Incentive Pay for Teachers ... New Buzz about an Old Idea

The new report by TeacherSolutions takes a favorable view of one of the profession's most controversial issues--merit pay. Merit pay is certainly not a new idea in American education. Merit pay policies have been formulated, adopted, implemented, and evaluated throughout the twentieth century. Single salary schedules for teachers, typically based on teachers' qualifications and years of services, have dominated teacher compensation systems since the 1920s. But what the NEA won't share is that historically the consideration of merit has been an important part of these single salary schedules since this earliest period.

In a nutshell, pay for performance is a systematic process for measuring teacher behavior or results, and linking these measurements to changes in teacher pay. Performance indicators may include changing classroom behavior, improving professional skills, and producing desired outcomes. A teacher’s knowledge and skills, for instance, may be assessed via testing, certification, and classroom observation. Classroom performance is typically measured by observations such as those done as part of a teacher evaluation system. Instructional outcomes may be assessed via tests of student learning and sometimes other measures such as attendance and graduation rates. Teacher performance can be defined in terms of these outcomes, and pay changes can be linked to outcome measures.

In response to the rise in educational accountability in this country, pay for performance systems have become increasingly sophisticated. Denver's ProComp plan is an excellent example of a pay for performance system that works. It uses several criteria to assess teachers' performance, including meeting annual instructional objectives negotiated between the teacher and their supervisor, obtaining National Board certification, and taking on additional or challenging tasks, such as curriculum development or working in hard-to-staff schools. Denver took the bold step of eliminating its single salary structure in favor of base pay with a salary increase and/or annual bonuses. Teachers may receive, for stance, a 9 percent salary increase for earning a graduate degree and a 3 percent increase when their students exceed an agreed-upon range for one year's growth in a core subject.

All indications from Washington are that pay for performance policy is here to stay, at least through the Bush Administration. The FY06 federal budget included funding for the Teacher Incentive Fund, a grant program that seeds the development of pay for performance programs, and for a National Research Center on Performance Incentives, established through a $10 million grant to Vanderbilt University from the Department of Education's IES. The President's FY2008 budget request for the Department of Education proposes to expand support for the Teacher Incentive Fund. The National Governors' Association, one of Washington's most respected public policy organizations, has been a vocal supporter of pay for performance policy, which it views as critical for improving teacher quality. Not surprisingly, governors across the country have raised the profile of this issue. As the Education Commission of the States has pointed out, "20 governors outlined teacher compensation as one of their major education issues in their 2005 State of the State addresses, and nine specifically spoke of some type of performance-based or merit pay" (Azordegan, Byrnett, et. al., 2005). Far from being an educational fad, pay for performance policy will have continued and profound effects on the teaching profession for some time to come.

Virginia's Pre-K Initiative...Gathering Steam

We’re going to keep working to give every Virginia child a world-class education, and we’re going to start sooner, by offering prekindergarten to every Virginia four year old. –Governor Timothy Kaine, November 7, 2005 (Samuels, 2005).

Universal pre-kindergarten was a core element of Virginia Governor Kaine’s election platform, and he reiterated this policy position during his election-night speech in 2005. While the governor has not been able to implement his policy of universal pre-K, he has been able to serve as an “issue catalyst” by raising the profile of preschool education in the Commonwealth of Virginia.
One of the Governor's early acts after taking office was to issue Executive Order 7, which established the Start Strong Council. This advisory council has played an important role in policy definition and agenda setting. The council includes approximately 25 leaders from business, schools, the faith community, private child care, Head Start, and state- and local-elected officials. The Council was given several responsibilities, including developing statewide goals and best practices for “expanding opportunities for 4 year olds to access quality pre-kindergarten programs” (Executive Order 7, 2006). The Council’s first report, issued in December 2006, included several policy recommendations to the Governor, including the development of a quality ratings system for preschool settings and a proposal for grant-funded preschool pilots to test innovative program strategies.

The Governor has attempted to build support for his pre-kindergarten policy initiative in other ways as well. The Governor’s Early Childhood Summits, which have been held twice during the past two years, are designed to inform business and community leaders, elected officials, and other stakeholders about the benefits of investing in early childhood education,.

Response to the Governor's pre-kindergarten initiative have been decidedly mixed. For the most part, organizations such as the Virginia Metropolitan League, the Virginia Association of Counties, the Virginia Association of Elementary School Principals, the Virginia Education Association, and the Parent Teacher Association have been very supportive. Other groups, including the association of superintendents and local school boards, have expressed strong opinions about various aspects of the initiative. While these two groups were generally supportive of pre-kindergarten, they have had concerns about the governance structure and the delivery mechanism of the initiative. In addition, while many private providers have been enthusiastic about the Governor’s intention to incorporate both public and private providers for preschool delivery, there have been a few vocal opponents from this constituency. There has been growing interest nationally in early childhood education as a future workforce investment, and state-level economic development and workforce development interest groups have followed suit by demonstrating support for this policy issue.

Virginia's preschool pilot initiative, which is in the starting gate, is considered a critical component of the Governor’s policy setting activities, since the Governor undoubtedly hopes to demonstrate through this experiment the feasibility of the innovative strategies recommended by the Start Strong Council, such as the diverse delivery network (including both public and private partners), incorporating a parent tuition component, and utilizing local school readiness councils to ensure systemic planning at the local level. Each of the pilot sites will receive strong support from the Department of Education, including technical assistance and start-up funds in addition to the per pupil funding, in order to optimize the conditions for success. An external program evaluation will be conducted on all pilots to assess how well their partnerships and other strategies worked, the level of quality in the various public and private learning settings, and the outcomes for the participating children. Formative and summative evaluation data will provide the Start Strong Council and the Governor’s office with critical information to evaluate this policy.

The preschool pilot initiative had a bumpy start earlier this year when the 2007 General Assembly made substantial changes to the budget language for the preschool pilots, reducing the budget by $2.1 million, limiting participation in the pilots to at-risk children, and adding evaluation requirements for selecting providers. Considering this was a mid-biennium budget, however, the initiative should be viewed as successful for having secured any funding at all. I take this to be a positive sign that the preschool policy issue will not only remain on the state agenda but will pick up additional support over time as the legislators and the public realize the effectiveness of pre-kindergarten in preparing children for success in school.