Patrick F. Bassett, NAIS President Compensating Excellence & Rewarding Performance

Evaluation Conundrums Evaluation vs. Contracting: The Quadrant Approach New Compensation Models Trouble-shooting Solutions Financial Modeling Tools

Compensating Excellence & Rewarding Performance Evaluation Conundrums

Rewarding Excellence Current Conundrums:  Are faculty evaluation systems adequate and appropriate to identify excellence? See  When we lose teachers, at what age and stage does this happen?  Are we meeting needs of teachers at differing ages and stages?

Rewarding Excellence Current Conundrums  What skills should we define as worthy of reward? –More management and leadership roles –More technologically adept –Teacher as researcher  Why do independent school salary designs all look the same? The culture of schools’ workplace militates against innovative thinking about compensation: Teachers prefer predictable, non- competitive compensation and resist being “singled out.” NOTE: Recent research shows, on the other hand, that rigid pay scales discourage high ability individuals to enter or stay in teaching. (Goldhaber, The Urban Institute, “How Has Teacher Compensation Changed?” Selected Papers in School Finance )

Rewarding Excellence Failed Reform Movements of the 1980s & 1990s:  Merit Pay: Failed… Why?... because its zero sum design pits colleague against colleague, failing to recognize that effective schools are effective in proportion to the climate of collegiality and collaboration that exists within them. (cf. Ideas & Perspectives, 4/3/200)  Career Ladder (teacher becomes administrator): Failed… Why?...because its design provides non-teaching jobs for a fixed number of excellent teachers, thus offering a way out of the classroom for the best professionals in schools, just the opposite of how a high-performance school should deploy its best teachers.

Compensating Excellence & Rewarding Performance Evaluation vs. Contracting: The Quadrant Approach

Rewarding Excellence Faculty Evaluation: The truth of the matter…  Faculty evaluation tied to contracting: Everyone gets an “A-” or better from faculty peers: useful, constructive criticism seldom shared (because of the fear--irrational or otherwise-- that it will be used as weapon by an administrator to bludgeon a colleague).  No teacher thinks any administrator is remotely qualified to judge his or her brilliance in the classroom.

Rewarding Excellence  Everyone already knows who the “high performers” and “low performers” are on a faculty, including all the students and parents.  Current evaluation system linked to contracts and pay is counterproductive (producing anxiety and distrust) rather than productive (helping teachers become learners).  Change the rubric from “faculty evaluation” to “faculty professional development,” and place it within the province of the faculty (led by the dean of faculty or department heads or lead teachers) See “Creating a Healthy Faculty Culture” monograph. Purpose: collegial exchange about good pedagogy.

Rewarding Excellence  Adopt a Teacher as Researcher Model: What works? How can we document it? What would work better? –“Experience the best teacher?” If this were so, we’d be better parents for our third child than our first. –“Reflection on Experience is the best teacher.” (George Forman, UMass professor). (cf. The Teaching Gap)  Contracting an administrative team function, not an academic function..

Rewarding Excellence  Mid-year 360 for all faculty and staff: feedback.  Annual assessment by the administrative team of each faculty and staff member’s overall contribution to the community, and effectiveness as… –classroom teacher/staff administrator. –role model –coach –advisor –supervisor –team player (as colleague, supporter of school, etc.) –life-long learner, researcher, “risk-taker”

Rewarding Excellence  Jack Welch/GE performance & attitude quadrants approach: –“High Performance” = effective teaching, coaching, advising (demonstrable student learning and successes) –“Good attitude” = modeling the core values, supporting kids, parents, colleagues (including leadership).  Annual contracting conversations between employee and division head/business manager related to results of assessment: –Quad 1 (High Performance/Good Attitude): reward –Quad 2 (Poor to Avg Performance/Good Attitude): train –Quad 3 (High Performance/Bad Attitude): confront –Quad 4 (Poor Performance/Bad Attitude): dismiss

Compensating Excellence & Rewarding Performance New Compensation Models Pay for Performance (the corporate model) Broadband (the professions model) Rank/Tier (the university model)

Pay for Performance Model  Adapted from the corporate world; superimposed upon a traditional pay scale system; least difficult to implement (even in a union shop). (E.g., Scale goes up by COL or more, but additional pool of say $100,000 is added as performance bonus at the end of the year.)  Bonuses related to an evaluation system: the administrative team decides who receives a bonus and how much.  Bonus sometimes an absolute amount ($2500 or $1250 or $0); sometimes a percentage of salary (2% or 1% or 0%); sometimes both (group and individual rewards).

Pay for Performance Model  Sometimes the bonus (not the base or step increase) is “pay at risk,” dependent on school-wide goals being achieved.  At one school, the bonus is not paid until the following September, and only to returning staff.  NAIS recommends that the pay for performance approach be distinct from “merit pay” schemes: the former is a “raised ante” approach, the latter, zero sum: i.e., you can “reward” high performing teachers with “more pay for more work” (e.g., mentoring younger teachers, coordinating curriculum, etc.) or reward groups (some or all faculty and staff) for achieving goals.

Pay for Performance Model: Rohan Woods School Example  Board allocates an overall percentage increase in salary budget: e.g., 6%.  2% is COL that everyone receives.  2% is pay for performance: faculty designed the performance rubric, but head determines amount of “bonus” for each individual.  2% is group performance reward for school-wide goals being achieved. Current year = monthly updating of every staff member’s home page, including the head’s. Teachers post lesson plans for peer critiques. Past year’s goals = increase parent participation in surveys; write the character curriculum.

Broadband Model  Borrowed from the professional world of law and engineering, the broadband system replaces 25 or more salary steps with three overlapping salary bands.  A typical broadband approach might have band one at $30-$45,000, band two at $40 - $55,000, and band three at $50-$75,000.  The benefit of the approach is that each band can be defined by differing expectations for workload and performance and skill set (e.g., no jump to next band unless use technology, take on leadership, etc.)

Broadband Model  Promotion from one band to the next accompanied by a major increase in salary, justified by a thorough evaluation review, after a fixed number of years at each band (3 -5 years), but it may be quicker.  Overlap of the bands for flexibility: a top of the Band One teacher may be promoted to Band Two but negotiate being close to the bottom of that band in exchange for fewer responsibilities; a hot shot in Band One who takes on an extra workload may be paid more than someone in Band Two.

Broadbanding Model: Louisville Collegiate Example (01-02)  Bands: –Band One: 0-7 years of experience, Bachelor’s degree = $26,500-36,440. –Band Two: 8-19 years of experience, Master’s or 15 years + with BA = $31,000-47,000. –Band Three: 20 or more years of experience, Master’s = $41,000-60,000.  Priorities for moving within bands: experience; professional development annually; contributions of time to students/school beyond contractual obligations; degrees earned.  Number of Faculty at each Band: 24/16/22.

Faculty Rank System (Tiers/Career Ladder)  Modeled on university system.  Appeal as egalitarian approach, where all faculty at a particular rank earn the same fixed salary.  Three or four ranks with significantly differentiated salaries: intern/novice at $25,000; instructor (experienced teacher) at $50,000, team coordinator (mentor) at $60,000; master teacher at $75,000+. (Plus stipends for additional responsibilities.)  Promotion from one rank to the next dependent upon a major evaluation review (including administrative review, peer review, portfolio demonstrations, etc., akin to the rigors of a “tenure” review at the college level).

Faculty Rank System (Tiers/Career Ladder)  Promotion is accompanied by a major jump in salary.  Expectation of the system is “up or out” except in some cases for the top rank where sometimes only a few (perhaps endowed) positions are available.  Promotion occurs within a fixed number of years (three to five) at each rank but with the opportunity for quicker promotion.  New, experimental, and university-based schools seem most inclined to utilize the rank system.  Approach dictates that the administration make hard choices when a teacher is up for promotion since mediocre performance cannot just be accepted “for one more year.” !

Faculty Rank/Tier Model: Tuxedo Park Example (02-03)  Level One: 0-2 years of experience; base of $30,000; expectations: beginning teachers being mentored and participating in professional development opportunities.  Level Two: 3-7 years of experience; base of $36-42,000; expectations: advanced degree; multi-dimensional, effective teaching; integrated technology into teaching; knowledge of related educational research; team player; support teams and school.  Level Three: More than 7 years of experience; base of $42- 68,000; expectations: advanced degree, acknowledged as master teacher; leadership roles within the department and division; lead two interdisciplinary projects per year; mentor others in using technology; strong loyalty and support of the school.

Compensating Excellence & Rewarding Performance Trouble-shooting Solutions

Rewarding Excellence Points To Ponder:  Who Populates the Compensation Task Force and Why?  What Goals & Strategies Would We Set in a Re- engineered Compensation Philosophy?  What Are the Issues To Trouble-shoot and Road Test?  What Tools are Available To Project Various Scenarios?

Set Goals (6):  Recruit All-star Teachers.  Retain the best of the best.  Reward exceptional performance and group performance.  Meet the needs of faculty at differing ages/stages.  Improve collegiality and the environment advantage.  Move the institution forward. Development of Compensation Philosophies

Trouble-shooting  Seeking Higher “Productivity”  Marketing Larger Classes to Parents  Getting Senior Faculty on Board  Development of a Recruitment Strategy.  Running Financial Scenarios Development of Compensation Philosophies

Teacher Recruitment: New Solutions The Solutions: Address the Conundrums of Hiring (Ed Ryan, Hiring the Best). Avoid…  Hiring for what one knows rather than who one is.  Hiring quickly and firing slowly.  Hiring for previous experience rather than for future potential. (Moneyball strategy?) Utilize the NAIS Career Center: (searchable database of >1000 resumes) Join Teachers of Color Networks: Nemnet.com & The Diversity Network (deep database, all faculty of color)Nemnet.comThe Diversity Network

Teacher Recruitment: New Solutions Grow your Own: Intern/Teacher Training Projects in Independent Schools: Culver, Shady Hill, Friends School Detroit, University School (OH) (12-mo. Master’s/Certification program with Ursuline College: $13K tuition pays for staffing, mentors, college fees; most are adults seeking career change, all with BA/BS degrees. 18 University School teachers are now graduates of the program.) Market to your own Constituencies: Parent, Alumni: Website and Listserv announcements. (“Why I Stay…” in Independent School, Spring 2003: “I didn’t think to teach here; the school sought me.”) Give Referral Bonuses to your Faculty: $1000 per new teacher referred & hired. Market Collaboratively (NAIS & A/I & Local campaigns): College Campuses, Military Publications, Ed Week, etc.: e.g., Princeton Collaborative

Teacher Recruitment Campaign Brochure

Teacher Recruitment Website:

Ads in Ed Week Jan – May, NYTimes Online, etc. Mailings to 400 Colleges

Repaying Teachers’ Student Loans  Debt levels impact career choice –Low teaching salaries make it difficult for new teachers to manage student loan debt: Providing non-salary benefits to reduce the debt burden help make the decision easier  Creates tangible incentive separate from salary increase and promotes retention  Repay student loan principal and interest as long as teacher is employed –Payment amount would be approximately $125 per month (or $1,500 per year) for every $10,000 in outstanding principal –Assumes a ten-year repayment term, 8.25 percent interest rate –Would be lower with longer repayment periods and/or lower interest rates Incentivize Coming to your School

Student Loan Debt 1 and Repayment 2 Monthly Payment/Annual Payout Degree Awarded Type of Institution Amt Borrowed (Median) Interest 4.86 percent (current) Interest 8.25 percent (max) Bachelor’sPublic 4-year$15,375$ / $1,944$ / $2,263 Private 4-year$17,250$ / $2,181$ / $2,539 Master’sPublic 4-year$17,341$ / $2,193$ / $2,552 Private 4-year$24,409$ / $3,087$ / $3,593 DoctorateAll$24,078$ / $3,045$ / $3,544 1 Source: American Council on Education web page, as provided in the National Postsecondary Student Aid Study conducted by NCES. 2 Source: Student loan repayment calculators at “Current” interest rates apply to Federal Stafford loans disbursed between 7/94 and 6/98. Loans disbursed thereafter currently have a 4.06 percent interest rate. No Federal Stafford loans may exceed an 8.25 percent interest rate.

Psst! 'Human Capital‘ -DAVID BROOKS “What Works” for Success New York Times Op-Ed, Nov 13, 2005  Educational Reform in America: We’re wasting our time and money.  David Brooks: “The only things that work are local, human- to-human immersions that transform the students down to their very beings. Extraordinary schools, which create intense cultures of achievement, work. Extraordinary teachers, who inspire students to transform their lives, work. The programs that work touch all the components of human capital.” –PFB Note: There’s no better description of an “independent school.”

Patrick F. Bassett, President The End! For More Resources on this Topic, Go to