Designing a System of Performance-Based Pay Charlotte Danielson [email protected] .

Designing a System of Performance-Based Pay

Charlotte [email protected]

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 CertificationPraxis 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 TeachingSecond 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 Environment2a: Creating an Environment of Respect and

Rapport

L E V E L O F P E R F O R M A N C E

ELEMENT UNSATISFACTORY BASIC PROFICIENT DISTINGUISHED

Teacher Interaction with Students

Teacher interaction with at least some students is negative, demeaning, sarcastic, or inappropriate to the age or culture of the students. Students exhibit disrespect for the teacher.

Teacher-student interactions are generally appropriate but may reflect occasional inconsistencies, favoritism, or disregard for students’ cultures. Students exhibit only minimal respect for the teacher.

Teacher-student interactions are friendly and demonstrate general caring and respect. Such interactions are appropriate to the age and cultures of the students. Students exhibit respect for the teacher.

Teacher’s interactions with students reflect genuine respect and caring, for individuals as well as groups of students. Students appear to trust the teacher with sensitive information.

Student Interactions with one another

Student interactions are characterized by conflict, sarcasm, or put-downs.

Students do not demonstrate disrespect for one another.

Student interactions are generally polite and respectful.

Students demonstrate genuine caring for one another and monitor one another’s treatment of peers, correcting classmates respectfully when needed.

DOMAIN 2: THE CLASSROOM ENVIRONMENT COMPONENT 2A: CREATING AN ENVIRONMENT OF RESPECT AND RAPPORT

Elements: Teacher interaction with students Student interaction with one another

Figure 4.2b

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 ApproachArlington, 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 leadershipThe 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?