Paying for Stellar Performance - you get for what you know - Brief Article

School Administrator, Oct, 2000 by Benjamin O. Canada

In discussions of pay-for-performance contracts, I often am reminded of a concept advanced by Gandhi: Power comes from giving power away.

Positive changes in school culture do not result from directives handed down from above from the powers that be. A district superintendent working toward school improvement--and a financial incentive--cannot singlehandedly affect student achievement. Only through collaboration can schools produce the results that mark success.

Does pay-for-performance have a place in education? I believe it does. Merit pay should not be limited to superintendents or top administrators, however. Because teamwork is essential to the achievement of our educational goals, team members deserve to share in the "wealth" that comes from their efforts.

The key to making pay-for-performance work in education lies in the writing of meaningful administrative contracts that set priorities for performance and outline standards for school improvement. Contracts also must ensure the time for implementing change.

In the Portland Public Schools, for example, pay-for-performance standards for principals identify six characteristics of educational leadership. Those characteristics describe leadership qualities that promote the success of all staff and students. Articulating and implementing a vision of teaching and learning, managing the daily operation of the school and its resources and demonstrating integrity, fairness and professional judgment are among the characteristics outlined.

When setting priorities for performance, districts must be specific in the definition of school improvement. Test scores are just one assessment and should not be the only indicator of achievement. What about parent involvement, business and community partnerships, discipline and attendance?

Should cleanliness and safety in the school building, balancing the budget, reducing dropout rates and implementing new programs be considered? Many would agree that indicators must be exposed to scrutiny when financial incentives are tied to school improvement.

Providing school leaders with adequate time to achieve significant improvement is essential. It takes time for school staff to put the building blocks for learning in place. Building the capacity to get there is how businesses refer to the period of time needed to reach their economic objectives. In the same way, schools need time to accomplish their improvement objectives.

I favor a concept for merit pay similar to a three-year balloon payment when discussing school improvement goals. In that way, student performance--the key indicator of achievement and ultimately the community's basis for evaluating our schools--has time to be nurtured and supported. Three years of developing a new environment, implementing change and pursuing new directions help the balloon take flight.

Students are not held responsible for improved performance until they've received instruction on what they will be tested on. In the same way, we cannot hold our educational leaders responsible for improved achievement until they've had time to develop and implement changes.

Clearly defined pay-for-performance contracts publicly establish a school district's goals and expectations. Money, the performance bonus, is never the ultimate goal. The goals are to encourage excellence in school administration, improve student achievement and ensure the collaboration of the educational team.

Changing the culture in our schools to a performance-based system that rewards improvement and innovation is a legitimate objective in pay-for-performance contracts. It is yet another way we can further the cause of improved education for all students.