money are paid” (Koppich, 2010).

The discussions surrounding performance pay may go in a number of directions, but one thing is essential to keep our focus on…student achievement.  But there exits some confusion on what this means.  As identified by Gratz, “as long as policy makers and the press confuse student achievement with standardized test scores, we won’t improve the education of our children — even if test scores rise…when we engage parents, citizens, and educators in shaping the visions and strategies in their own districts, there is the possibility of real improvement” (2010).  If we are going to get serious about achievement, let’s do it with all the research proven best practices and models that are successful beyond comparison.  Let’s involve the broader community—parents, business leaders, volunteers, and those who no longer have students in school but still care about education.  However, I fear that when we begin only talking about one way to fix the problem, such as teacher pay, we have already put a nail in the coffin of potential growth and effective change.     

Educators enter the profession for a variety of reasons but I suspect that no one enters teaching with the expectation of becoming a millionaire. It is my hope that “…employees who enter the education field are likely doing so for reasons quite different from those in sales-related sectors. As a result, teachers may be less motivated by money and more motivated by the students they teach” (Hulleman & Barron, 2010).  Any teacher who has been in the career for any length of time would hopefully identify that the moment when a child understands a concept, or looks to you as a role model is far more rewarding than a huge bonus for what you should be doing all along: effective teaching.  If money is your only motivator…reconsider your choice of profession.  I only want to work alongside those who are here solely for the betterment of each child. 

References

Gratz, D. (2010). Looming Questions in Performance Pay. (cover story). Phi Delta Kappan, 91(8), 16-21. Retrieved from Professional Development Collection database.

Hulleman, C., & Barron, K. (2010). Separating Myth from Reality. (cover story). Phi Delta Kappan, 91(8), 27-31. Retrieved from Professional Development Collection database.

J., R. (2010). A Carrot of a Different Color. Phi Delta Kappan, 91(8), 4. Retrieved from Professional Development Collection database.

Johnson, S., & Papay, J. (2010). Merit Pay for a New Generation. Educational Leadership, 67(8), 48-52. Retrieved from Professional Development Collection database.

Koppich, J. (2010). Teacher Unions and New Forms of Teacher Compensation. (cover story). Phi Delta Kappan, 91(8), 22-26. Retrieved from Professional Development Collection database.

Reeves, D. (2010). Paying for Performance. American School Board Journal, 197(5), 48-49. Retrieved from Professional Development Collection database.

Sawchuk, S. (2010). Colo. District Scraps Traditional Teacher-Pay Schedule. Education Week, 29(31), 8-10. Retrieved from Academic Search Elite database.

Springer, M., & Gardner, C. (2010). Teacher Pay for Performance. (cover story). Phi Delta Kappan, 91(8), 8-15. Retrieved from Professional Development Collection database.