Prezi link: http://prezi.com/p-pghttyahmq/merit-pay-for-teachers-in-public-schools/
Merit Pay Presentation
Issue: Is merit pay a good way to improve teacher effectiveness or not?
I. Big Questions
a. The big question: But how do we measure student learning and attribute this learning to an individual teacher?
b. For instance, should individual teachers or teams of teachers be rewarded, or perhaps a combination of both?
c. Should the measure be based on student growth or attainment?
d. What criteria should be included?
e. Should it be based strictly on student test scores, or should other measures, like principal evaluations, be included?
f. If other measures are included, what should be the weight of each element?
II. Historical Background (Springer and Gardner)
a. 1867- Compensation systems reflected these early priorities. Many teachers were remunerated through a system called the boarding round or room and board compensation model
b. With shift from agriculture to industry with more academic rigor, grade-based compensation model. (high school teachers were paid more because the view was that elementary aged students were easier to educate)
i. Women usually made ½-1/4 of what male teachers made
c. Early 1900’s- single salary
i. Equalized pay for women and reduced nepotism
ii. 1921, Denver and Des Moines introduced single salary model for teachers
iii. Most important criteria for more money= degree held and years of teaching experience
iv. Endorsed by the (NEA) in 1944, 97% of all schools had adopted the single salary schedule by 1950, 1999-00 school year, nearly 100% of teachers were paid according to the single salary schedule
d. Examples of Teacher Compensation reform movements (Springer and Gardner)
i. Career Ladders
ii. Knowledge and Skills Based Pay
iii. Pay for Performance
iv. Hard to Staff Bonuses
III. Contextual Background
a. Introduce pay for performance.
b. Merit Pay has been discussed for the last century- but it’s extremely popular in today’s world (Springer and Gardner)
i. Google News reports an average of 4,558 news stories per year on teacher pay for performance
ii. Financial investments in pay for performance programs and policies have also grown substantially. Florida, Minnesota, and Texas have allocated over $550 million to incentive pay programs that reward teacher performance
iii. Administration’s 2011 budget request designated an additional $950 million for a new Teacher and Leader Innovation Fund that would support the development and implementation of performance-oriented approaches to recruiting, retaining, and rewarding highly effective educators.
iv. The largest portion of the 500-point Race to the Top rubric for grading state applications is pay for performance
IV. Perspectives
a. Why the shift from single salary
i. Single salary treats all teachers as if they are the same. There are few rewards for good performance and little incentive to improve teaching practices. Produces neither professionally competitive nor market sensitive salaries (Koppich)
ii. Few rewards for high achievement, little to no consequences for low achievement
iii. Little provision for areas of need
iv. Little incentive to improve teaching methods/practices
(teacher unions and new forms of teacher compensation)
v. Springer and Gardner
1. Simply put, the single salary pay schedule is riddled by inefficiencies.
2. paid based on years of experience and level of education (that is, the single salary schedule), both of which have been found to be only weakly correlated with student achievement
3. 90% of teachers’ master’s degrees are not subject specific and bear no relation to student achievement .
vi. Springer and Gardner
1. According to the authors, performance monitoring — or measuring the output of teachers — was one reason why pay for performance failed
2. Used to have really bad programs set up (competing for bonuses)
b. Traditional opposition to merit pay because of use of standardized tests
i. Teachers unions such as the NEA and AFT do not support merit pay based on student test scores on standardized tests (Koppich)
ii. The NEA and AFT say that: (Koppich)
1. Current standardized tests are narrowly designed and capture only a small portion of teachers’ contributions to student learning
2. Using test scores as the sol measure of teacher effectiveness leaves out the more than 65% of teachers who are untested grades and subjects
3. Pay based on individual teachers’ students’ test scores could have the unintended consequence of constraining cooperation in a professional that requires it
iii. Problems with Standardized Tests (Gratz)
1. More than half of America’s teaching force is not covered by standardized tests
2. Most testing programs cover only a few subjects --
3. Student outcomes — such as critical thinking, communication, teamwork, creativity, and healthy social, emotional, and physical growth — are pushed aside.
4. The time and resources devoted to this limited range of tests are already substantial. As more tests are added, the cost in dollars and time will increase, further reducing resources available for other activities.
5. Most important, test scores are weak indicators of student success, and the pursuit of higher scores undercuts the educational process in other areas.
iv. Springer and Gardner
1. According to the authors, performance monitoring — or measuring the output of teachers — was one reason why pay for performance failed
2. Used to have really bad programs set up (competing for bonuses)
c. Criticisms of Merit pay
i. Ritter and Jensen (pointing out criticisms, but responding to them with positive view of merit pay)
1. Merit pay benefits only teachers of the highest performing students
2. Merit pay programs are based on a secret formula that makes it impossible to understand how a teacher can receive a bonus
3. Merit pay programs will encourage teaching to the test
4. Merit pay will reward only teachers of core subjects. Art, music, and PE teachers will not receive a bonus since those subjects aren’t tested
5. Merit pay programs force teachers to complete and discourage collegiality
6. Providing teachers with bonuses won’t make a difference because teachers don’t teach for money
ii. Merit Pay is Not Merited- Walt Gardener- Merit pay does not improve student performance
1. National Bureau of Economic research reported that student performance declined in schools participating in NYC’s incentive plan in 2007
2. No significant effect on student attendance or graduation rates.
3. No significant effect on teachers being happier in the classroom or staying in one classroom for a long period of time
4. Texas has a similar program and studies were found as inconclusive
(merit pay is not merited0
d. Teachers are overpaid AND underpaid
i. Cost of teacher benefits inflates cost of compensation
1. Avg teacher in Milwaukee earns $56,000 a year but with with benefits, it is over $100,000
ii. Goes back to using test scores to measure cognitive ability- job security and benefit data don’t reflect more recent developments
iii. We should be asking “how do we more wisely spend the money we have? and how do we pay the right teachers more?”
(Are teachers overpaid or underpaid? Answer: Yes)
e. Perspectives based on more progressive views of merit pay (not based on standardized tests) (Springer and Gardner)
i. AFT and NEA are traditionally opposed to merit pay:
1. However they are becoming a part of the design and implementation of high profile programs
2. in 2007, AFT president Randi Weingarten (then president of the New York City United Federation of Teachers) stated, “Rather than being pilloried as an obstacle. . . we created a program that may promote the collaboration and respect that are necessary for great schools. . . . We have taken a negative — individual merit pay — and come up with a positive alternative that makes it a plus for educators and kids” (Weingarten 2007).
ii. Republicans are usually in favor and democrats are usually not, but All 3 democratic nominees believed in it in the 2008 elections
iii. A growing number of studies on teacher attitudes toward compensation reform suggest teachers aren’t necessarily as opposed to pay for performance systems as once thought.
iv.
V. Evidence
a. Springer and Gardner
i. As data systems and tools for collecting this information continue to be upgraded and the evaluative measures to assess teacher performance are advanced even further, the ability for education systems to measure the output of teachers could potentially rival those found in other sectors.
ii. In addition to advances in data systems, several studies have quantified the importance of effective teaching on student learning,
iii. More specifically, evidence suggests that pay for performance programs will tend to attract and retain individuals who are particularly good at the activities to which incentives are attached, and they will repel those who are not.
1. pay for performance systems can also raise the overall quality of the workforce simply by attracting more effective workers into the profession
b. Chicago Public Schools TAP reform (Glazerman and Seifullah 2010)
i. Teacher Advancement Program used funds from federal Teacher Incentive Fund so teachers can earn extra money and responsibilities. They earned extra money for:
1. Mentoring teachers
2. Annual performance bonuses based on value added to student achievement and observed performance in classroom
3. Weekly meetings of teachers and mentors and regular classroom observations by school leadership team to help teachers meet their performance goals
ii. Goal
1. Performance incentives and tools for teachers to track performance and improve instruction should help schools attract and retain talented teachers and help all teachers produce greater student achievement
iii. Findings
1. No impacts on test scores in TAP schools
2. Did not have much of an impact on teacher retention
iv. Critique of study
1. Only in a few schools
2. Was assessed only 1-2 years after initiated—not enough time for sufficient data
VI. Solutions
a. Need more quantified evidence regarding teacher and student success in regards to merit pay
b. Need to define teacher success
c. Need to define student success
d. Ritter and Jensen
i. Thus, our cautious conclusion from this literature is that thoughtful merit pay plans, carefully implemented, have the potential to lead to improved student performance.
ii. 5 lessons that should guide the work in developing merit pay plans
1. Generate teacher, staff, and administrator support
2. Develop rewards that motivate teachers in productive ways
3. Make merit pay program part of a comprehensive school improvement strategy
4. Create a merit pay program that encourages collaboration
5. Employ multiple measures of teacher effectiveness
e. Additional incentives to
f. Step by step process with cornerstones:
i. Performance based compensation is a systemic reform
ii. Compensation reform must be done with teachers, not to teachers
iii. Compensation reform must be organizationally sustainable
iv. Performance based compensation must be financially sustainable
v. A broad base of support is needed in the district/community
vi. Performance based compensation must go beyond finances and politics to benefit students
(the buck stops here)
VII. Opinion
a. We believe merit pay is a necessary reform movement within public schools under certain circumstances.
b. Merit pay is not effective in assessing teacher success if only using standardized tests as the sole method of evaluation
c. Merit pay is good if:
i. Criteria for evaluation ecompasses much more than the results of standardized tests
ii. Agreements between teacher/principal/administration to set and achieve certain curricular and personal goals for each year
iii. May be necessary for drawing the line between those who are quality teachers and those who are less skilled, effective, and/or motivated.
Bibliography
Gardner, W. (2011). Merit Pay is Not Merited. Education Week 3/14/11.
Glazerman and Seifullah. (2010). An Evaluation of the Teacher Advancement Program (TAP) in Chicago: Year Two Impact Report.
Gratz, D. (2010). Looming Questions in Performance Pay. Delta Kappan 91.8.
Hess, F. (2011). Are Teachers Overpaid or Underpaid? Answer: Yes. Education Week 11/1/11.
Koppich, J. (2010). Teacher Unions and New Forms of Teacher Compensation. Delta Kappan 91.8.
Ritter and Jensen, (2010). The Delicate Task of Developing an Attractive Merit Pay Plan for Teachers. Delta Kappan 91.8.
Slotnik,W. (2010). The Buck Stops Here: Tying What Students Learn to What Educators Earn. Phi Delta Kappan. 91.8.
Merit Pay Presentation
Issue: Is merit pay a good way to improve teacher effectiveness or not?
I. Big Questions
a. The big question: But how do we measure student learning and attribute this learning to an individual teacher?
b. For instance, should individual teachers or teams of teachers be rewarded, or perhaps a combination of both?
c. Should the measure be based on student growth or attainment?
d. What criteria should be included?
e. Should it be based strictly on student test scores, or should other measures, like principal evaluations, be included?
f. If other measures are included, what should be the weight of each element?
II. Historical Background (Springer and Gardner)
a. 1867- Compensation systems reflected these early priorities. Many teachers were remunerated through a system called the boarding round or room and board compensation model
b. With shift from agriculture to industry with more academic rigor, grade-based compensation model. (high school teachers were paid more because the view was that elementary aged students were easier to educate)
i. Women usually made ½-1/4 of what male teachers made
c. Early 1900’s- single salary
i. Equalized pay for women and reduced nepotism
ii. 1921, Denver and Des Moines introduced single salary model for teachers
iii. Most important criteria for more money= degree held and years of teaching experience
iv. Endorsed by the (NEA) in 1944, 97% of all schools had adopted the single salary schedule by 1950, 1999-00 school year, nearly 100% of teachers were paid according to the single salary schedule
d. Examples of Teacher Compensation reform movements (Springer and Gardner)
i. Career Ladders
ii. Knowledge and Skills Based Pay
iii. Pay for Performance
iv. Hard to Staff Bonuses
III. Contextual Background
a. Introduce pay for performance.
b. Merit Pay has been discussed for the last century- but it’s extremely popular in today’s world (Springer and Gardner)
i. Google News reports an average of 4,558 news stories per year on teacher pay for performance
ii. Financial investments in pay for performance programs and policies have also grown substantially. Florida, Minnesota, and Texas have allocated over $550 million to incentive pay programs that reward teacher performance
iii. Administration’s 2011 budget request designated an additional $950 million for a new Teacher and Leader Innovation Fund that would support the development and implementation of performance-oriented approaches to recruiting, retaining, and rewarding highly effective educators.
iv. The largest portion of the 500-point Race to the Top rubric for grading state applications is pay for performance
IV. Perspectives
a. Why the shift from single salary
i. Single salary treats all teachers as if they are the same. There are few rewards for good performance and little incentive to improve teaching practices. Produces neither professionally competitive nor market sensitive salaries (Koppich)
ii. Few rewards for high achievement, little to no consequences for low achievement
iii. Little provision for areas of need
iv. Little incentive to improve teaching methods/practices
(teacher unions and new forms of teacher compensation)
v. Springer and Gardner
1. Simply put, the single salary pay schedule is riddled by inefficiencies.
2. paid based on years of experience and level of education (that is, the single salary schedule), both of which have been found to be only weakly correlated with student achievement
3. 90% of teachers’ master’s degrees are not subject specific and bear no relation to student achievement .
vi. Springer and Gardner
1. According to the authors, performance monitoring — or measuring the output of teachers — was one reason why pay for performance failed
2. Used to have really bad programs set up (competing for bonuses)
b. Traditional opposition to merit pay because of use of standardized tests
i. Teachers unions such as the NEA and AFT do not support merit pay based on student test scores on standardized tests (Koppich)
ii. The NEA and AFT say that: (Koppich)
1. Current standardized tests are narrowly designed and capture only a small portion of teachers’ contributions to student learning
2. Using test scores as the sol measure of teacher effectiveness leaves out the more than 65% of teachers who are untested grades and subjects
3. Pay based on individual teachers’ students’ test scores could have the unintended consequence of constraining cooperation in a professional that requires it
iii. Problems with Standardized Tests (Gratz)
1. More than half of America’s teaching force is not covered by standardized tests
2. Most testing programs cover only a few subjects --
3. Student outcomes — such as critical thinking, communication, teamwork, creativity, and healthy social, emotional, and physical growth — are pushed aside.
4. The time and resources devoted to this limited range of tests are already substantial. As more tests are added, the cost in dollars and time will increase, further reducing resources available for other activities.
5. Most important, test scores are weak indicators of student success, and the pursuit of higher scores undercuts the educational process in other areas.
iv. Springer and Gardner
1. According to the authors, performance monitoring — or measuring the output of teachers — was one reason why pay for performance failed
2. Used to have really bad programs set up (competing for bonuses)
c. Criticisms of Merit pay
i. Ritter and Jensen (pointing out criticisms, but responding to them with positive view of merit pay)
1. Merit pay benefits only teachers of the highest performing students
2. Merit pay programs are based on a secret formula that makes it impossible to understand how a teacher can receive a bonus
3. Merit pay programs will encourage teaching to the test
4. Merit pay will reward only teachers of core subjects. Art, music, and PE teachers will not receive a bonus since those subjects aren’t tested
5. Merit pay programs force teachers to complete and discourage collegiality
6. Providing teachers with bonuses won’t make a difference because teachers don’t teach for money
ii. Merit Pay is Not Merited- Walt Gardener- Merit pay does not improve student performance
1. National Bureau of Economic research reported that student performance declined in schools participating in NYC’s incentive plan in 2007
2. No significant effect on student attendance or graduation rates.
3. No significant effect on teachers being happier in the classroom or staying in one classroom for a long period of time
4. Texas has a similar program and studies were found as inconclusive
(merit pay is not merited0
d. Teachers are overpaid AND underpaid
i. Cost of teacher benefits inflates cost of compensation
1. Avg teacher in Milwaukee earns $56,000 a year but with with benefits, it is over $100,000
ii. Goes back to using test scores to measure cognitive ability- job security and benefit data don’t reflect more recent developments
iii. We should be asking “how do we more wisely spend the money we have? and how do we pay the right teachers more?”
(Are teachers overpaid or underpaid? Answer: Yes)
e. Perspectives based on more progressive views of merit pay (not based on standardized tests) (Springer and Gardner)
i. AFT and NEA are traditionally opposed to merit pay:
1. However they are becoming a part of the design and implementation of high profile programs
2. in 2007, AFT president Randi Weingarten (then president of the New York City United Federation of Teachers) stated, “Rather than being pilloried as an obstacle. . . we created a program that may promote the collaboration and respect that are necessary for great schools. . . . We have taken a negative — individual merit pay — and come up with a positive alternative that makes it a plus for educators and kids” (Weingarten 2007).
ii. Republicans are usually in favor and democrats are usually not, but All 3 democratic nominees believed in it in the 2008 elections
iii. A growing number of studies on teacher attitudes toward compensation reform suggest teachers aren’t necessarily as opposed to pay for performance systems as once thought.
iv.
V. Evidence
a. Springer and Gardner
i. As data systems and tools for collecting this information continue to be upgraded and the evaluative measures to assess teacher performance are advanced even further, the ability for education systems to measure the output of teachers could potentially rival those found in other sectors.
ii. In addition to advances in data systems, several studies have quantified the importance of effective teaching on student learning,
iii. More specifically, evidence suggests that pay for performance programs will tend to attract and retain individuals who are particularly good at the activities to which incentives are attached, and they will repel those who are not.
1. pay for performance systems can also raise the overall quality of the workforce simply by attracting more effective workers into the profession
b. Chicago Public Schools TAP reform (Glazerman and Seifullah 2010)
i. Teacher Advancement Program used funds from federal Teacher Incentive Fund so teachers can earn extra money and responsibilities. They earned extra money for:
1. Mentoring teachers
2. Annual performance bonuses based on value added to student achievement and observed performance in classroom
3. Weekly meetings of teachers and mentors and regular classroom observations by school leadership team to help teachers meet their performance goals
ii. Goal
1. Performance incentives and tools for teachers to track performance and improve instruction should help schools attract and retain talented teachers and help all teachers produce greater student achievement
iii. Findings
1. No impacts on test scores in TAP schools
2. Did not have much of an impact on teacher retention
iv. Critique of study
1. Only in a few schools
2. Was assessed only 1-2 years after initiated—not enough time for sufficient data
VI. Solutions
a. Need more quantified evidence regarding teacher and student success in regards to merit pay
b. Need to define teacher success
c. Need to define student success
d. Ritter and Jensen
i. Thus, our cautious conclusion from this literature is that thoughtful merit pay plans, carefully implemented, have the potential to lead to improved student performance.
ii. 5 lessons that should guide the work in developing merit pay plans
1. Generate teacher, staff, and administrator support
2. Develop rewards that motivate teachers in productive ways
3. Make merit pay program part of a comprehensive school improvement strategy
4. Create a merit pay program that encourages collaboration
5. Employ multiple measures of teacher effectiveness
e. Additional incentives to
f. Step by step process with cornerstones:
i. Performance based compensation is a systemic reform
ii. Compensation reform must be done with teachers, not to teachers
iii. Compensation reform must be organizationally sustainable
iv. Performance based compensation must be financially sustainable
v. A broad base of support is needed in the district/community
vi. Performance based compensation must go beyond finances and politics to benefit students
(the buck stops here)
VII. Opinion
a. We believe merit pay is a necessary reform movement within public schools under certain circumstances.
b. Merit pay is not effective in assessing teacher success if only using standardized tests as the sole method of evaluation
c. Merit pay is good if:
i. Criteria for evaluation ecompasses much more than the results of standardized tests
ii. Agreements between teacher/principal/administration to set and achieve certain curricular and personal goals for each year
iii. May be necessary for drawing the line between those who are quality teachers and those who are less skilled, effective, and/or motivated.
Bibliography
Gardner, W. (2011). Merit Pay is Not Merited. Education Week 3/14/11.
Glazerman and Seifullah. (2010). An Evaluation of the Teacher Advancement Program (TAP) in Chicago: Year Two Impact Report.
Gratz, D. (2010). Looming Questions in Performance Pay. Delta Kappan 91.8.
Hess, F. (2011). Are Teachers Overpaid or Underpaid? Answer: Yes. Education Week 11/1/11.
Koppich, J. (2010). Teacher Unions and New Forms of Teacher Compensation. Delta Kappan 91.8.
Ritter and Jensen, (2010). The Delicate Task of Developing an Attractive Merit Pay Plan for Teachers. Delta Kappan 91.8.
Slotnik,W. (2010). The Buck Stops Here: Tying What Students Learn to What Educators Earn. Phi Delta Kappan. 91.8.