Pay for Performance in K-12

¶ … Pay for Performance" in K-12 public school systems

Data-Gathering Method

Database of Study

An Analysis of the Feasibility of Implementing "Pay for Performance" in K-12 Public School Systems in the United States

Over the past 20 years, policymakers across the country have tried to respond to growing public dissatisfaction with the quality of America's public schools by implementing various reforms of the delivery of schooling services (Downes & Horowitz, 1995). Among these reforms has been the move to link educator pay with student academic outcomes (Lafee, 1999). Proponents of such alternative pay schemes suggest that it just makes sense to use the same business principles that the private sector to improve employee performance, but opponents to pay-for-performance suggest that criteria such as student achievement are fundamentally biased, too hard to measure or simply inadequate to judge the effectiveness of public school teachers because of the nature of the public school system in America today (Lafee, 1999). Despite these criticisms, increasing numbers of school district across the country are adopting pay-for-performance as a means of improving student academic outcomes based on a growing call for more accountability in the nation's public schools (Lafee, 2000).

Problem Statement. Based on the foregoing, it would seem that pay-for-performance approaches to improving performance in public schools just make good sense; however, a number of critics have identified several issues with this approach, including the nature of the enterprise (schools have a unique end product for example), the difficulty in fairly quantifying performance standards, as well as potential public resentment against such plans, that must be considered in the pay-for-performance analysis. Therefore, this study will be guided by the following research questions:

1. How effective have pay-for-performance plans been in improving the academic performance of students in K-12 grade public schools in the United States to date?

2. What effect, if any, have pay-for-performance plans had on employee morale, retention and performance?

3. How are pay-for-performance plans regarded by public school teachers in the U.S.

4. What are the current and future trends in pay-for-performance approaches for K-12 grade public schools in the U.S.

Purpose of Study. The purpose of this study is to investigate the viability of implementing pay-for-performance plans in public school districts in the United States as a means of improving the general academic performance of K-12 grade public school students.

Importance of Study. The costs associated with delivering educational services in America's public schools are enormous (Downes & Horowitz, 1995). Studies have confirmed that private schools in the United States spend far less per student than the public schools, but hundreds of thousands of parents in the United States continue to elect to pay for private school tuition out of their own pockets rather than send their children to public schools that spend far more per student in educating their children (Hardaway, 1995). One author asks, "Why would so many parents spend so much extra money for the privilege of having less spent on their children's education?" (Hardaway, 1995, p. 23). In response to assertions that private schools are doing more with less, other educators willingly admit that there are significant disparities in spending between public and private schools; however, they also point out that the fundamental differences between the public and private schools make such disparities inevitable. "Private schools don't have to educate as many... disabled, bilingual, illegal aliens, and disadvantaged students as public schools," they argue, "and public schools have more discipline problems" (Hardaway, p. 23). Virtually no one in the educational community, though, has been willing to admit that private schools are accomplishing more with far less than their public school counterparts. Therefore, the use of pay-for-performance schemes that specifically reward individual, group or team performance to improve student academic outcomes appears to be an efficient use of resources that are by definition scarce.

Scope of Study. This investigation will extend to public schools, grades kindergarten (K) through grade 12 in the United States.

Rationale of the Study. For most of the 20th century, public schools were a local issue, both fiscally and politically and educational reform was not emphasized in national or state policy (Louis, 1998). This changed in 1983 when the National Commission on Excellence in Education declared that the United States was "a nation at risk" as a result of the poor performance of its schools (Paris, 1995). While the issues identified by this "nation at risk" analysis, as well as subsequent reports, were formidable, educational reformers have remained confident about the long-term prospects for authentic change and improvement in America's public schools. This confidence has been related at least in part to the notion that there is a general consensus on both the need for reform and on a general direction involving heavier academic demands and increased accountability in America's schools today (Paris, 1995). Unfortunately, this confidence has not translated into solid results, and teacher quality is now at the top of the education policy agenda (Bagley, Evans, Mangin & Stewart, 2001). The need to identify more efficient use of educational resources is therefore a national concern that transcends local political considerations and requires serious attention from policymakers across the country today.

Overview of the Study. The study will be comprised of five chapters; the first chapter provides an introduction, a statement of the problem, the purpose, importance, scope and rationale of the study. Chapter 2 provides a critical review of the relevant and scholarly literature, and Chapter 3 describes the methodology to be used, including a description of the study approach, the data-gathering method to be used, and the database of study consulted. Chapter 4 in the final study will provide an analysis of the data collected, and Chapter 5 will provide a summary, conclusions and recommendations.

Chapter 2: Review of Related Literature.

Background and Overview. In both the public and private sectors, pay-for-performance arrangements have emerged in recent years as a strategy for responding to increasing demands for improved productivity and management accountability (Hildreth, Miller & Rabin, 2001). In the private sector, Hildreth et al. note that 92% of the manufacturing companies in the United States have such plans for their managers; and in a Canadian survey, 91% of the respondents answered affirmatively when asked: "Do you link pay or increases to performance?" (Hildreth et al., p. 451). These findings indicate that the North American private sector widely regards "pay for performance" as a viable strategy for improving worker performance today. In the public sector, the attractiveness of pay-for-performance involves similar concerns about accountability and productivity, but the political symbolism of public sector incentive plans makes such approaches particularly attractive to policymakers at every level (Hildreth et al., 2001).

Generally speaking, pay-for-performance arrangements first became popular during the industrial revolution when workers' wages were directly linked to the production of a specific quantity of a product (in other words, "piece-work"). According to Shafritz (2000), "These concerns were reemphasized under Frederick Winslow Taylor's (1856-1915) scientific management movement and the advent of industrial engineering at the end of the nineteenth century" (p. 315). The concept of paying-for-performance in education is certainly not new either; according to Lafee (2000), "It was first proposed in the 1920s and over the years the idea has been attempted in various forms in various school districts with various results. The belief that schools can be run more like business, with a keener eye toward efficiency, production and the bottom line, has plenty of supporters" (emphasis added) (p. 14). At the 1999 National Education Summit, for instance, state and business leaders incorporated such an initiative in their official platform, calling upon school districts to implement "pay-for-performance incentive plans... based on lessons learned from the private sector" (Lafee, p. 15). To date, about half of the states in the country have either passed or have at least contemplated adopting such approaches, with more and more school districts seeking to directly link student performance on standardized tests with educator compensation.

Historical Trends in Pay and Incentive Plans for K-12 Public School Teachers. The issue of pay and incentives for K-12 public school teachers generally involves three alternative methods to a uniform salary schedule approach:

1) Pay-for-performance;

2) Differential pay; and, 3) Financial incentives (Bagley et al., 2001).

Commonly referred to as "merit pay," pay-for-performance approaches link teacher salaries with student academic outcomes. A number of states and educational organizations support pay-for-performance alternatives for teachers; for instance, two such organizations that publicly support this approach are The Business Roundtable (BRT) and the National Alliance of Business (NAB) (Bagley et al., 2001). In 2000, these organizations published a white paper entitled, "Pay-For-Performance in Education: An Issue Brief for Business Leaders." This document described how pay-for-performance salary structures could potentially reward teachers for improving student achievement; the paper also noted how districts across the country were already taking steps in this direction. The authors cite Colorado, Douglas County as a good example of such recent initiatives. This school district recently negotiated a contract that directly links teacher pay increases with student academic outcomes; similarly, in July 2000, the California Board of Education authorized a plan that provided teachers and schools cash bonuses for improving student achievement on standardized tests (Bagley et al., 2001).

Prior to 1930, thought, little attention was given to pay-for-performance in the public sector in the United States except for the blue-collar, manufacturing functions that were being primarily performed for the military. During this period in American history, government was viewed (and perhaps still is by many) as a competitive threat to private enterprise; as a result, there was not much public support for developing a highly motivated and effective workforce for civil service jobs (Shafritz, 2000). When strictly applied, in fact, the term "job" would seem to indicate that such merit systems are particularly inappropriate for the public sector that has a specific mandate; for instance, Black's Law Dictionary (1990) notes that a "job" is "A specific task or piece of work to be done for a set fee or compensation" (p. 835). According to Shafritz, pay-for-performance initiatives were first introduced into educational settings as part of the positivistic administrative management reforms brought about by the Classification Act of 1923. "Exceptional performance was to be rewarded through merit step increases and grade promotion," Shafritz says; however, he also points out that "restrictions to prevent favoritism and abuse limited their use" (p. 316). These early efforts to tie teacher performance with academic outcomes were doomed, though. Over the course of time, merit pay plans were gradually merged into a system of automatic annual increases that merely rewarded longevity and loyalty, as well as a method to provide those employees in the public sector with an automatic inflationary cost of living adjustment (COLA) (Shafritz, 2000).

Pay-for-performance is an application of expectancy theory wherein employee motivation is considered to be extrinsic and follow B.F. Skinner's (1904-1990) operant conditioning models. According to Shafritz, "Expectancy theory posits that employees will be motivated to the extent to which their calculation of the desirability of rewards, the effort required to perform a task, and the probability of successful performance are viewed favorably" (p. 316). Pay-for-performance plans generally focus on identifying the appropriate balance between some extrinsic reward, such as the pay that is provided, and the amount of effort that is required to achieve it, which is the performance component involved in any job (Shafritz, 2000).

Modern Pay-for-Performance Plans in Education. Today, a wide range of extrinsic pay-for-performance approaches are in place across the country. Contemporary pay-for-performance arrangements are founded on a base pay system. "The salary or wage put 'at risk' is such to encourage or motivate the worker without jeopardizing his or her basic financial security," Shafritz says. Pay-for-performance schemes can be linked to overall individual performance or group performance at the organizational or team level. The individual systems are based on merit pay step increases, annuities, bonuses, and suggestion awards as well as skills or competency; group or organizational level schemes are the focus of gain or goal sharing programs.

Most pay-for-performance plans use employee reviews as the primary means to measure how well an employee achieves specific goals. Such performance reviews are used to determine which workers, or groups or teams, will receive performance awards as well as the amount to be awarded. According to Shafritz, "Management by objectives (MBO) systems may also provide a measurement instrument for a pay-for-performance system; in fact, such appraisal by objectives approaches formally incorporate MBO into the performance appraisal process)" (Shafritz, 2000, p. 316).

Constraints to Pay-for-Performance in K-12 Public Schools. Given the benefits associated with pay-for-performance that have been identified time and again, it would appear that this approach would be appropriate for almost any type of enterprise; however, critics of such alternatives for K-12 public schools point to a number of disadvantages in using pay-for-performance plans. One educator, for example, suggests there are three fundamental flaws with a pay-for-performance approach that will constrain any such initiatives in the future:

Public school teachers work in the public sector. Unlike their private sector counterparts that are free to recognize their employees in whatever fashion they feel is appropriate within the limits of the law, public school teachers are subject to intense public scrutiny. Lafee points out that, "While some would claim we are not accountable for our actions, I would argue that schools typically are the most scrutinized body in a community. Our audits and report cards come home every afternoon in the form of our children" (emphasis added) (p. 15).

It is difficult to measure output. The nature of the end product of America's public school system is unique and because of the diversity and regional differences that pervade the public school system in America, it is virtually impossible to develop one-size-fits-all quantifiable standards that can be fairly applied. According to Lafee, "It is very difficult to measure the output of school districts. Educators, parents and community members have difficulty agreeing on what should be measured to determine the quality of a school district" (p. 16). Based on the mandate to provide successful student learning outcome in this setting, public schools inevitably encounter a wide range of measurement problems and correlation issues surrounding the configuring of a fair pay-for-performance plan.

It is easy to misrepresent merit awards to administrators. Despite the seeming advantages inherent in pay-for-performance plans, Lafee suggests that taxpayers invariably object to rewarding teachers simply for "doing their jobs." When such plans are introduced, Lafee notes that a common taxpayer's response that the schools must have more money than they actually need was: "How could tax dollars be available for this purpose?" one critic asked (Lafee, 1999, p. 16).

The criticisms do not stop there.

Yet another educator opined, "I don't think any teacher is against accountability, but the problem is the public wants a perfectly measurable way to make every teacher accountable. There is no number" (Lafee, 2000, p. 14). This author suggests that this "magic number" is the essence of the pay-for-performance controversy: "Do student test scores give a full and accurate measure of a teacher's ability? Is it fair to use them as the basis for determining a person's financial compensation?" (Lafee, 2000, p. 15).

There are also serious voices in opposition to pay-for-performance approaches coming from those with the most to lose if these changes are implemented. In response to questions concerning the effectiveness of its approach to delivering educational services from the Milwaukee Public Schools, for example, a representative of Edison Project, one of the leaders in for-profit schools, stated their company anticipated serious problems with a pay-for-performance system that was being considered by city officials. According to Edison's representative, "Education is a complicated business and we have many, many objectives.... Educational progress is notoriously difficult to quantify. We would be dishonest to say we can precisely forecast progress in every area quantitatively" (p. 112).