How NGA Gets It Right - and Misses Opportunities - in Teacher Pay Report

The National Governors Association recently released (yet another) teacher pay for performance report, penned by Emily and Bryan Hassell. The paper offers up the usual arguments for transforming teacher compensation and describes a number of important issues that a state’s leading policymakers must consider in improving teaching through ‘pay for contribution’. The authors argue, rightfully so, that “teacher pay design today works against quality teaching.” But they miss out on several key issues.

First, the Hassells do not own up to the fact that overall teachers are paid poorly as a profession. Teacher salaries are now less than the average earnings of government workers, making them among the lower-paid public employees, and when inflation is taken into account, teachers are not paid that much more than they were in the early 1970s. Former IBM chief executive Louis V. Gerstner Jr., recommended that the nation invest an additional $30 billion per year in teacher compensation, giving every teacher a 10 percent increase and providing a 30 percent increase to the “top half.”[i] Sound base salaries are critical to implementing much needed pay for performance plans.

Second, the authors focus mostly on low performers in the system, and call for pay for performance plans in order to root out the incompetents. Their language is strong: “Every time states authorize across-the-board pay increases in equal percentages to all teachers regardless of contribution, they create an incentive for the lowest contributors to remain in the profession.” No doubt school districts have low performers, and they should no longer be teaching. However, the Hassells fail to recognize that low performers may be more of a product of the dysfunctional system in which they work, rather than doomed by their own incompetencies. “Low performers” are often created by the system when they are forced to teach out of field or without sufficient preparation for their specific students (e.g., second language learners). These challenges are frequently compounded by a lack of necessary resources and tools to get the job done or the rule of incompetent principals.

Third, the Hassells call for knowledge and skills-based pay but offer few concrete examples. As Linda Darling-Hammond has noted, “Teachers need even more sophisticated abilities to teach the growing number of public school students who have fewer educational resources at home, those who are new English language learners, and those who have distinctive learning needs or difficulties.” Contrary to the claims of the Hassells, the weight of over 100 studies suggests that the National Board Certification process — while not perfect — may be one of the most powerful tools for policymakers to use in rewarding teachers for improving their knowledge and skills. (Watch out for a new CTQ/TeacherSolutions report on the effects of the National Board process by National Board Certified Teachers themselves).

Fourth, while the authors poignantly and properly point to student learning  as the “linchpin” for performance pay, they may have missed the boat when honing in on  identifying the effectiveness of individual teachers. Indeed, I believe that individual rewards are relevant – and should be part of the new pay system. However, if the Hassells had paid a bit more attention to what expert teachers have to say about performance pay (see the TeacherSolutions report on pay for performance), then they might have emphasized more the importance of small team rewards (as opposed to whole school or individual), as well as paying teachers the most when they help other teachers become more effective. 

Like the dusty blackboards still found in some school classrooms, the single-salary schedule has served its purposes and outlived its usefulness. Accomplished teachers — like those on the TeacherSolutions team — are passionate in their beliefs that teachers need to be paid differently and that a carefully crafted performance pay system has huge potential to transform the teaching profession in ways that can help all students learn more. Center for Teaching Quality is proud to be working with teacher leaders across the nation — including those in Chicago, Cleveland, and Milwaukee as welll as growing numbers in Kansas and Colorado — who are seeking to own and advance professional compensation reforms that will serve the best interests of their students.

---

[i] The Teaching Commission. (2004). Teaching at Risk: A Call to Action. New York: Author.

Comments

[Bob]

We see the situation similarly. Given the passion and reports available for decades about teacher pay, why do you think public school districts continue with fixed salary schedules that yield lower than wanted pay for classroom teachers (setting aside for the moment administrator pay packages)?

[Barnett Berry]

Bob. I suspect because we have not involved and MOBILIZED teacher leaders to lead this work. Instead the policy wonks and researchers as well as administrative elites dominate the debate and develop technically flawed plans. I believe we need to pay teachers MORE and DIFFERENTLY. Many of the more recent efforts have been focused on just the "different." But I am seeing slow but sure progress - thanks in particular to innovative foundation officers at Joyce, Kauffman, Heinz, Gund, Stuart, and Rose, These 3rd parties are really helping to build bridges and bring people with different views together.

[Bob]

Thanks for your response, Barnett. You use political rhetoric. Do you think that politics has kept thousands of local board members from approving different teacher pay packages? That seems a stretch to me.

[Bob]

Thanks for your response, Barnett. You use political rhetoric. Do you think that politics has kept thousands of local board members from approving different teacher pay packages? That seems a stretch to me.

[Barnett Berry]

Bob. I am not sure what you mean by the "use of political rhetoric." Explain a bit more and then I can respond in kind.

[Bob]

I appreciate fun terms like "experts," "wonks," and "elites." I have used them. They can serve as political code words to energize believers in another idea or practice. They can indicate use of either conflict or communitarian ideology and logic, thus contrasting with neutral rational-logical descriptions of similarities and differences between teachers pay proponents and those who have not yet authorized such practices. Probably some teachers accept these code words. My experience is that some education policy makers bristle and prepare for battle, not discussion, when they hear them. I suspect that you want discussion and favorable decisions. I expect that local boards of education do also, even if pay-for-performance does not "win" the discussion immediately.

[Barnett Berry]

Thanks Bob. The words are not meant to be perjorative, only descriptive.These are common words. Most decisions made on the behalf of the teaching professinom are not framed by expert teachers, but by administrative elites and policy analysts (who tend to liken themselves as "wonks"). In CO right now working wth a terrific group of teacher union officials, expert teachers, school board members, and administrators who are working on a strategic compensation agenda - funded by the Rose Community Foundation (and others!). Onward!

[Bob]

I agree, "The words are not meant to be perjorative, only descriptive. These are common words." However, we also know that such is the nature of code words, including those that some people bristle about when they hear or read them. It's sad to note educators using them anyway. Best wishes for your conference.

[Trail Blaze Me IN]

The federal Gov.funded 10% and raised accountability viewing NCLB.We need 50% and think that would help support issues across the board.Teacher's pay based on NCLB test scores?Great book in case you haven't read it,called Manufactured Crisis.We don't have a school system in the state of NC that met AYP unfunded on the mandates of NCLB and now we consider higher pay for teacher's that have the highest test scores with children? Base on levels of degree's and a bonus for school and team driven efforts.

[Stacey]

I absolutely agree with the article that teachers are paid poorly. On top of that, we spend much of our low salary to supplement our classroom, to help obtain the resources that we need in order to meet our student’s diverse needs. As for teachers performing “lowly”, I’m sure that part of it is directly influenced by the lack of support from the community, and most importantly the parents. As a first grade teacher, and prior kindergarten teacher, far too much of our time is spent on teaching our students manners, rules, hygiene, and respect. These basics need to be taken care of before we can get around to what our actual reason for being there is: teaching. Also, “low performers may be more of a product of the dysfunctional system in which they work” (Barnett Berry) unfortunately rings true; there is a good chance that some teachers feel that “you get what you pay for”. Personally, I did not choose to become a teacher for the money (obviously), and feel that I need to do everything that I can for a child to succeed. On the other hand, if one day we were given an amazing raise that I could actually live off of, I wouldn’t turn it down.

[Emily Ayscue Hassel and Bryan C. Hassel]

A few words here from the authors of the report on which Barnett comments above. While we expect lively debate on the challenging and critical issues in teacher pay reform, this post completely misstates the content of the report in three places. Even a casual reading would reveal this. To set the record straight for those who have not yet read the report:

First, the post refers to the piece as “(yet another) teacher pay for performance report.” In fact, pay for performance is only one of seven forms of “pay for contribution” that the paper discusses. To try and boil this down to just “pay for performance” misrepresents what the report says again and again, and indeed misstates its main point.

Second, the post takes us to task for “honing in” on paying individual teachers for their own performance, vs. rewarding small teams or teachers who help others become more effective.

Fact 1: The report includes a whole section devoted to rewarding teachers who “help others become more effective” and related ideas under the heading “Advanced role pay.”

Fact 2: Our discussion of pay for performance states exactly the opposite of what the post says. It explicitly rejects a one-size-fits-all stance on the question of individual vs. team-based rewards (and on whether team rewards should be at the whole-school or small-group level). We say on p. 11 that either or both can make sense depending on the circumstances.

Third, the post claims that “the authors focus mostly on low performers in the system, and call for pay for performance plans in order to root out the incompetents.” The post misleadingly chops off a quote of one of our sentences midway to make it look like this is our point! In fact, the paper includes far more about ways that pay reform could help attract high-potential teaching candidates, keep good teachers and support a culture of high achievement. Significant portions of the paper also address encouraging effective teachers to teach in hard to staff schools and subjects, inducing all teachers to improve their instruction, and encouraging capable teachers to take on advanced roles in schools.

Specifically, the post quotes us as saying: “Every time states authorize across-the-board pay increases in equal percentages to all teachers regardless of contribution, they create an incentive for the lowest contributors to remain in the profession.” In our paper, the sentence continues: “and send the discouraging message that the highest contributors are no more valuable than those contributing the least.” The main point of the sentence when read in its entirety is the demeaning consequence for high contributors.

For these reasons, we encourage readers not to rely on the post above as a summary of the report. If you’re looking for a quick read, the two-page executive summary is a good place to start.