In today's competitive education environment, almost all educators are willing to embrace the idea that teachers should be paid more for extra effort and high performance. But many educators still express strong reservations when they encounter actual proposals for “performance pay” or “differentiated pay.”
Doubts about such proposals are well founded, says a new report prepared by 18 teacher leaders, Performance-Pay for Teachers: Designing a System that Students Deserve. Most differentiated pay plans have failed to achieve their goals because they lacked adequate funding, valid criteria by which to judge teacher quality, and access to trustworthy student achievement data. Perhaps a more fundamental flaw is that policymakers have traditionally developed performance-pay policies without consulting teachers themselves.
The report's authors identified these problems through an extensive study of the research on professional compensation. They discussed this research in months of online conversations, and they participated in structured online dialogues with researchers, policy analysts, community activists, teacher union leaders, and practitioners who have been involved in a variety of performance-pay plans. They conclude that, despite the complexities of implementing performance pay, the time has come for new forms of professional compensation that differentiate among teachers' levels of effort and performance: “Like the dusty blackboards still found in some school classrooms, the single-salary schedule has served its purposes and outlived its usefulness.”
- Start with a solid base-pay system that encourages teachers to advance in their profession. The report proposes a career ladder with at least three tiers: novice, professional, and expert.
- Supplement the base-pay system with a performance-pay system that is open to all teachers. Don't pit teachers against one another by placing an artificial cap on the number of teachers who are eligible for incentives, and don't limit rewards to teachers who teach tested subjects, such as reading and math.
- Reward teachers who help their students make significant academic gains. The research supports plans that measure student gains over time; that recognize both individual and team performance; and that allow schools to use credible data from classroom assessments (like the Nebraska model).
- Provide more pay for additional degrees and professional development that are relevant to school and district goals.
- Allow local flexibility so that schools and districts can advance their specific learning goals. For example, don't assume that all districts need to offer incentives for math, science, and special education teachers; some schools may have a shortage of music teachers.
- Encourage collaboration. Reward teachers who develop successful programs in small teams or who document effective classroom practices and share them with their colleagues.
- Offer incentives to teachers in low-performing schools but only if those teachers can demonstrate that they are effective with high-needs students and will be able to address the school's specific learning needs.
- Reward leadership, not seniority. Select and pay teachers to take on additional responsibilities—such as mentoring novices and serving on advisory councils—according to their demonstrated ability, not their years of service.
- Be willing to overhaul the compensation system now in place.
- Include accomplished teachers in planning and implementing new compensation policies. Their experience and credibility will help win the necessary support among other teachers and the community.
The U.S. Department of Education has recently added momentum to the performance-pay movement through its Teacher Incentive Fund, which will provide federal dollars to support differential pay. But the report asserts that this initiative will not realize its potential if policymakers invest the funds in flawed compensation approaches that repeat the mistakes of the past. The purpose of the Performance-Pay for Teachers report is to spark conversations among educators and policymakers that will lead to the development of new, more effective teacher compensation systems that enhance the quality of teaching and learning.
