Case Studies: Overview | Partial Inclusion | Group Awards | Full Inclusion


[back to top]

Teachers and specialists in non-tested subjects and grades may not be eligible for pay for performance systems since individual awards are often based on student performance on high-stakes exams. These teachers and school staff fall into three categories: pre-K to 2, noncore academic (music, PE, foreign language, etc.), and specialists (librarians, nurses, etc.). Current district initiatives provide some examples of how teachers falling into these categories can be included in pay for performance systems. These approaches could be classified in many ways, but for the purposes of this page, three case study pages will be featured.

  • Partial inclusion. Teachers and specialists in non-tested subjects and grades would be included in performance awards to a lesser degree than teachers of core subjects and grades 3-8. For instance, they could be awarded for attendance or professional development hours as opposed to student performance.
  • Group awards. All educators and school staff, including those in non-tested subjects and grades, would be eligible for group awards based on performance gains and/or serving in leadership roles.
  • Full inclusion. All staff would be eligible for all forms of performance pay. To implement this comprehensive approach, performance measures would need to be created for each of the specialist disciplines.


    • [back to top]

    If we provide teachers in tested subjects and grades with an opportunity to earn additional pay as part of new compensation systems, fairness suggests that we should provide other teachers and specialists with the same opportunity. In practice, when systems have excluded teachers outside of tested subjects, studies have demonstrated that many educators find pay for performance to be unfair and there is increased resistance to change. For example, according to a case summary by the Center for Educator Compensation Reform (CECR), Houston's performance pay program had to be modified in response to the emotional impact differential pay had on teachers outside of tested subjects.

    The Center for Teacher Quality and National Institute for Excellence in Teaching are teacher task forces that have recently called for the inclusion of teachers of non-tested subjects and grades in pay for performance models. Including all educators is an essential element in any pay for performance model as it will:

    • Increase buy-in. Educators are more likely to trust a new compensations system if they believe it is inclusive and treats everyone fairly.
    • Ensure that teachers outside of tested subjects are rewarded for their achievements. All educators have an impact on students' achievement and will be rewarded for their accomplishments.
    • Hold all educators accountable for their students' performance. All educators will be held accountable for students' performance.


    [back to top]

    It is important for school and district leaders to determine the extent to which they will incorporate all educators into their performance pay model. Many districts have begun to experiment with different approaches, but currently, there is no best solution. Nonetheless, current studies suggest that districts undertaking reform should keep in mind the following recommendations. For additional resources, see the websites and tools section.

    • Do not confuse equity with equality. A new compensation system must treat all educators fairly. However, equity should not be confused with equality. It is important to recognize that educators have different roles, responsibilities, and abilities. As long as performance-based pay is perceived to be fair, it is not necessary that all staff members be treated in precisely the same fashion.
    • Seek buy-in and ensure collaboration from all stakeholders. Whether districts can successfully adopt and implement compensation reforms has been shown to depend on teacher buy-in, particularly from the unions. As such, those who will be held accountable should take the lead. Districts should ensure that teachers play an active role in the initiative's design and implementation phases and that all constituencies are included in ongoing collaboration. For more information on how to ensure collaboration from all stakeholders, click here.
    • Use multiple indicators of teacher effectiveness. To develop an effective performance management system, various constituencies need to agree on what constitutes effective teacher performance. Districts will need to develop clearer standards and expectations for teachers outside of tested subjects. In the meantime, when designing performance pay systems, policy makers should use multiple measures to ensure that they capture a comprehensive picture of teacher effectiveness.
    • Develop intensive professional development systems. Educators must participate in ongoing professional development to ensure that they understand the new performance pay system. Professional development needs to focus on building teachers' understanding and value of measuring performance. Developing comfort with the system may take time and as a result, professional development should occur throughout the school year.

    To see how these recommendations have been implemented, refer to the case study pages.


    [back to top]

    • Collective Bargaining in Education and Pay for Performance
      (Jane Hannaway and Andrew J. Rotherham, prepared for Performance Incentives: Their Growing Impact on American K-12 Education Conference, Nashville, TN, February 29, 2008)
      In this report, the National Center on Performance Incentives examines the emerging policy focus on teacher performance incentives and the response of the teachers unions in five programs - Denver's ProComp, a pilot program in New York City, the Teacher Advancement Program (TAP), Toledo's TRACS, and Minnesota's Q-Comp. One of the unions' major concerns is how teachers outside of the tested subjects will be incorporated into the performance pay plan. The authors conclude that teachers unions exert enormous influence and, without union involvement, reform is unlikely to be sustained.
    • The Evolution of Performance Pay in Florida
      (Center for Educator Compensation Reform, November 2007)
      This case summary from the Center for Educator Compensation Reform (CECR) examines the history of performance pay initiatives in Florida and the difficulties associated with including all educators in a pay for performance system. Pages 10-11 highlight the challenges associated with creating appropriate assessments for subjects and grades not covered by standardized assessments and discuss Florida's attempt to create a clearinghouse of assessments for districts to use to determine their performance awards.
    • How to Pay Teachers for Student Performance Outcomes
      (Anthony Milanowski, Consortium for Policy Research in Education, September 2008)
      This brief covers a variety of issues surrounding how to pay teachers for their student performance outcomes. On pages 12-14, the author discusses how various districts have compensated educators outside of tested subjects. One specific example provided is how Orange County, Florida, allows teachers in non-tested subjects to link themselves with a teacher of a tested subject who has set student achievement goals. The district believes this will encourage teachers in non-tested subjects to support the efforts of their colleagues, as well as provide a way for them to earn a bonus.
    • The Other 69 Percent: Fairly Rewarding the Performance of Teachers of Non-Tested Subjects and Grades
      (Cynthia D. Prince, et al., Center for Educator Compensation Reform, 2008)
      This report from the Center for Educator Compensation Reform (CECR) discusses how to reward staff fairly in non-tested subjects and grades. It examines five categories of teachers - non-tested subjects, pre-K to 2, high school teachers, teachers of English language learners, and teachers of students with disabilities - and provides options and examples of how to approach compensation based on what has been done in current districts. Overall, the CECR recommends that districts (1) consider fairness from multiple perspectives, (2) think systematically and holistically, (3) include multiple measures and award types, (4) weigh transparency versus accuracy, and (5) be aware of unintended consequences.


    [back to top]

    The National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS) has developed standards and rubrics for evaluating instructors in a variety of fields. These resources can be used by districts and states to help develop a system that compensates educators in the absence of value-added assessment. For more information on NBPTS, see the NBPTS case study page.


    [back to top]

    • The Handbook for Enhancing Professional Practice: Using the Framework for Teaching in Your School
      (Charlotte Danielson, ASCD, 2008)
      The Handbook for Enhancing Professional Practice describes the framework for teaching, which provides 22 components of successful teaching practice and includes specific rubrics for many of the specialist disciplines. This handbook offers practitioners the tools they need to successfully apply the framework in different contexts - teacher preparation, teacher recruitment and hiring, teacher mentoring and peer coaching, self-directed professional inquiry, professional development, and teacher evaluation. The ready-to-use instruments, protocols, and recommendations provided in this handbook were developed based on the collective insight of practitioners across the country.
    • Rewarding Teacher Excellence: A teacher compensation handbook for state and local policy makers
      (Allan Odden and Marc Wallace, Consortium for Policy Research in Education, 2007)
      Allan Odden and Marc Wallace created this teacher compensation handbook as a guide for state and local policy makers interested in redesigning teacher compensation structures to ensure quality teachers for all students. This resource addresses many fundamental issues facing any district attempting to implement pay reform, including setting adequate beginning and average teacher pay levels, structuring bonus programs, reinforcing student achievement through base pay progression, measuring teacher performance, and funding teacher pay reform.