Utah State Board of Education
Differentiated Compensation Work Group

 

Meeting Summary

 

Date of Meeting

May 12, 2008

Presentations:

Debra Roberts:               Purpose and Expectations

Larry Shumway:            Conceptual Framework

Robert M. Stonehill:      Differentiated Pay Current Landscape

Next Meeting:

June 9, 2008

Summarized by:

Mark Peterson (mark.peterson@schools.utah.gov)

 

In Attendance:

 

Name                                                              Representing

 

Work Group

 

Debra G. Roberts, Co-chair                             Utah State Board of Education

Larry Shumway, Co-chair                                 Utah State Office of Education

Dixie Allen                                                        Utah State Board of Education

Diana Bevan                                                     Parents/PTA

Mark Cluff                                                       Utah State Board of Education

James Johnson                                                  Iron County School District

The Hon. Bradley G. Last                                 Utah Legislature

Dave McNaughtan (for Hilary Hays)                 Park City High School

Sarah R. Meier                                     Granite School District Board of Education

Denis Morrill                                                    Utah State Board of Education

Soulee L.K.O. Stroud                                      Coalition of Minorities Advisory Committee

Richard R. Tranter                                            Murray School District

Courtney White (for Kim Campbell)                 Utah Education Association

 

Guests

 

Connie Steffan                                      Office of Legislative Research & General Counsel

Robert M. Stonehill                                          Learning Points Associates

Lisa Stricker                                                     Salt Lake Tribune

 

Staff

 

Sydnee Dickson                                               Utah State Office of Education

Todd Hauber                                                    Utah State Office of Education

Mark Peterson                                                 Utah State Office of Education

Mel Robinson                                                   Utah State Office of Education

LesLee Snelson                                                Utah State Office of Education

Presentation: Debra G. Roberts: Purpose and Expectations:

 

Co-chair Debra G. Roberts of Beaver, Utah State Board of Education District 15 (Southwestern Utah) Representative, told Working Group members that the State Board was not asking the question of whether a differentiated pay plan for Utah public school teachers should be initiated, but rather the question was how it should be implemented.

 

The group is currently scheduled to have 10 meetings – roughly monthly through November – and should have a recommendation shortly after those meetings to present to the Utah State Board of Education, who will, in turn, prepare a Board Rule governing differentiated pay in Utah. Funding would then have to be sought from the Utah Legislature to pay for the program.

 

Roberts stressed that membership in the committee was sought from a broad background in education and that committee business would be conducted openly and transparently.

 

View Roberts' presentation:

 

 

 

Presentation:        Larry Shumway:   Conceptual Framework:

 

Co-chair Larry Shumway, Deputy State Superintendent of Public Instruction, noted there were any number of hurdles to setting up a policy that measures teacher performance. He broke the experience down into three major classifications:

 

·        Pre-instructional factors such as textbooks, classroom materials, class size, core curriculum, etc.

·        Instructional quality, i.e., what the teacher specifically contributes.

·        Student learning and all of the incumbent potential problems in measuring this quality including measuring learning in classrooms that fall outside of the core curriculum.

 

Shumway suggested placing a greater focus on instructional quality as a way to leap some of the hurdles in determining how to differentiate teacher pay.

 

View Shumway's presentation:

 

 

 

 

Presentation:        Robert M. Stonehill:       Current Landscape

 

Robert M. Stonehill, Chief Program Officer of Learning Points Associates, reported that earlier versions differentiated pay, often called merit pay, failed for one or more reasons:

 

  • They were subjective and school administrator-driven.
  • There was huge competition for small rewards.
  • The programs were poorly designed and/or underfunded.

 

The goals of a successful differentiated pay program may encompass any of the following:

 

  • Rewarding teachers for learning outcomes
  • Creating incentives to attract teachers
  • Equalizing teacher pay with that of other similar professions
  • Countering a long-term decline in teacher pay

 

Incentives used in differentiated pay include:

 

  • Student loan forgiveness
  • Tuition reimbursements
  • Housing assistance
  • Bonuses
  • Higher base salaries

 

Types of differentiated pay include:

 

  • Performance-based pay tied to teacher knowledge/skill and/or classroom performance
  • Market pay for hard-to-staff schools
  • Additional incentives, bonuses
  • Some sort of combined plan that include weightings for different features

 

Key lessons from past experiences:

 

  • Teacher buy-in is essential
  • The system must have consistency and transparency
  • You must identify and communicate options and allow for opt-outs
  • Differentiated pay cannot be a stand-alone; it must be combined with leadership reforms
  • Long-term funding must be secured
  • Research is unclear on what constitutes an optimal bonus
  • Teacher evaluations must be fair and transparent
  • A variety of strategies is better than a single strategy (e.g., student outcomes, performance, differentiated teacher responsibilities)
  • The program must be periodically evaluated

 

Key concerns going forward:

 

  • There is little research-based data on the demands of such systems
  • The fairness and validity of performance evaluations will always be a concern
  • Teachers should be viewed as independent of their school
  • Test scores should not be the only measure

View Stonehill's presentation: