Can Merit Pay Work? Can Merit Pay Work? Lessons from Little RockLessons from Little Rock

Arkansas Political Science Association2008 ConferenceFebruary 22, 2008

Fayetteville, AR

Gary W. RitterDepartment of Education Reform

University of Arkansas - Fayetteville

Slide 1 of 16

Policymakers Strive to Increase Student Performance

In an effort to increase student performance, where might policymakers look?

The research is clear and consistent in acknowledging the important role of teachers.

However, the research is not clear or consistent in identifying strategies for recruiting and retaining effective teachers.

Teacher salaries may be an appropriate place to exert policy influence.

Slide 2 of 16

Entry Level Teacher Pay … Competitive

$25

$30

$0

$20

$40

$60

$80

Year 1 Year 5 Year 10

An

nu

al S

alar

y ($

000s

)

New Teacher

New

Business Graduate

Slide 3 of 16

Rewards for Teaching Excellence Decline Over Time

$75

$25

$40

$35

$40

$30

$0

$20

$40

$60

$80

Year 1 Year 5 Year 10

An

nu

al S

ala

ry (

$000s)

Talented B-Grad Talented Teacher

Teacher

Slide 4 of 16

Policy Implications: What’s the Status Quo for

Teacher Salaries? Current Single Salary System

Based on tenure and degree Lock-step

Arguments for single system Fair Simple

Arguments against single system Does not address teacher shortages – either by geographic area or subject

area Counter-productive reward structure – good teachers encouraged to:

Leave field (better salary) Transfer schools (better environment) Move to Administration (only real promotion)

Slide 5 of 16

Rewards for Effective Teachers?

$40

$30$35

$0

$10

$20

$30

$40

$50

$60

$70

$80

Year 1 Year 5 Year 10

An

nu

al S

ala

ry (

$000s)

Effective Teacher

Slide 6 of 16

Rewards for Effectiveness?

$35

$40

$30

$0

$10

$20

$30

$40

$50

$60

$70

$80

Year 1 Year 5 Year 10

An

nu

al S

ala

ry (

$000s)

Effective Teacher Other Teacher

Slide 7 of 16

Might “Rewards for Effectiveness” Improve Teaching?

Two types of potential effects of merit pay: Composition Motivation

Supporters believe performance pay leads to: More innovation Increased work ethic Salary satisfaction

Opponents believe performance pay leads to: Counter-productive competition Negative work environment Decreased focus on low-performing students

What does the evidence say? Five of the seven existing studies examined had positive results. Teachers often express opposition to this type of reform

However, there have been a limited number of comprehensive evaluations of performance pay programs.

Slide 8 of 16

LRSD Achievement Challenge Pilot Project Overview

Achievement Challenge Pilot Project (ACPP) Merit pay program for all staff members in a school

based on test score growth Initiated in 2004-05 in one elementary school By 2006-07, in five elementary schools

Two year evaluation project Fall 2006 – Meadowcliff & Wakefield Fall 2007 – All 5 elementary schools Analyzed student test score growth and teacher

attitudes

Slide 9 of 16

ACPP: Straightforward, Non-Competitive for Teachers, Significant $, and Focus on Growth of

StudentsTable 1: Payouts for Wakefield for 2006-07

Employee Type / Position0-4%

Growth5-9%

Growth10-14% Growth

15%+ Growth

Maximum Payout

Principal $2,500 $5,000 $7,500 $10,000 $10,000

Teacher (Grades 4-5) $50 $100 $200 $400 $11,200

Teacher (Grades 1-3) $50 $100 $200 $400 $10,000

Teacher (Kindergarten) $50 $100 $200 $400 $8,000

Coach $1,250 $2,500 $3,750 $5,000 $5,000

Specialist; Spec. Ed. $1,000 $2,000 $3,000 $4,000 $4,000

Music Teacher $1,000 $2,000 $3,000 $4,000 $4,000

Physical Examiner $500 $1,000 $1,500 $2,000 $2,000

Aide $250 $500 $750 $1,000 $1,000

Secretary & Custodian $125 $250 $375 $500 $500

Slide 10 of 16

Overview of the Year One Evaluation: Meadowcliff &

Wakefield (January ’07) ACPP improved student performance

Student performance increased 3.5 NCE points (6-7 percentile)

Teachers supported the ACPP Significantly more satisfied with ACPP than single salary

system Believed the program did not lead to counterproductive

competition Believed the school environment became more positive with

ACPP Teachers believed the ACPP improved student achievement

Slide 11 of 16

Overview of the Year Two Evaluation: Mabelvale, Romine, & Geyer Springs

ACPP improved student performance Math – improvement of 7 percentile points Language – improvement of 9 percentile points Reading – improvement of 6 percentile points

ACPP Teachers are … … not more innovative or harder-working … more satisfied with salary … not experiencing divisive competition, negative work

environment, or avoidance of low-performing students

Some implementation problems led to … … teacher discontent … decreased program support

Slide 12 of 16

Feedback from Teachers

Positive

“The schools that have the highest risk children need the most trained teachers and the best teachers we have. And so, I think we could use merit pay to maybe recruit some of the best teachers to work with some of the hardest to teach children.”

“I think that in any work force…the people that shine…that stand out…that are doing an excellent job…they should be rewarded versus the people that are just doing the minimum to get by.”

“I think it was a good motivational tool…kind of helped me with my goals…my personal goals as a teacher. On the other side, who doesn't want money for their rewards? You produce. You want to be rewarded for the production which you produce…so…I was in full support for the program.”

Negative

“I'm not really real big on merit pay because I think there are too many other factors that come into play. Some kids don't test well. Some kids don't like to sit still long enough to take the test. There's so many other...who knows what happened at the child's house that morning?”

“You know, would I vote for it again? On a purely selfish level…well, you know, I got some money. But if I look at the good of the school…it didn't do our school any good last year. It was more of a problem than an improvement.”

“I mean...it was ugly...it was just constant people mad. The people that didn't get anything were upset, and I don't blame them, especially since we were told that everybody was going to get something.”

Slide 13 of 16

Lessons Learned

1) Positive aspects of the ACPP: Program was straightforward Payouts were non-competitive Significant dollar amounts Rewards based on student growth

2) Program needs to be clearly articulated to all participants

3) Teacher expectations are important to consider

4) Be careful when changing the program mid-stream

Slide 14 of 16

Conclusions

1. Good arguments for and against merit pay: Current system does have poor incentives Characteristics of teaching complicate implementation

of incentive pay

2. Research evidence is does not provide definitive answer, but is trending in favor of merit pay

3. We can conclude that it is worth trying this strategy as a policy alternative and then testing it rigorously

4. Politics matter … but keep the focus on students and student growth (academic and otherwise!)

Slide 15 of 16

Contact Information:Gary Ritter, Associate Professor

Office for Education PolicyUniversity of Arkansas

http://www.uark.edu/ua/oepEmail: oep@uark.edu

Phone: (479) 575-3773

Slide16 of 16