Paying Teachers for Performance

An Overview and Update of Programs

in Colorado and Other States
Prepared February 2008
Updated November 2009

Ben DeGrow, Education Policy Analyst, Independence Institute

ben@i2i.org
 Speaking & Writing on
Teacher Performance Pay
• American Legislative Exchange Council
• Legislative Briefing and Testimony
• Good Day Colorado (Fox31)
• News Radio 850 KOA
• Amy Oliver Show (1310 KFKA)
• School Reform News (national)
• Education News Colorado
• Various community groups & forums
 Overview

1) Teacher Quality &

Compensation Models
2) Compensation Reform in
Colorado
3) Compensation Reform
Nationwide
Teacher Quality & Compensation Models

• Teacher Quality = Single Most Important

Educational Factor (Public Policy)
– Fewer top-notch students are being attracted to the
teaching profession
– Steady decline since the 1960s
– Not an indictment of individual efforts or
achievements
– Part of the problem is a compensation system that
rewards career longevity over professional excellence
Teacher Quality & Compensation Models

• Teacher Quality Makes a Difference

– One year of a great teacher vs. an average
teacher is worth 5 percentile points in test
scores
– Three years in the classroom of a great
teacher vs. a poor teacher is worth 50
percentile points in test scores
Teacher Quality & Compensation Models
SINGLE SALARY SCHEDULE
(“steps and lanes”)
– 1921: Denver & Des Moines become first 2
school districts on single salary schedule
– Since 1950, nearly all districts pay teachers
based on YEARS & CREDIT HOURS
– On average, each year’s gain + Cost of Living
= 6% pay raise, regardless of teacher quality
Teacher Quality & Compensation Models
SINGLE SALARY SCHEDULE
(“steps and lanes”)
– Designed primarily to eliminate inequities for female
teachers entering workforce
– This industrial model ignores highly relevant
differences (e.g., success with students, difficulty of
assignment, scarcity)
– The single-salary schedule is highly inefficient and
can’t be sustained indefinitely
• No correlation of performance with advanced degrees or
experience after the first few years
• Teacher raises based on seniority & credentials make up
roughly 12 percent of school district budgets
Teacher Quality & Compensation Models

• Divided Teacher Opinion

– 38% of teachers favored rewards based on
students’ standardized score achievement
– 48% of teachers favored rewards based on value-
added assessment, or student growth
– 57% of teachers favored rewards based on National
Board certification
– 67% of teachers favored rewards based on time
commitments and work ethics
– 70% of teachers favored rewards based on tougher
school assignments
 Teacher Quality & Compensation Models

• Pay-for-Performance: Some Policy Questions

– How will performance be measured?
– What goal is trying to be achieved?
– Bonuses vs. permanent salary increases?
– How many rewards can be paid out?
– How significant will the rewards be?
– Rewards to individuals or groups?
– Whose input should dictate the program?
– How will the program be funded now & future?
 Overview

1) Teacher Quality &

Compensation Models
2) Compensation Reform in
Colorado
3) Compensation Reform
Nationwide
 Compensation Reform in Colorado

• Strongholds of Teacher Compensation Reform

 DOUGLAS COUNTY Performance-Based Pay Plan
(1994): performance-, knowledge-, & skills-based pay;
responsibility pay; group incentives
 EAGLE COUNTY Teacher Advancement Program (2002)
 ADAMS 14 [COMMERCE CITY]: Group bonuses based
on meeting CSAP “target growth”
 DENVER PROCOMP (2006)
 Compensation Reform in Colorado

• Charter School Performance Pay

 Liberty Common School (Fort Collins, K-8)
 Borrowed from business model
 Based on performance evaluations in 6 areas
(measuring longitudinal student growth on
assessments is under investigation)
 Emphasis on performance & results, not on
activity or effort
 Embraces subjectivity, recognizes limitations
 Compensation Reform in Colorado

• Charter School Performance Pay

 The Classical Academy (Colo Springs, K-12)
 Started out as pure merit pay, evolved
 2nd generation Strategic Compensation
 3 Factors = Merit, Market, Loyalty
 Moved to more objective, predictable criteria
 Also recognizes preparation, compatibility with
school philosophy, extra contributions, teamwork
and leadership
Compensation Reform in Colorado

• Charter School Performance Pay

 KIPP-Sunshine Peak Academy (Denver, K-8)
NEW: 2009-2010 School Year
Three pathways: New, Associate, Senior Teachers
Performance pay scale: Four indicators
 Student achievement / growth (50%)
 Overall school performance: DPS framework (20%)
 Demonstrated competencies in pathway (20%)
 Commitment to excellence, model school values (10%)
Awarded as year-end bonuses
 Compensation Reform in Colorado

• Eagle County in Transition

 1st school district in Colorado completely off
the single-salary schedule
 Version 2.0 (2007): revised technical design
for assessments; simplified, transparent
 Up to 4% bonus based on student assessments
 Up to 4% salary raise based on evaluations
 Other negotiated/inflationary increases available
 Sustainable: 1% local override, TIF grant
 Compensation Reform in Colorado

• Fort Lupton Teacher Incentive Fund (2007)

 Federal TIF grant sought as part of effort to
reduce massive teacher turnover (all high-
poverty Title I Schools)
 Group bonuses available for schools that meet
growth targets in AYP, CSAP ($2,000 cap) –
including improvements in subgroups
 Includes rewards for principals
 Year 3 of 5-year grant
 Compensation Reform in Colorado

• Harrison’s REAL Program (2007)

 “Brainchild” of Superintendent Mike Miles
 Three types of rewards:
 Group bonuses for meeting AYP growth targets (up to
$1,000 / teacher)
 Tuition reimbursements for coursework that enhances
teaching of Math and Literacy across curriculum, and
for hard-to-fill endorsements (e.g. Special Education)
 Distinguished Performance evaluations (up to $3,000)
 Annual caps ($4,000/teacher; $5,000/principal)
 Primary funding: Federal TIF Grant
 Overview

1) Teacher Quality &

Compensation Models
2) Compensation Reform in
Colorado
3) Compensation Reform
Nationwide
 Compensation Reform Nationwide

• 1980s … Merit pay & career ladder

programs – many tried, most abandoned
– Missouri, Arizona
• 1990s …School-wide award programs
– Georgia, North Carolina
• 2000s … New wave of reform
– Teacher Advancement Program
 Compensation Reform Nationwide

• Minnesota Q-Comp Program

– Only full-fledged, statewide adoption of Teacher
Advancement Program (TAP) model
• Includes Multiple Career Paths, Embedded
Professional Development, and Peer Review
– Uniquely designed as categorical general fund
revenue: sustainable financing
• Up to $190/pupil in state aid
– 39 Districts & 21 Charter Schools (Jan 2008)
 Compensation Reform Nationwide

• Texas: District Awards for Teacher

Excellence (2006)
– Non-competitive grants to school districts that
develop their own performance pay plan (or
adopt the Teacher Advancement Program)
– At least 60% of funds to reward teachers and
principals for improving student performance
 Compensation Reform Nationwide

• Florida: From STAR to MAP

– Conditional state grants to school districts
– STAR (Special Teachers Are Rewarded, June 2006):
• State test must be “primary” evaluation factor
• Awards limited to top 25% of teachers
• Teacher association buy-in
– MAP (Merit Award Program, March 2007):
• Student performance at least 60% of factor
• No cap on number of teachers
• Plans subject to collective bargaining
– One-third of districts participate: program funding
contingent on revenues available to state budget
 Compensation Reform Nationwide

• Lessons from Little Rock’s Achievement

Challenge Pilot Project
– Merit pay can have real, measurable impact on
student academic growth (reading & math)
– No evidence of more innovation, harder work from
teachers (common pro arguments)
– No evidence of divisive competition, negative work
environment, or avoiding low-performing students
(common anti arguments)
– Transparency is necessary when implementing
performance pay programs
 SUMMARY
1. The single salary schedule is unsustainable,
not aligned with 21st century education goals
2. Supporting the concept of performance pay is
not enough
3. Improved assessment and evaluation tools are
needed
4. You get what you pay for
5. In most contexts, employee buy-in will be
crucial – if not at first, eventually
6. It’s time to re-think the debate
 Sources
• William L. Sanders and June C. Rivers, Cumulative and Residual Effects of
Teachers on Future Student Academic Achievement (1996)
• Bryan C. Hassel, Better Pay For Better Teaching: Making Teacher
Compensation Pay Off in the Age of Accountability (2002),
http://www.ppionline.org/documents/Hassel_May02.pdf
• National Council on Teacher Quality, Increasing the Odds: How Good Policies
Can Yield Better Teachers, http://www.nctq.org/nctq/images/nctq_io.pdf
• Eric A. Hanushek, John F. Kain, Steven G. Rifkin, “The impact of individual
teachers on student achievement: Evidence from panel data,” Econometrica
(March 2005)
• Marguerite Roza, Frozen Assets: Rethinking Teacher Contracts Could Free
Billions for School Reform (2007),
http://www.educationsector.org/research/research_show.htm?doc_id=436576
• Robert Holland, Merit Pay for Teachers: Can Common Sense Come to Public
Education? (2005), http://www.lexingtoninstitute.org/docs/708.pdf
• The Teaching Commission, Teaching at Risk: A Call to Action (2006),
http://www.policypointers.org/page_58.htm
 More Sources
• Frederick M. Hess and Martin R. West, A Better Bargain: Overhauling Teacher
Collective Bargaining for the 21st Century (2006), http://
www.ksg.harvard.edu/pepg/PDF/Papers/BetterBargain.pdf
• Dan Goldhaber, Teacher Pay Reforms: The Political Implications of Recent
Research (2006),
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2006/12/pdf/teacher_pay_report.pdf
• Center for Teaching Quality, Performance Pay for Teachers: Designing a
System that Students Deserve (2007),
http://teacherleaders.org/teachersolutions/index.php
• Emily A. Hassel and Bryan C. Hassel, Improving Teaching Through Pay for
Contribution (2008),
http://www.nga.org/Files/pdf/0711IMPROVINGTEACHING.PDF
• Public Agenda Survey, Stand by Me: What Teachers Really Think about
Unions, Merit Pay, and Other Professional Matters (2003),
http://www.publicagenda.org/specials/standbyme/standbyme.htm
• Center for Educator Compensation Reform, U.S. Dept. of Education, http://
cecr.ed.gov
 More Sources
• National Institute for Excellence in Teaching, http://www.talentedteachers.org
• Eagle County Teacher Advancement Program, http://
eagleschools.net/teachers/teacheradvancementprogram
• Fort Lupton Teacher Incentive Fund Program, http://ftlupton.k12.co.us
• Minnesota Q-Comp Program,
http://children.state.mn.us/MDE/Teacher_Support/QComp/index.htm
• Texas Educator Excellence Grant Program,
http://www.tea.state.tx.us/opge/disc/EducatorExcellenceAward/EdExcellenceAward
• Florida Merit Award Program (MAP), http://www.fldoe.org/PerformancePay/
• David Figlio and Lawrence Kenny, “Individual Teacher Incentives and Student
Performance,” National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper No.
W12627
• Year Two Evaluation of the Achievement Challenge Pilot Project in the Little
Rock Public School District, http://
uark.edu/ua/der/Research/merit_pay/year_two.html