Pay for Performance, Your Schools and Unions….

Jessica Lee recently riffed about pay-for performance efforts in the Washington DC schools, outlining  how the buzz of change has become louder and louder in the past year under the leadership of the new chancellor, Michelle Rhee.

If you didn’t read the article by JLee, check it out here.  It’s a hopeful account of how hard talent leadership in the public school systems may bring about real change. 

Unfortunately, school systems in America have a mix of elements that make them almost impossible to turnaround – 1) a lack of experience with pay-for-performance or even true merit pay, 2) a base of workers (teachers) who aren’t exactly risk takers, and 3) unions.

Not a match made in heaven.  For every hopeful article like JLee’s, there’s an account of a turnaround gone bad.  Such is the case in Denver, as reported by the the Wall Street Journal:

"The Denver Public Schools’ pay-for-performance plan to motivate teachers was hailed as a model for the rest of the country when it took effect three years ago. It now stands on the verge of collapse after months of contract negotiations have stalemated.

Some teachers have staged sick-outs; others plan to welcome families back to school this week by handing out fliers denouncing the district’s contract offer. There is even talk of a strike.

The district is offering large increases in incentive pay. But the biggest rewards will go to early- and midcareer teachers — and to those willing to take risks by working in impoverished schools or taking jobs few others want, such as teaching middle-school math. Yearly bonuses for such work would nearly triple, to about $3,000.

The union is all for boosting bonuses but also wants an across-the-board pay increase. Most crucially, union leadership objects to proposed changes that would hold down the salaries of veteran teachers to free more money for novices."

Full disclosure – I haven’t read more than the Wall Street Journal article, and readers of this spot and the HR Capitalist know where I’m at regarding unions. 

Still, all I have to do is look at the chart displayed below that outlines the pay-for-performance  opportunities in the Denver school system, and it’s clear that they don’t have enough skin in the game to make a conservative group of teachers embrace merit and pay-for-performance.

Here’s why.  After earning a graduate degree, the remaining award amounts represent between 2-3% of the teacher’s salary.  Not enough for teachers to give up the across the board increase that’s long been the domain of the union.  Additionally, there’s little to be had for teachers who don’t want to change schools, or don’t have a focus in math or science.

With that in mind, of course, the teacher’s group as a whole doesn’t see value in the change.  If you’re going to call a new era of pay-for-performance, you have to provide true opportunity for everyone to bring their "A game" and get the rewards.  This plan doesn’t do that.  As a result of the poor design, the union remains strong because there’s no real value to cause change. 

Contrast that plan with the DC plan, where a two-tiered system would allow confident teachers to "opt in", and potentially earn bonuses of reportedly up to 20K per year (over 50% of the base if you use the Denver numbers above), with raises based on student test scores and other evaluation measures, regardless of degrees. Tier two would require teachers to give up their seniority rights and tenure, however, and enter into an initial probation period.

Contrasting the DC plan with Denver’s provides a nice case study on change and pay for performance.  Which one do you think has a better chance of improving the schools?  The answer is obvious…