Incentive Pay: A Logical Step Toward Accountability - Brief Article

School Administrator, Jan, 1997 by Clifford B. Janey

Accountability has been a central principle, along with fairness and affordability, in our school district's contract talks this year with both teachers and administrators.

The reason is simple: Success must be measured before it can be rewarded. Pay increases should not be based solely on time served in a position or the number of academic degrees held but also on performance as measured by specific standards.

In the case of teachers, this issue has been raised by parents and educators for years. Albert Shanker, president of the American Federation of Teachers, regularly raises the issue. Last year, in an interview with Education Week, he said: "Coursework and seniority do not guarantee knowledge and skill." And this fall in a union publication for Philadelphia teachers, he wrote: "It's more important to recognize that incentives do work; they are major motivators of the behavior of individuals and systems."

The business community--the future employers of today's students--is similarly frustrated with the results of America's schools.

"Business can't understand why teachers can work forever and have no change in their tenure based on whether students have done better or worse or the same," said Milton Goldberg, senior vice president of education for the National Alliance of Business. "Business can't imagine a system where there are no incentives or consequences for failure or success."

Our district has been consistent in its belief that an incentive system of accountability for both schools and individuals (in addition to pay increases guaranteed by state law) is logical, fair, and necessary. In fact, through a newly negotiated contract, such a system now is in place for Rochester's administrators. The system sets specific standards for performance and focuses on individual employee accountability as key to improving student achievement.

Tenured administrators will undergo a rigorous performance assessment once every three years and be eligible for a one-time bonus. Those given ratings for "exceeding expectations" and "meeting expectations" will receive a bonus ($950 and $700, respectively) in addition to contractually negotiated increases.

Those given a "needs improvement" rating will receive the contractual increase but no bonus and are targeted for specific professional support to help them improve. Those rated "unsatisfactory" will receive no bonus and no increase and must participate in intensive intervention.

These criteria essentially make this a "no pay for no performance" system, one that is equally appropriate for teachers. Despite the obvious benefits of such a system for teachers, several myths have been perpetuated to cast it in a negative light.

* Myth No. 1: An incentive system for teachers would be based solely on students' performance on standardized tests.

Reality: Student performance is just one standard on which teacher evaluations would be based. Others include teaching competency, home and community involvement, and professional development. Yes, a system based solely on student test scores would be unfair--schools are not factories--but this is not something the district supports.

* Myth No. 2: An incentive system would create competition rather than cooperation between teachers.

Reality: Every teacher who meets the standards would be eligible for incentive pay, not just some at the expense of others. It is not an eitheror arrangement leading to cutthroat competition and paranoia over stolen lesson plans. In fact, our hope is that every teacher in every school would meet or exceed the standards. How could our students not benefit from that level of performance?

* Myth No. 3: Teacher's entire pay increase would be dependent on performance evaluations.

Reality: In fact, 60 to 70 percent of each teacher's annual salary increase would be guaranteed contractually and legally. Only 30 to 40 percent of the salary increase would depend on a performance evaluation.

The most important fact in the incentive-system debate is that students would benefit. An estimated 98 percent of teachers are likely to either meet or exceed the district's standards for performance. And every teacher who does so reaches an entire elementary class or eight classes at the middle and high school level with his or her exemplary performance.

The need for this kind of system is obvious and the benefits to students are clear. The time to adopt it is now.