Teacher-Pay Incentives: Do They Work?
Oct. 25, 2006
Guests: Tricia Coulter, director of the Teaching Quality and Leadership Institute; Sabrina W.M. Laine, director of the National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality; and Ben Schaefer, program manager of the National Commission on Teaching and America's Future.
Kevin Bushweller (Moderator):
Welcome to today's online chat to discuss the effectiveness of teacher-pay incentives.
Much has been written about this topic over the years, but a lack of research on such incentives remains a problem. Still, districts are moving ahead with programs that reward teachers with bonuses or other perks if those educators can show they are having a positive impact on student learning. Such performance incentives are commonplace in the private sector, but have proven divisive when put into place in education.
Our three guests today will address many questions related to this issue.
Let's get the discussion started.
Question from Javier Melendez,Senior Director,Recruitment, Orange County Public Schools, Orlando, Florida:
According to my experience, "star candidates" make employment decisions based on factors such as:excellence of the work environment and administrative support, almost never on an isolated bonus or incentive.Demographically speaking,who are mostly attracted by incentives? Novice teachers? Minority candidates? Do we really know that incentives are the determining factor in accepting the offer?
Ben Schaefer:
Targeted incentives can be effective in filling specific needs or in attracting minority candidates. But many high-quality candidates will choose not to apply, or will leave in the first few years, if they are not provided with the supportive working environment they need to be successful. Until we broaden our discussion of incentives to include administrative support, opportunities for professional growth, and time for collaboration, we will not attract and retain the quality teachers that our schools need.
School-based pay or group-based pay looked at as a way to increase collaboration and a “community” feel. In these systems student achievement is aggregated to the school level. When targets are met, all eligible employees (sometimes extending to non-instructional staff, as well) receive some type of bonus. While this is a popular system, there aren’t data indicating that it is a more effective strategy for encouraging collegiality than individual-based pay.
1. A recent Wisconsin initiative seeks to provide an additional $5,000 for nine years as an incentive for teaching by nationally board certified and master educators in high-needs schools.
2. Teachers in Springfield, MA recently approved a contract that includes merit pay. Experienced teachers with at least a master's degree, seven years of teaching experience, and a 97 percent attendance rate at work will be eligible to apply for two positions that fall under the merit pay system. This system includes higher pay and includes the requirement that teachers accept difficult assignments in struggling schools and mentor less-experienced teachers.
3. Retired teachers in South Carolina may participate in the Teacher and Employee Retention program. This program allows a teacher to work for up to five years as a retiree, while accumulating a retirement annuity and drawing salary as a full-time employee. These teachers are channeled to critical need areas.
As to locality, the programs are usually targeted at schools that are identified as being at-risk, usually based on poverty indicators. This is handled on a school-by-school basis rather than a zip code or other designation.
I can’t speak to the tax status of these benefits.
I am not aware of counts of teachers or students benefiting from the program as those data are maintained by the schools or districts responsible for keeping track of the number of teachers receiving incentives and number of students in their classes.
Through the Alabama Incentive Program, highly qualified teachers can earn up to $40,000 (and at least $20,000) in bonuses over five years by working at one of five low-performing schools in Mobile County. Principals can earn up to $60,000 extra at the selected schools. The schools were chosen based on low SAT scores. If test scores improve, employees can get more bonuses at the end of the year.
In Hamilton County, a community effort brings together multiple financial incentives that have been provided to attract high-performing teachers to a focus group of nine low-performing schools. Eligible teachers who move to the “Benwood schools” can receive pro bono legal services and multiple housing incentives – low-interest loans, a gift of up to $10,000 in equity, and a special variance allowing the qualifying teachers to forgo any down payment.
Through a state pilot program, Franklin County and Caroline County provide a one-time hiring incentive of $15,000 to teachers who meet the highly qualified criteria and agree to move to a hard-to-staff middle or high school. Relocating teachers must agree to teach in the hard-to-staff school for at least three years and to participate in training (during the first year of the program) and a formal support network (during year two).
Of these, Hamilton County’s program has been around the longest and has shown strong results in student achievement and teacher retention. I would also encourage anyone interested in learning more about teacher incentives to look at the initiatives that Clark County, Nevada has put in place to attract and retain teachers. While by no means a rural school district, Clark County has taken a multi-faceted approach that includes housing incentives, career ladder advancement, and professional development.
Sabrina W.M. Laine:
Several sources have noted that for a compensation system that is based on merit or performance to be successful, there must be a solid level of trust between teachers and managers (Siegall & Worth, 2001; Ellis, 1984; House Research Organization/Texas House of Reps). Milanowski notes that in instances where union and management relations are good, teacher compensation innovation can be successfully initiated.
In a 1984 ERIC Digest piece, Ellis states that the best way to build that trust is to involve teachers in all phases of the program development, particularly in putting together criteria for evaluations. Shapiro and Laine (2005) note that teachers often do not trust school leaders in general, and fear that assessments of the quality of their work will be politically motivated or otherwise biased. Ellis uses the example of a “quality circle,” in which four to eight teachers with the school principal work as a liaison to the teaching staff and the pay development group. This way, teachers are able to provide feedback from other staff members and provide ongoing recommendations.
One other suggestion would be to carefully weigh the decision to publicize names of those receiving merit pay. Publicizing recipients’ names may cause embarrassment for those who do not make the list, animosity between teachers, or response from parents demanding that their children are in classrooms with the teachers who received the higher pay. Ellis notes that strict confidentiality, however, can lead to rumors of favoritism.
In WestEd’s recent piece “Reforming Teacher Pay: The Search for a Workable Goal-Driven Compensation System,” they stress the importance of “clear and consistent communication” about any changes in a teachers pay system, particularly for a pay-for-performance system. In Denver, where the district has recently implemented the ProComp program, teachers said that in deciding whether to sign up for the program they did not want to get their information from the district by email or by newsletter. They wanted a trusted individual to visit their school, explain the program, and answer the questions.
Whether the incentive would have an effect is informed by this issue. In the Denver ProComp system, for example, a teacher can earn specified percentage bonuses in each of multiple categories, which can add up to a large overall percentage of base pay.
It is important to note, also, that pay should be only one part of a larger system designed to improve teacher retention and student learning.
Sabrina W.M. Laine:
While I’m not aware of the use of financial incentives to recruit and retain high quality pre-school teachers, there are a number of studies that point to the greater use of merit pay and other financial incentives in private schools. As most pre-K programs are private, even when they receive government subsidies, this literature base might be instructive in answering your questions. For example, a recent study by Michael Podursky (2006) examines data from the 1999-2000 Schools and Staffing Surveys, and finds significantly higher use of performance-based pay bonuses by private and charter schools.
Many programs use some type of state academic assessment. Concerns there include whether assessments are available for all subjects (e.g. are art or music teachers automatically ineligible for incentive pay?) and, as you mention, how much of a student’s score is due to teaching variables versus variables or factors external to the teacher. Value-added assessment systems whereby a student’s achievement is projected statistically and compared with actual improvement is seen as a viable alternative by some but concerns over effects external to the teacher are still an issue.
Another method in use is to set learning objectives. These can be created and approved in collaboration with other teachers and/or the principal of the school. Denver’s ProComp (http://denverprocomp.org/) system uses this as a student growth component.
Concerns over the various factors affecting student achievement is one of the strongest arguments for having a compensation program that contains multiple elements – not just student achievement. Other elements include knowledge and skills gained by a teacher through coursework or professional development and teacher evaluation via peer observation or portfolio review.
Sabrina W.M. Laine:
Yes, overall state and local incentives that support teachers who pursue NBPTS certification have provided teachers with an opportunity to advance on the pay scale, improve their practice, and stay in the classroom. However, the overwhelming majority of teachers who pursue NBPTS certification are not found in hard-to-staff schools, and while some states such as South Carolina have legislation that ties financial support for pursuing NBPTS certification to a commitment from the teacher to work in a high need school, there is no evidence that this is an effective strategy. There is also little evidence that there is an exodus of NBPTS-certified teachers from low poverty schools to take advantage of financial incentives to recruit them to high poverty schools. More often, districts such as Miami and Chicago are focusing on providing incentives for current teachers in hard-to-staff schools, and to increase the overall quality and retention of the existing teaching staff. See NBPTS Online News 4(3), http://www.nbpts.org/news/200503news.cfm.
However, it's interesting theat a number of the comments and questions have moved directly to the issus of "merit pay," that is, the idea that teachers are paid differently based on their performance, or that of their students. My experience suggests that it is challenging to assess teacher performance with sufficient rigor to use it as the basis of a high-stakes decition, such as pay. For professional conversations, yes, but it's a doubtful practice, in part because of its impact on teacher collegiality.
A better approach, in my view, if one wants to implement a differentiated pay structure as a long-term recruitment and retention strategy, is to make the decisions based on enhancing the intellectual capital of the school, such as recognizing National Board certification, action research, or informal teacher leadership. The Arlington Public Schools, in Virginia, has embarked on just such an approach.
Do you know of any efforts to truly engage teachers in the development of merit pay plans? Is there a difference in the success of plans developed with significant teacher input and those that are not?
Sabrina W.M. Laine:
First, let me start by congratulating you on being part of such an important national effort to ensure that more teacher voices are part of state and local policy conversations to improve education.
You are right in stating that most financial incentive strategies are successful to the extent that they attract highly qualified teachers into high need schools, or to fill hard-to-staff subject areas such as math, science and special education, but there is not much evidence that they successfully retain teachers. Retention strategies are often not paired appropriately with recruitment strategies, and teachers who leave high need schools cite the lack of supportive leadership as their number 1 reason for their decision. Overall working conditions, a supportive mentor and school leader, inadequate preparation for the challenges posed by different learning styles are all issues that need to be addressed in high need schools if financial incentives are to have the desired effect on recruitment AND retention.
While I am not aware of many efforts that engage teachers in the development of financial incentive strategies, most of the pay-for-performance initiatives that have been developed recently entail significant teacher participation in the conceptualization and successful implementation of the plan. See for example the Denver Pro-Comp model or the Q-Comp program in Minnesota. Also, see the TQ Source Tips and Tools on Quality Teaching in At-Risk Schools (www.TQSource.org) where one of the key strategies highlighted in the section on the successful development of financial incentives is to talk directly to experienced and aspiring teachers about their ideas for creating incentives that will attract and retain teachers in at-risk schools.
But so many of the plans proposed lack insight and understanding of practicing educators. How can we do a better job elevating teacher voice into conversations about compensation?
Denver's plan has been a success because it was built with teacher voice. Minneapolis's work is built on an understanding of teaching.
Few others seem to share these essential traits.
Tricia Coulter:
This is a fabulous point! The importance of having the teachers' voice represented in compensation programs - from inception, through creation, into implemention, assessment and revision - cannot be overstated. As a member of a policy organization the onus is on us (me) to ensure that all our products, discussions, forums, etc include teachers. Hopefully, this practice will raise awareness as to its importance.
It absolutely should be a goal to keep experienced, effective teachers in the classroom. It is also important to try to encourage these teachers to teach in at-risk schools to ensure that these teachers are equitably distributed to all schools.
Combining elements of pay-for-performance and incentive pay models is one method in use to respond to this need. Under pay-for-performance models, teachers are eligible for financial rewards based on their effectiveness. The incentive element would influence their choice of teaching assignment.
Specific to recruitment, any diversified pay system whereby financial incentives are given as salary increases, rather than one-time bonuses, may act to encourage retention as those funds translate into higher cumulative salaries and higher retirement.
A few programs have reported positive results for incentive pay on student performance (e.g. Arizona Career Ladder Program and Benwood Initiative in Tennessee).
Tricia Coulter:
I feel is it always dangerous not to include the teachers’ voice in program design. Important information will be unavailable and buy-in will likely be more difficult to achieve.
With that said, private money can be useful to establish a pilot program whereby an incentive program can be tested out, revised as necessary and assessed prior to securing funding through more far reaching methods (e.g. reallocation of education dollars, tax increases). The Benwood Initiative in Chattanooga, TN is an example of this method. It would be best, obviously, to engage all stakeholders in the creation of the program, regardless of funding source.
Options for program funding include reallocation of dollars in current salary structure and/or a tax increase. Often programs will implement a pilot project (Denver ProComp and the Benwood Initiative in Tennessee, for example) to test out a program, revise it as necessary and attempt to demonstrate efficacy prior to securing more permanent funding structures. The Benwood Initiative was initially funded through grants.
Since this is part of a state’s education budget, generalities can’t be made as to whether or from where funds are reduced to cover costs of these programs.
Tricia Coulter:
Many programs also use teacher evaluation. Options for this include observation by peers and portfolio assessment. To ensure fair evaluation multiple raters should be used and a good system of training for the raters is required. These systems also require rubric for behavior with well-defined elements and examples of types of behavior by which ratings are established. The best know of this type of system is Charlotte Danielson’s system (available online).
As additional information, an opton for a student achievement component not based on a standardized test is for teachers to establish learning objectives. These can be approved created and approved in collaboration with other teachers and/or the principal of the school. Denver’s ProComp (http://denverprocomp.org/) system uses this as a student growth component.
I think any policy should reflect these purposes. It should define a challenge and goal, make resources (funding) available to respond to these goals. It should establish parameters of acceptability (e.g. set out elements that should be included in a program and requirements for accountability). It should not be too prescriptive in order to empower systems to tailor responses to their specific contexts. It should be based on quality research and promising practice to increase likelihood of success. Finally, quality policy should have a means by which its effectiveness is assessed after a designated period of time and options for revision based on that assessment.
Ben Schaefer:
While I agree that intrinsic rewards are extremely important to teachers, salary and incentives do impact decisions on whether and where to teach. Teachers can love children and still want to make a living wage, or want to be paid for their effort and effectiveness. I hope that higher salaries and incentives for effective teaching draw even more dedicated, high-quality people into the profession. I am not overly worried about higher pay and incentives attracting uncaring people focused on making money. I personally do not think that a teacher can be very effective if he/she does not also care about the intrinsic rewards that you mention.
This example is for an incentive program that targets a high-need area and focuses on retention in that area. The issue becomes much more complex if the stated goal is to increase student achievement. In this case, the compensation system must be part of a larger learning-focused structure in which teacher evaluation would be used diagnostically to inform content or pedagogical challenges, for example, that could be improved through targeted professional development or mentoring.
The evidence would need to be teacher evaluation and student achievement. These are also complex areas. Some promising teacher evaluation systems use peer observation or assessment of portfolios. To ensure fair evaluation multiple raters should be used and a good system of training for the raters is required.
The use of student achievement data is possibly the most contentious issue in this area. While state assessments are often used, concerns there include whether assessments are available for all subjects (e.g. are art or music teachers automatically ineligible for incentive pay?) and how much of a student’s score is due to teaching variables versus variables or factors external to the teacher. Value-added assessment systems whereby a student’s achievement is projected statistically and compared with actual improvement is seen as a viable alternative by some but concerns over effects external to the teacher are still an issue.
The most important thing to consider in determining what variables to consider or data to gather to determine the effectiveness of teacher incentives is to be very clear on what t he incentives are intended to effect. Choose data appropriate to the assessment of that factor and ensure the data systems available are adequate to gather those data.
Ben Schaefer:
My concern is that tying teacher pay to a test score creates a zero sum game among teachers. If we want schools that successfully prepare students for the 21st century, we want teachers working collaboratively to improve instruction, not fighting over the highest-achieving students. Teacher performance should be tied to teacher pay, but using a single test score to determine teacher performance will not work.
Brian Phillips
Assistant Principal
Saydel High School
Des Moines, Iowa
Sabrina W.M. Laine:
Thanks for this question as it is a common misconception that financial incentives are not successful in recruiting teachers to high need schools when in fact, the research evidence is clear that signing bonuses, housing assistance, tuition reimbursement, etc. successfully attract teachers. One persistent problem with implementation is that states and/or districts need to communicate/advertise the program and be clear about the eligibility requirements.
However, what is not as well documented is how successfully those same strategies work to retain teachers for more than 2-3 years. As I described in response to an earlier question, there are two factors that must be in place for a financial incentive strategy to work to its fullest potential: 1) The amount of the incentive has to be high enough to matter OR it has to be in the right form for the population it is intended to serve – loan forgiveness; signing bonus; housing assistance; or higher pay; and 2) The financial incentive should not be offered in isolation. In other words, rarely will a financial incentive recruit and retain quality teachers for hard to staff schools and subject areas if an associated supportive structure is not in place - a structure that includes mentoring, professional development, and effective leadership.
Ben Schaefer:
To varying degrees, financial incentives do attract greater numbers of applicants. There is actual data that shows this. Some would say this proves that financial incentives "work". I would argue that to breed school success, incentives must attract and retain high quality teachers. Without the teacher support and development that you mention, teacher incentives will not work for the good of our students.
The other concern I would have is the amount of money available. Much opposition to new diversified compensation systems is the result of experience with old merit pay systems in which a single pot of money was handed to a school and doled out based, usually, on principal evaluation. When the money was gone, bonuses stopped. This led to increased competition and ill-will among teachers as it was a zero-sum game. Is the interest generated enough to ensure that all eligible personnel or schools meeting a given benchmark will get a bonus? Also, I hope there is a quantitative definition for improvement levels that are published so there’s no confusion as to what those levels might be.
Finally, compensation systems are only one possible element in the creation and maintenance of a “work-class” school system. Other elements include quality induction programs, being part of a collaborative environment, having non-instructional release time for planning and/or embedded professional development, etc.
Sabrina W.M. Laine:
The varying effects of teacher incentives, in part, have to do with the degree to which teachers are involved in the discussion of shaping the teacher incentives for their school and/or district, implementing an inflexible incentive program, and implementing the incentive program in isolation. About a year ago, my colleague Susan Shapiro and I conducted a study (Adding the Critical Voice: A Dialogue with Practicing Teachers on Teacher Recruitment and Retention in Hard-to-Staff Schools), to find out what it would take to recruit and retain teachers in hard-to-staff schools. Through a series of focus groups in the Midwest, we found that teachers know very little about pay-for-performance, but if given the opportunity to voice what incentives are most attractive to them and would keep them at a school, what we found is that the voices are one of a unison choir. What incentives attract and retain teachers, we found, depended on the stage of life you are in and your personal circumstances. They indicated new teachers would select very different incentives than veteran teachers because of personal circumstances and classroom experience. For this reason, it is important to include teachers in the development of an incentive program. One approach is conducting state networking groups to develop a menu of financial incentives and pay-for-performance measures that would serve as a common basis for the conversation among and between groups. The intended result would be to increase understanding of various approaches to flexible teacher compensation by participants, and to assess where opportunities for change are most likely in states and local communities.
There is a difference between what attracts teachers and what retains teachers. We know that there are a group of teachers that are attracted to teach in at-risk schools and sometimes within this group, there are teachers who are educationally and/or professionally prepared to teach hard-to-staff areas in these at-risk schools. As mentioned by Jessica Levin and Meredith Quinn in Missed Opportunities: How We Keep High-Quality Teachers Out of Urban Classrooms, the current hiring and recruitment policies and procedures cause at-risk schools to lose highly qualified teachers. Teachers today have a greater sense of what they are looking for within a school community. For these teachers, professional development, school leadership support, and other support structures like mentoring and induction programs, and opportunities for leadership roles play a factor.
Ben Schaefer:
The program in Chattanooga, TN (Hamilton County) has been around for five years and has shown impressive student achievement results. The program is a comprehensive school improvement initiative that attempts to improve student achievement with strong teaching in the county’s eight most challenged elementary schools. Teacher incentives, such as individual and school-wide performance bonuses, housing incentives, and free master’s degree tuition, are a part of the initiative.
From your question, it seems that you could tell me more about the uniqueness of Tennessee’s system than I can tell you. In addition to the unique factors you mentioned, Hamilton County also has tremendous support from the community and from the Benwood Foundation. I do not think that these factors are necessary precursors, although all are helpful to the success of the program. The major difference I see between the efforts in Chattanooga and other failed incentive programs is that Chattanooga does not focus solely on recruitment. The initiative does attract teachers, but it also supports these teachers to the point that the hard-to-staff schools are no longer hard-to-staff.
Ben Schaefer:
Teacher collaboration is important to improving instruction. Creating an incentive program that pits teacher against teacher will not work for students. If I were designing an incentive program, I would reward teachers for their performance. Performance would include professional growth, student growth, and taking on roles and responsibilities such as mentoring and school improvement.
I don’t think there is any proof regarding the overall success or failure of financial incentives. There are certainly some triumphs and of course other instances where a financial incentive program did not yield the intended results. Charlotte-Mecklenburg recently eliminated funds for bonuses to teach in high-poverty schools because the program failed to lure teachers to these schools. The district has since announced sweeping changes in staffing to improve leadership, teaching, and achievement in the district’s lowest performing high schools. As I stated earlier, the situation really varies based on time and context. That is why it is so important for incentive programs to be data-driven and targeted to specific areas of need. Furthermore, financial incentives can potentially affect teacher recruitment differently than teacher retention. For example, a one-time signing bonus that induces a high quality teacher to move to a hard to staff school will mean nothing in a year or two if that school does not have efforts in place to also retain the incentivized teacher.
I think we can safely say that two factors must be in place for a financial incentive strategy to achieve its intended outcome: 1) The amount of the incentive has to be high enough to matter OR it has to be in the right form for the population it is intended to serve – loan forgiveness; signing bonus; housing assistance; or higher pay; and 2) The financial incentive should not be offered in isolation. In other words, rarely will a financial incentive strategy successfully recruit and retain quality teachers for hard-to-staff schools and subject areas if the working environment is problematic - a highly effective working environment includes quality mentoring, professional development, and effective leadership.
Sabrina W.M. Laine:
There isn’t a great deal of empirical data available on the relative effects of financial incentives. While there is some research that shows the impact incentives may have on teacher retention, there is a dearth of research regarding the impact they may have on student learning (see earlier response). Most research is done on a case-by-case basis. Having said that, here are a few examples:
- A recent Ed Week article (“Teacher Pay Incentives: Popular But Unproven”) mentioned a data-collection effort underway in Virginia. They are documenting the effectiveness of an incentive program that awarded bonuses to teachers who went to work in Caroline county and the city of Franklin.
- Researchers Hanushek, Kain, and Rivkin have done several worthwhile empirical pieces on this topic using data from Texas.
- Charles Clotfelter, Elizabeth Glennie, Helen Ladd, and Jacob Vigdor did a piece called “Would Higher Salaries Keep Teachers in High-Poverty Schools” and found that the program did reduce teacher turnover (of the targeted teachers).
- Although results were not altogether positive, data were gathered and analyzed to assess the effectiveness of the Massachusetts Signing Bonus Program.
Another great incentive would be severely reduced graduate costs, as they are required for recertification, and largely out of the teacher's pocket!
Tricia Coulter:
Certain levels of forgiveness are possible for both Perkins and Stafford loans if teachers teach in a qualified at-risk school for a specified period of time (usually 5 years). Perkins loans can be forgiven completely because they are available only to students demonstrating high financial need whereas Stafford loans do not hold the same eligibility requirements. However, Stafford loans can be forgiven up to $17,500 for teaching math, science or special ed in a qualifying at-risk school (see http://studentaid.ed.gov/PORTALSWebApp/students/english/
cancelstaff.jsp?tab=repaying for more information).
As to reduction of school costs, many states don’t require graduate credits for recertification. For advancement to the next tier of licensure some type of professional development and/or school credits are often required but the specifics of that vary by state. (go to http://mb2.ecs.org/reports/Report.aspx?id=1195 for a table of all state level policy governing requirements for recertification). Often options exist in any given state of which teachers are unaware. You should check with your state department of education to investigate this possibility.
Sabrina W.M. Laine:
Currently the three areas that suffer from the highest rates of teacher shortages (due to a combination of teacher supply and teacher attrition) are mathematics, science, and special education. The National Center for Education Statistics’ SASS data and Teacher Follow-Up Survey are great data-driven resources for unpacking this kind of trend. For example, in the 1994-1995 Teacher Follow-Up Survey, when teachers were asked what steps schools could take to encourage teachers in math and science to remain, teachers responded with salary, better discipline, more faculty authority, and smaller class sizes, in that order. Further, Richard Ingersoll’s analysis of SASS data show that of math and science teachers that left their school, more than half cited poor salary or benefits as a reason for leaving. Salary is often an important driving factor for the recruitment and retention of all teachers, but certainly not the only factor. It may be the case, however, that salary is a more powerful indicator for the mobility of science and math teachers due to the option that some of those teachers have to leave the profession and make a, sometimes, significantly higher salary. This is not necessarily the case for teachers in all content areas.
The National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality (NCCTQ) hosted an Issue Forum last year entitled Addressing Personnel Shortages and the Recruitment of Special Education, Mathematics, and Science Teachers in At-Risk Schools. You may go to NCCTQ’s web site (www.ncctq.org) and find several useful resources as well as copies of presenter presentations on issues pertaining to recruiting teachers for math, science, and special education.
Last, there are a variety of programs at the federal level seeking to address this issue. The Adjunct Teacher Corps component of the American Competitiveness Initiative seeks to encourage qualified math and science professionals to become adjunct high school teachers. In addition, the Higher Education Reconciliation Act of 2005 authorized up to $17,500 in student loan forgiveness for certain full-time secondary school teachers of math or science.
Tricia Coulter:
I feel the first part of the argument is the result of experience with old merit pay systems in which a single pot of money was handed to a school and doled out based, usually, on principal evaluation. When the money was gone, bonuses stopped. This led to increased competition and ill-will among teachers as it was a zero-sum game. Establishing a system whereby any eligible teacher who meets an established, clearly defined target assessed through objective means will receive money does not lead to inter-teacher animosity.
The second part of your question touches on probably the most contentious issue in diversified compensation systems – rating teachers on student achievement which is affected by numerous variables outside the teacher’s control.
Student achievement is an expected outcome of teaching and should be assessed in some manner (there are many methods by which to do so). However, concerns over the various factors affecting student achievement is one of the strongest arguments for having a compensation program that contains multiple elements – not just student achievement. Other elements include knowledge and skills gained by a teacher through coursework or professional development and teacher evaluation via peer observation or portfolio review.
Sabrina W.M. Laine:
Hard-to-staff schools are usually low-performing schools in urban areas or isolated rural areas. There are also hard-to-staff subject areas such as math, science, and special education. Reasons for not wanting to teach in a certain school, or for teaching at a school and then leaving vary widely. Research has been able to isolate a few of the leading factors for why some schools are not able to recruit and/or retain high quality teachers for their students. They include but are not limited to:
- Jessica Levin and Meredith Quinn showed in Missed Opportunities: How We Keep High-Quality Teachers Out of Urban Classrooms that high-needs urban schools and districts are often left without high quality teachers because of late hiring (and thus losing high-quality, prospective teachers to other schools/districts, often suburban). Similarly, some schools, particularly those that are hard to staff do not engage in targeted screening and hiring which can help build a faculty that is a good fit for the schools. The New Teacher Project has developed a program that the Chicago Public Schools will use to provide extensive training and interviewing techniques to principals in order to develop new techniques to identify and place teachers who aremore likely to persist and succeed at their schools.
- Several researchers, including Richard Ingersoll, Eric Hirsch, and a recent paper out of Duke University which was presented at the 2006 AERA meeting have expressed the importance of an effective and supportive school leader in retaining teachers. For example, Duke University researchers Susan Wynn, Lisa Wilson Carboni, and Erika Patall show that teachers are more likely to stay in a school when they feel satisfied with their principal’s leadership and with the school climate. This can be especially important for new teachers and for teachers in hard to staff schools where support is key. Effective and supportive school leadership can sometimes be the most important factor in retaining teachers.
- A third quite prominent cause can best be described as general working conditions. Teachers, just as any other professional, want to work in a setting that is clean, safe, and provides adequate resources to get work done. It does not seem as though we are able to isolate one specific working condition as the most important one necessary to get and keep a teacher in a hard to staff school, but rather teachers desire a setting that is relatively clean, safe, provides enough time for instruction as well as collaboration with colleagues, facilitates the ability to feel effective with the students, and provides adequate resources.
This chat is now over. A transcript of the discussion will be posted shortly on edweek.org.
All questions are screened by an edweek.org editor and the guest speaker prior to posting. A question is not displayed until it is answered by the guest speaker. Due to the volume of questions received, we cannot guarantee that all questions will be answered, or answered in the order of submission. Guests and hosts may decline to answer any questions. Concise questions are strongly encouraged.
Please be sure to include your name and affiliation when posting your question.
Edweek.org's Online Chat is an open forum where readers can participate in a give- and-take discussion with a variety of guests. Edweek.org reserves the right to condense or edit questions for clarity, but editing is kept to a minimum. Transcripts may also be reproduced in some form in our print edition. We do not correct errors in spelling, punctuation, etc. In addition, we remove statements that have the potential to be libelous or to slander someone.
Please read our privacy policy and user agreement if you have questions.
—Chat Editors
Advertisement
Advertisement
K-12 Industry Solutions
The Tennessee Vocabulary ProjectASCD
Building 21st Century Skills with Project LearningOracle Education Foundation
Transform Learning with Interactive Video CommunicationTandberg
Blended Learning: The Intersection of Online and Face-to-Face InstructionBlackboard K-12
The Achilles Heel of Education and How to Fix ItAPQC Education
Performance Measurement: Measuring What Matters MostBaldrige National Quality Program
The Research Foundation for Successful ReaderRenaissance Learning
View a complete list of archived and upcoming webinars at our event calendar page. Past events include "Making Algebra Easier" and "Quality Counts 2009: Portrait of a Population."
Browse our exclusive directory of more than 200 K-12 professional development products and services.
Advertisement
Advertisement