Concerns about the quality of the teacher workforce and the distribution of teacher quality among schools have led to calls to reform teacher compensation. The authors present the results of the 2006 Washington State Teacher Compensation survey on teachers' attitudes about this issue. By linking survey results to detailed data on school and district characteristics, they analyze how teacher attitudes differ by individual characteristics such as subject area, school assignment, or experience, as well as workplace characteristics such as school performance and the level of trust among teachers and principals. The results suggest teachers' attitudes toward reform are shaped by self-interest as well as by professional norms of collegiality—two factors that can push teachers' attitudes toward compensation reform in opposite directions. For example, teachers with middle and high school assignments in mathematics and science are more supportive of subject-area bonuses; the more trust that exists among teachers, however, the less teachers support merit pay.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BabbieEarl. 2001. The Practice of Social Research (9th ed.). Belmont: Wadsworth.
2.
BacharachSamuel B.LipskyDavid B.SheddJoseph B., 1984. Paying for Better Teaching: Merit Pay and Its Alternatives. Ithaca: Organizational Analysis and Practice, Inc.
3.
BallouDale. 2001. “Pay for Performance in Public and Private Schools.”Economics of Education Review, Vol. 20, No. 1, pp. 51–61.
4.
BallouDalePodgurskyMichael. 1993. “Teachers' Attitudes Toward Merit Pay: Examining Conventional Wisdom.”Industrial and Labor Relations Review, Vol. 47, No. 1, pp. 50–61.
5.
BaughWilliam H.StoneJoe A., 1982. “Mobility and wage equilibration in the education labor market.”Economics of Education Review, Vol. 2, No. 3, pp. 253–74.
6.
BergesonTerryDaybellMartyPriddyJenniferBrodieCalvin W.SteadRon. 2004. Organization and Financing of Washington Public Schools. Olympia: Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction.
7.
BoydDonald J.LankfordHamiltonLoebSusannaWyckoffJames. 2003. “Analyzing the Determinants of the Matching Public School Teachers to Jobs: Estimating Compensating Differentials in Imperfect Labor Markets.” NBER Working Paper No. 9878, December.
8.
BrykAnthony. S.SchneiderBarbara. 2002. Trust in Schools: A Core Resource for Improvement. American Sociological Associations Rose Series in Sociology. New York: Russell Sage Foundation Publications.
9.
BurkeMolly. 2005. Statewide Teacher Salary Schedules. Denver: Education Commission of the States.
10.
ClotfelterCharlesGlennieElizabethLaddHelenVigdorJacob. 2008. “Would Higher Salaries Keep Teachers in High-poverty Schools? Evidence From a Policy Intervention in North Carolina.”Journal of Public Economics, Vol. 92, No. 5–6, pp. 1352–70.
11.
CohenEmilyWalshKateBiddleRiShawn. 2008. “Invisible Ink in Collective Bargaining: Why Key Issues are Not Addressed.”Washington, D.C.: National Council on Teacher Quality.
12.
CummingsRonald G.HarrisonGlenn W.RustromElizabet E., 1995. “Homegrown Values and Hypothetical Surveys: Is the Dichotomous Choice Approach Incentive Compatible?”American Economic Review, Vol. 85, No. 1, pp 260–66.
13.
DeeThomas S.KeysBenjamin J., 2004. “Does Merit Pay Reward Good Teachers? Evidence From a Randomized Experiment.”Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, Vol. 23, No. 3, pp. 471–88.
14.
Denver Public Schools. 2007. ProComp: Professional Compensation System For Teachers. Retrieved from http://denverprocomp.org.
DoltonPeter J.van der KlaauwWilbert. 1999. “The Turnover of Teachers: A Competing Risks Explanation.”Review of Economics of Statistics, Vol. 81. No. 3, pp. 543–552.
17.
DuffetAnnFarkasSteveRotherhamAndrew J.SilvaElena. 2008. “Waiting to Be Won Over: Teachers Speak on the Profession, Unions, and Reform.”Washington, D.C.: Education Sector.
18.
ElamStanley M.1989. “The Second Gallup/Phi Delta Kappa Poll of Teachers' Attitudes Toward the Public Schools.”Phi Delta Kappan, Vol. 70, No. 10, pp. 785–98.
19.
FarkasSteveJohnsonJeanDuffetAnn. 2003. Stand By Me: What Teachers Really Think About Unions, Merit Pay, and Other Professional Matters. New York: Public Agenda.
20.
FineoutGary. 2007. “A Turnabout on Merit Pay: Reacting to Complaints, State Lawmakers are Acting Quickly to Revamp a Performance Pay System for Teachers.”The Miami Herald. Retrieved from http://www.miamiherald.com.
21.
FuternickKen. 2007. A Possible Dream: Retaining California Teachers So All Students Can Learn. Sacramento: California State University.
22.
Future of Children, The. 2007. “Excellence in the Classroom.”The Future of Children, Vol. 19, No. 1. Retrieved from www.futureofchildren.org.
23.
GoldhaberDan. 2002. “Teacher Quality and Teacher Pay Structure: What Do We Know, and What are the Options?”The Georgetown Public Policy Review, Vol. 7, No. 2, pp. 81–93.
24.
GoldhaberDanLiuAlbert. 2003. “Occupational Choices and the Academic Proficiency of the Teacher Workforce.” In FowlerW.J.Jr., ed., Developments in School Finance: 2001–02, pp. 53–75. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2003/2003403.pdf.
25.
HanushekEric A.1986. “The Economics of Schooling: Production and Efficiency in Public Schools.”Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. 24, No. 3, pp. 1141–78.
26.
HanushekEric A.KainJohn F.O'BrienDanielRivkinSteven G., 2005. The Market for Teacher Quality. Cambridge: National Bureau of Economic Research.
27.
HanushekEric A.RivkinSteven G., 1997. “Understanding the Twentieth-Century Growth in U.S. School Spending.”The Journal of Human Resources, Vol. 32, No. 1, pp. 35–68.
28.
HatryHarry P.GreinerJohn M.AshfordBrenda G., 1984. Issues and Case Studies in Teacher Incentive Plans. Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute Press.
29.
HessFrederick M.1995. Spinning Wheels: The Politics of Urban School Reform. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press.
30.
HessFrederick M.2004. Common Sense School Reform. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.
31.
HonigMeredith I.2006. “Complexity and Policy Implementation: Challenges and Opportunities for the Field.” In HonigM.I., ed., New Directions in Education Policy Implementation: Confronting Complexity, pp. 1–24. Albany: State University of New York.
32.
HunterRossSullivanPatJarrettFredAndersonGlennPriestSkipTomRodney. 2008. “Basic Education Funding Proposal: Preparing Children to Succeed in the 221st Century.”Olympia: Joint Task Force Basic Education Finance.
33.
JacobBrian A.SpringerMatthew G. 2008. Teacher Attitudes Toward Pay for Performance: Evidence from Hillsborough County, Florida, Performance Incentives: Their Growing Impact on American K-12 Education. Nashville: National Center on Performance Incentives.
34.
LangdonCarol A.VesperNick. 2000. “The Sixth Phi Delta Kappa Poll of Teachers' Attitudes Toward the Public Schools.”Phi Delta Kappan, Vol. 81, No. 8, pp. 607–11.
35.
LavyVictor C.2002. “Evaluating the Effect of Teachers' Group Performance Incentives on Pupil Achievement.”Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 110, No. 6, pp. 1286–1316.
36.
LewisJessica L.SpringerMatthew G., 2008. “Performance Incentives in Texas: Why Schools Chose Not to Participate.” Conference on Performance Incentives: Their Growing Impact on American K-12 Education. Nashville: National Center on Performance Incentives.
37.
LoebSusannaRouseCeciliaShorrisAnthony. 2007. “Introducing the Issue.”The Future of Children, Vol. 17, No. 1, pp. 3–14.
38.
LoomisJohn B.1993. “An Investigation into the Reliability of Intended Visitation Behavior.”Environmental and Resource Economics, Vol. 3, No. 2, pp. 183–91.
39.
LoomisJohn B.BrownThomasLuceroBeatricePetersonGeorge. 1996. “Improving Validity Experiments in Contingent Valuation Methods: Results of Efforts to Reduce the Disparity of Hypothetical and Actual Willingness to Pay.”Land Economics, Vol. 72 (Nov), pp. 450–61.
40.
LortieDan C.1975. Schoolteacher: A Sociological Study. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
41.
MiddletonEmogene S.1989. “The Teacher Career Ladder Program: Georgia Teachers' Stance.”Education, Vol. 110, No. 2, pp. 170–78.
42.
MilkovichGeorge T.NewmanJerry M., 1990. Compensation (3rd ed.). Homewood: BPI/Irwin.
43.
MoeTerry M.2003. “The Politics of the Status Quo.” In PetersonP.E., ed., Our Schools and Our Future: Are We Still at Risk? pp. 177–210. Stanford: Hoover Institution Press.
44.
MuralidharanRarthikSundararamanVenkatesh. 2008. “Teacher Incentives in Developing Countries: Experimental Evidence from India, Performance Incentives: Their Growing Impact on American K-12 Education.”Nashville: National Center on Performance Incentives.
45.
MurnaneRichard J.CohenDavid K., 1986. “Merit Pay and the Evaluation Problem: Why Most Merit Pay Plans Fail and Few Survive.”Harvard Educational Review, Vol. 56, No. 1, pp. 1–17.
46.
MurnaneRichard J.SingerJudith D.WilletJohn BKempleJamesOlsenRandall. 1991. Who Will Teach? Policies That Matter. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
47.
OddenAllan R.KelleyCarolyn J., 2002. Paying Teachers for What They Know and Do: New and Smarter Compensation Strategies to Improve Schools. Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press, Inc.
48.
OppKarl-Dieter. 1999. “Contending Conceptions of the Theory of Rational Action.”Journal of Theoretical Politics, Vol. 11, No. 2, pp. 171–202.
49.
PaigeRod. 2007. The War Against Hope: How Teachers' Unions Hurt Children, Hinder Teachers, and Endanger Public Education. Nashville: Thomas Nelson.
50.
PleckiMarge L.2001. Washington. In Public School Finance Programs of the United States and Canada: 1998–99. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Re-trieved from http://nces.ed.gov/edfin/state_finance/StateFinancing.asp.
51.
PorwollPaul J.1979. Merit Pay for Teachers. Arlington: Educational Research Service.
52.
PrinceCynthia D.2002. Higher Pay in Hard-to-staff Schools: The Case for Financial Incentives. Arlington: American Association of School Administrators.
53.
RistMarilee C.1983. “Our Nationwide Poll: Most Teachers Endorse the Merit Pay Concept.”American School Board JournalVol. 170, No. 9, pp. 23–27.
54.
RosenholtzSusan J.1986. “Career Ladders and Merit Pay: Capricious Fads or Fundamental Reforms?”The Elementary School Journal, Vol. 86, No. 4, pp. 512–29.
55.
StinebricknerTodd R.2001. “A Dynamic Model of Teacher Labor Supply.”Journal of Labor Economics, Vol. 19, No. 1, pp. 196–230.
56.
StrizekGregory A.PittsonbergerJayme L.RiordanKate E.LyterDeanna M.OrlofskyGreg F., 2006. “Characteristics of Schools, Districts, Teachers, Principals, and School Libraries in the United States: 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey.”Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.
WeberDave. 2006. “Teachers, Some Districts Balk at Merit Pay: Raising All Salaries is Preferable, Many Say.”Orlando Sentinel. Retrieved from http://www.orlandosentinel.com.
