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?