Adequate compensation for teachers has long been the subject of debate, in both private-independent and public school spheres. Recently, merit pay has become the focus of renewed compensation efforts, particularly in its implementation. Should pay be based on student performance, or on other factors? Public schools using merit pay based on test scores have seen little success. Private schools, on the other hand, use merit pay for faculty growth and retention purposes.
In an interview with CNN, founder of StudentsFirst and former DC schools chancellor Michelle Rhee said:
"...for [ineffective] teachers to be paid the exact same amount as our effective teachers makes absolutely no sense whatsoever—we have to engage in a system where we’re looking at teachers as individuals, not as interchangeable widgets who should all be paid the same amount of money."
Rhee’s merit-pay proposal has gained traction in all aspects of education. In public schools, merit pay takes the form of rewards and bonuses for more students scoring higher mandatory standardized test scores. Private schools can more easily implement merit pay based on faculty performance in line with a school's mission and goals. Such pay scales are often one of several factors considered in competitive compensation packages for private schools across the board.
Of course, not all people agree on the efficacy of merit pay as implemented by public schools. CNN blog writer and New York University Research Professor of Education Diane Ravitch believes that merit pay has been tried before without effect, citing a failure of teachers in Nashville, Tennessee, to gain the offered $15,000 bonus if their students’ test scores rose. Furthermore, Ravitch contends that teamwork and collaboration are destroyed in a school using merit pay as the proverbial carrot on the end of the motivational stick.
On the same blog, special education teacher Colleen McGurk rebukes Ravitch’s narrow view of merit pay, stating that teachers associate merit pay with a school’s recognition of excellence and that “paying teachers more for demonstrated excellence will say loud and clear that teaching is synonymous with quality and high expectations.” Differentiated pay—along with better evaluation methods—is how McGurk suggests schools attract and retain their top talent.
Other studies, like this one sponsored by the National Bureau of Economic Research, may corroborate McGurk’s claim that merit pay increases respect. The study found that teacher salary incentives can be correlated with higher levels of student performance, though it was inconclusive whether such improvement was driven by the incentives themselves or if other “variables [of] unobserved school quality”—like teachers' awareness of their administrators' respect—were at play. Such a result would make the teacher incentives indirectly associated with (though not causing) improved student performance.
Private-independent schools have taken the lead in merit-pay and “broadbanding” styles of financial compensation. Roughly half of the private schools in New York City have longstanding merit-pay systems, with many of the rest experimenting with adjustments to their own pay scales. Rohan Woods School in St. Louis, Missouri, bases one-third of any teacher’s raise on individual performance, while the remaining two-thirds is based on the school’s performance as a whole and cost-of-living adjustments.
In situations where merit pay seems to fail, the financial incentive (as a bonus or raise) is usually linked to a single point of evaluation, typically measured by a test. Merit pay disappoints when its distribution hinges on achievement of a single goal measured at only one time; rather, use merit pay as a tool for rewarding and retaining high-performing teachers.
A teacher’s work is constant through the year. Why should his or her compensation be based on a single incident? Such a system echoes archaic evaluation plans, where an administrator will visit a class once a year at a prearranged time. How can the teacher be fairly evaluated in a single instant? It’s impossible. So link merit pay to a broader evaluation scheme like the one outlined in Comprehensive Faculty Development, in which faculty compensation is related to achievement of various predetermined professional goals during the year.
For more information on ISM’s research concerning appropriate use of merit pay and when it’s most effective, check out this month’s Ideas & Perspectives article “Merit Pay: A Caution,” available for Silver and Gold Consortium members.
If you’d like ISM’s help creating an effective merit-pay system for your private-independent school, you can attend our Summer Institute workshop “Comprehensive Faculty Development: From Recruitment to Evaluation to Retention” in Stowe, Vermont, from July 13 to 17.
Additional ISM resources:
ISM Monthly Update for Business Officers Vol. 9 No. 2 Merit-Based Pay Is More Than a Trend
ISM Monthly Update for School Heads Vol. 9 No. 3 Make a Merit-Based Pay System Work for Your School
ISM Monthly Update for Human Resources Vol. 11 No. 7 Considering Merit Pay: Motivation, Fairness, and Retention
Additional ISM resources for Gold Consortium members:
I&P Vol. 30 No. 5 Pizza, Compensation, and Faculty Culture: Is It Time for Merit Pay?
I&P Vol. 36 No. 15 Merit Pay and Bonuses for Private-Independent School Teachers: Boon or Bust?
I&P Vol. 38 No. 4 A Simple Merit-Pay Approach for Private-Independent Schools
I&P Vol. 39 No. 4 Merit Pay: A Caution
