1. Can Merit Pay Work? Lessons from Little Rock Arkansas Political Science Association 2008 Conference February 22, 2008 Fayetteville, AR Gary W. Ritter Department of Education Reform University of Arkansas - Fayetteville Slide 1 of 16

2. Policymakers Strive to Increase Student Performance In an effort to increase student performance, where might policymakers look? The research is clear and consistent in acknowledging the important role of teachers. However, the research is not clear or consistent in identifying strategies for recruiting and retaining effective teachers. Teacher salaries may be an appropriate place to exert policy influence. Slide 2 of 16

3. Entry Level Teacher Pay … Competitive New Teacher New Business Graduate Slide 3 of 16

4. Rewards for Teaching Excellence Decline Over Time Teacher Slide 4 of 16

5. Policy Implications: What’s the Status Quo for Teacher Salaries? Current Single Salary System  Based on tenure and degree  Lock-step Arguments for single system  Fair  Simple Arguments against single system  Does not address teacher shortages – either by geographic area or subject area  Counter-productive reward structure – good teachers encouraged to: Leave field (better salary) Transfer schools (better environment) Move to Administration (only real promotion) Slide 5 of 16

6. Rewards for Effective Teachers? Slide 6 of 16

7. Rewards for Effectiveness? Slide 7 of 16

8. Might “Rewards for Effectiveness” Improve Teaching? Two types of potential effects of merit pay:  Composition  Motivation Supporters believe performance pay leads to:  More innovation  Increased work ethic  Salary satisfaction Opponents believe performance pay leads to:  Counter-productive competition  Negative work environment  Decreased focus on low-performing students What does the evidence say?  Five of the seven existing studies examined had positive results.  Teachers often express opposition to this type of reform However, there have been a limited number of comprehensive evaluations of performance pay programs. Slide 8 of 16

9. LRSD Achievement Challenge Pilot Project Overview Achievement Challenge Pilot Project (ACPP)  Merit pay program for all staff members in a school based on test score growth Initiated in 2004-05 in one elementary school By 2006-07, in five elementary schools Two year evaluation project  Fall 2006 – Meadowcliff & Wakefield  Fall 2007 – All 5 elementary schools  Analyzed student test score growth and teacher attitudes Slide 9 of 16

10. ACPP: Straightforward, Non-Competitive for Teachers, Significant $, and Focus on Growth of Students Table 1: Payouts for Wakefield for 2006-07 Employee Type / Position 0-4% Growth 5-9% Growth 10-14% Growth 15%+ Growth Maximum Payout Principal $2,500$5,000$7,500$10,000 Teacher (Grades 4-5) $50$100$200$400$11,200 Teacher (Grades 1-3) $50$100$200$400$10,000 Teacher (Kindergarten) $50$100$200$400$8,000 Coach $1,250$2,500$3,750$5,000 Specialist; Spec. Ed. $1,000$2,000$3,000$4,000 Music Teacher $1,000$2,000$3,000$4,000 Physical Examiner $500$1,000$1,500$2,000 Aide $250$500$750$1,000 Secretary & Custodian $125$250$375$500 Slide 10 of 16

11. Overview of the Year One Evaluation: Meadowcliff & Wakefield (January ’07) ACPP improved student performance Student performance increased 3.5 NCE points (6-7 percentile) Teachers supported the ACPP Significantly more satisfied with ACPP than single salary system Believed the program did not lead to counterproductive competition Believed the school environment became more positive with ACPP Teachers believed the ACPP improved student achievement Slide 11 of 16

12. Overview of the Year Two Evaluation: Mabelvale, Romine, & Geyer Springs ACPP improved student performance  Math – improvement of 7 percentile points  Language – improvement of 9 percentile points  Reading – improvement of 6 percentile points ACPP Teachers are …  … not more innovative or harder-working  … more satisfied with salary  … not experiencing divisive competition, negative work environment, or avoidance of low-performing students Some implementation problems led to …  … teacher discontent  … decreased program support Slide 12 of 16

13. Feedback from Teachers Positive “The schools that have the highest risk children need the most trained teachers and the best teachers we have. And so, I think we could use merit pay to maybe recruit some of the best teachers to work with some of the hardest to teach children.” “I think that in any work force…the people that shine…that stand out…that are doing an excellent job…they should be rewarded versus the people that are just doing the minimum to get by.” “I think it was a good motivational tool…kind of helped me with my goals…my personal goals as a teacher. On the other side, who doesn't want money for their rewards? You produce. You want to be rewarded for the production which you produce…so…I was in full support for the program.” Negative “I'm not really real big on merit pay because I think there are too many other factors that come into play. Some kids don't test well. Some kids don't like to sit still long enough to take the test. There's so many other...who knows what happened at the child's house that morning?” “You know, would I vote for it again? On a purely selfish level…well, you know, I got some money. But if I look at the good of the school…it didn't do our school any good last year. It was more of a problem than an improvement.” “I mean...it was ugly...it was just constant people mad. The people that didn't get anything were upset, and I don't blame them, especially since we were told that everybody was going to get something.” Slide 13 of 16

14. Lessons Learned 1) Positive aspects of the ACPP: Program was straightforward Payouts were non-competitive Significant dollar amounts Rewards based on student growth 2) Program needs to be clearly articulated to all participants 3) Teacher expectations are important to consider 4) Be careful when changing the program mid- stream Slide 14 of 16

15. Conclusions 1. Good arguments for and against merit pay:  Current system does have poor incentives  Characteristics of teaching complicate implementation of incentive pay 2. Research evidence is does not provide definitive answer, but is trending in favor of merit pay 3. We can conclude that it is worth trying this strategy as a policy alternative and then testing it rigorously 4. Politics matter … but keep the focus on students and student growth (academic and otherwise!) Slide 15 of 16

16. Contact Information: Gary Ritter, Associate Professor Office for Education Policy University of Arkansas http://www.uark.edu/ua/oep Email: oep@uark.edu Phone: (479) 575-3773www.uark.edu/ua/oepoep@uark.edu Slide16 of 16