Thoughts on teacher pay

Part I

Opinion: Letters To The Editor

Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter
Print

Pay is a sensitive topic. Conversations about it can easily become proxy debates about the value of a person or a profession. Not surprisingly, teacher pay debates tend to be riddled with misunderstandings and misinformation, making it difficult to address the real problems with existing lockstep pay systems — or to discuss common-sense alternatives. 

How do we separate fact from fiction when it comes to teacher pay? Earlier this week, we released Shortchanged, a new report on the consequences of how we pay the majority of teachers in this country. Let's look at some of the most common myths about performance-based teacher pay.

Myth: Basing salaries on experience and academic credentials is the only fair way to pay teachers.

Fact: Most districts now have multiple high-quality options beyond experience and credentials for making pay decisions.

Setting teachers' pay strictly on factors like experience or academic credentials may have been the only option before most districts had tools in place to assess teachers' performance. But doing so is only about as "fair" as paying basketball players based on their height; it disregards the things that really matter, like talent, hard work and performance. It isn't fair to the teachers who contribute the most to their schools and it isn't fair to students who miss out on the chance to learn from great teachers who might have entered the profession or stayed longer. And while lockstep pay seems, on the surface, to be a good deal for more experienced teachers, it is deeply unfair to highly effective classroom veterans, who may work for decades alongside less effective colleagues without seeing any distinction in pay. Now that many states and districts have committed to multiple-measure evaluation tools, they are better equipped to align pay with performance than ever before. A truly fair way to pay teachers would take experience and academic background into account when they lead to demonstrated performance and success in the classroom, and many school systems are now in a position to put this into action, by aligning rigorous evaluation systems with compensation.

Myth: Performance-based pay has already been tried, and it hasn't worked.

Fact: Very few districts have tried true performance-based pay, but where it's been tried it seems to be working.

About 90 percent of school districts in the country use the traditional lockstep approach to teacher pay, which ignores classroom performance entirely. Most districts that have tried something different have simply added a small one-time bonus for strong performance on top of the same old lockstep salary schedule. The results have been predictably modest.  

However, the few districts that have moved to smarter compensation systems have seen promising early results. A performance-based pay system in the District of Columbia Public Schools (DCPS) has helped the district retain more of its best teachers by awarding them large raises early in their careers. Teachers have the opportunity to make more than $100,000 by year four in the classroom, and as a result, dissatisfaction with compensation has become one of the least common reasons that highly effective teachers leave the district. In Tennessee, retention bonuses for highly effective teachers in high-need (or "priority") schools have also shown promise. And the federal Talent Transfer Initiative, which offered financial incentives for teachers to transfer to high-need schools, showed some positive outcomes for students in the receiving schools, too.

Myth: Performance-based pay ignores the value of experience.

Fact: Performance-based pay can easily be structured to value experience when it is accompanied by strong performance.

In almost any school, some of the best teachers are also some of the most experienced. But not every experienced teacher is a great teacher. Likewise, some teachers with only two or three years of experience are already achieving outstanding results in the classroom. Performance-based pay doesn't play favorites when it comes to experience or credentials. Instead, it provides the largest raises and bonuses to the teachers who are the most successful at helping students learn — no matter how they came to be so successful or how long it took them to get there. But in practice, more seasoned teachers in performance-based pay systems are still likely to earn more than less-seasoned peers because they will have had more years to demonstrate the strong performance that is most valued. However, not all seasoned teachers will earn more.

Timothy Daly is a River Forest resident and president of The New Teacher Project (TNTP).

Reader Comments

2 Comments - Add Your Comment

Comment Policy

Unfortunately  

Posted: August 27th, 2014 11:40 PM

Let's start with the obvious - why are we paying staff librarians the same amount as physics and calculus teachers? I'm guessing that the pool of the former is a lot bigger than the pool of the latter. Speaking of "pools" - why is is necessary for OPRF to have the Taj Majal of planetary swimming pools? What's next? The most expensive teacher pay in the universe? Y'know, to attract "the best and brightest" and "it's for the children!" Next? How about stopping the nepotism in the OP schools?

former parent  

Posted: August 27th, 2014 10:29 PM

We know that paying teachers more for just showing up again each year is not a good system. So, yes, it's time to connect pay to performance. There are many ways to do this, each with advantages and disadvantages, but it is time to try something - which may not be perfect but would be a step in the right direction.

Hire Local for FREE!

Post help wanted ads for FREE on the our local online job board.

Click here to place your ad

Quick Links

Sign-up to get the latest news updates for Oak Park and River Forest.


            
SubscribeClassified
Photo storeContact us
Submit Letter To The Editor
Place a Classified Ad