Case Studies: Overview | Partial Inclusion | Group Awards | Full Inclusion
Many districts and states include educators outside of tested subjects in performance pay plans through group awards. Sometimes these awards are offered as incentives for grade level groups or entire school communities. In the case of the latter, it is possible that all teachers in the school receive the same bonus regardless of their contribution, while in other cases, awards are allocated based on faculty input. Advocates of group awards often argue that these forms of awards foster collaboration, rather than promote competition.
These group awards can take a number of different forms:
- School-wide awards. Teachers in non-tested subjects would be eligible for awards based on student growth at the school level.
- Department or grade level awards. Teachers in non-tested subjects would be eligible for awards based on the performance of a particular department or grade level. In this case, specialists could be given the opportunity to link themselves with a particular grade level or department.
Examples of programs adopting these approaches are highlighted below.
Texas Educator Excellence Grant. TEEG rewards teachers in economically disadvantaged, high-performing, or high-improving schools and is inclusive of all grades and teachers. Campuses become eligible for grant funds each year as new data is reported and are responsible for developing their TEEG incentive proposal plans. Though campuses can develop their own award plan regarding which teachers are eligible for the awards, 75 percent of the grant must be dedicated to teacher awards and 25 percent to teacher quality improvement measures, such as recruitment and professional development. Many districts in Texas have opted to include teachers in non-tested subjects in the program through school-based group awards.
Teacher Advancement Program (TAP). TAP requires that all teachers in TAP schools be eligible for performance bonuses based on their classroom evaluations and class-wide and school-wide value-added results. Where individual classroom value-added results are not available - that is, for teachers in non-tested subjects or grade levels - the following breakdown is used: 50% on the average of multiple teacher evaluations based on the standards and 50% on school-wide value-added scores. For more information on TAP, see the TAP case study page.
Alaska School Performance Incentive Program (AKSPIP). The Alaska School Performance Incentive Program (PIP) was authorized in 2006 to serve as an incentive for all employees in a school to create a learning environment in which student achievement substantially increases. The program provides an incentive payment to employees of schools where the students have demonstrated growth in academic achievement. The law allows an incentive payment for up to 850 certificated staff as well as all non-certificated staff employed in schools whose certificated staff receives payments. Some personnel in a school district's central office may also receive payments. Read more about Alaska's program.
Orange County School District, Florida. Since 2006, Florida has attempted to implement several performance based pay plans. Each of these plans has required that part of the awards be based on student learning gains, and districts across the state have struggled with how to assess teachers outside of tested subjects. The Orange County School District attempted to create assessments to gauge growth in all subject areas but found this process to be a very difficult endeavor. Currently, the district 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 that 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. Read more about the evolution of performance pay in Florida.
Back to Compensating Educators in the Absence of Value-Added Assessment page