|
According
to Alan Odden (University of Wisconsin, CPRE), experience with
implementing performance pay systems yields a number of
recommendations for those considering this challenge:
- An
adversarial relationship with the union is a roadblock in the
development of a performance pay system. A collaborative
relationship is more likely to promote the level of
communication and participation needed for a successful
program.
- Performance
pay systems need to be grounded in an agreement on the nature
of educational improvement and high-quality educational
outcomes. The participants - teachers, administrators, school
boards and other interested parties such as parents, students
and community - must agree on the district mission and core
values. It’s also very important to decide what behaviors
and outcomes indicate a quality educational program.
- Experience
during the merit pay experiments in Oregon indicate that
incentive bonuses must be substantial and consistently funded,
but - Before anything can be implemented - there needs to be
adequate financial backing for the performance pay system. If
school boards wish to try it for a year, they only need to
find a year’s worth of funding. However, if they want to
commit to several years, they must have the resources in place
before the program is initiated. To do otherwise can undermine
the whole system because teachers will be less likely to
support a system that may or may not yield the promised
results.
- There
should be a sound evaluation and assessment system for both
teacher behaviors and student performance. Student achievement
performance rewards should be awarded on a
group/building/district basis, not to individual teachers.
Group awards limits the teacher competition to take the best
students and builds staff into a cohesive, collaborative team
rather than warring factions. It takes students out of a
resource role and encourages everyone to work together.
- Knowledge
and skill performance elements should be related to the needs
of the district and building. What is realistic for one group
might not be to the next. Student scores might be higher for
one group than the next, but overall improvement must be
addressed.
|
|
|
|
