• Why Join
• Join Now
• About DCFT
• Rapping Papers
• Upcoming Events
• DCFT Contract
• ER&D
• Scholarships
• Educational Loans
• Performance Pay
• Infinite Campus
• Teacher Resources
• Have an Issue?

For Teachers

Performance Pay

Summary

Introduction

In a suburb of Denver in 1993, the Douglas County Federation of Teachers and Douglas County School District Re. 1 set out on an ambitious project to redesign their traditional teacher compensation system with a pay plan that was more closely linked to teacher performance. Douglas County's performance pay plan is already in its seventh year of implementation. It is recognized as one of the most comprehensive plans of its type in the country and moving to link teacher performance to student growth on academic standards.

Forces Behind the Initial Move to Develop Performance Pay

The Douglas County performance pay plan is the product of a multi-year process that began with informal discussions between the Douglas County Federation of Teachers (DCFT) and members of Douglas County's Board of Education in 1991. As those talks developed, events in the state and county added momentum to the process. In the 1992 general election, the voters in Colorado, echoing the national dissatisfaction with government and public education, approved a tax limiting amendment to the Colorado Constitution and voted down an initiative that would have generated revenue for schools through a statewide sales tax. At the same time, Douglas County voters defeated a bond election by the slim margin of thirty-six votes. Making matters worse, two months later the state legislature announced a rescission in its financial support to public schools that necessitated a cut in the Douglas County Schools' operating budget of more than $4 million, a cut of almost 5% at the time.

In January of 1993, the DCFT and Douglas County Schools began contract negotiations for the coming school year. Despite the fact that the relationship existing between the two parties was, and continues to be, a very positive one, the prevailing conditions made the negotiations extremely difficult. Moreover, issues were brought to the table by both parties that were only resolved after a marathon mediation session.

The final contract settlement for 1993-1994, among other things, committed both parties to a cooperative effort to redesign the general teacher compensation plan, provide bonus incentives for responsibilities that traditionally were not compensated, and reward teachers who participated in group incentive plans that directly impact student performance. This agreement, ratified by more than 80 percent of the teachers who voted, became the starting point for a process of developing and implementing a comprehensive performance pay plan for teachers.

The Performance Pay Development Process and Committee Structure

In July of 1993, the Teacher Compensation Committee began to hold regular meetings. The committee was composed of thirty members; twenty teachers appointed by the DCFT, with representation for the elementary, middle and high school levels and reflective of both union members and nonmembers as well. The ten district appointees included five members of the central administration and five individuals from the community at large. Over the next nine months, this group of individuals devoted more than 6000 hours to the development of the Douglas County teacher performance pay plan. The work of the committee was made easier through the utilization of two third-party facilitators who acted to guide the committee members through their agreed upon agendas, monitor and moderate discussion of relevant issues during meetings, and act to keep records of decisions and plan agendas for future meetings.

Teacher Compensation Committee Meetings

While the task of the committee was a difficult one, the structure of the committee meetings helped tremendously to breakdown barriers that typically exist within such a diverse group. The committee met once a week from five until nine in the evening. Each meeting began with a simple dinner during which members were able to discuss issues and forge working relationships with other members. While casual conversations over a meal may not seem like a critical piece in the development of an alternative pay plan for teachers, the sharing of this common experience had a decidedly positive impact on the personal relationships that developed between committee members. This is not to say that many, if not almost all, of the meetings were devoid of frank discussion and pointed debate. Indeed, they were. However, the debate remained focused on the issues and the overall goals of the committee, not on personalities or narrow agendas. After dinner, the work of the committee moved into a general business format. Minutes from previous meetings were reviewed and approved, the agenda for that night's meeting was reviewed and set, and the first of several issues was brought up for discussion and action.

Important Aspects of the Committee Process

Several factors were critical in the success of the development of the overall plan. First, every member of the committee had the opportunity to completely air his or her views on every aspect of the plan. From the outset of the process to its conclusion, there was not a meeting wherein difficult issues were not discussed almost to the point of exhaustion. While to an outside observer the discussions might have appeared circular, convoluted, and repetitive, as at times they were, it was necessary to allow them to flow freely so that when they were finally concluded, no point of view had been left unexpressed. Thoroughly talking through difficult issues allowed the committee to make decisions based on consensus, the second critical factor

Of equal importance was the group's commitment to focus on the theory behind the compensation system rather than focus on more practical issues and obstacles to the plan that would impede design and discussion. In particular, this meant that as the plan was being developed the committee did not get bogged down in discussions about money and allocations of funds. These details, though tremendously important to the overall success of the plan, were left to negotiations between the DCFT and the District after the overall framework of the plan had been completed.

At no time during the nine months that the committee met were decisions made by majority vote. There were times when straw polls were used to gauge the relative strength or weakness of a given proposal, but final decisions were made by consensus. This meant that there were frequent compromises and occasions when decisions were deferred to allow for the gathering of more information or the rethinking of important points. Though discussions and consensus building took time, the reward was in the development of a final draft of the plan that all thirty members of the committee could sign-off on and support unequivocally.

Another important aspect in the design process was the use of subgroups to hash out details of particular components of the plan. The subgroups were responsible for conducting research on particular issues, developing recommendations for action, and then reporting back to the larger committee. Over time these subgroups evolved into the boards that currently oversee and direct the implementation and operations of individual components of the performance pay plan and continue to make recommendations for its improvement.

Fundamental Considerations in the Development Process

When the performance pay committee began its work, it set out on a course to develop a plan unique to the needs of Douglas County Schools and the teachers who work there. At the first meeting in July of 1993, the committee established a set of objectives to guide the development of the plan. The original philosophy behind the development of the performance pay plan had five objectives:

1. Help achieve the district's mission and core values
2. Attract, retain, and motivate the highest qualified teachers
3. Provide a high degree of predictability and stability
4. Reward professional growth, development, and acquisition of new skills
5. Assure ongoing teacher participation in the implementation and evaluation of the plan.

In 1999, the School Board adopted a new, comprehensive strategic plan that required the performance pay objectives to be modified and include an over-arching goal of aligning teacher compensation and evaluation with the District's new strategic directions.

An Overview of the Douglas County Performance Pay Plan

The Douglas County performance pay plan for teachers can be considered as a plan with two major parts. The first part is comprised of the basic salary structure for all teachers in the district. The second, and completely distinct from the first, is a series of bonus incentive components that teachers may participate in voluntarily. Teachers who choose to participate in one or all of the incentive components can augment their salary, but under no circumstances do they risk losing base salary.

Base Salary Determination

The first part establishes a teacher's base salary by using a compound interest formula that factors in both a teacher's number of successful evaluation credits (what in a salary schedule is termed a longevity step) and the level of education a teacher has attained. Each factor represents a percentage value of the base salary. Multiplying these two factors against the base determines the actual salary a teacher receives.

While this might appear to be a salary schedule by another name, unlike a conventional single-cell schedule, under the performance pay plan a teacher does not automatically receive an increase based on length of service. Teachers must receive a satisfactory evaluation of their performance to be eligible for such an increase. Thus, the base salary distinguishes between "proficient" and "unsatisfactory" teacher performance. Teachers who receive an unsatisfactory rating are not eligible to receive an evaluation credit, a negotiated cost-of-living adjustment, for the coming year. In essence, their salary is frozen for one year. Moreover, unsatisfactory performance ratings also preclude the teacher's participation in any of the bonus incentive components of the plan

Bonus Incentive Components

The second part of the Douglas County performance pay plan is composed of a series of incentive bonus components. All of these components, there are six, are designed to encourage and reward aspects of teacher performance that were not traditionally rewarded under the single-cell salary schedule or an additional activities schedule. Bonus incentive awards are completely separate from a teacher's base salary and are made as one-time payments, though eligible teachers may participate each year.

Group Incentive Program

The first bonus incentive component of the pay plan is the group incentive program. This component is designed to encourage cooperative efforts within schools, or groups of teachers, to work on common goals that directly impact student performance. Plans are developed within schools by planning committees that work with the school's entire staff. Teachers draft a plan, collect signatures of support from other faculty members, the building administrator and the building Accountability Committee. All of this is done prior to submitting the school's proposal to the Group Incentive Board (GIB), the governing body of the Group Incentive Plan component. This body reviews the proposed plan, can recommend revisions, and grants final approval for the school to move ahead. At the end of the school year, a participating group compiles a final report detailing the execution of the plan and evidence of the impact on students. Additionally, reflections of the overall plan and recommendations for the future are submitted it to GIB. The GIB then makes the determination whether the plan's goals were met and a bonus should be awarded.

In 2000, the GIB has focused on aligning a school's improvement plan with its group incentive proposals. The current thinking is that schools who that able to enlist 75 percent of their teachers to participate in the group incentive plan would also be able to use it as their school improvement plan.

Outstanding Teacher

An another bonus incentive component, and perhaps most controversial, is the Outstanding Teacher Program. This component of the plan rewards teachers who have demonstrated individual outstanding performance. The Outstanding Teacher programs are currently a bonus of $1250. Today, teachers in Douglas County can take advantage of four different outstanding programs. The reason Douglas County has four different programs is due to the fact that teachers who were successful on Type A a number of times asked for more and challenging ways to demonstrate their performance.

Type A, the original outstanding teacher program, uses criterion established by the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards and modified by the Outstanding Teacher Committee. To receive the bonus, teachers notify their building administrator of their intent to participate, collect six artifacts during the school year supporting their outstanding performance, compile a portfolio that includes relevant career and teaching assignment information. Teachers must also include their educational philosophy and information generated by peer and client (parents/student) surveys. The portfolio is submitted to the building administrator at the beginning of May who then reviews the documentation and makes the decision whether or not to award the teacher the designation of "Outstanding Teacher" and the $1250 bonus.

Type B is a portfolio based on standards-based education. Teachers compile a "body of evidence" showing their efforts in using Douglas County's "configuration map" to develop a standards-based classroom. The configuration map is a rubric that defines standards-based educational practices on a variety of domains. Teachers "measure" themselves against the rubric and submit their portfolios.

Type C is for teachers who are pursuing National Board Certification. To limit the amount of paperwork, teachers can submit a copy of their National Board portfolio with some minor modification.

New for the year 2000, Type D is based purely on actions resulting in student growth. Teachers submit proposals directly related to student growth and measure their success. Teachers will receive the designation based on their ability to demonstrate "outstanding" student growth within their unique assignment.

An appeals process was also developed for teachers who are denied the designation of "Outstanding Teacher." The appeals board is composed of nine members, five teachers appointed by the DCFT and four administrators appointed by the district, and has the authority to review the appeal and recommend to the superintendent of schools that the decision by the building administrator be upheld or overturned. The final decision rests with the superintendent

Skills Blocks

The performance pay plan also includes a "Skill Block" component designed to provide incentives for teachers to obtain skills identified by the district as central to fulfillment of its mission. Skill blocks are offered at after-school sessions and carry graduated values ranging from $250 to $500. To receive the skill block bonus teachers must not only attend training sessions but must also demonstrate mastery of the skill through an authentic assessment administered at the conclusion of the training program. In other words, the teacher must integrate the skill with his or her daily instruction.

Douglas County currently offers nine skill blocks for teachers and is developing two more. Over time, skill blocks will be phased out and others added.

Master Teacher

One bonus incentive component that was incorporated into the plan but was not available until the 2000 school year is "Master Teacher." This component was intended to address the Colorado Master Teacher License as mandated by the 1991 Educator Licensing Act. However, those requirements are still not available and the decision was made to develop criteria unique to Douglas County. A master teacher must show outstanding student growth similar to Type D outstanding teacher and possess a National Board Certification or two years of "outstanding teacher." Additionally, applicants must show leadership in their teaching field. Once a teacher receives the master teacher designation, he or she will be eligible to assume a variety mentoring roles within Douglas County. The Master Teacher award is for five years and is currently worth $2,500 each year.

Responsibility Pay

The final bonus incentive component addresses the issue of additional responsibilities undertaken by teachers for which they historically have received no additional compensation. Responsibility pay is broken into to divisions: district and site based responsibility pay.

District Responsibility Pay

District responsibility, funded at a level of approximately $25 per teacher FTE per year, is awarded to teachers who take on responsibilities at the district level. This includes such things as membership on the district's Teacher Evaluation Committee and the Twenty-first Century Partnership, a committee that considers and approves waivers to board policy and contract provisions. All of the committees that direct and modify the performance pay plan are paid by district responsibility.

Site-based Responsibility Pay

Site based responsibility pay, based on a per student formula, is distributed at the individual school level to teachers based on criteria and in award amounts determined by the school staff. Teachers in every building either elect representatives or use the entire staff to decide what responsibilities will be paid and in what amounts. This program is entirely site-based and there is very little guidance from Central Office or the DCFT. Schools make their decisions and submit pay vouchers to the payroll department.

Performance Pay Plan Implementation 1994-2000

The Douglas County teacher performance pay plan is currently in the seventh year of what is expected to be an ongoing implementation period. While tremendous time and energy were put into the initial development, the work to maintain and modify the plan has demanded an equal amount of effort. A "Performance Pay Improvement Committee" (PPIC) that consists of twelve members directs overall implementation. Members of the team include teachers, administrators and community members. The PPIC oversees all aspects of implementation including monitoring overall operation of the plan, approving any proposed modifications to any of the plan's components and regular communication about the plan with the teachers, community, and other interested parties.

In addition there are committees established to oversee the operation of many of the plans components. In particular, the Outstanding Teacher Committee and Group Incentive Board have been essential in making sure that those components run efficiently. Information about the updates and decisions are communicated to teachers and schools in an effective and timely manner. Any decisions that require major modifications in the components are developed and then passed onto the PPIC for consideration.

On the whole, seven years into implementation, the Douglas County performance pay plan appears to be working very well. Participation in each of the past six years in all of the plan's bonus incentive components has been high. Furthermore, studies conducted by a number of outside researchers found a high level of awareness and confidence in the plan as a whole and its various component parts. Moreover, if the study's findings about the plan were not enough, the fact that the last five contracts have included the performance pay plan have passed by margins of greater than 95 percent of the teachers. This is a clear indication of the level of support this plan currently enjoys among the teachers of Douglas County.

This is not to say that everything has gone perfectly with this plan. In fact, and as mentioned above, the various committees responsible for its implementation have been kept incredibly busy. At times, they have found themselves having to make decisions about the scope and operation of the plan, as well as addressing issues brought to the committees by individual participants or schools, that had not been anticipated. Thus, while the framework of the plan is complete, the details of its operation continue to evolve and are expected to continue to do so for the foreseeable future.

What We Have Learned

It is far too early to determine whether or not Douglas County's performance pay plan for teachers is a complete success. Certainly, the ultimate goal of everything we do in our schools is to improve student achievement. And since the implementation of the pay plan, student achievement in Douglas County has improved on virtually all measures. However, performance pay has not been the only improvement effort instituted during this time. Many other curricular and structural changes were also implemented. Performance pay is only one piece of Douglas County's strategic plan for school improvement and has never been considered a "magic bullet" for school reform.

To understand how a performance pay compensation system influences teachers in their practice, one would have to compare baseline data on teacher practice from before implementation to current practice. Moreover, high stakes assessments that are reflective of student learning and achievement are not directly used in Douglas County's plan. However, these same assessments are used to measure the success of the plan. In order for the needs of every student to be addressed, teacher evaluation must consider the teaching assignment and context and set performance levels accordingly.

Our experience leads us to believe that, in fact, compensation systems can be designed and implemented as alternatives to the traditional single-cell salary schedule that more effectively reward teachers for various aspects of their performance. What is more, the design of these systems need not create competitive environments that discourage teachers from positive interaction, professional collaboration and cooperation, that benefits both teachers and students.

It is very clear to those of us who have worked long and hard on this plan that the process through which the plan is developed is as important as the plan itself. It is a giant factor in the plan's viability and credibility with teachers, administrators, board members, and members of the community. We believe we were able to garner broad-based support for the performance pay plan we developed for several reasons.

First, from the outset we had a clear set of goals that were established at the outset of the project that acted to guide the design process; foremost among them being the mission and vision statements that guide the district's instructional program. Secondly, and of equal importance, we utilized an inclusive, consensus-based process that had a balanced representation of all of the district's constituencies. Through the use of consensus building we were able to move beyond or work around significant challenges and obstacles that could have derailed our efforts. The final decision reached enjoys support that a decision arrived at through a majority vote could never hope to generate. Finally, we believe our process was successful because of the commitment by all participants to look at the issues objectively, setting other agendas aside, and approach them in a manner that allowed for tremendous flexibility within the design process.

Another key to the success of our design process can be found in the fact that we recognized and sought to avoid three false premises that often drive the development of performance based compensation plans for teachers. We were convinced then, as we are now, that you cannot successfully develop a performance pay plan on the basis of punishing teachers. If the primary focus of the pay plan is to create a whipping-post for poor teacher performance, the plan will have little or no teacher support and will have minimal impact on teacher performance; although it will surely have considerable negative impact on teacher morale. In Douglas County, we set out to design a system that would do just the opposite: encourage teachers to aspire to higher levels of performance in their schools and classrooms and reward them for their success.

We also know from experience, though we were confident that this would be the case right from the start, that a district cannot look to performance pay as a means of saving money. A performance pay plan, like the one we designed, will cost more money than the old single-cell salary schedule if for no other reason than it expands the basis on which teachers will be compensated. Beyond that, if the plan is intended to be a money-saver, it can only do so by redistributing existing resources from some teachers to others or by reducing the overall compensation to all teachers. In either case, there is really no correlation between teacher performance and compensation. Nor is there anything to encourage teachers to strive for higher levels of performance so the plan will fail.

Finally, performance pay plans are not a quick fix to the ills that afflict particular school districts or public education as a whole. Developing and implementing a performance pay plan for teachers is not an event--it is a process. To expect that such a plan will right any problems other than those directly related to the issue of compensation creates a false expectation and will assure the plans failure by any and all measures.

Conclusion

The Douglas County performance pay plan is not perfect, but it is unique. It is a plan that reflects the unique circumstances of Douglas County, one of the fastest growing school district in the nation. It blends stable, predictable salaries with a variety of bonus incentive components, and that incorporates some of the latest thinking about teacher compensation. The pay plan is not a "magic bullet" for increasing student performance; it does not link the disparate issues of teacher compensation with student test scores on standardized tests; it does not allow for arbitrary assignment of incentive bonuses or general salary increases. The Douglas County performance pay plan is designed to rethink the way teachers are compensated and to encourage higher levels of teacher performance while avoiding the pitfalls of the old concepts of merit pay.

Have an Issue?