First, lets take care of business - Happy 4th of July!
Second, a little run down on my current thoughts on pay for performance. I'm focusing my policy brief on group versus individual performance pay for teachers. Below are random thoughts on the two categories. I'm going to use this space to organize my thinking before formal writing. Since this is informal writing, I'm not worrying about individual citations. However, I am offering my resources below. These are the articles most germain to my research.
Group performance pay, currently practiced in Florida (among other places), occurs when all professional stakeholders involved receive a bonus based on a specified performance action. In Florida, schools receive a lump sum of money from the state (based per kid) if they raise the school grade from one year to the next. The funds are distributed following proposal submissions from various stakeholders and a vote from school employees.
For each instance I've encountered, the schools usually decide to have a tiered pay-out where various school roles receive a lump sum of money. For instance, teachers may receive $1,000, paras and secretaries receive $750 and custodians receive $500. This pay out is given regardless of individual performance. Other common proposals include setting aside a portion for school and/or professional development (such as technology) and then following the tiered plan above for the remaining portion of money.
This type of performance plan has little effect, however, on individual student performance. Teachers who consider themselves effective feel taken advantage from those they consider to be coasting through the profession. In addition, teachers see the performance pay as a "fluke" or "random" in nature and do not consider it a true representation of better teaching, only better students.
This does, however, have some positive effects. Schools who receive the performance pay often report an increase in teacher motivation and engagement. In addition, schools who receive the performance pay often receive the payout for several years at a time which could indicate increased performance on measured items.
Individual performance plans, recently or currently practiced in Denver, New York and Wisconsin (among others), have teachers and administrators work towards meeting individual benchmarks in order to receive a pay incentive. These often include assuming additional leadership roles, attending professional development and increased student performance. In most cases, each action is given a monetary value and teachers keep and submit a portfolio outlining their performance for review.
This type of performance plan has had little effect on individual student performance. Teachers who typically receive the bonus do so because of increased responsibilities, increased professional development and increased formal education. Only a small percentage of teachers receive the increased pay for increased student performance. Teachers often view this part of the performance plan as unobtainable and, instead, focus on the factors they see as easier to obtain.
This type of plan does have some positive side effects. Teachers tend to attend and implement more professional development ideas and often have advanced degrees from increased formal education. However, the increased education is often in unrelated fields to current teaching assignments. Teachers also report increased collaboration as they tend to spend more time together attending professional development where they form lasting professional relationships.
Sources:
Ballou, D. (2001). Pay for performance in public and private schools. Economics of Education Review, 20(1), 51-61. doi: 10.1016/S0272-7757(99)00060
Burden, P. R. (1987). Establishing career ladders in teaching: a guide for policy makers. Springfield, IL: Thomas.
Cissell, G. (2010). Kentucky and education reform: the issue of pay-for-performance. Journal of Law & Education, 39(1), 119-127.
Dee, T. S., & Keys, B. J. (2004). Does merit pay reward good teachers? Evidence from a randomized experiment. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 23(3), 471-488. doi: 10.1002/pam.20022
Denver Public School Professional Compensation for Teacher (Rep.). (n.d.). Retrieved May 16, 2011, from Denver Public Schools website: http://denverprocomp.dpsk12.org/
Figlio, D. N., & Kenny, L. W. (2007). Individual teacher incentives and student performance☆. Journal of Public Economics, 91(5-6), 901-914. doi: 10.1016/j.jpubeco.2006.10.001
Fryer, R. G. (2011, March). Teacher incentives and student achievement: evidence from New York City public schools [Scholarly project]. In NBER Working Paper Series. Retrieved May 17, 2011, from http://www.nber.org/tmp/92064-w16850.pdf
Johns, E. (2009). Is it "merit pay" if nearly all teachers get it? Minneapolis Star Tribune.
Ladd, H. F. (1999). The Dallas school accountability and incentive program: An evaluation of its impacts on student outcomes. Economics of Education Review, 18, 1-16. doi: 10.1016/S0272-7757(97)00044-7
Lavy, V. (2007). Using performance-based pay to improve the quality of teachers. The Future of Children, 17(1), 87-109. doi: 10.1353/foc.2007.0007
Podgursky, M. J., & Springer, M. G. (2007). Teacher performance pay: a review. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 26(4), 909-950. doi: 10.1002/pam.20292
Sorenson, B. (2007). Credentials versus performance: review of the teacher performance pay research. Peabody Journal of Education, 82(4), 551-573.
