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: [email protected]
Phone: (479) 575-3773
Slide16 of 16
Top Related