|
"The pilot has demonstrated that the focus on student achievement
and a teacher's contribution to such achievement can be a major catalyst
for improvement - if the initiative also addresses the district factors
that shape the schools," the study concludes. Moreover, the initiative
"can provide a basis for improving the entire school system by tying
district activities to core classroom needs."
"Pay for Performance is neither a silver bullet nor a magic wand,"
said William J. Slotnik, Executive Director of CTAC and a lead author
of the study, "Rather, if implemented thoughtfully, it has the salutary
effect of forcing a district to operate in a more effective and efficient
fashion in support of student learning reform."
A central finding of the study was that Pay for Performance focused
attention on the bottom line of improving student achievement, and
on what needs to be done to help students and teachers be successful.
As one teacher was quoted in the report, "With pay for performance,
you don't forget the goals, and it is possible to be more consistent
throughout the year."
The study found that students whose teachers had excellent objectives
achieved higher scores, on average, than other students. In addition,
students whose teachers met two objectives had significantly higher
levels of student achievement. These findings held true at elementary,
middle and high school levels.
As a result of Pay for Performance, teachers indicated that they have
greater access to student achievement data and make better use of
the data to set targets for students, to focus earlier on students
in need of more assistance, and to monitor progress in the classrooms.
Pay for Performance also had positive impacts at the district level.
It stimulated other parts of the school system to improve the quality
of support and service, according to the report. For example, the
district began tracking the achievement of students individually on
a classroom-by-classroom basis, generating information that is critically
important for guiding improvement efforts. Further, teachers and administrators
indicated that Pay for Performance significantly increased the school
and district focus on student achievement.
The study cautions that implementing this reform "place[s] demands
on the district that may be surprisingly difficult to meet." School
districts need to align and improve the quality of the curriculum,
instructional delivery, supervision and training. Further, in order
to ensure that pay for performance is fair to teachers, districts
need to make sure that they have high quality assessments that can
measure student progress based on what teachers are being asked to
teach. This alignment is one of a long list of systemic reform steps
that performance pay can trigger, as described in the 188-page report.
However, the report stresses that while implementing pay for performance
can catalyze change, it should not be viewed as a panacea. "If it
is adopted out of context, without being part of a serious and systematic
reform agenda, its potential will be undercut," notes Slotnik.
The authors also caution that the manner in which pay for performance
is implemented will affect the results of the initiative. For example,
if imposed by district leadership without collaboration with teachers,
the effort will "erode the potential to develop real accountability."
Further, "Participants need to be convinced that the initiative is
intended to be supportive of teachers, rather than punitive," according
to the study. Among many other recommendations in the report, pay
for performance should be implemented in phases, since "it will stretch
the support capacities of a district."
Several previous attempts at performance pay for teachers have come
up short, Slotnik said. "Some were based on the belief that compensation
is the primary incentive for teachers to perform at high levels. Others
were designed to punish teachers who were labeled as underperforming.
Virtually all have been predicated on the idea that merit pay or its
equivalent could be implemented without making major improvements
in how the school district functions. But these have been faulty premises,"
he said. In contrast, "the Denver pilot was designed to reward teachers
for results, and it was implemented in the context of other district
changes," said Slotnik.
"The Denver pilot has provided a wealth of learning that will shape
practice nationally," said Slotnik. "However, it is a mistake to think
of it as the model to be replicated. Districts have to find what makes
sense for their unique situations and conditions, taking into account
what has been learned elsewhere."
In carrying out the study, the CTAC research team members analyzed
more than 4.4 million data points related to student achievement and
factors at the student, teacher, and school levels. They conducted
surveys and examined responses from 2,870 teachers, parents, administrators
and others. They also conducted and analyzed 615 interviews, and evaluated
4,012 teacher objectives.
Educational and political leaders - including the U.S. Secretary of
Education and numerous governors - have been promoting the concept
of providing financial rewards to teachers for improving the achievement
of students, as a way to improve teacher quality and student achievement
in the nation's struggling public schools.
Educational and political leaders - including the U.S. Secretary of
Education and numerous governors - have been promoting the concept
of providing financial rewards to teachers for improving the achievement
of students, as a way to improve teacher quality and student achievement
in the nation's struggling public schools.
The study was funded by Rose Community Foundation, The Broad Foundation,
The Daniels Fund, The Sturm Family Foundation, Jay and Rose Phillips
Family Foundation, The Denver Foundation, Donnell-Kay Foundation,
and The Piton Foundation.
Click here for the full text of the
study (1.11MB), where Chapter 10 focuses on the national implications
of the study.
Click here for the executive
summary (503KB).
|
|
|
