Posts
I enjoy reviewing all the misguided merit pay plans that are presented
as THE answer to either improved campus performance and/or teacher motivation. The research is fairly clear; on the
whole, merit pay plans are ineffective for a number of reasons. Mostly due to the fact that far too many school
performance issues are the result of leadership (and leadership failure), and a merit pay system is not
leadership. Meaning that the merit pay plan is attempting to address a symptom
of the problem, not the problem.
That being said, for those who want to use performance-based salary augmentation to
address school performance issues may find the following useful.
First, recognize that working at a significantly more
at-risk campus within a district should mean more money for the instructional
personnel of the campus in question, either in base salary or as a stipend. For everyone who says that
this is not “fair,” try this experiment.
Give every staff member at the non at-risk campuses the opportunity to
transfer to the targeted at-risk campuses, no questions asked. When next to no one takes you up on the
offer you will have proof positive that regardless what their lips are saying,
by their actions your staff admit that the jobs at non at-risk and at-risk
campuses are not equal. And
providing the same pay for unequal work is patently unfair.
Second, reward team performance over individual
performance. This is where
leadership has to look at the big picture and admit to what they really want to pay
for and let the whiners just whine.
Here’s what I mean. 99% of
the merit pay programs pay for individual performance out of one pool of
money. The more people who meet
the given performance standard, the less money per person. The fewer people who meet the standard,
the more money per person. And this is how your ambitious and/or smart people can easily game the system (and they will).
Under the system I just described, if I figure out a way to ensure that my students perform at a higher level, the most illogical thing I could do is share that knowledge with any of my co-workers. To do so would take real dollars out of my pocket. Hundreds to thousands of dollars. The merit pay “reform” has now created a very real structural roadblock to increasing staff capacity and decreasing staff isolation. When you pit self-interest over community interest, self-interest always wins (even with educators). If you choose not to believe this fundamental truth of human nature, re-read Hamilton, Madison and Jay. Over and over I observe lots of bright people make this very predictable mistake.
Under the system I just described, if I figure out a way to ensure that my students perform at a higher level, the most illogical thing I could do is share that knowledge with any of my co-workers. To do so would take real dollars out of my pocket. Hundreds to thousands of dollars. The merit pay “reform” has now created a very real structural roadblock to increasing staff capacity and decreasing staff isolation. When you pit self-interest over community interest, self-interest always wins (even with educators). If you choose not to believe this fundamental truth of human nature, re-read Hamilton, Madison and Jay. Over and over I observe lots of bright people make this very predictable mistake.
So what’s the answer? Team based incentives. If the team is successful, the team
shares in the reward. If
the team isn’t successful, no one gets the reward. In this system, the district is actually aligning self-interest
and community interest and here is how this is done. If I figure out a way to
ensure that my students perform at a higher level, the most illogical thing I
could do is to not share that knowledge with all of my co-workers. To not do so would take real dollars
out of my pocket, because if the team doesn’t perform, I get nothing
extra. We want to reward
innovation that is scalable. Proof
of scalability is if my co-workers can replicate my success.
Now I understand that some employees on a campus have a
more direct role in the overall success of the campus than others. But remember, a staff is a team and
every person on a team has some impact on the overall success or failure of the
team. An equitable way to solve this
problem is to assign shares to team members based on the expected
contribution of their overall role.
Here is an example:
Total Campus Performance Bonus Pool: $25,000
Staff Role
|
Share
|
Number of Staff
in Role
|
Total Shares
|
Individual
Performance Bonus Payout
|
Teacher – State Tested Course; Tested Grade
|
1 share
|
20
|
20
|
$574.71
|
Teacher – State Tested Course; Non-tested Grade
|
.75 share
|
15
|
11.25
|
$431.03
|
Teacher – Non-tested course
|
.5 share
|
12
|
6
|
$287.36
|
Instructional Aide
|
.25 share
|
4
|
1
|
$143.68
|
Principal
|
.75 share
|
1
|
.75
|
431.03
|
Assistant Principal / Dean / Instructional Coach
|
.5 share
|
3
|
1.5
|
$287.26
|
All other professional support staff
|
.4 share
|
3
|
1.2
|
$229.88
|
Non-professional office, custodial and cafeteria staff
|
.15 share
|
12
|
1.8
|
$86.21
|
Totals
|
70
|
43.5
|
$25,000.00
|
The math is simple, if the campus meets its overall
performance goal, everyone receives his or her share of the performance bonus.
If the campus misses its overall performance goal, no one receives a
performance bonus. Think of it
this way, the worst player on the winning team still won. And the best player on the losing team
still lost. Running a good school
is a team sport.
The last thing for leadership to consider is the setting of campus performance goals. Just note that
in most cases THE GOALS FOR CAMPUSES WILL NOT BE THE SAME. Campuses serve different client bases,
hence the need for different performance goals.
Whereas the campus that serves a large population of poor, recent
immigrant students may have the goal of meeting state standards, the goal of
the semi-selective STEM magnet campus may very well
focus on increasing the number of Commended performing students. Always keep in mind the one fact that
eludes most pro-accountability advocates; the most unfair system is the system
that treats the at-risk and the advantaged the same.
Think. Work. Achieve.
Your turn...
- Call Jo at (832) 477-LEAD to order your campus set of “The Fundamental 5: The Formula for Quality Instruction.” Individual copies available on Amazon.com! http://tinyurl.com/Fundamental5
- Call Jo at (832) 477-LEAD to order your campus set of “Look at Me: A Cautionary School Leadership Tale” Individual copies available on Amazon.com! http://tinyurl.com/lookatmebook
- Now at the Apple App Store: Fun 5 Plans (Fundamental 5 Lesson Plan Tool); PW Lite (Basic PowerWalks Tool); PW Pro (Mid-level PowerWalks Tool)
- Upcoming Presentations: TASSP Summer Conference (Multiple Presentations); Texas
ASCD Summer Conference; ESC 14 Sumer Conference (Keynote Presentation); ESC 11
Summer Conference (Keynote Presentation); NEASP National Conference; The
Fundamental 5 National Summit (Keynote Presentation)
- Follow Sean Cain and LYS on www.Twitter.com/LYSNation and like Lead Your School on Facebook
No comments:
Post a Comment