This is the second part of an article in a two-part series evaluating Denver's Professional Compensation System for Teachers (ProComp) in light of Gallup's workplace measurement and management philosophies. The first part outlined the four areas of compensation criteria -- knowledge and skills, professional evaluation, market incentives, and student growth -- and discussed the first area: knowledge and skills. The second part addresses professional evaluation, market incentives, and student growth.
Professional Evaluation
ProComp's second area revises the typical system by which teachers' classroom performance is evaluated (usually by their principals). Under ProComp, teachers who receive "satisfactory" evaluations will receive salary increases, while teachers receiving "distinguished evaluations" will receive larger increases. "Unsatisfactory" ratings will bar teachers from receiving increases until the next year's evaluation. While the details are currently unknown, ProComp will aim to base teachers' evaluations on established research on teacher performance, effectively holding teachers accountable for their teaching practices.
Progress:ProComp introduces the prospect of changing the status quo. Most teacher appraisal systems today are innocuous exercises that do little to improve teaching performance. Many systems have degenerated to three-point scales consisting of "exceeds district standards," "meets district standards," or "does not meet district standards," and nearly everyone "meets district standards." In many cases, teachers with unsatisfactory evaluations may still receive salary increases based on seniority.
ProComp's initiative has the potential to be a significant step forward in making teacher evaluation a meaningful part of instruction, rather than an empty routine.
Challenges: Success depends on measuring teacher practices that actually impact performance. The devil is in the details, and thus far the details remain unknown. With salaries on the line, the task of developing a meaningful performance evaluation plan may prove to be difficult. Throughout the development and implementation of the evaluation process, representatives must keep at the forefront of their minds the ultimate goal: improving student learning.
Market Incentives
This area grants bonuses for teachers in difficult-to-fill positions, as well as for teachers in schools labeled "hard to serve." Distinguished teachers in these positions, identified through evaluations, receive larger bonuses.
Progress: The 2003 Phi Delta Kappa/Gallup Poll of the Public's Attitudes Toward the Public Schools indicates that nearly two-thirds of Americans support the concept of providing higher salaries for teachers who move to schools that are "in need of improvement." All too often, the newest and least experienced teachers find themselves in the most difficult schools. Providing additional salary to attract experienced teachers to these schools simply makes sense.
Challenges: Giving more money to teachers who agree to work in more challenging environments should not be a substitute for improving those environments. As important as financial incentives may be, the working conditions established by principals, jointly with teachers, will be the deciding factor in whether those teachers are happy. Gallup workplace research shows that no incentive can compensate for a non-stimulating, negative working environment.
The engagement of teachers -- and by extension, the engagement of students -- comes from the presence of mission, vision, teamwork, and recognition for good work. Difficult schools must become great places to work, and Denver could benefit from taking a close look at the principals in those struggling schools.
Student Growth
The provisions generating the most media attention are those regarding teacher incentives for student achievement.
Progress: The plan takes a significant step forward by introducing student growth as a compensation determinant. Teachers receive salary increases and/or bonuses if their students achieve various annual growth objectives or surpass expected performance levels on standardized tests.
One particularly commendable aspect of ProComp's approach is that it provides opportunities for teachers, both individually and as a group, to receive higher pay based on exceptional learning by individual students. The plan stresses the growth of each student, wherever that student may be on the learning spectrum, rather than requiring all students to reach one particular level. This system recognizes the reality that students are at different places at different times.
Challenges:ProComp's nod toward student outcomes feels like only a "toe in the water," given that student learning is the truly meaningful criteria around which most teacher compensation -- not just a small portion -- should be centered. The hesitation is understandable given that this is the most explosive area of the new plan. But many education critics will be disappointed when they read beyond Denver's "merit pay" headlines.
Bottom Line
The Denver plan still focuses too much on what teachers do, rather than on student outcomes. There is still plenty of room for teachers to shift the accountability for progress to students: "I taught it; the students just didn't learn it."
However, ProComp deserves the votes of Denver citizens. If approved, the plan will be ahead of several other attempts to reform teacher compensation -- major revisions to Cincinnati's pay plan were abandoned, and Iowa's initiative to increase teachers' salaries is in limbo because of lack of funding. Denver has started toward a new approach to teacher compensation, and should be commended for it. Now it is up to the city's educators to build on the progress it represents.