enhancing teacher quality through knowledge- and skills-based pay

The 1989 Education Summit establishedthe National Education Goals that spurredstates to set standards and assess educationaloutcomes (Patton and Thompson, 1999). Adecade into standards-based reform, the 1999Education Summit identified two importantpolicy areas that have emerged to carry outthese goals: teacher quality and accountabili-ty (National Education Summit, 1999).

Research supports the important rela-tionship between teacher quality and stu-dent achievement (Darling-Hammond andBall, 1998; Ferguson and Ladd, 1996;Sanders and Horn, 1994; Wright, Horn, andSanders, 1997). Concerns about teacherquality led the National Commission onTeaching and America’s Future to recom-mend that states and districts consider bet-ter ways of linking pay to the developmentof teacher knowledge and skills (NationalCommission on Teaching and America’sFuture, 1996). Exploring better ways ofusing pay to enhance teacher quality is alsosupported, to varying degrees, by teacherunions and associations.

Knowledge- and skills-based pay systemsare emerging as a potentially promising wayof leveraging the investment in teacher payto improve teacher quality and to provideclearer signals to teachers about how theyshould focus their professional energies. ThisCPRE Policy Brief reports on our experiencesin working with policymakers and studyingknowledge- and skills-based pay systems.We provide guidance on important designissues for these systems, and recommendways state and district policymakers canstrengthen the capacity for and pursueknowledge- and skills-based pay.

Enhancing Teacher Quality throughKnowledge- and Skills-based Payby Allan Odden, Carolyn Kelley, Herbert Heneman, and Anthony Milanowski

Knowledge- and Skills-based PayKnowledge- and skills-based compensa-

tion systems provide a mechanism to linkpay to the knowledge and skills (and byextension, performance) desired of teachers.Such systems reward teachers with base payincreases or bonuses for acquiring anddemonstrating specific knowledge andskills needed to meet educational goals.

Knowledge- and skills-based pay differfrom the merit pay and career-ladder sys-tems commonly implemented in the 1980s.Merit pay systems attempted to identify,based on evaluations conducted by princi-pals, and reward the best teachers from afixed pool of funds. These systems wereoften arbitrary, using poorly defined mea-sures of performance and providing inade-quate opportunities to observe actual per-formance in the classroom. The merit paysystems promoted competition amongteachers, and provided no incentive for thebest teachers to work collaboratively withother teachers (Hatry, Greiner, and Ashford,1994).

Knowledge- and skills-based pay sys-tems differ from the career ladders that hadbeen designed to address the problem ofteaching’s flat career structure. Promotionup the ladder was sometimes linked toteacher knowledge and skill development,but the purpose of the career-ladder systemwas to provide opportunities to take onresponsibilities outside classroom teaching.The result was a proliferation of administra-tive roles, which made the programs expen-sive and pulled the best teachers out of theclassroom and away from teaching.

Consortium forPolicy Research in Education

University of Pennsylvania

Harvard University

Stanford University

University of Michigan

University ofWisconsin-Madison

November 2001

RB-34

Reporting on Issues and Research in Education Policy and Finance

PolicyBriefsGraduate Schoolof Education

University ofPennsylvania

2

The concept of knowledge- and skills-based pay in education was adapted fromthe private sector, where it was developed toencourage workers to acquire new, morecomplex, or employer-specific skills. Knowl-edge- and skills-based pay was also intend-ed to reinforce an organizational culture thatvalues employee growth and development(Lawler, 1995, 2000) and to create a clearcareer path linked to increasing professionalcompetence (Heneman and Ledford, 1998;Heneman, Ledford, and Gersham, 2000).

Knowledge- and skills-based pay isappropriate to education because teachersare knowledge workers whose knowledgeand skill set is complex and changing. Thecurrent standards and assessment reformclimate has set high and challenging goalsfor teachers as well as students. Teachers arerequired to have high competency levels intheir subject matter, in content-related peda-gogy, in cognitive sciences, in leadershipand decision-making, and in the develop-ment of a strong learning culture in schools(Conley and Odden, 1995; Kelley, 1997;Mohrman, Mohrman, and Odden, 1996;Odden and Kelley, 2001).

Key Issues in DesigningKnowledge- and Skills-basedPay Systems in Education

We have identified and studied sevenpioneering knowledge- and skills-based payprograms in the world of K-12 education.We describe below how these programshandled several key issues confronting pro-gram designers. Three of these innovativesystems are detailed in sidebars on pages 3,5, and 7. (For more information, see TheVarieties of Knowledge- and Skills-based PayDesign: A Comparison of Seven New PaySystems for K-12 Teachers by AnthonyMilanowski, available from CPRE in late fall2001.)

Supplement, Modify, or Replace theTraditional Schedule

Knowledge- and skills-based compensa-tion systems vary in intensity. They can bedesigned to supplement, modify, or replacethe traditional single salary schedule.

Supplementing the salary scheduleadds knowledge and skill incentives with-out completely scrapping the traditional payschedule. One common way to supplementthe traditional salary schedule is to providea bonus or base-pay increase for certificationby the National Board for ProfessionalTeaching Standards (National Board for Pro-fessional Teaching Standards, 1999, 2001).Many states and districts provide this typeof incentive. Districts can supplement thetraditional salary schedule with incentivesfor developing knowledge and skills relatedto a district’s particular needs. Coventry,Rhode Island provided a $6,500 increase forNational Board Certification, but also devel-oped a district program paying a $1,000 sup-plement to teachers who develop their skillsin authentic pedagogy, self-reflection, differ-entiating instruction, and family and com-munity involvement. (See details on page 5.)Another way to supplement the traditionalschedule is exemplified by Douglas County,Colorado, where teachers are encouraged totake a set of courses focused on specificskills (such as assessment and diversity) thatare related to district goals. Teachers whosuccessfully complete such a skill blockreceive bonuses of $350 to $500.

Modifying the salary schedule is anapproach that retains experience steps onthe salary schedule, reduces or eliminatespay progression based on credits anddegrees, and adds pay increases for devel-oping more classroom-relevant knowledgeand skills. A good example is the programdeveloped by the Vaughn Next CenturyLearning Center, a charter school in Los

CPREPolicy Briefs

CPRE is funded by the National Institute on EducationalGovernance, Finance, Policymaking, and Management;Office of Educational Research and Improvement; U.S.Department of Education. The research reported in thisbrief was conducted by CPRE and funded under OERIGrant No. R308A60003 and The Pew Charitable TrustsGrant No. 97001184000. Opinions expressed in thisbrief are those of the authors and do not necessarilyreflect the views of the National Institute on EducationalGovernance, Finance, Policymaking, and Management;the Office of Educational Research and Improvement;the U.S. Department of Education; The Pew CharitableTrusts; the Wisconsin Center for Education Research;CPRE; or its institutional members.

3

Enhancing Teacher Quality through Knowledge- and Skills-based Pay

3

Sidebar 1. A Modified Schedule: Vaughn Learning Center, Los Angeles, California

1999-2000 School Year

School Overview: An 1,100 student K-5 charter school in the Los Angeles Unified SchoolDistrict, with 60 FTE teaching staff, and almost 100 percent low-income and English languagelearner students. Knowledge and skills (called competencies by the school) included in thepay system are directly related to the goals and core programs identified in the school’scharter.

Base Pay: The new pay system includes annual increases up to year 11, with one additionalbase increase at Year 15.

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6** Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Year 11+ Year 15+31,000* 32,500 33,500 34,500 36,500 38,000 39,500 41,000 42,500 44,000 45,500 47,500

*Starting base pay for licensed teacher; pay is $30,000 for a new hire without an emergency license.**To begin Year 6, an individual must possess a clear California elementary teaching credential.

Knowledge and Skill Elements:

Supplements based on credentials or certifications (total available: $6,000):

Competency-based additions provided as a stipend or a bonus (total available: $13,100)

Noteworthy Design Features:

• Phased-in eligibility for current teachershas no mandatory participation forteachers with five or more years ofteaching experience at Vaughn.

• Monthly advances are provided tomaintain teachers’ previous pay levelsand ease transition to the new paysystem.

• Eligibility for competency-based pay arebased on evaluation using a four-levelperformance scale, and equally weightingthe scores of an administrator, a peer,and self-evaluation.

• Plan also includes a set of stipends forspecified school or community leadershiproles and responsibilities.

Level 1 (depth in essentials)• Literacy (reading and writing): $1,300

• Language development (English, Prim),ESL, Sheltered English: $1,300

• Technology (computer use in instruction):$400

• Special Education Inclusion: $300

• Classroom management: $100

• Lesson planning: $100

Level 2 (depth and breadth after achieving 3.0 score in all Level 1 areas)• Has earned a clear credential: $3,500

• Mathematics: $1,000

• Social studies: $800

• Science: $800

• English learners’ support: $2,500

• Arts: $500

Level 3• If average evaluation rubric score is

greater than 3.5 at Level 2: $4,000

• California Elementary TeachingCredential: $1,000

• Master’s Degree in Education or 30 unitsafter clear credential: $2,000

• Demonstration Teacher: $2,000

• National Board Certification: $4,000

4

Angeles, California, detailed on page 3.1 Thedegree- and credit-based progressions of thetraditional schedule were replaced by acombination of flat dollar increases for rele-vant degrees and certification, and bonusesfor demonstrating specific knowledge andskills relevant to the school’s charter-defined mission.

Replacing the salary schedule pro-vides a new compensation structure inwhich the major determinant of pay pro-gression is knowledge and skills develop-ment as demonstrated in classroom instruc-tion. The new pay structure adopted by theCincinnati, Ohio school district defines fiveteacher career levels by the acquisition andapplication of knowledge and skills embod-ied in a set of 16 teaching standards. Teach-ers who progress from level to level, basedon demonstration of increasing competency,receive a substantial pay increase. They arealso eligible for three-to-five experiencesteps within each level. As detailed on page7, the new Cincinnati compensation systemalso includes incentives for obtaining rele-vant degrees and certification. Implementa-tion of the plan awaits final approval by theCincinnati Federation of Teachers and theCincinnati Board of Education. Unlessrejected by a super-majority vote in May2002, the plan will be implemented in Sep-tember 2002.

Deciding What Knowledge andSkills to Reward

How do program designers decide whatknowledge and skills to reward? The contin-uum of approaches ranges from simplyadopting an existing set of teaching stan-dards to developing from scratch a district-specific model of knowledge and skills.Existing standards that specify what teach-ers should know and be able to do includethose developed by the Interstate NewTeacher Assessment and Support Consor-tium (1992), the National Board for Profes-sional Teaching Standards (1999), andDanielson’s Framework for Teaching(Danielson, 1996). We found that many pio-neering districts and schools adopted a mid-

dle-ground approach: they started with a setof externally-developed standards andadapted them to the local context. Thisappears appropriate because the core com-ponents of instruction are similar in mostschools. Further, starting from standardsthat have been developed by nationalexperts prevents reinventing the wheel andpermits developing a program in less time.Such a modification process also helps todevelop consensus on the knowledge andskills to be rewarded and a sense of owner-ship of the model.

Methods of Knowledge and SkillAssessment

At the heart of a knowledge- and skills-based pay system is a method for assessingthe degree to which teachers demonstratetheir knowledge and skills in the classroom.All of the programs we studied use someform of performance assessment in whichteachers are asked to demonstrate thebehaviors and skills they employ in theclassroom. The most commonly used assess-ment tools are: observation of teaching byadministrators or peers, and preparation ofa teacher portfolio. The portfolio mayinclude artifacts such as scholarly papers inthe content area written by the teacher, newcurricula the teacher has developed, logs ofparental involvement, samples of tests andassignments, lesson plans, and essaysreflecting on the teacher’s practice. Thesemethods tend to focus on the knowledgeand skills most relevant to the teacher’sinstructional role. In the more comprehen-sive programs, however, we found assess-ment of knowledge and skills to be a time-consuming process. Scheduling and con-ducting observations consume a consider-able amount of an evaluator’s time. Teach-ers in some programs regard developing aportfolio as a burdensome task.

Types and Amounts of Pay Incentives Pay incentives vary greatly by type and

amount. Some programs provide base payincreases, others offer one-time bonuses,and still others provide an additionalamount to the base pay for a set time period

CPREPolicy Briefs

1 CPRE provided technical assistance to both Vaughn and Cincinnati to help them develop, implement, and eval-uate their teacher compensation systems.

5


Sidebar 2. A Supplemental Schedule: Coventry, Rhode Island2000-2001 School Year

District Overview: A 5,600 K-12 district in one of the fastest-growing suburban districts inRhode Island, with about 475 FTE teachers. More than one-third of the teachers were hired inthe last five years. About 22 percent of the student population are in poverty and less thantwo percent are students of color. The district is considered to be successful, high performing,and high spending. The knowledge and skills recognized in the pay system are intended toencourage teacher knowledge and skill acquisition that will maintain and build on the district’ssuccess.

Base Pay: The district uses a fairly conventional salary schedule with 10 steps plus threeadditional longevity increments. Additional credits and degrees are treated as fixedincrements to base pay, rather than being incorporated into a salary matrix. A teacher with aMA +30 credits and 20 years of experience would make $67,000.

Knowledge and Skill Elements:

Noteworthy Design Features:The RHODE Program is a voluntary additional assessment and pay program that is based on alocally-developed vision of quality instruction consistent with the National Board standards.

• The knowledge and skill dimensionsemphasized are authentic pedagogy(instruction and assessment), self-reflection, differentiating instruction,family and community involvement, andprofessional development.

• Assessment is based on a portfolioprepared by the teacher, which includesnine elements: evidence that teachersknow their students, evidence ofpreparation for differentiated instruction,the analysis of a lesson plan, a videotapeand analysis of a lesson, assessment ofstudent work, analysis of a studentassessment, evidence that the teachermotivates and supports all students,evidence that teacher has had family andcommunity contact, and evidence the

teacher has undertaken worthwhileprofessional development. Each element ofthe portfolio is evaluated using rubrics.Each element is scored for evidence ofpresence of five behaviors or outcomeseach worth one point. A total score of 43points qualifies the teacher for the award.

• Preparation of the RHODE portfolio is alsointended to help teachers prepare for theNational Board assessments.

• The district also provides financial supportfor teachers participating in the NationalBoard Certification process.

• The district also uses a modified versionof Danielson’s Framework for Teaching asthe basis for the teacher evaluationsystem.

• National Board Certification: $6,500 (paidannually for 10-year duration of thecertificate)

• RHODE Program: $1,000 (paid annuallyfor four years, with reapplication possibleafter that time)

(for example, for the 10-year life of NationalBoard Certification). In programs that sup-plement the traditional schedule, bonusesand pay increases range from a few hundredto several thousand dollars. Programs thatmodify or replace the traditional scheduletend to provide substantial pay increases.The incentives in Cincinnati, Ohio and at theVaughn Learning Center in Los Angeles

constitute about 23 percent of the maximumamount a teacher can earn. As in the privatesector, not all of a teacher’s pay is based ondemonstrated knowledge and skills in anyof the programs. Most systems retain sometype of salary progression based on experi-ence, and still reward at least the acquisitionof a Master’s degree.

6

The Role of Teacher Associationsand Collective Bargaining

Where teachers are represented by anassociation or union, changes in the com-pensation system are likely be the subject ofcollective bargaining. We found that knowl-edge- and skills-based pay can be success-fully negotiated, especially if the traditional,adversarial bargaining process is replacedby some form of interest-based or win-winbargaining in which the parties agree onsome common principles or goals, thenwork out the details consistent with theseprinciples or goals. For example, the associ-ation and district may agree on contract lan-guage that authorizes the design of a newpay system. A formal committee is thenestablished outside the collective bargainingprocess to design the details of the system.In this way, teacher associations can be col-laborative partners in designing and imple-menting knowledge- and skills-based paysystems.

Costs of Knowledge- and Skills-based Pay Programs

There are two major additional costs ofknowledge- and skills-based pay programs:the additional cost of the pay incentivesthemselves and the administrative costsassociated with assessing whether teachershave acquired the knowledge and skills.Investments of both types are and should besignificant if the program is going to be suc-cessful. Accurate cost estimates are difficultto obtain since most of the programs that westudied were either new or had not trackedcosts. Cincinnati’s transition salary costswere estimated to be about 0.4 percent of thedistrict’s payroll. The increased salary costsin the first year at Vaughn Learning Centerwas about 3.5 percent of payroll. However,where significant incentives are provided,salary costs are likely to increase over timeto the point where new resources will beneeded to fund them. Most of the programsthat we studied tried to meet increasedadministrative costs from existing resources,but administrative costs for the more ambi-tious programs are likely to be significant.Cincinnati added nine positions to serve asteacher assessors, and Vaughn Learning

Center hired two retired teachers to workpart-time as assessors. Finally, it should beanticipated that other human resource pro-gram costs will increase. Professional devel-opment costs, for example, will most likelyincrease to provide teachers the opportuni-ties to acquire the desired knowledge andskills.

Lessons Learned from thePioneers in Knowledge- andSkills-based Pay and TeacherEvaluation

The experiences of the districts andschools we studied have taught us the fol-lowing lessons about successful programdesign.

1. Start with an emphasis on the needfor continuous, focused learning.Teachers may believe that their initialtraining, job experience, and prior pro-fessional development are sufficient tobe and to remain proficient. Changingthis mindset to one committed to contin-uous professional growth and learningrequires considerable work — to modifyindividual attitudes, organizational cul-tures, role definitions, professionalgrowth opportunities, incentives, andrewards for teachers and administratorsalike.

2. Adapting external standards is aneffective way to start. Identifying anddescribing the knowledge and skills tobe rewarded can be a time-consumingprocess. Starting with an establishedmodel allows designers to develop a pro-gram in less time. When designers startwith a concrete model, the designprocess is more likely to come to a suc-cessful conclusion sooner, and limitedresources of time and energy can befocused on customizing to the local con-text rather than re-inventing commoncontent.

3. It is hard to get all of the details rightthe first time. Implementing a knowl-edge- and skills-based pay or teacherevaluation program is a multi-year pro-ject. Glitches in the first year are almostinevitable. Some common first-year

CPREPolicy Briefs

7


Sidebar 3. A Replacement Schedule: Cincinnati, Ohio Public Schools

To be implemented 2002-2003 School Year

School Overview: Cincinnati is an urban school district with about 45,000 students and3,000 teachers. The student population is about 70 percent minority, with a relatively lownumber of English language learners. The student population has been decreasing, generallyattributed to the growth of charter schools in the city and a greater than average number ofstudents already attending private schools. Student achievement is on par with other Ohiourban districts, but low relative to non-urban districts. The teachers union and the district havebeen participating in numerous reform efforts, including a recent focus on improving thequality of current teachers and setting high standards for new teachers and the developmentof a new performance-based teacher evaluation system.

Base Pay: The new pay system includes five career-teaching levels; each level has a minimumpay level and (other than Apprentice) two or three salary increments. The numbers belowindicate what the pay levels would have been if implemented in 2000-2001; the levels will beincreased when implemented in the 2002-2003 school year.

Apprentice Novice Career Advanced Accomplished30,000 32,000 38,750 52,500 60,000

33,250 42,250 53,750 61,25034,500 45,750 55,000 62,50035,750 49,250 56,250

Knowledge and Skill ElementsPermanent additions to base salaryAdditional degrees (may have only one add-on in this category):

Additions to base pay that expire

Grandparented permanent additions to base salary (education elements)Post-graduate hours and degrees (limited to only one of the four):

Noteworthy Design Features:• Redesigned compensation system is part of a coordinated and concurrent redesign of the

teacher evaluation system and professional development program.

• New pay system and evaluation program align with key features of Ohio’s new teacherlicensing program.

• Evaluation process is focused on helping teachers gain skills and knowledge and to buildevidence each year that will support the summative evaluation every fifth year.

• Pay potential at highest career level is actually greater than under current pay system.

• BA+150: $535.76

• MA: $4,626.76

• MA+30: $6,405.52

• Ph.D.: $9,405.75

Skill blocks:• Technology expertise (beginning,

intermediate, advanced), one-year for eachlevel: $750/year

• Comprehensive Reform Model Training:$750 per year for 3 years

• Team skills: $750 per year for 2 years

• Leadership skills: $500 per year for 2 years

• Specific curriculum training: $500 for 1 year

• Content specific: $750 per year for 3 years

• Lead Teacher Roles: $5,000-$5,550 per year

• Master’s degree in content area: $4,600

• Doctorate in Education or teaching areas(includes Master’s): $9,375

• National Board Certification: $1,000

• Dual Certificates in mathematics, socialstudies, foreign language, science,English/reading, special education, andelementary education: $1,250

8

problems include: insufficient communi-cation with teachers and administrators,overburdened assessors, unrealistictimelines, insufficiently defined knowl-edge and skill levels, and difficulty inapplying the knowledge and skill stan-dards to such areas as art, music, andspecial education. To surface and correctthese problems, some form of stagedimplementation is recommended, suchas beginning with a small pilot project ina few schools, making adjustments, thenpiloting again with a larger group ofschools. Some districts have started byfirst piloting the assessment portion ofthe program with volunteers, thenimplementing the assessment system aspart of the teacher evaluation system,before basing pay on knowledge andskill assessment results. At least twoyears of piloting or trial implementationare likely to be necessary if the knowl-edge- and skills-based compensationprogram either modifies or replaces atraditional salary schedule.

4. Teachers should participate in thedesign process. Designing a knowledge-and skills-based pay or evaluation sys-tem is a complex undertaking. Teachershave important insights to offer abouthow different elements are likely to workin practice and about what their col-leagues believe is fair and appropriate, aswell as expertise in specific areas of thedesign process. Norms of fairness in edu-cation also suggest that participation bythose affected by the program willincrease its chances of being accepted.

5. Be prepared for initial stress reactionsfrom teachers. Many teachers, especial-ly veterans, are accustomed to beingevaluated in a perfunctory or inconse-quential way. But a knowledge- andskills-based pay or teacher evaluationsystem introduces increased rigor andhas the potential for real consequences.Teachers may experience stress, whichmay reduce their support for the newsystem and may inhibit them from tryingto acquire the desired knowledge andskills. Program designers need to antici-pate these stress reactions and design

training, site-level coaching, and com-munication support systems.

6. Principals need to be prepared for thenew demands of these programs. Wefound that how the principals managedthe assessment process was important inlowering teacher stress and helping towin acceptance. But many principals arenot prepared to assess teacher knowl-edge and skills, provide feedback on theobserved performance, and coach teach-ers to improve their skills. Further, thesenew roles add to the principal’s work-load of student discipline, crisis manage-ment, and administrative paperwork.Principal preparation programs mayneed to be changed to prepare principalcandidates more thoroughly for assess-ment and coaching roles. Districts mayalso have to re-evaluate and re-prioritizethe workload they place on principals ifimproving teacher knowledge and skillsis a high priority.

7. An extensive and continuous orienta-tion and communication program isessential — to explain the system toteachers and administrators, and tohelp them get started with improvingtheir knowledge and skills. Programdesigners need to provide systematic ori-entation and training programs forteachers and administrators. Teachersneed the help of principals and col-leagues while going through the knowl-edge and skills assessment process. Wefound that where principals or col-leagues were willing and able to answerquestions, to guide teachers through thesteps, and to provide assistance, teacherswere more likely to favor the programand feel less stressed.

8. Innovative methods of knowledgeand skill assessment should beexplored to reduce the workload ofteachers and assessors. The standardpractices of requiring multiple classroomobservations of teachers and askingteachers to submit a portfolio (includingartifacts such as lesson plans, activitylogs, and examples of student work) canprovide a good sample of teacher perfor-

CPREPolicy Briefs

9

mance, but are very time-consuming.Alternatively, program designers coulduse videotaped lessons, provide teacherswith electronic technology to keep andsubmit teaching artifacts, and structurethe assessment around one or two stan-dards-based curriculum units. Thisapproach enables the observer to assessthe instructional process from the intro-duction of a new topic through theassessment of student learning, and torelate artifacts like student assignmentsto what was observed in the classroom.

9. Use transition strategies to reducestress and uncertainty, particularlyfor veteran teachers. Knowledge- andskills-based pay represents a culturalchange. Many veteran teachers may per-ceive it as changing the rules underwhich they have pursued their careers. Ifthe new pay structure radically reducesthe role of seniority and of degrees orcredits in determining compensationlevel, some highly-paid senior teachersmay not have the knowledge and skillsto earn a comparable pay rate under thenew system. To prevent unnecessarystress and negative reaction to the newsystem, program designers should findways to reduce the potential negativeimpact, particularly on veteran teachers.

Policymakers might consider a transitionperiod during which teachers maintaintheir current salary rates while masteringthe new knowledge and skills necessaryto earn a comparable pay rate. The newsystem might exempt very senior teach-ers who may soon retire. Teachers whoperform poorly on the assessmentsshould have access to assistance and achance to show that they can improvebefore facing any serious consequences.

10. Align the entire human resourcemanagement system with the knowl-edge- and skills-based model. Addinga reward for the acquisition of knowl-edge and skills is only one step in devel-oping a human resource managementsystem that supports teacher quality. It isalso necessary to ensure that profession-al development programs help teachers

to qualify for the additional compensa-tion. The knowledge and skills modelcan also be used in recruiting and select-ing teachers. Job candidates should learnof the model during recruitments so thatthose who do not believe they can devel-op the desired skills or who disagreewith this philosophy of professionalgrowth may seek employment else-where. Selecting new teachers based onthe knowledge and skills model helps toensure that new hires have, or are willingto develop, the desired skills.

11. A single person should be responsiblefor the entire program. These complexprograms require continuous, competentmanagement. Failure to do so will sabo-tage program effectiveness and signal thatthe program is not a high priority. The pro-gram manager should have both instruc-tional and managerial skills and be locatedhigh within the administrative hierarchy.

Policy Implications for StatesState policymakers are currently very

interested in providing the resources, struc-tures, and incentives needed to enhanceteacher quality and promote teacheraccountability. Knowledge- and skills-basedcompensation could be another importantstate strategy for enhancing teacher quality.Knowledge- and skills-based pay programscan be integrated with other state-levelteacher quality initiatives in several ways.

Starting with a well developed set ofteaching standards, state policies couldencourage teacher preparation programs tofocus on the standards, providing teachersthe preparation they need to meet the stan-dards and preparing teachers for a lifelongcommitment to developing their talents.States could implement performance-basedlicensure systems that require teachers todemonstrate mastery of content and peda-gogy to achieve professional licensure status(Youngs, Odden, and Porter, 2000). Statescould require that new teachers receivementoring and support through an induc-tion process guided by the standards.Teacher evaluation systems could be basedon these professional teaching standards;


10

the state could implement a minimum statesalary schedule that determines salary pro-gression (at least in part) according toteacher performance relative to the stan-dards. Policymakers in states with collectivebargaining laws could establish minimumpay benchmarks for teachers, for example,at the apprentice, novice, career teacher, pro-fessional teacher, and expert teacher levels.Iowa has just begun implementing such asystem that allows local bargaining beyondthese minimums and between steps on thestate schedule (Odden, 2001).

Policymakers will want to address varia-tions in district capacity to develop andimplement knowledge- and skills-based sys-tems. Many districts may currently lack thecapacity to implement meaningful knowl-edge- and skills-based evaluation. Statescould help to develop this capacity by sup-porting the training and hiring of evaluatorsand by developing licensure, professionaldevelopment, evaluation, and pay models.

In addition, states could align new per-formance-based principal licensure systemswith state teacher licensure, evaluation, andcompensation systems by requiring princi-pals to develop and refine the instructionalleadership skills needed to assess teacherknowledge and skills.

Finally, knowledge- and skills-basedcompensation systems need to be imple-mented with attention to the overall ade-quacy of the base pay needed to attract andretain teachers. These new systems are not asubstitute for adequate base pay and do notrepresent cost savings. The matter of ade-quate base pay should be addressed in con-junction with developing the knowledge-and skills-based pay system, which couldlead to substantial pay raises for teachers.Policymakers may find the public more like-ly to support increased investment inteacher salaries if it accompanies a retoolingof the system to support and enhanceteacher quality.

CPREPolicy Briefs

ReferencesConley, S. C., and Odden, A. R. (1995).“Linking Teacher Compensation to TeacherCareer Development.” Educational Evalua-tion and Policy Analysis, 17(2), 219-237.

Danielson, C. (1996). Enhancing ProfessionalPractice: A Framework for Teaching. Alexan-dria, VA: Association for Supervision andCurriculum Development.

Darling-Hammond, L., and Ball, D. L.(1998). Teaching for High Standards: WhatPolicymakers Need to Know and Be Able toDo. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylva-nia, Graduate School of Education, Consor-tium for Policy Research in Education.

Ferguson, R., and Ladd, H. (1996). “Howand Why Money Matters: An Analysis ofAlabama Schools.” In H. Ladd, (Ed.), Hold-ing Schools Accountable: Performance-basedReform in Education (pp. 265-298). Washing-ton, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

Hatry, H. P., Greiner, J. M., and Ashford, B.G. (1994). Issues and Case Studies in TeacherIncentive Plans (2nd Edition). Washington,DC: The Urban Institute.

Heneman, R. L., and Ledford, G. E. (1998).“Competency Pay for Professionals andManagers in Business: A Review and Impli-cations for Teachers.” Journal of PersonnelEvaluation in Education, 12(2), 103-122.

Heneman, R. L., Ledford, G. E., and Ger-sham, M. T. (2000). “The Changing Natureof Work and its Effects on CompensationDesign and Delivery.” In S. L. Rynes and B.Gerhart, (Eds.), Compensation in Organiza-tions: Current Research and Practice. SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass.

Interstate New Teacher Assessment andSupport Consortium (1992). Model Stan-dards for Beginning Teacher Licensing andDevelopment: A Resource for State Dialogue.Washington, DC: Author.

Kelley, C. (1997). “Teacher Compensationand Organization.” Educational Evaluationand Policy Analysis, 19(1), 15-28.

Lawler, E. E. III (2000). Rewarding Excel-lence: Pay Strategies for the New Economy.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

11


Lawler, E. E., III (1995). “The New Pay: AStrategic Approach.” Compensation andBenefits Review, 27(4), 14-22.

Mohrman, A., Mohrman, S. A., and Odden,A. R. (1996). “Aligning Teacher Compensa-tion with Systemic School Reform: Skill-based Pay and Group-based PerformanceRewards.” Educational Evaluation and Poli-cy Analysis, 18(1), 51-71.

National Board for Professional TeachingStandards (2001). Where It’s Happening.Southfield, MI: Author. Available: http://www.nbpts.org.

National Board for Professional TeachingStandards (1999). What Teachers Should Knowand Be Able to Do. Southfield, MI: Author.

National Commission on Teaching and Amer-ica’s Future (1996). What Matters Most: Teach-ing for America’s Future. New York: Author.

National Education Summit (1999). 1999Action Statement. Available: http://www.summit99.org/press/actionstatement.

Odden, A. R. (2001). Comprehensive TeacherCompensation Change. Madison, WI: Uni-versity of Wisconsin, Wisconsin Center forEducation Research, Consortium for PolicyResearch in Education.

Odden, A. R., and Kelley, C. (2001). PayingTeachers for What they Know and Do: Newand Smarter Compensation Strategies toImprove Schools (2nd Edition). ThousandOaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Patton, P. E., and Thompson, T. G. (1999,October 13). “Continuity of Purpose and aCommon Vocabulary.” Education Week, p.52.

Sanders, W. L., and Horn, S. P. (1994). “TheTennessee Value-aided Assessment System(TVAAS): Mixed-model Methodology inEducational Assessment.” Journal of Person-nel Evaluation in Education, 8, 299-313.

Wright, S. P., Horn, S. P, and Sanders, W. L.(1997). “Teacher and Classroom ContextEffects on Student Achievement: Implica-tions for Teacher Evaluation.” Journal of Per-sonnel Evaluation in Education, 11, 57-67.

Youngs, P., Odden, A. R., and Porter, A.(2000). State Leadership in Teacher Licensure.Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin, Wis-consin Center for Education Research, Con-sortium for Policy Research in Education.

About the AuthorsAllan Odden is a Professor of Education-

al Administration at the University of Wis-consin-Madison and Co-Director of CPRE.He is an international expert on educationfinance, school-based financing, resourceallocation and use, educational policy,school-based management, teacher compen-sation, district and school decentralization,and educational policy implementation.

Carolyn Kelley is an Associate Professorof Educational Administration at the Uni-versity of Wisconsin-Madison and a seniorresearcher at CPRE. Her expertise is in orga-nizational theory, policy design and imple-mentation, teacher compensation, andschool-linked services.

Herb Heneman is the Dickson-BascomProfessor Emeritus in the Business: Manage-ment and Human Resources Department atthe University of Wisconsin-Madison. Healso serves as a participating faculty mem-ber in the Industrial Relations ResearchInstitute and as a Senior Research Associatein the Wisconsin Center for EducationResearch. His areas of expertise are rewardsystems, staffing, motivation, and perfor-mance management.

Anthony Milanowski is a researcher withCPRE at the University of Wisconsin-Madi-son. He has also taught courses in compen-sation, staffing, and general human resourcemanagement at the University of Wisconsin-Madison’s School of Business.

CPREPolicy Briefs

About CPREThe Consortium for Policy Research inEducation (CPRE) studies alternativeapproaches to education reform in order todetermine how state and local policies canpromote student learning. Currently,CPRE's work is focusing on accountabilitypolicies, ef for ts to build capacity atvarious levels within the educationsystem, methods of allocating resourcesand compensating teachers, governancechanges like char ters and mayoraltakeovers, finance, student and teacherstandards, and student incentives. Theresults of this research are shared withpolicymakers, educators, and otherinterested individuals and organizations inorder to promote improvements in policydesign and implementation.

CPRE unites five of the nation's leadingresearch institutions to improveelementar y and secondar y educationthrough research on policy, finance, schoolreform, and school governance. Membersof CPRE are the University ofPennsylvania, Harvard University, StanfordUniversity, the University of Michigan, andthe University of Wisconsin-Madison.

CPRE Policy Briefs are published by CPRE.To learn more about CPRE research orpublications, please call 215-573-0700 or access CPRE pub l icat ions atwww.cpre.org; www.wcer.wisc.edu/cpre/;or www.sii.soe.umich.edu.

Graduate School of EducationUniversity of Pennsylvania3440 Market Street, Suite 560Philadelphia, PA 19104-3325

NON PROFITU.S.POSTAGE

PAIDPERMIT NO. 2563PHILADELPHIA, PA

PolicyBriefs

Nondiscrimination StatementThe University of Pennsylvania values

diversity and seeks talented students, facul-ty, and staff from diverse backgrounds. TheUniversity of Pennsylvania does not dis-criminate on the basis of race, sex, sexualorientation, religion, color, national or ethnicorigin, age, disability, or status as a Vietnamera veteran or disabled veteran in theadministration of educational policies, pro-grams, or activities; admissions policies,scholarships, or loan awards; and athletic orUniversity administered programs oremployment. Questions or complaintsregarding this policy should be directed toExecutive Director, Office of AffirmativeAction, 1133 Blockley Hall, Philadelphia, PA19104-6021 or 215-898-6993 (Voice) or 215-898-7803 (TDD).

enhancing teacher quality through knowledge- and skills-based pay

Documents