Can Merit Pay Work? Lessons from Little Rock

1
Can Merit Pay Work? Lessons from Little Rock
Gary W. Ritter Department of Education
Reform University of Arkansas - Fayetteville
Arkansas Political Science Association 2008
Conference February 22, 2008 Fayetteville, AR
2
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.

3
Entry Level Teacher Pay Competitive
New Teacher
New Business Graduate
4
Rewards for Teaching Excellence Decline Over Time
Teacher
5
Policy Implications Whats 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)

6
Rewards for Effective Teachers?
7
Rewards for Effectiveness?
8
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.

9
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

10
ACPP Straightforward, Non-Competitive for
Teachers, Significant , and Focus on Growth of
Students

• Table 1 Payouts for Wakefield for 2006-07

Employee Type / Position 0-4 Growth 5-9 Growth 10-14 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

11
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

12
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

13
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 forcethe people that
  shinethat stand outthat are doing an excellent
  jobthey should be rewarded versus the people
  that are just doing the minimum to get by.
• I think it was a good motivational toolkind of
  helped me with my goalsmy 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
  producesoI 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 levelwell, you know, I got some money.
  But if I look at the good of the schoolit 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.

14
Lessons Learned

• Positive aspects of the ACPP
• Program was straightforward
• Payouts were non-competitive
• Significant dollar amounts
• Rewards based on student growth
• Program needs to be clearly articulated to all
  participants
• Teacher expectations are important to consider
• Be careful when changing the program mid-stream

15
Conclusions

• Good arguments for and against merit pay
• Current system does have poor incentives
• Characteristics of teaching complicate
  implementation of incentive pay
• Research evidence is does not provide definitive
  answer, but is trending in favor of merit pay
• We can conclude that it is worth trying this
  strategy as a policy alternative and then testing
  it rigorously
• Politics matter but keep the focus on students
  and student growth (academic and otherwise!)

16

• Contact InformationGary Ritter, Associate
  ProfessorOffice for Education PolicyUniversity
  of Arkansashttp//www.uark.edu/ua/oepEmail
  oep_at_uark.eduPhone [phone]