Improving Pay for Deserving Teachers

Placing almost exclusive emphasis upon test-score improvement as a basis
for rewarding teachers is patently unfair and, when coupled with inadequate
performance-appraisal systems, drives teachers toward unethical behavior or
departure to other pursuits.

A primary reason the public has not been more supportive of higher funding
for education has been the poor relationship between better funding and
higher educational quality as revealed by a number of studies.

Use of an appraisal system based upon the following guidelines should go a
long way toward turning things around.

Those associated with schools, need to fairly identify true "stars" and
"inadequate performers" as one of the bases for:

justifying good pay for outstanding teachers,

providing for self-guidance on the part of newcomers and present staff,

and providing an important basis for terminating those who cannot, or will
not, measure up.

Research findings show that evaluators achieve much better agreement about
who are Stars and Inadequate Performers than they do about who are Average,
Above-Average, and Below-Average performers. Yet, placing individuals in
the middle-three categories is a time-consuming, often arbitrary, and
resentment-causing activity that most evaluators dislike having to do.
Also, clearly, an average performer in a superior organization deserves
much more recognition than an average performer in an inferior one. No
wonder that many teachers and their unions oppose conventional merit-rating
systems!

To avoid a popularity contest, assure greater fairness, and provide for
constructive self-guidance, there should be behavioral documentation for
both Star and Inadequate Performer nominations via the Critical Incident
Technique.
To lay the groundwork for this, students, parents, veteran administrators,
and experienced teachers should be polled at to what specific, observable
behaviors they associate with outstanding and inadequate performance for
each important aspect of a teacher's job.

Then, required behavioral documentation for Star and Inadequate-Performer
nominations from fellow teachers, adminstrators, students, and parents
should be based upon the most agreed-upon behaviors, and the agreed-to
relative weights that should be assigned to these.

The results of this analysis can also constructively guide the initial
training and subsequent selection of teachers, as well as, provide a
much-needed, qualifying context for the currently over-stressed evaluation
factor of test-score-improvement.

This approach also sets the stage for more productive review sessions
between the rater and ratee. Since the ratee has a sound basis for
self-rating, the session should start with the rater asking "How do you
rate yourself for this past period through the presentation of relevant,
supporting behaviors?" No rater can be all-knowing, so if behaviors are
mentioned that she or he is not aware of, the rater can postpone giving his
or her evaluation to provide time to check out the validity of the
assertions, if this seems necessary.

A sound behavioral basis for rating also facilitates the use of
motivational goal setting during the review session. For example, if the
ratee wants to be a Star, what specific behavioral goals does she or he
plan to adopt by such and such a time? If stardom is not the goal, which
specific, Inadequate Performer behaviors will he or she need to avoid?
This approach permits a rater to be more of a counselor and coach, than
one who appears to sit in arbitrary judgment.

For discussion of relevant research and related citations, see: "Improving
Performance Appraisal Systems" by William M. Fox, NATIONAL PRODUCTIVITY
REVIEW, Winter 1987-88, pages 20-27.