The way teachers are paid has remained virtually unchanged for more than 50 years. The single salary schedule with its steps and columns works because it eliminates favoritism and inequity. Proposed alternatives, such as career ladder, merit pay and pay for performance schemes, fail both in the public and private sector because ultimately they depend on subjective judgment.
The industrial model of paying for productivity on the basis of how many widgets are assembled collapses when applied to teachers who must work in a dynamic, complex and highly unpredictable setting.
Teachers have little control over which students enter their classrooms and, in the context of "test-driven" educational reform, are finding that they have less flexibility over what and how to teach. Seniority-based and education-based pay schemes permit teachers to work with each other and with their students cooperatively, sharing information and providing each other with support.
In spite of its success, the single salary schedule is seen by some as inadequate for today's schools. The lament that step-and-column stifles individual initiative and creativity is now augmented by an assertion that teachers should be paid on the basis of their knowledge and skills, and that National Board certification should be institutionalized.
The proposals for changing teacher pay range from those that will make a slight adjustment in existing arrangements to those that will eliminate step-and-column altogether. Somewhere in the middle are two approaches that are being widely discussed.
The School-Based Performance Award (SBPA) program pays teachers on the basis of what the school as a whole achieves. Teachers in South Carolina and Kentucky receive a bonus if the children in their schools reach state-determined test scores. The bonus ranges from $1,000 to $2,600.
Another proposal establishes a knowledge-and-skills-based pay structure in which "professional benchmarks" define a continuum for teacher pay. Newly licensed teachers are placed at the bottom of the salary scale. Advancement early in a career, even the granting of a full professional license, is based on newly acquired knowledge and skills as measured by a series of assessments. In the middle of a career, salary is determined by peer and/or supervisor review. At the higher levels additional degrees and certification are recognized. Finally, at the highest levels a substantial pay increase would accompany certification by the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards.
The bottom line is teaching today is harder than ever before, yet educators continue to be underpaid. And the public agrees. In essence, most proposals for reform tinker around the edges of a zero-sum wage pool. At best, the net effect of proposals to "change" the single salary schedule is to hold constant or reduce salaries so that some teachers can be paid more. At worst, the proposals impose an arbitrary structure (or career ladder) on the profession, have limited support from research, are extremely divisive and very expensive.
Japan seems always to be held up as an example. Indeed, the test scores are second to none in many subject areas. But Japan also recognizes and values the contribution that teachers make. For example, the average teacher salary is substantially higher than that of the American teacher (2.4 times the per capita income, compared to 1.7). Indeed, the starting salary of a teacher is higher than that of a beginning engineer.
The old saying, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it," applies here. It makes little sense to experiment with alternatives to a practice that works well until salaries reflect the value of the profession.
Justo Robles
Robles is a manager in CTA's Institute for Teaching.
