Teacher Compensation Research and Policy Overview Education Commission of the States 2006 National Forum Tony Milanowski Consortium for Policy Research in Education Wisconsin Center for Education Research University of Wisconsin-Madison

 1991: Odden & Conley, “A New Teacher Compensation System to Promote Productivity”  : 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 (2 nd ed. 2002, Corwin Press)  : Research on school-based performance awards & knowledge & skill-based pay; National Conference.  CPRE Work on Teacher Compensation Innovations

 What are they?  Where are they being used?  What do we know about how they work? Teacher Compensation Innovations

Compensation Innovation Menu Strategic NeedInnovation Recruit & retain in hard-to-staff, high need schools Signing bonus, ‘add-on’ to base pay, loan forgiveness, housing assistance, extra retirement credits Recruit & retain in shortage areasSigning bonus, ‘add-on’ to base pay, higher placement on pay schedule Recognize & reward teacher leaders Differentiated pay Improve skills of current facultyKnowledge & skill-based pay Motivate effort, focus on goals, common sense of purpose School-based performance awards Motivate, ‘reward the best’Individual performance awards based on outcome measures

Where? California (National Board Certified teachers) New York Nevada Houston Philadelphia, Baltimore, Hamilton Co, TN Miami-Dade, Palm Beach, FL Charlotte-Mecklenburg, NC Incentives for Teaching in Hard-to- staff or High-Need Schools

 Signing Bonus ($2,000)  Deferred Accountability Bonus ($ ) (to be replaced with performance pay )  Master Teacher Incentive ($1,500-2,500)  Reduced class size and extra resources  Paid/subsidized Master’s degree tuition  Pay incentives to help retain quality school leaders Charlotte-Mecklenburg’s Equity Plus Program

Relevant Research  Teachers tend to move out of poor, non-white, low achievement schools  Both pay and working conditions affect teacher job choice  Econometric studies suggest relatively large financial incentives would be needed to influence teacher choice  No large scale studies of targeted incentives; anecdotal evidence positive from some districts Incentives for Teaching in Hard-to- staff or High-Need Schools

(Math, science, special education) Where?  North Carolina (program discontinued)  Charlotte-Mecklenburg  Baltimore  Blue Valley, KS  Austin, TX  ‘Covert’ programs (bring in at higher step) Hiring/Retention Incentives for Teaching in Shortage Areas

Relevant Research  Some evidence that math/science teachers have better- paying alternatives outside education than other teachers  Significantly higher base pay (at least 25%) would be needed to attract a significant number of Wisc. math, science, and technology majors to teaching  Evaluation of NC program concluded that modest incentives can have a positive effect on recruitment of math & science teachers Incentives for Teaching in Shortage Areas

 Recognizes & rewards additional responsibilities  Applications: Mentors Peer coaches Lead teachers Instructional Coaches  Additional responsibilities vs. differentiated staffing Differentiated Pay

 Lead Teachers in Cincinnati: + $5,000-6,000  Mentors/Evaluators in Toledo: + $5,000  Mentors in LA: + $4,300  Differentiated staffing in Milken TAP: Career Teacher Mentor Teacher (+ $2,000-5,000) Master Teacher (+$5,000-11,000) Additional responsibilities & longer year Differentiated Pay - Examples

 Little research currently available Similarities to existing pay for extra-curriculars Similarities to 80’s career ladder programs  Issues: Eligibility & selection criteria Need to carefully distinguish between compensable and ‘expected’ responsibilities Supplemental performance evaluation? Differentiated Pay

Incentives for National Board Certification  Most states and many districts provide them  Range from assistance with application costs to bonuses, 10-15% pay increases  Research suggests: –Mixed evidence on whether NB teachers produce higher levels of student achievement –Incentives raise rate of NB participation –NB teachers may not be teaching where most needed Knowledge & Skill-based Pay I

Incentives for Professional Development Participation  Iowa, Minneapolis, Douglas County, CO, Plymouth & Menomonee Falls, WI, Delaware -Moderate participation, relatively low cost, and perceived effectiveness in Douglas County -Shaky start in Minneapolis due to district leadership changes, implementation problems, and new direction from state level Knowledge & Skill-based Pay II

Pay for Demonstrating Competencies in the Classroom n Based on a comprehensive model of what teachers should know and be able to do -Explicit standards, multiple practice levels, and behavioral rating scales -Multiple classroom observations & multiple lines of evidence -Danielson’s Framework for Teaching popular starting point  If periodic assessment shows practice is at a higher level, teacher receives a base pay increase or salary add-on, and in some cases the potential for more step increases (otherwise capped) Knowledge & Skill-Based Pay III

Where? Vaughn Charter School, Kyrene, AZ Cincinnati, Philadelphia, La Crescent, MN, Steamboat Springs, CO CPRE Research Findings:  Trained evaluators can provide reliable ratings  Evaluation ratings from well-designed & run system are correlated with student achievement  Evaluation process affects teaching practice Knowledge & Skill-Based Pay Demonstrating Competencies in Classroom

CPRE Research Findings n Requires attention to teacher development -Feedback, coaching -Aligned professional development n Can be costly and time-consuming to administer n In typical district, many teachers are likely to be uncomfortable with uncertain pay and higher expectations for teaching practice Knowledge and Skill-based Pay Demonstrating Competencies in Classroom

School-based Performance Awards  Bonuses provided to all teachers (and others) in a school when that school achieves pre-established performance goals  Longest-running ‘new’ compensation innovation North Carolina, Charlotte-Mecklenburg, Dallas, Cincinnati, Vaughn Charter, several Arizona districts in response to Prop 301  Kentucky, California

CPRE Research Findings  Programs help focus attention & emphasize performance goals  Low to moderate motivational impact -Small bonus amounts -Limited attention to ‘enablers’ -Uncertainty about effort-goal link -Uncertainty about funding  May increase turnover in schools identified as low- performing  Performance pay option least preferred by students preparing to be teachers in Wisc.  May be most effective as a symbol rather than a motivator

n “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 n Current approach: pay increase or bonus based on achievement of individual teacher’s students, often calculated using ‘value-added’ approach -Colonial, PA -Charlotte-Mecklenburg, Houston? -US DOE TIF grants Incentives for Individual Teacher Performance

Research on Individual Incentives Based on Student Achievement  Very limited; mixed evidence from Mexico, Israel and US  Only very best and worst teachers can be reliably differentiated due to small samples  Not all teachers teach tested subjects (Denver approach?)  Students not assigned to teachers at random US DOE TIF grants  more experimentation

n Incentives for teaching in high-need schools look promising, especially when coupled with working condition improvements n Incentives for shortage areas: common sense to policy makers but a dilemma for teacher organizations n Incentives for professional development can be useful as a ‘soft’ way to more strategic use of pay, but danger is loose administration n KSBP based on demonstrating competencies in the classroom could work, but needs streamlining and careful implementation Our Take on Teacher Pay Innovations

Our Take….  No huge effects  Problem may be skill, not will  Pay change has often been seen as an end in itself, or as another simple solution  Need to use pay change to support other reform strategies that impact instruction; pay by itself is not a strong reform strategy -HR Alignment needed to support pay change

Strategic Pay Alignment District Instructional Strategies & Program Initiatives What Teachers Need to Know & Be Able To Do Pay for Skill Behavior Results Human Resource Management Systems Staffing, Induction/Mentoring, Professional Development, Performance Evaluation, Leaders