Teacher Performance Pay
Position Paper: Teacher Performance Pay
John Filutze
November 15, 2011
Jeff Abbott, Ph.D.
Performance-based pay has been a hot topic among conversations regarding public education over the past several years. Performance-based pay, pay-for-performance, or merit pay, are all synonymous with pay programs “whereby teacher bonuses are tied to improvements in students’ performance” (Cissell, 2010, p. 119). Some programs even determine teacher pay, not just bonuses, based on student performance. Many states have already passed legislation which includes language for performance-based pay for teachers. This idea, however, is not new to education. When A Nation at Risk was published in 1983, many schools and districts experimented with flexible compensation plans in an effort to improve student achievement (Podgursky and Springer, 2007). The charge has been led by the Obama administration for the past three years, as evidenced by budget proposals. The Teacher Incentive Fund (TIF), established by Congress in 2006 to implement performance-pay programs in high-need schools, was put into the 2009 stimulus package at $300 million. Subsequently it was put into the 2010 budget at $487 million and the 2011 budget at $950 million (Smarick, 2011). In President Obama’s Race to the Top (RTTT) questionnaire, a comprehensive approach to improve teaching, 28% of the points were assigned based on whether or not an applicant established some commitment to a merit pay system (Smarick, 2011; Tienken, 2011; Woessmann, 2011). Sixteen states did make a commitment on their application. Since a push for merit pay has been established, it makes sense to look at the different types of programs with which experiments have been performed. There are programs which are on an individual-level, school-level, and district-level. The Milken Family Foundation has established the Teacher Advancement Program (TAP), Florida has its E-Comp, Texas joins with the Governor’s
John Filutze
November 15, 2011
Jeff Abbott, Ph.D.
Performance-based pay has been a hot topic among conversations regarding public education over the past several years. Performance-based pay, pay-for-performance, or merit pay, are all synonymous with pay programs “whereby teacher bonuses are tied to improvements in students’ performance” (Cissell, 2010, p. 119). Some programs even determine teacher pay, not just bonuses, based on student performance. Many states have already passed legislation which includes language for performance-based pay for teachers. This idea, however, is not new to education. When A Nation at Risk was published in 1983, many schools and districts experimented with flexible compensation plans in an effort to improve student achievement (Podgursky and Springer, 2007). The charge has been led by the Obama administration for the past three years, as evidenced by budget proposals. The Teacher Incentive Fund (TIF), established by Congress in 2006 to implement performance-pay programs in high-need schools, was put into the 2009 stimulus package at $300 million. Subsequently it was put into the 2010 budget at $487 million and the 2011 budget at $950 million (Smarick, 2011). In President Obama’s Race to the Top (RTTT) questionnaire, a comprehensive approach to improve teaching, 28% of the points were assigned based on whether or not an applicant established some commitment to a merit pay system (Smarick, 2011; Tienken, 2011; Woessmann, 2011). Sixteen states did make a commitment on their application. Since a push for merit pay has been established, it makes sense to look at the different types of programs with which experiments have been performed. There are programs which are on an individual-level, school-level, and district-level. The Milken Family Foundation has established the Teacher Advancement Program (TAP), Florida has its E-Comp, Texas joins with the Governor’s
References: Cissell, G. (2010). Kentucky and Education Reform: The Issue of Pay-for-Performance. Journal of Law & Education, 39(1), 119-27. Retrieved from Education Full Text database. Donlevy, J. (2008). Pay-for-Performance: Problematic for Schools?. International Journal of Instructional Media, 35(3), 245-7. Retrieved from Education Full Text database. |Eberts, R., Hollenbeck, K., & Stone, J. (2002). Teacher Performance Incentives And Student Outcomes. The Journal of Human Resources, | |37(4), 913-27 Goodman, S., & Turner, L. (2011). Does Whole-School Performance Pay Improve Student Learning. Education Next, 11(2), 66-71. Retrieved from Education Full Text database. Gratz, D. (2011). Performance Pay: Path to Improvement. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 47(4), 156-61. Retrieved from Education Full Text database. Podgursky, M., & Springer, M. (2007). Credentials Versus Performance: Review of the Teacher Performance Pay Research. Peabody Journal of Education, 82(4), 551-73. Retrieved from Education Full Text database. Smarick, A. (2011). Diplomatic Mi$$ion. Education Next, 11(1), 56-63. Retrieved from Education Full Text database. Stevens, L., & Piazza, P. (2010). Adolescent Literacy Policy. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 53(6), 512-15. Retrieved from Education Full Text database. Tienken, C. (2011). Pay for Performance: Whose Performance?. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 47(4), 152-4. Retrieved from Education Full Text database. Woessmann, L. (2011). Merit Pay International. Education Next, 11(2), 72-7. Retrieved from Education Full Text database.