School-Based Performance Award Programs, Teacher Motivation, and School Performance: Findings From a Study of Three Programs

Building on a strong foundation of research and experience with educational reform across the nation, in the 1990s educational policymakers undertook sophisticated comprehensive educational reform efforts. The centerpiece of these reforms was the creation of state educational standards, assessments, and goals, and the realignment of state and local resources to support the achievement of these goals. A number of states and districts have embraced the idea of performance-based accountability (Fuhrman, 1999), in which rewards and sometimes sanctions are used as incentives for measurable improvement in student achievement. Some jurisdictions have modified their teacher compensation systems in order to provide incentives that support improving student achievement. Learning from the relative failure of prior efforts to realign teacher compensation via individual performance pay systems (Murnane and Cohen, 1986), states and districts undertaking compensation reform in the 1990s have tended to focus on innovations such as school-based performance awards (SBPAs) and pay based on knowledge and skills, which are thought to be better ways of supporting collaborative cultures in schools (Odden and Kelley, 1997). This report provides an overview of the findings of a series of studies of SBPA programs conducted by the Consortium for policy Research in Education between 1995 and 1998. The research reported here focuses on two such programs, in Kentucky and Charlotte-Mecklenburg (North Carolina), that pay teachers bonuses, and on one program, in Maryland, that provides the award to schools to use for activities and improvements

Teacher Performance Pay: Synthesis of Plans, Research, and Guidelines for Practice

The single salary schedule has ruled the delivery of teacher pay for decades, despite long-standing criticism that it fails to link some portion of teachers\u27pay to their performance. In recent years, there has been some experimentation with performance pay for teachers. Early attempts focused on the development of merit pay, in which pay raises were linked to subjective evaluations of teacher performance. Subsequent evaluations of merit pay plans questioned their effectiveness, especially given their limited survival, though it was acknowledged that the problem was not necessarily merit pay per se, but the way the plans were designed, implemented, and administered (Hatry, Greiner, & Ashford, 1994). Notwithstanding these unsuccessful experiences, national surveys have found that teacher attitudes toward some forms of performance pay are not unfavorable (Ballou, 2001; Ballou & Podgursky, 1993). In the 1990s, other forms of performance pay began to emerge at the state and district levels. Notable were school-based performance awards and knowledge- and skill-based pay plans. Elements from these plans have now been incorporated into combined pay plans. And while none of these plans has been widely adopted, they have drawn intensive national scrutiny and study. This Policy Brief focuses on the nature and effectiveness of these plans. We first provide generic descriptions of three types of plans, followed by a synthesis of research results on their effectiveness. A set of guidelines for effective practice is then provided to help states and districts embarking on these forms of performance pay. We conclude with a look ahead at recent developments in performance pay plans and other deviations from the traditional teacher salary schedule

Enhancing Teacher Quality Through Knowledge- and Skills-Based Pay

The 1989 Education Summit established the National Education Goals that spurred states to set standards and assess educational outcomes (Patton and Thompson, 1999). A decade into standards-based reform, the 1999 Education Summit identified two important policy areas that have emerged to carry out these goals: teacher quality and accountability (National Education Summit, 1999). Research supports the important relationship between teacher quality and student achievement (Darling-Hammond and Ball, 1998; Ferguson and Ladd, 1996; Sanders and Horn, 1994; Wright, Horn, and Sanders, 1997). Concerns about teacher quality led the National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future to recommend that states and districts consider better ways of linking pay to the development of teacher knowledge and skills (National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future, 1996). Exploring better ways of using pay to enhance teacher quality is also supported, to varying degrees, by teacher unions and associations. Knowledge- and skills-based pay systems are emerging as a potentially promising way of leveraging the investment in teacher pay to improve teacher quality and to provide clearer signals to teachers about how they should focus their professional energies. This CPRE Policy Brief reports on our experiences in working with policymakers and studying knowledge- and skills-based pay systems. We provide guidance on important design issues for these systems, and recommend ways state and district policymakers can strengthen the capacity for and pursue knowledge- and skills-based pay

Standards-Based Teacher Evaluation as a Foundation for Knowledge- and Skill-Based Pay

State accountability systems and the federal No Child Left Behind Act have put additional demands on schools and teachers to improve teacher quality and improve student achievement. Many researchers (e.g., Cohen, 1996; Corcoran & Goertz, 1995; Floden, 1997; Newman, King, & Rigdon, 1997) have argued that such improvements will require a substantial increase in the instructional capacity of schools and teachers. One strategy for capacity building is to provide teachers with incentives to improve their performance, knowledge, or skills. The incentive strategy requires the design and implementation of alternative teacher compensation systems that depart from the single salary schedule (Odden, 2000; Odden & Kelley, 2002). Though slow to take hold, the incentive strategy is currently being pursued by several states (Peterson, 2006). Most of these new or proposed plans link pay to combinations of assessments of teacher performance, acquisition of new knowledge and skills, and student test score gains. Denver\u27s widely followed Pro Comp plan also contains these components. The Teacher Compensation Group of the Consortium for Policy Research in Education (CPRE) has been studying the design and effectiveness of such systems for nearly a decade. We initially focused on school-based performance award programs, in which each teacher in a school receives a bonus for meeting or exceeding schoolwide student achievement goals (Heneman, 1998; Heneman & Milanowski, 1999; Kelley, Heneman, & Milanowski, 2002; Kelly, Odden, Milanowski, & Heneman, 2000). We then shifted our attention to knowledge- and skill-based pay (KSBP) plans, an approach that provides teachers with base pay increases for the acquisition and demonstration of specific knowledge and skills thought to be necessary for improving student achievement. Our initial research described a variety of experiments with KSBP plans (see Odden, Kelley, Heneman, & Milanowski, 2001). We found plans that were rewarding numerous knowledge and skills, including (a) additional licensure or certification, (b) participation in specific professional development activities, (c) National Board Certification, (d) mastery of specific skill blocks such as technology or authentic assessment, (e) leadership activities, and (f) teacher performance as measured by a standards-based teacher evaluation system. We also found districts experimenting with standards-based teacher evaluation without an intended pay link. As described below, in standards-based teacher evaluation systems, teachers\u27 performance is evaluated against a set of standards that define a competency model of effective teaching. Such systems replace the traditional teacher evaluation system and seek to provide a more thorough description and accurate assessment of teacher performance. Findings from our research on some of these systems are the focus of this issue of CPRE Policy Briefs

The Motivational Effects of School-Based Performance Awards

From 1995-1998, CPRE teacher compensation researchers conducted extensive interviews and survey questionnaires of teachers and principals in three sites to measure the motivational effects of school-based performance award (SBPA) programs. When a school met preset educational objectives, usually related to increases in student achievement, the SBPA programs in Charlotte-Mecklenburg (North Carolina) and Kentucky provided salary bonuses to all the teachers in the school and the SBPA program in Maryland provided a monetary award to the school for school improvements. CPRE researchers found that the SBPA programs in two of the three sites helped teachers focus on student performance goals. However, the motivational power of the programs varied due to differences in teachers’ beliefs. For instance, it mattered whether teachers believed their individual effort would lead to increases in schoolwide student performance, the SBPA system was fair and the award amount was worth the extra effort and stress, and that they would be given the award if they could produce the improved performance results. The relationship between teachers who were motivated by school-based performance awards or sanctions and improvements in school performance also varied and may have been attributable to differences in the actual programs as well as the local context

Why might a video game developer join a union?

This paper contributes to the union renewal literature by examining the union voting propensity of workers in the high-tech tertiary sector of videogame development toward different forms of unionization. We used exclusive data from a survey of videogame developers (VGD) working primarily in Anglo-Saxon countries. When looking at the factors related to voting propensity, our data indicated that the type of unionism matters and that industry/sectoral unionism is an increasingly salient model for project-based knowledge workers. This is an important policy dimension given that the legal structures and norms in Anglo-Saxon countries still tend to support decentralized enterprise-based unionism. It is also important for unions insofar as their organizing tactics remain geared toward a shop-by-shop approach or, at least, a localized geographical approach. Although additional work is required, our analyses lends support to the argument that high-commitment and high-involvement workplaces can engender a desire for collective representation and voice such as is offered through unionization. Whether this is because such workplaces step over a breaking-point line where the requirement for full alignment with employer goals becomes untenable and a source of discontent, whether this represents the existence of dual commitment where a representative agent like a union is seen as necessary to protect the work that people love, or whether there is a combination of these forces is not yet clear, but it is a critical area of future study for project-based knowledge workers

Staffing organizations

This book is fifth edition that contains many updates and additions that reflect the rapidly evolving terrain of strategic, technological, practical, and legal issues confronting organizations and their staffing systems