Appendix B Guidelines for Creating a Comprehensive Pay System

Appendix B: Guidelines for Creating a Comprehensive Pay System Appendix B: Overview of Compensation Models Appendix B Guidelines for Creating a Comprehensive Pay System The Guidelines for Creating a Comprehensive Pay System provided in Appendix B examines various teacher pay options, including, single-salary schedule, extra duty/additional responsibility pay, career ladder, knowledge- and skill-based pay, individual evaluation pay, and performance-based pay The advantages and disadvantages of each option are explored The document offer school divisions with guidance when implementing an alternative teacher compensation system Although this document has not been proved by the Virginia Department of Education yet, it can serve as a valuable resource for the decision-making process regarding teacher compensation Appendix B: Overview of Compensation Models DRAFT DISCUSSION DOCUMENT Virginia Department of Education Guidelines for Creating a Comprehensive Pay System DRAFT MAY 2011 Appendix B: Overview of Compensation Models Table of Contents PRPLOGUE………………………………………………………………………… ………….1 INTRODUCTION TO PERFORMANCE PAY……………………………………………….2 Table of Contents .4 Individual Evaluation Pay 21 APPENDIX A: SINGLE-SALARY SCHEDULE EXAMPLE 35 APPENDIX B: EXTRA DUTY/ADDITIONAL RESPONSIBILITY PAY EXAMPLE .36 APPENDIX D: KNOWLEDGE- AND SKILLS-BASED PAY EXAMPLE 39 REFERENCES 58 Appendix B: Overview of Compensation Models DRAFT DISCUSSION DOCUMENT PROLOGUE1 At the heart of educational reform in the United States and, in fact, in virtually all nations in which systemic school improvement efforts have been undertaken in recent decades, are the inter-related goals of improving student achievement and ensuring that high quality teachers are in every classroom Given these goals of improving student achievement and teacher quality, the rationale for restructuring the teacher compensation system in a nation, a state, or a school system has been pushed to the forefront of reform Some researchers believe that a pay for performance system may encourage higher levels of achievement for all students by using compensation as an incentive to improve teacher performance A performance pay system also may provide a means by which to attract, develop, and retain teachers.For these reasons, it is important to understand what the research says about various compensation systems and the advantages and disadvantages that different performancebased plans offer In fact, in the last decade, several small-scale attempts at alternative compensation programs have been piloted and reviewed at the school district level across the United States These programs have offered interesting data about what makes different salary options viable alternatives for teachers and how school divisions can go about creating their own restructured compensation programs to meet contemporary challenges Although some might view the implementation of a performance compensation model as evidence that policy makers believe that teachers are “holding back” their efforts unless and until a performance system is implemented, this is untrue for the vast majority of teachers This document examines the various pay options a school division might consider and provides guidelines to consider when implementing an alternative compensation program Specifically, it addresses a single-salary schedule, extra duty/additional responsibility pay, career ladder, knowledge-and skills-based pay, individual evaluation pay, and finally, performance-based pay The development of a compensation model should be a shared decision making process Stakeholders must be involved in the research, development and implementation process of any compensation system Portions of this section were adapted from Stronge, J H., Gareis, C R., and Little, C A (2006) Teacher Pay & Teacher Quality Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press; and Stronge, J H (2010) Effective teachers = student achievement: What the research says Larchmont, NY: Eye On Education B-1 Appendix B: Overview of Compensation Models DRAFT DISCUSSION DOCUMENT INTRODUCTION TO PERFORMANCE PAY2 Within the context of educational reform, teacher compensation systems may provide an avenue for change with the potential to support the goals of improving teacher quality and student performance Moreover, policymakers and policy researchers predict that offering alternative compensation systems may facilitate the related goals of recruiting and retaining quality teachers, despite the attractions of other professions.i Given these vital goals of enhancing student learning and teacher quality, the rationale for restructuring a teacher compensation system may be addressed in light of three areas of focus: • Attracting candidates to the profession; • Developing professionals across the career span; and • Retaining quality teachers in the classroom Attracting Teachers Teacher salaries, especially at the beginning teacher level, put the education profession at a disadvantage in attracting candidates of high potential Teacher salaries remain somewhat low compared to those of professionals with similar educational preparation Studies comparing salary rates have demonstrated consistently that teacher salaries are more comparable to salaries in technical fields than to other professions, and few occupations requiring college degrees have salaries lower than those found in teaching.ii See Figures 1.1 for illustrations of teacher salaries compared to selected other professions In addition, the broadening of career opportunities for women and minorities over the last several decades has influenced young people’s professional decision-making, requiring school systems to focus additional attention on recruitment practices to entice candidates to the profession.iii Nevertheless, the dire predictions of teacher shortages are connected to the issue of aging and retiring teachers, not solely to data regarding teacher preparation programs Many college students still enter and graduate from teacher preparation programs, and professionals from other fields continue to enter the field of education as a second career Consequently, candidates are available; school divisions must then find ways to attract the most talented candidates to their schools Although conventional wisdom suggests that teachers enter the field for the intrinsic rewards and the service orientation, not for the financial incentives; salary is, nevertheless, an important consideration Portions of this section were adapted from Stronge, J H., Gareis, C R., and Little, C A (2006) Teacher Pay & Teacher Quality Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press; and Stronge, J H (2010) Effective teachers = student achievement: What the research says Larchmont, NY: Eye On Education B-2 Appendix B: Overview of Compensation Models Figure 1.1: Comparison of Teacher Salaries with Selected Other Salaries Salaries of Professionals Position Teachers Accountants Public Relations Specialists Computer Engineers Average $51,009 $63,180 $57,100 $90,780 Source: American Federations of Teachers, 2007 Report Available at http://www.aft.org/pdfs/teachers/salarysurvey07.pdf Salaries vary considerably from one school district/division or state to another, both in terms of starting salaries and rates of increase For example, the average teacher salary in Virginia in 2009 was $52,309, but average salaries ranged from a low of $38,179 in Grayson County Public Schools to $69,073 in Arlington County Public Schools iv School divisions must examine carefully the degree to which their initial offerings are competitive and sufficiently attractive to new teachers, as well as how quickly teachers will be able to earn higher pay Many school divisions and states are seeking innovative ways to make entrance into the teaching profession a more attractive proposition Some innovations and ongoing practices include: • signing bonuses; • scholarships or loan forgiveness, by which college students in education pledge to teach for a certain period in a state’s high need areas in exchange for tuition support and/or loan forgiveness; • increases to the overall salary system whereby teacher salaries are given a higher fiscal priority statewide; and • alternative salary scales which offer a reasonable starting salary but also offer novice teachers the opportunity to move more quickly up the steps of the scale.v Each of these options, by offering teachers immediate financial incentives and/or pledging financial flexibility over the career span, makes the profession more attractive to entering teachers than a traditional salary schedule and, thus, has the potential to increase the applicant pool of high quality teachers Developing Teachers A second key area of focus is the need to ensure quality among practicing teachers and to encourage continuous improvement over the career span A growing body of research continues to amass evidence that teachers influence student achievement more than any other factor, emphasizing both the positive effect of stronger teachers and the negative effect of weaker teachers.vi This research strengthens the argument for supporting teacher growth and acknowledging exemplary practice Moreover, some motivation theories suggest that even in occupations with high potential for intrinsic rewards–such as the emotional benefits teachers gain while supporting student learning–there is still a relationship between compensation and job Appendix B: Overview of Compensation Models satisfaction.vii The traditional salary schedule provides incentives for teachers to remain over time by compensating them based on longevity It encourages teachers to gain more education through graduate coursework, but it does not necessarily promote teacher development tied directly to job assignments Moreover, the traditional salary schedule rewards putting in time far more than rewarding exerting exceptional effort, and it rewards exemplary and mediocre performance at approximately the same level Compensation that is linked directly to demonstration of professional growth and/or professional performance has the potential to respond to public demands for improvement in teaching in return for tax dollars spent Moreover, linking compensation to professional development has the capacity to stimulate the acquisition of the knowledge and skills necessary to teach to the new standards A meta-analysis conducted by the Incentive Research Foundation found that if incentive programs are correctly selected, implemented, and monitored, they can increase individual performance by an average of 22 percent and team performance by up to 44 percent.viii Not only may a compensation system encourage professional growth and development in teachers, it also has the potential to influence the roles and development of administrators If administrators must play a crucial role in evaluating teachers fairly for a system that incorporates performance evaluation, they must give primary focus to their own roles as instructional leaders.ix Indeed, proponents of alternative compensation systems suggest that linking compensation more directly to professional development and improvement efforts can promote increased discussion of quality instruction throughout a school and a school system.x Retaining Teachers Just as it is in a school division’s best interests to invest in developing teacher talent through professional development and incentives for growth, it is also in the division’s best interests to encourage teachers to remain with the school division over time This is particularly important in hard-to-staff schools and divisions, which often serve as a training ground for inexperienced teachers The better teachers from these schools often move on to schools with “easier” populations Moreover, it is in the best interests of the education profession to encourage teachers to remain in practice over the long term Consequently, a third area of focus in restructuring compensation systems is the need to retain quality teachers and to avoid a system where teachers reach the maximum income range on the salary scale Studies investigating teacher attrition have documented that among those teachers who leave the profession, newer teachers–who receive lower pay–leave most quickly xi and, frequently, when they cite low pay as a major reason for their attrition xii In fact, 40 percent of beginning teachers leave teaching in their first five years of practice, and exit data reveals that 46 percent of these beginning teachers give poor salary as their reason for leaving.xiii The traditional single-salary schedule is perhaps most disadvantageous to novice teachers in their early years; most salary schedules are back-loaded, meaning that salaries rise more steeply at the higher levels, representing more experienced teachers, than at the lower levels where novice teachers are placed Given this structure, it may take newer teachers many years to achieve a Appendix B: Overview of Compensation Models competitive salary Yet some teachers, even in their earliest years in the profession, demonstrate high effectiveness along with high motivation Alternative salary systems have the potential to reward these teachers and to encourage them to remain in the profession over time At the other end of the career span, more experienced teachers also are influenced by the salary schedule and may be disadvantaged by it Most single-salary schedules allow a teacher to continue to move up a scale over a number of years; but after 15 or 20 years in the system, teachers generally reach the highest salaries possible within their scales and can receive additional raises only through cost-of-living increases or gaining higher education The other option for these career teachers to increase their salaries is to leave the classroom for administrative positions Thus, the system promotes the removal of high-quality, motivated, experienced teachers from the setting in which they may have the greatest influence over individual student learning Alternative compensation systems, by employing levels of teacher performance in a pay for performance system or by providing bonuses for specific performance demonstrations, can help to maintain teacher motivation over time and can help to eliminate the topping-out problem by linking extra compensation to yearly performance Teacher Effectiveness Virtually all teacher pay plans are tied to assumptions regarding teacher effectiveness For example, paying teachers bonuses for achieving certification from the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS) is premised on the belief that these teachers are, in some way, better for having achieved National Board status Similarly, current experiments by school districts across the country with performance pay schemes are based on assumptions that some teachers have earned or deserve extra pay (e.g., for performing extra duties, for gaining and implementing new instructional skills, for directly influencing student achievement goals in their classrooms) More fundamentally, even our well-entrenched uniform teacher salary scales are built on two basic assumptions about the connection between teacher effectiveness and teacher pay • The first assumption is that teachers who gain additional experience also increase in effectiveness This is expressed in a pay scale with experience steps in which incremental pay increases are provided each year, often reaching a maximum after 10 to 20 years, depending on the school division • The second assumption is that teachers who gain additional academic degrees also increase in effectiveness This is reflected in a pay scale where teachers earn extra pay for each succeeding degree earned (master’s degree, master’s degree plus 30 semester hours, doctorate, and so forth) Research shows, however, that teacher education and teacher experience, beyond the first few years, has very little explanatory value for teacher effectiveness xiv Chapter provides further information on this issue Appendix B: Overview of Compensation Models REVIEW OF RELEVANT RESEARCH Prior to examining the research related specifically to alternative compensation models, it is important to understand what research says about the association between teachers' experience, educational attainment, and their effectiveness, since this is by far the most common method of determining teacher pay Single-Salary Schedule The single-salary schedule assumes experience and education are proxies for effectiveness Research supports the idea that teacher effectiveness has more influence on student achievement than any other school-related factor, xv so it is important to know what research tells us about the relationship between experience, education, and student achievement Experience From studies that have investigated teachers’ experience, research indicates that experience is positively correlated to a student’s achievement to a point For example: • Second-grade reading and third-grade mathematics students performed significantly better in classrooms where the teachers had more than three years experience.xvi • The correlation between teacher experience and student achievement tends to peak at year five, but then the relationship flattens out by year eight.xvii • The percentage of teachers with ten years of teaching experience had a 404 correlation with mathematics achievement and a 366 correlation with reading achievement • Teacher expertise: Combined measures of teachers’ expertise (scores on state licensing exams, master’s degrees and experience) accounted for more inter-district variability of students’ reading achievement and achievement gains in grades – 11 than did students’ race and socio-economic status.xviii • Strong academic skills in a teacher – as measured by academic scores on the SAT or ACT, verbal ability test, or selectivity of the undergraduate institution – may predict teacher effectiveness somewhat, but the estimated magnitudes of these attributes are relatively weak.xix Continuing Education Similarly, research shows that continuing education is associated with higher student achievement in some instances For example: • Professional development (in working with different student populations and in higherorder thinking skills) was positively associated with student achievement in mathematics and science.xx • Third grade mathematics students of teachers who held master’s degrees experienced Appendix B: Overview of Compensation Models “The teacher remains the most critical and important element for a student achieving success in the classroom,” said Richmond City School Superintendent Dr Yvonne Brandon “Our inclusion in the NBPTS five-year Teacher Incentive Fund grant program will allow the district to expand and enhance our professional development and teacher mentor training programs so we may continue our ongoing pattern of improved student achievement This year, for the first time, we achieved one hundred percent accreditation on the state’s Standard of Learning tests To maintain that level of achievement, the district must continue to recruit and retain this nation’s top educators.” School officials are currently developing the program and plan to implement it during the 20112012 school year.lxx 55 Appendix B: Overview of Compensation Models ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We wish to express our appreciation to the Center for Innovative Technology for their leadership in coordinating the work that led to the development of this publication Additionally, we wish to thank the members of the 2010 Virginia Teacher Evaluation Work Group for their invaluable input and support of the project Dr Patricia I Wright, Superintendent of Public Instruction, Virginia Department of Education Dr Mark Allan, Director of Standards, Curriculum and Instruction, Virginia Department of Education Ms Bethann Canada, Director of Educational Information Management, Virginia Department of Education Dr Deborah Jonas, Executive Director for Research and Strategic Planning, Virginia Department of Education Dr James Lanham, Director of Teacher Licensure and School Leadership and Evaluation Project Coordinator, Virginia Department of Education Ms Patty Pitts, Assistant Superintendent for Teacher Education and Licensure, Virginia Department of Education Dr Kathleen Smith, Director of School Improvement, Virginia Department of Education Ms Carol Sylvester, Title IIA Specialist, Virginia Department of Education Ms Michelle Vucci, Director of Policy, Virginia Department of Education Ms Anne Wescott, Assistant Superintendent for Policy and Communications, Virginia Department of Education Ms Sherri Arnold, English Teacher, Maggie Walker Governor’s School for Government and International Studies Mr Jeff Bain, President, Virginia School Boards Association Mr James Baldwin, Executive Director, Virginia Association of Elementary School Principals Dr Frank Barham, Executive Director, Virginia School Boards Association Dr Randy Barrack, Executive Director, Virginia Association of Secondary School Principals Ms Carolyn Bernard, Principal, Grassfield High School, Chesapeake City Public Schools; President-elect, Virginia Association of Secondary School Principals Dr Kitty Boitnott, President, Virginia Education Association Ms Kathy Burcher, Legislative Chair, Virginia Parent Teacher Association Dr Alfred Butler, Executive Director, Virginia Association of School Superintendents 56 Appendix B: Overview of Compensation Models Mr Frank Cardella, High School Teacher and President, Chesterfield Education Association Dr Lyle Evans, Assistant Superintendent for Human Resources and Administrative Services, Chesterfield County Public Schools Mr Stu Gibson, Past President, Virginia School Board Association Mr Michael Hairston, Middle School Teacher and President, Fairfax Education Association Ms Bonnie Klakowicz, President, Prince William Education Association Mr D Patrick Lacy, Special Counsel, Virginia School Board Association Ms Betty Lambdin, Director, Office of Teaching and Learning, Virginia Education Association Mr Dominic Melito, High School Teacher and President, Virginia Beach Education Association Dr James Merrill, Superintendent, Virginia Beach Public Schools Dr Pamela Moran, Superintendent, Albemarle County Public Schools Dr Patricia Shoemaker, Dean, College of Education, Radford University Dr Thomas Shortt, Executive Director, Virginia Association of Elementary School Principals through November 2010 Mr Andy Stamp, Associate Executive Director, Virginia Association of School Superintendents Dr Benita Stephens, Principal, Potomac Middle School, Prince William County Public Schools Dr Phillip Worrell, Superintendent, Greensville County Public Schools Project Consultant James H Stronge, Ph.D Heritage Professor of Educational Policy, Planning, and Leadership College of William and Mary Williamsburg, Virginia with assistance from: Ginny Caine Tonneson, Ph.D Transformational Concepts, LLC and Xianxuan Xu, Ph.D College of William and Mary Project Facilitator Center for Innovative Technology 2214 Rock Hill Road, Suite 600 Herndon, VA 20170 www.cit.org 57 Appendix B: Overview of Compensation Models REFERENCES Aaronson, D., Barrow, L., & Sander, W (2007).Teachers and student achievement in the Chicago public high schools.Journal of Labor Economics, 25(1), 95-135 Alexander, K., & Salmon, R G (1995).Public school finance.Boston: Allyn& Bacon Amator, J (2007, February) Pay for performance programs in Arizona Presentation to the Consortium for Policy Research in Education Conference, Chicago, IL American Federations of Teachers (2007) Retrieved from http://www.aft.org/pdfs/teachers /salarysurvey07.pdf Anderson, N (2010, September 21) Teacher bonuses not linked to better student performances, study finds The Washington Post Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2010/09/21 /AR2010092103413.html Arizona Department of Education (n.d.).Career ladder program Retrieved from https://www azed.gov/asd/CareerLadder Ballou, D., &Podgursky, M (1993) Teachers’ attitudes toward merit pay: Examining conventional wisdom Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 47(1), 50-61 Cavalluzzo, L C (2004) Is National Board Certification an effective signal of teacher quality? Alexandria, VA: The CNA Corporation Retrieved from http://www.cna.org/documents /CavaluzzoStudy.pdf Center for Teaching Quality.(n.d.).Performance-Pay for Teachers.Hillsborough, NC: Author Coggshall, J G., Ott, A., Behrstock, E., & Lasagna, M (2010).Retaining teacher talent: The view from Generation Y Retrieved from http://www.learningpt.org/expertise /educatorquality/genY/Gen%20Y%20report.pdf Conley, S., Muncey, D., & Gould, J (2002).Negotiating teacher compensation: Three views of comprehensive reform.Educational Policy, 16(5), 675-706 Conley, S., &Odden, A (1995) Linking teacher compensation to teacher career development.Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 17, 219-237 Darling-Hammond, L (2000) Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of state policy evidence Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8(1) Retrieved from http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs /article/viewFile/392/515 Dee, T S., & Keys, B J (2004) Does merit pay reward good teachers? Evidence from a randomized experiment.Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 23(3), 471-488 58 Appendix B: Overview of Compensation Models Denver Public Schools.(n.d) Welcome to TeacherProComp Retrieved from http://denverprocomp dpsk12.org Douglas County Federation.(n.d.).For teachers performance pay Retrieved from http://www.dcft.net/teachers/performance/general/execsummary.htm Douglas County School District, Office of Human Resources.(n.d.).Douglas County School District Pay for Performance program Retrieved from http://www.dcsdk12.org/portal /page/portal/DCSD/Human_Resources Douglas Country School District, The Center for Professional Development (n.d.).Classified Skills Block Guide Retrieved from http://www.dcsdk12.org/portal/page/portal/DCSD /Center_For_Staff_and_Community_Development/Staff_Development1 /Skills_Block_Information /CCSB_Guide_081210.pdf Dowling, J., Murphy, S E., & Wang, B (2007).The effects of the career ladder program on student achievement Phoenix: Arizona Department of Education Retrieved from https://www.azed.gov/asd/CareerLadder /CareerLadderReport.pdf Durall, P C (1995) Years of experience and professional development: A correlation with higher reading scores (Doctoral dissertation, Murray State University, KY).Retrieved from ERIC database (EC386681) Firestone, W A (1994) Redesigning teacher salary systems for educational reform.American Educational Research Journal, 31, 549-574 Goldhaber, D D (2002) The mystery of good teaching.Education Next, 2(1), 50-55 Goldhaber, D D., & Brewer, D J (2000) Does certification matter? High school certification status and student achievement.Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 22(2), 129145 Gratz, D B (2005) Lessons from Denver: The pay for performance pilot Phi Delta Kappan, 86(8), 569-581 Harris, D N., & Sass, T R (2007) Teacher training, teacher quality and student achievement Washington, DC: National Center for Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Education Research Retrieved from www.caldercenter.org/PDF /1001059_Teacher_Training.pdf Hattie, J (2009) Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to student achievement New York, NY: Routledge 59 Appendix B: Overview of Compensation Models Heneman, H G., Milanowski, A., & Kimball, S (2007) Teacher performance pay: Synthesis of plans, research, and guidelines for practice (CPRE Policy Brief RB-46).Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, Consortium for Policy Research in Education, University of Pennsylvania Henrico County Public Schools (2010).Henrico County Public Schools receives Teacher Incentive Fund Grant Retrieved from http://henrico.k12.va.us/Newsroom /NewsReleases/2010-11/101510A.html Hoerr, T R (1998) A case for merit pay.Phi Delta Kappan, 80, 326 Holcomb, E L (2001) Asking the right questions: Techniques for collaboration and school change (2nd ed.) Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press Houston Independent School District (2007) ASPIRE Awards Model Retrieved from http://www.houstonisd.org/ResearchAccountability/Home/Teacher %20Performance %20Pay/Teacher%20Performance%20Pay/Board %20Items/ASPIRE_AWARDS_OVERVIEW.pdf Houston Independent School District (2009) ASPIRE Awards for Teachers Retrieved from http://static.battelleforkids.org/images/HISD/2009-2010_ASPIRE_Awards_Model.pdf Houston Independent School District (2010, January 27) HISD pays out $40.4 million in performance pay Retrieved from www.houstonisd.org /HISDConnectDS/v/index.jsp Ingersoll, R (2002) The teacher shortage: A case of the wrong diagnosis and wrong prescription National Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin, 86(631), 1631 Keiffer-Barone, S., & Ware, K (2001).Growing great teachers in Cincinnati.Educational Leadership, 58(8), 56-59 Keller, B (2002, May 29) Cincinnati teachers rebuff performance pay Education Week, Kelley, C., Heneman, H., &Milanowski, A (2000).School-based performance award programs, teacher motivation, and school performance: Findings from a study of three programs (CPRE Research Report Series RR-44) Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, Consortium for Policy Research in Education Kelley, C., Odden, A., Milanowski, A., &Heneman, H (2000) The motivational effects of school-based performance awards (CPRE Policy Briefs, RB-29) Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, Consortium for Policy Research in Education Kimball, S M (2002) Analysis of feedback, enabling conditions and fairness perceptions of teachers in three school districts with new standards-based evaluation systems.Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 16, 241-268 60 Appendix B: Overview of Compensation Models Ladd, H (1999) The Dallas school accountability and incentive program: An evaluation of its impacts on student outcomes Economics of Education Review, 18, 1-16 Leigh, A (n.d.) Estimating teacher effectiveness from two-year changes in students’ test scores.Retrieved from http://econrsss.anu.edu.au/~aleigh/ Loeb, S., & Page, M E (2000).Examining the link between teacher wages and student outcomes: The importance of alternative labor market opportunities and non-pecuniary variation.The Review of Economics and Statistics, 82(3), 393-408 Mendro, R L., Jordan, H R., Gomez, E., Anderson, M C., &Bembry, K L (1998, April).Longitudinal teacher effects on student achievement and their relation to school and project evaluation Paper presented at the 1998 Annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA Mesa Public Schools.(n.d.).MPS career ladder mission and goals Retrieved from http://www.mpsaz.org/cl/files/mission_and_goals_for_web.pdf Morice, L., & Murray, J (2003) Compensation and teacher retention: A success story Educational Leadership, 60(8), 40-43 Munoz, M A., & Chang, F C (2007) The elusive relationship between teacher characteristics and student academic growth: A longitudinal multilevel model for change Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 20, 147-164 Murnane, R J., Singer, J D., Willet, J B., Kemple, J J., & Olsen, R J (1991) Who will teach? Policies that matter.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press National Institute for Urban School Improvement (2004) Denver Public Schools Retrieved from http://www.urbanschools.org/district_profiles/Denver_final v3.4-22-04.pdf? v_document_name=district_profile_Denver_final.v3.4-22-04 Nelson, W (2001) Timequake alert Why payment by results is the worst “new” reform to share the educational world, again and again Phi Delta Kappan, 82, 384-389 Nye, B., Konstantopoulos, S., & Hedges, L V (2004) How large are teacher effects? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 26, 237-257 Odden, A (2000a) Emerging findings in teacher compensation Retrieved from http://www.wcer.wisc.edu/cpre/tcomp/research/general/findings.asp Odden, A (2000b) New and better forms of teacher compensation are possible Phi Delta Kappan, 81(5), 361-366 Odden, A (2001) The new school finance Phi Delta Kappan, 83, 85-91 61 Appendix B: Overview of Compensation Models Odden, A., & Kelley, C (1997) Paying teachers for what they know and do: New and smarter compensation strategies to improve schools Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Odden, A., Kelley, C., Heneman, H., &Milanowski, A (2001) Enhancing teacher quality through knowledge- and skills-based pay (CPRE Policy Brief RB-34).Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, Consortium for Policy Research in Education, University of Pennsylvania Okpala, C O., Smith, F., Jones, E (2000).A clear link between school and teacher characteristics, student demographics, and student achievement.Education, 120(3), 487494 Podgursky, M., & Springer, M G (2007).Credentials versus performance Review of the teacher performance pay research Peabody Journal of Education, 82(4), 551-573 Poston, W K., &Frase, L E (1991) Alternative compensation programs for teachers Rolling boulders up the mountain of reform.Phi Delta Kappan, 73, 317-320 Prince William County Public Schools (2010) CTAC/PWCS partnership receives U.S Department of Education grant.Retrieved from http://pwcs ezcommunicator.net/edu/pwcs/ViewNewsletter.asp?app=0&id=236 Richmond Public Schools (2010) Richmond City Schools will participate in $27 million National Board of Teaching Standards Grant Retrieved from http://newweb.richmond.k12.va.us/departments/public-information/assets /pdfs/NR27_2011.pdf Ritter, G et al (2008) Year two evaluation of the Achievement Challenge Pilot Project in the Little Rock Public School District Retrieved from http://www.uark.edu/ua/der/Research/merit_pay/year_two/Full_Report_with_Appendices pdf Rivkin, S G., Hanushek, E A., &Kain, J F (2005).Teachers, schools, and academic achievement.Econometrica, 73(2), 417-458 Rockoff, J E (2004) The impact of individual teachers on student achievement: Evidence from panel data The American Economic Review, 94(2), 247-252 Rowan, B., Chiang, F S., & Miller, R J (1997).Using research on employees’ performance to study the effects of teachers on student achievement.Sociology of Education, 70, 256-284 Sanders, W L., & Horn, S (1998) Research findings from the Tennessee Value-Added Assessment System (TVAAS) database: Implications for educational evaluation and research Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 12, 247-256 Sawchuck, S (2010, November 10) Districts try out revamped teacher-pay systems Education 62 Appendix B: Overview of Compensation Models Week, 30(11), pp 1, 16 Sharpes, D (1987) Incentive pay and the promotion of teaching proficiencies.The Clearing House, 60, 406-408 Springer, M G et al.(2010) Teacher pay for performance: Experimental evidence from the Project on Incentives in Teaching Vanderbilt University, National Center on Performance Incentives Retrieved from http://www.performanceincentives.org/data/files/pages/POINT %20REPORT_9.21.10.pdf Stolovitch, H D., Clark, R E., &Condly, S J (2002).Incentives, motivation and workplace performance: Research and best practices Retrieved from http://theirf.org/direct/user /file/pdf/Incentives Motivation-and-Workplace-Performance.pdf Stronge, J H (1997) Evaluating teaching: A guide to current thinking and best practice Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press Stronge, J H (2007, May) Teacher Compensation: What works? What Doesn’t? Unpublished document Stronge, J H (2007) Teacher Compensation Plans: An Overview of Options and Issues A paper submitted to Hanover Public Schools, Hanover, NH Stronge, J H., (2010) How we pay teachers: Considerations for connecting teacher effectiveness and teacher pay Unpublished manuscript draft Stronge, J H., Gareis, C R., & Little, C A (2006).Teacher pay & teacher quality: Attracting, developing, and retaining the best teachers Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press Swanson, A D., & King, R A (1997).School finance: Its economics and politics (2nded.) New York: Longman Thompson, D C., & Wood, R C (1998) Money and schools: A handbook for practitioners Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education Toch, T & Rothman, R (2008).Rush to judgment: Teacher evaluation in public education Washington DC: Education Sector Urbanski, A & Erskine, R (2000).School reform, TURN, and teacher compensation.Phi Delta Kappan, 81(5), 367-370 U.S Department of Education.(n.d.).Teacher Incentive Fund Retrieved from http://www2.ed gov/programs/teacherincentive/index.html Virginia Department of Education.(2010a) Virginia Middle School Teachers Corps Retrieved from http://www.doe.virginia.gov/teaching/career_resources/middle_teacher_corps 63 Appendix B: Overview of Compensation Models /index.shtml Virginia Department of Education.(2010b) 2009-2010 Teacher Salary Survey Results Retrieved from http://leg2.state.va.us/dls/h&sdocs.nsf/By+Year/RD152010/$file /RD15.pdf Wenglinsky, H (2002) How schools matter: The link between teacher classroom practices and student academic performance Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 10 (12) Retrieved from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v10n12/ Weisberg, D., Sexton, S., Mulhern, J., & Keeling, D (2009) The widget effect: Our national failure to acknowledge and act on differences in teacher effectiveness Retrieved from http://www.widgeteffect.org Wolf, K., Lichtenstein, G., Bartlett, E., & Hartman, D (1996) Professional development and teaching portfolios: The Douglas County outstanding teacher program Journal of Personal Evaluation in Education, 10, 279-286 Wyman, W., & Allen, M (2001, June) Pay-for-performance: Key questions and lessons from five current models ECS Issue Paper.Retrieved from http://www/ecs.org/clearinghouse / 28/30/2830.htm 64 Appendix B: Overview of Compensation Models ENDNOTES 65 Appendix B: Overview of Compensation Models i Stronge, J H., Gareis, C R., & Little, C A (2006) ii Alexander, K., & Salmon, R G (1995); Swanson, A D., & King, R A (1997) iii Odden, A., & Kelley, C (1997); Swanson, A D., & King, R A (1997) iv Virginia Department of Education (2010b) v Odden, A., Kelley, C., Heneman, H., &Milanowski, A (2001); Keiffer-Barone, S., & Ware, K (2001) vi Sanders, W L., & Horn, S (1998); Goldhaber, D.D (2002); Nye, B., Konstantopoulos, S., & Hedges, L V (2004); Rivkin, S G., Hanushek, E A., &Kain, J F (2005); Munoz, M A., & Chang, F C (2007) vii Thompson, D., & Wood, R C (1998) viii Stolovitch, H D., Clark, R E., &Condly, S J (2002) ix Hoerr, T R (1998) x Odden, A (2001) xi Murnane, R J., Singer, J D., Willet, J B., Kemple, J J., & Olsen, R J (1991) xii Odden, A., & Kelley, C (1997) xiii Ingersoll, R., (2002) xiv Munoz, M A., & Chang, F C (2007) xv Mendro, R L., Jordan, H R., Gomez, E., Anderson, M C., &Bembry, K L (1998); Hattie, J (2009) xvi Nye, B., Konstantopoulos, S., & Hedges, L V (2004) xvii Darling-Hammond, L (2000) xviii xix Ferguson, R (1991) Goldhaber, D (2002) Wenglinsky, H (2002) xx xxi Nye, B., Konstantopoulos, S., & Hedges, L V (2004) xxii Darling-Hammond, L (2000) xxiii Goldhaber, D D., & Brewer, D J (2000) Rivkin, S G., Hanushek, E A., &Kain, J F (2005) xxiv xxv Heneman, H G., Milanowski, A., & Kimball, S., (2007) xxvi Coggshall, J G., Ott, A., Behrstock, E., & Lasagna, M (2010) xxvii Ibid xxviii Ibid xxix Ibid xxx Dee, T S & Keys, B J (2004) xxxi Sloat (2002) as cited in CPRE (2007, Februrary) Goldhaber& Anthony (2004) as cited in Stronge, J H (2007, May) xxxii Vandervoort, Amrein-Beardsley, & Berliner (2004) as cited in Stronge, J H (2007, May) xxxiii xxxiv Stone (2002) as cited in Stronge, J H (2007, May) xxxv Stephens (2003) as cited in Stronge, J H (2007, May) xxxvi Desimone et al (2002) as cited in Stronge, J H (2007, May) xxxvii Podgursky, M., & Springer, M G (2007), p 562 xxxviii Sanders, W L., & Horn, S (2004), p 2000 xxxix Westberg, D., Sexton, S., Mulhern, J., & Keeling, D (2009) xl Taylor, L L., Springer, M G., &Ehlert, M (2009) as cited in Education Week (2009, November 11) xli Sawchuk, S (2010, November 10) xlii Stolovitch, H D., Clark, R E., &Condly, S J (2002) xliii Ladd, H (1999) xliv Anderson, N (2010, September 21) xlv Springer et al (2010) xlvi Virginia Department of Education (2010a) xlvii Odden, A., & Kelley, C (1997) xlviii xlix Munoz, M A., & Chang, F C (2007) Firestone, W A (1994) l Heneman, H G., Milanowski, A., & Kimball, S (2007) li Center for Teaching Quality.(n.d.) lii Kimball, S M (2002); Stronge, J H (Ed.) (1997) liii Olson, L (2007) liv Conley, S., Muncey, D., & Gould, J (2002); Morice, L., & Murray, J (2003) lv Conley, S., Muncey, D., & Gould, J (2002) lvi Urbanski, A., & Erskine, R (2000) lvii Heneman, H., Milanowski, A., & Kimball, S (2007) lviii Sloat (2002) as cited in CPRE (2007, Februrary) lix Wolf, K., Lichtenstein, G., Bartlett, E., & Hartman, D (1996) lx Douglas County School Division, Skills block information (n.d.) lxi Houston Independent School District (2007) lxii Houston Independent School District (2010, January 27) lxiii National Institute for Urban School Improvement (2004) lxiv Gratz, D B (2005) lxv Stronge, J H., Gareis, C R., & Little, C A (2006) lxvi U.S Dept of Education, Teacher Incentive Fund (n.d.) lxvii Ibid lxviii Henrico County Public Schools, Henrico County Public Schools receive Teacher Incentive Fund grant (2010) lxix lxx Prince William County Public Schools, CTAC/PWCS partnership receives U.S Department of Education grant (2010) Richmond Public Schools, Richmond City Schools will participate in $27 million National Board of Teaching Standards Grant (2010) ... single-salary schedule, extra duty/additional responsibility pay, career ladder, knowledge- and skill-based pay, individual evaluation pay, and performance-based pay The advantages and disadvantages.. .Appendix B Guidelines for Creating a Comprehensive Pay System The Guidelines for Creating a Comprehensive Pay System provided in Appendix B examines various teacher pay options, including,... market demands: This model is limited in its ability to attract teachers in critical shortage areas because it pays for the job of teaching, rather than for specialization Applicability of additional