Presentation on theme: "Designing a System of Performance-Based Pay Charlotte Danielson"— Presentation transcript:
Designing a System of Performance-Based Pay Charlotte Danielson email@example.com www.danielsongroup.org
A Traditional Steps and Lanes Structure It was an advance on what came before, and is still an advance in some situations, e.g. independent schools Higher salaries are paid for additional years of experience and completion of courses and/or degrees
Differentiated Evaluation Systems Multi-year cycle Comprehensive evaluation - every 2-4 years Self-directed professional inquiry in the other years
Why Performance-Based Pay? (What is the Problem for which P-B-P is the Solution?) Compensation in the private sector reflects individual performance Teaching is a flat profession. Long-term recruitment and retention of teachers requires the promise of higher career earnings Market forces make recruitment difficult in shortage areas Teachers must be motivated to work harder to increase student achievement
Approaches to Differentiated Teacher Compensation Signing bonuses for hard-to-staff schools or shortage areas Higher pay for additional responsibilities, e.g., debate team coach School or team based performance awards Individual pay-for-performance (The first three approaches are non-controversial)
A Fundamental Flaw Unless a board (state, district, or school) is willing to write, in effect, a blank check, and since the number of individuals eligible for bonuses cannot be accurately predicted, teachers are, consequently, in competition with one another for scarce resources.
High-Stakes (Consequential) Assessment The results matter, for either compensation or career status Procedures must meet high standards of psychometric rigor The system must be, and must be perceived to be, fair and accurate
Requirements for Psychometric Rigor What are the criteria: are they publicly understood, and do all teachers have the opportunity to demonstrate them? Who decides whether the criteria are met, and can they make consistent and defensible judgments based on evidence?
Performance System Design High Rigor Structured Mentoring Programs, e.g. New Teacher Center, Framework Induction Program Low ------------------------------------ National Board Certification Praxis III Level of Stakes -------------------High Informal Mentoring Programs Low Rigor DANGER!!
Stated Purposes of Individual Pay-for-Performance Motivate teachers to work harder Reward superior teaching Recognize enhanced career status Provide incentives for activities that benefit the entire school, e.g. action research (The first two are flawed, the last two have merit)
Motivating Teachers to Work Harder This approach assumes that teachers are holding back, waiting for higher pay Most teachers find this assumption demeaning and insulting, an undermining of professionalism
Motivating Teachers With Individual Performance Awards Merit pay is an effective incentive in work such as sales and piecework, where employees contribute individually to the effectiveness of the entire effort. But in schools, the work is successive, accomplishments are cumulative, and cooperation is essential.
Rewarding Superior Teaching Two basic approaches: Inputs, that is, what teachers do, how well they do the work of teaching Outputs, that is, what teachers accomplish, typically how well their students learn
Rewarding What Teachers Do Two basic approaches: As judged by internal assessors, within the school or district, based on specific criteria (including parent input?) As judged by external assessors, for example National Board Certification (Only the latter is generally perceived to be valid)
The Framework for Teaching Second Edition Domain 3: Instruction Communicating With Students Using Questioning and Discussion Techniques Engaging Students in Learning Using Assessment in Instruction Demonstrating Flexibility and Responsiveness Domain 1: Planning and Preparation Demonstrating Knowledge of Content and Pedagogy Demonstrating Knowledge of Students Setting Instructional Outcomes Demonstrating Knowledge of Resources Designing Coherent Instruction Designing Student Assessments Domain 2: The Classroom Environment Creating an Environment of Respect and Rapport Establishing a Culture for Learning Managing Classroom Procedures Managing Student Behavior Organizing Physical Space Domain 4: Professional Responsibilities Reflecting on Teaching Maintaining Accurate Records Communicating with Families Participating in a Professional Community Growing and Developing Professionally Showing Professionalism
Domain 2:The Classroom Environment 2a: Creating an Environment of Respect and Rapport
Negative Consequences of Using the Framework for Teaching (or other such definition) In their concern to look good on the rubric, Teachers become legalistic, parsing the words, defending their performance Teachers adopt a low-risk approach, not willing to try new approaches Teachers are unwilling to accept challenging students in their classes
Rewarding What Teachers Accomplish Typically linked to student achievement on state-wide assessments Because of the importance of out-of- school factors, validity demands value- added measures
Assumptions of Rewarding Teachers Based on Student Achievement Available assessments include all valuable learning Assessments are available for all teachers In preparing students for the assessments, teachers will use good instructional strategies (That is, teaching to the test is good teaching) Statistical techniques can attribute student learning to individual teachers
Negative Consequences of Rewarding Teachers Based on Student Achievement Even if the assumptions are satisfied: Cheating, by teachers or administrators Narrowing the curriculum to what is assessed, and the manner in which it is assessed If student achievement is defined as the percentage who exceed a standard, teachers concentrate their efforts on those close to the line, ignoring others
Positive Consequences of School or Team-based Performance Awards Recognizes that all teachers contribute to student learning Encourages collaboration and cooperation among teachers within the school or team
Recognizing Enhanced Career Status Must designate career levels, for example: Novice teacher (similar to probationary) Career teacher (similar to tenured) Master teacher Faculty leader
Issues to Consider in Career- Ladder Systems What are the criteria for teachers to achieve the different levels? What are the procedures for teachers to move from one level to another? Who decides whether the criteria are met? Do the different levels carry differentiated responsibilities?
Recommendations for Career- Level Systems Any teacher may apply for enhanced status Procedures contribute to professional learning, requiring self-assessment and reflection on practice Teacher actions contribute to the intellectual capital of the school, e.g., conducting and sharing action research Teacher applications are evaluated by both teachers and administrators
Practical Challenges for Performance-Based Compensation Time, for both teachers and evaluators Evaluator skill and detachment Stability of funding
A Promising Approach Arlington, VA Traditional salary structure supplemented by bonuses worth 5% of base salary Within every five years of experience, teachers may apply for a bonus Three ways to win bonuses: - achieve National Board certification - conduct action research - demonstrate informal teacher leadership The last two are determined by panels of trained teachers and administrators
Bottom Line: Benefit/Cost Ratio Given a pool of money, and given the goals of enhancing student learning, how should that money be spent? That is, is an investment in bonuses for teachers likely to yield more than the same money invested in, for example, mentoring, coaching, or professional development?