New fire station dedicated
Chamber awards ceremony
Spotted: Shamrock Shuffle
Dayton Daily News education reporter Scott Elliott writes about schools, kids, teaching and learning.
Home > Blogs > Get on the Bus > Archives > 2008 > June > 05 > Entry
Teacher performance pay: Costly and complicated
Ron Budzig, retired MeadWestvaco executive, was the first to bring up the question that was on the minds of several business leaders as Percy Mack gave his response to a consultant’s report on the district:
What about pay-for-performance?
Mack ducked and bobbed for a minute before committee chairman Tom Breitenbach, who is CEO of Premier Health Partners at his day job, essentially ordered Mack to add an investigation of performance pay to the plan.
But do business leaders really know what school-based performance pay looks like and how different it is from the labor contract-free pay raise systems many of them use at their companies?
In education, performance pay is different and often costly. But that doesn’t mean it’s necessarily a bad idea.
Several school district are experimenting with performance pay, including Toledo and Cincinnati in Ohio and Denver, which has gotten a lot of press for its effort.
But these plans don’t junk the salary scale systems that are common to schools under their labor contracts. Instead, they seek to alter those scales to change incentives for teachers.
The simplest plans just dole out extra money. Sometimes this means schoolwide bonuses when schools meet their goals. Or the money may be awarded by grade level. Or sometimes individual teachers can get bonuses for meeting individual goals.
But those are not the performance pay plans that are getting the most attention right now. The hot plans seek to re-engineer teacher pay scales.
Mostly, the new performance pay scales seek to provide teachers a career ladder, giving them opportunities advance their skills and take on new responsibilities in ways that will reap better pay. At the same time, teachers who don’t take any steps to advance their training or responsibility will find their pay growth dramatically slowed. This may create incentives for ineffective or apathetic teachers to change careers.
Here’s how this type of plan works.
The usual scale moves teachers up in pay each time they add experience, which can be as often as every year or every other year. In addition, teachers can add a pay premium for additional academic degrees or coursework.
The elevation up the scale is basically automatic. Earn the degrees or hit the experience milestones and you get more money.
Under the performance plan, teachers still get automatic pay raises for added experience and education. But there are also four levels on the teacher career ladder. The ladder looks like this:
Beginning teacher
Emerging teacher
Career teacher
Master teacher
In each ladder level, there are steps, but they are limited. A beginning teacher who gets a doctorate can get added pay and there might be, say, four experience steps. But a five-year teacher with a doctorate who never advances to “emerging teacher” will no longer get automatic step increases. This doesn’t quite freeze their pay but it slows pay growth to the point at which making a career of teaching could look much less attractive.
How do teachers move up the scale? It usually involves some degree of peer or administrator performance review. Usually, part of the master teacher’s job requires them to review or mentor less experienced teachers. It may also require teachers to achieve internal teacher training goals.
But here is what these performance programs don’t do. They don’t scrap teacher pay scales entirely and gives principals or administrators a free hand to reward and punish teachers financially as they see fit.
And performance pay plans generally cost extra. The basic bonus style plans are simpler, but you need extra money to dole out the bonuses. Re-engineering the pay scale requires cooperation in labor talks and generally unions don’t give things that work for them (like the existing salary scales) away for free. Districts have to make the new scales worth their while.
The bottom line is that performance pay is not a simple fix.
(Image credit: Education World)
Permalink | Comments (26) | Post your comment | Categories: Dayton Public Schools
Comments
By former administrator
June 9, 2008 5:18 PM | Link to this
In order to even begin to think about implementing pay for performace for DPS, you first of all have to come up with the money. Right now, all employees will be starting their third year without a raise. The only individuals that will see an increase in their paychecks are those who have not reached year 15. They are guaranteed a step increase until year 15, than again at Step 20. Pay for performance concept might sound good but you really need someone from outside the building to come in and evaluate teacher performance and do not hire from within. You can read between the lines on that comment. Again, you must have the financial means to make this work.By Oldprof
June 9, 2008 3:32 PM | Link to this
Let’s look at the reason that unions generally oppose “merit” pay from an opposite perspective. I know a former special ed teacher whose administration decided to retaliate against her for supporting a harassment complaint. They loaded her classroom with the worst behavior problems they could find. If you do outcomes-based merit pay, then too many administrators will game the system by putting all the honor students into the classes of their favorite teachers. Of course, the alternative—purely random assignment of students—would contradict the fashionable notions of “parental choice” and also would prevent good administrators from trying to match a student’s needs to a teacher’s strengths. That’s just one more reason why so many insiders consider merit pay unworkable.By TRS
June 9, 2008 3:25 PM | Link to this
RE 13M grant - check out http://www.columbian.com/opinion/news/2008/05/05092008Unions-stance-hurts-teachers-students.cfm or http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/education/2004394554grants06m.htmlBy joe mamma
June 9, 2008 2:05 PM | Link to this
TRS, save your breath. Oldprof is a socialist. As you can see he’s indicted the entire private sector based off the corporate malfeasance of a couple of companies. It’s easy to throw Bernie Ebber’s name out there and then ignore the ingenuity and productiveness of the millions of John and Jane Doe’s who go to work every day and play by the rules.By joe mamma
June 9, 2008 1:38 PM | Link to this
Pay for performance? Yeah right. Perormance implies that there will be accountability. The educrats and unions will make sure that does not happen.By June
June 9, 2008 11:19 AM | Link to this
Turned down 13M private grant for advanced placement in science? What were the strings attached? Were the strings from the donor going to interfer with effectively using the money to benefit AP instead of the basketball team and football team? I find it hard to believe it only had one string and that was the pay was for best student preparation… But I can be wrong. I tend to think it’s keeping other hands off education who have a purpose behind the overt. Recall how we ended up with so many charter schools here. It all started with Ronald Reagan promising parochial parents he would push to be public money to pay for their private education costs.By J
June 9, 2008 9:41 AM | Link to this
Amen to Concerned Mom of Three! If you want schools to perform better, you’ve got to hit the problem on its head! Get parents more involved in their children’s lives! They created them, they need to understand they are now responsible for them. I don’t agree with handing out cash but why not offer parents the opportunity to come and do their child’s laundry at the school in exchange for helping out in the library, in the classroom or in the cafeteria? It not only will get kids into clean clothes (which, trust me, is most of the time NOT the case) but it will get the parents more involved in their kids lives. Or create a program through the schools where parents can apply to become cafeteria aids or refile books in the library and earn vouchers for groceries while there. There are so many options but everyone is always so ready to jump on the teachers and blame them for low performing children!By Barb
June 8, 2008 11:23 PM | Link to this
I am not talking about teachers. I agree many are doing all they can. These other states are now paying students to go to school. That is what I was referring to.By TRS
June 8, 2008 10:02 PM | Link to this
Old Prof - reviwed the Hertsberg data some years back and I realize monetary reward is down the list; but, it is on the list. It is not a do all, end all but it could be one component of several. I guess I don’t get your business start up comparison as school systems have been around a long time. Seems to me we’re not talking start ups; rather, implementation of a process. I like “Concern Mom of 3” comments as well as “what they want”. I like the idea of basing an Administer’s salary on performance as well. They would keep their non performing “buddies” around at their own peril. Anyone hear the story out of the state of Washington? They turned down a 13M private grant to fund advanced placement in math in science. Teachers were to receive incentive pay for those students which performed the best. So why was it turned down? Didn’t fit the Teacher’s Union templet. Mary - that hits your point of protecting turf.By Concerned Mom of 3
June 8, 2008 9:54 PM | Link to this
But Barb, do you really think offering the teachers merit pay will make a difference? I don’t. I think the teachers are doing all they can. (With a few exceptions, of course.) The motivation to achieve needs to come from the students themselves. (With the support of their families.) It is very sad that the people who need an education most, fight it the most.By Barb
June 8, 2008 6:29 PM | Link to this
Isn’t Georgia or South Carolina already doing this? I thought they were paying students to go to school and based on grades and passing. Isn’t it a shame that people who need education must be paid to get it. Just another enabling technique we have adopted.By Concerned Mom of 3
June 8, 2008 2:05 PM | Link to this
Oh, I just thought of a few more criteria for receiving the family bonus: Attend 2 parent-teacher conferences throughout the year, have no outstanding school fees, and no lost books.By Concerned Mom of 3
June 8, 2008 1:59 PM | Link to this
I agree that the place to implement the bonuses is at the root of the problem- The families. (This may only apply to the lowest performing districts- maybe even to the lowest performing students.) The families should be rewarded for 95% attendance, No office referrals, reading 35 books, performing a small amount of community service, and achieving proficient scores in all five areas of the test. A big enough bonus might motivate the parents to support their children in making wise choices and putting forth an appropriate amount of effort. A few wise choices early in their lives may make a significant difference in the Dayton community a decade or two down the line. This idea has merit… When you schedule a meeting to define the expectations, provide food and the people will come. When you dangle a good “bonus” in front of people, they may choose to bite on it. Some administrator should start writing a grant for this idea- it has the potential to really make a big difference. By the way- the “bonus” should NOT be cash. Perhaps a gift card would be an appropriate bonus. Also, on a side note, my kids and I don’t need this type of motivation, but I have seen many students whose families do need some extra motivation to do the right thing.By SchoolSupporter
June 7, 2008 8:51 PM | Link to this
The State of Ohio only need to base the salary of superintendents on the successful graduation rate of their district and you would see a remarkable turnaround in teacher performance. Since most superintendent’s rose through the ranks as teachers, they are still loyal to the unions that have perpetuated a system of no accountability,either for them or their staff. And why does everyone automatically think this would cost a bunch of money to implement?By JM
June 7, 2008 7:33 PM | Link to this
We’ve all been to school, therefore, we all think we “know” how to fix education/teachers. Well, let me tell you after teaching 25+ years, I still love the kids, but hate the crap we teachers have to put up with because “everyone” thinks they know how to fix education. Funny when I think about it… after all, all those people who think they know how to change/fix education all got the same start as the children are getting today. Wonder if the children of today will think the system still needs fixed once they are adults? I loved school when I was a child, but if I had to learn the “stuff” we are making children learn today, I don’t believe I would like school very much.By Mary
June 7, 2008 8:38 AM | Link to this
TRS, it all depends on what the meaning of “change” is. Both parties are using the word “change”. I would like to see a “change” in the two party system, more openness to independent candidates and their views. People touting “change” are not as open as they would have you believe. Getting back to education, I would like to see changes there as well, but many seem to want to protect their own turf and change someone else’s.By What they want
June 7, 2008 12:41 AM | Link to this
The CEO’s don’t want the kind of pay-for-performance package Scott describes here: they want bonuses for higher student performance (read: test scores) and a more-prepared work force. (For what jobs, I’m not sure since everybody’s shipping their work to other countries.) I’ll give them a clue: don’t offer the teachers the bonuses, we’re already trying everything we can think of to get our students to score higher — our jobs already depend on it. No, skip the teachers, offer the bonuses to the STUDENTS. They’re the ones who need the kick in the pants to work harder. How about $500 cash to every student who scores proficient? More if they score accelerated or advanced.By Caroline
June 7, 2008 12:31 AM | Link to this
There are too many administrators already who love to reward their friends—those who buddy up to them. I can see this becoming an even bigger disaster once $$ is involved. I don’t see the point of making teaching “much less attractive” to those teachers who are already apathetic. Unfortunately, teaching is becoming a less and less attractive profession anyway.By greener
June 6, 2008 11:04 PM | Link to this
on performance pay set it up and bring in 5 homeless people to administer it.that way no (nepotism)and each time anew evaluation bring in 5 new homeless persons.OH! and paythe the homeless people 75,000 each time. It will be cheaper than a C.E.O. and NO GLODEN PARACHUTE’S no percentage bonus for doing nothing no health care package no retirement package no sick leave or vacation to worry about.By Oldprof
June 6, 2008 9:18 PM | Link to this
Mary, you inspired me to look up Bernie Ebbers. His only educational employment came, as far as I could find, as a scholarship athlete who was unable to perform due to injury and wound up as a basketball coach. Not what I would call “the education field” —and you, probably less so.By Oldprof
June 6, 2008 9:06 PM | Link to this
TRS, while there are millions of businesses that are making it (all of them wonderfully—that’s doubtful), it’s well-known that 90% of new businesses fail in the first five years. So if schools were run like most businesses, we’d be in a worse pickle. But for the sake of argument let’s agree; well-run is the key, and there are multiple ways to run well. Now, let’s consider—you have a class of employees who are highly educated and who have opted to work for sub-standard salaries because they are motivated. Do you honestly think that dangling a $500 bonus in front of them is the best motivator? Please read up on Fred Herzberg’s research on motivating employees, if you don’t know it already, before offering a response.By TRS
June 6, 2008 7:30 PM | Link to this
For every company cited which failed to perform, there are millions each day that perform wonderfully and do so by using some form of “pay for performance”. With all due respect, someone needs to be addressing the education system in this country because if it were a business, it would go the way of the companies you mentioned. Like any system, pay for performance either functions well or badly depending on how it is administered. I have seen cases of both; however, pay for performance can can be administered well and when stacked up against the current option and the “product” it produces, it just seems obvious that we need to do something different. “Change” has been the buzz word of this campaign season so far - so how about a little of it?By Mary
June 6, 2008 3:22 PM | Link to this
oldprof, you make a good point. However, it is also interesting to note Bernie Ebers of Worldcom went from the education field to Worldcom and ran that company into the ground.By Skeptic
June 6, 2008 8:43 AM | Link to this
I have a job that uses a similar pay scale plus career ladder system. It really doesn’t seem to make any difference because most people get the same 2 or 3 percent annual raise regardless of performance, especially when budgets are tight. There has to be a real institutional commitment to rewarding performance or the whole thing is pointless.By Oldprof
June 6, 2008 8:32 AM | Link to this
The U.S. health care system costs us twice as much as those of other industrialized nations, it delivers results near the bottom of the rankings of those nations, and we are trusting a health care CEO to tell us how to run public schools? Perhaps not a brilliant idea. The “run it like a business” proponents need to explain what they’ll do when the public schools then act like GM, DHL, and Bear Stearns. Not to mention Enron, Worldcom, or Global Crossing.By Mary
June 6, 2008 7:27 AM | Link to this
Having worked in a career in a large bureaucracy, I could see how performance pay programs could be more trouble than they are worth and fraught with favoritism and mismangement. I saw how higher military officers gamed the system when rating younger officers for promotion in an “up or out” system. It was absurd. Higher “controlled” ratings were being given to “lower” performing officers who “needed” the higher ratings to get a promotion and keep their career. Games like this also go on in corporate America every day.