The following section is adapted from the report I wrote for the Fordham Institute:
Teacher Compensation Based on Effectiveness, March 2012.
The Harrison Plan – Setting the Foundation
Systemic Reform
Districts considering tying teacher evaluations to student achievement results
should first consider whether their organizations are already working systemically. Do
instructional leaders, for example, provide effective instructional feedback to teachers
and is that feedback aligned with an evaluation instrument that clearly differentiates
levels of effective teaching? Imagine trying to assess teacher performance without
evaluators who understand what great teaching looks like.
While assessing teacher performance can be done fairly and accurately, it requires
continual observation, feedback, coaching, and professional development. Improving
teacher performance and classroom instruction requires administrators to be instructional
leaders and for the school and the district to have an evaluation system that aligns
instructional feedback with academic priorities, classroom observations, the evaluation
instrument, resources, and professional development.
Revised 21 Feb 12
Page 1
Any significant reform has to be systemic. Changing the teacher salary schedule
will likewise need to be systemic. At least five other key areas need to be addressed in
order to have a teacher compensation system based on teacher effectiveness and student
outcomes. Reformed systems would include the following:
1) school leaders who understand what good instruction looks like and who are held
accountable for improving the quality of instruction,
2) a culture of instructional feedback in which classroom instruction is observed and
effective feedback is given regularly and consistently,
3) evaluation instruments that focus on the quality of instruction, differentiate teacher
effectiveness, and include measurable and observable outputs/criteria of teacher
effectiveness,
4) processes to collect and analyze
student achievement data and teachers
who use those data to improve
instruction,
5) significant support and professional
development that helps both
administrators and teachers improve
instruction,
Because of the interconnectedness of
the various parts of any educational
system, simply initiating a pay for
performance plan will not turn an
ineffective or non-aligned
organization into an effective one.
6) an aligned curriculum and a pervasive understanding of how to implement a standardsbased curriculum.
Any attempt to implement a pay-for-performance system without first laying the
groundwork for the areas listed above will probably result in teachers feeling that the
compensation system is arbitrary or biased. For example, if teachers are not observed
regularly and given effective feedback often, they could justifiably argue that the onetime-in-a-year evaluation does not accurately assess their performance.
Also, if the reform is not systemic, school leaders will be unprepared to assess
teacher effectiveness or will continue to assess them in a perfunctory way. 1 This could
result in an inflated compensation system in which teacher compensation grows without
concomitant increases in teacher effectiveness or student achievement.
1
This appears to be already happening in some school districts. If districts jump into pay-for-performance without
laying the proper foundation, “good” pay-for-performance plans will fail before they have a chance to work.
Revised 21 Feb 12
Page 2
Because of the interconnectedness of the various parts of any educational system,
simply initiating a pay-for-performance plan will not turn an ineffective or non-aligned
organization into an effective one. Conversely, an effective school will be made even
more effective if the teacher compensation system is aligned with the other parts of the
system. Indeed, alignment of all major parts of any system is required for the
organization to maximize its effectiveness.
The Harrison School District spent three years getting its system aligned before
developing the specific pay-for-performance plan. Once such a foundation was laid, the
District could move quickly, going from concept to implementation in one year.
Principles and Parameters
Principles
There are numerous ways to design a pay-for-performance system. Still, the plan
should be designed to help achieve the goals of the organization. Similar to the notion of
form following function, the key elements of the system should also be tied to core
principles and operational parameters.
While the devil may be in the details of a pay-for-performance plan, the real
debate should center on the principles that will guide development of the plan and that
will help decide conflicts during implementation. These guiding principles should be
established prior to the development of the details of a pay-for-performance plan. The
Harrison plan was designed using the following principles or parameters:
 Student academic achievement results will
count for 50 percent of a teacher’s
evaluation.2
o Performance, especially the delivery of
high quality instruction, counts for the
other 50 percent.
Colorado’s Teacher and Principal Effectiveness legislation (SB191), passed in May 2010, requires 50 percent of a
teacher’s evaluation to be based on student achievement results by the 2013-2014 school year. HSD2’s plan
preceded the passage of SB191.
2
Revised 21 Feb 12
Page 3
 The HSD2 plan must focus on results.
o There is a difference between “process” indicators and “results.” This
principle applies even on the performance side of the equation. A process
indicator is a teacher behavior that is observable and that generally can be
assessed. However, it does not necessarily contribute directly to improved
instruction or student achievement. For example, turning in lesson plans is a
process indicator. While designing effective lesson plans is important and part
of the teacher evaluation rubric, the ability to write lesson plans is not as
important as the execution of the lesson plan and the delivery of effective
instruction. Similarly, portfolios of student work (process indicator) hold less
weight than on-demand demonstrations of student learning (outcome of
effective teaching).
 The plan must include individual accountability.
o A district could derive a teacher’s student achievement score based on the
achievement scores of students the teacher actually instructs (individual
accountability), or based on the aggregate scores of a larger group of students,
such as students in the same grade, discipline, school, or district (group
accountability).
o In the Harrison plan, the predominant part of a teacher’s student achievement
score is tied to the achievement scores of students the teacher actually instructs
(individual accountability).
 The plan must be fair, accurate, and rigorous; it may not always be equitable.
o While the District strives for equity in a number of areas – class size,
availability of textbooks, amount of instructional time – it recognizes that
schools have some degree of autonomy and that there will always be
differences. The HSD2 plan does not attempt to take into account differences
in class size, the number of English language learners in a class, the number of
minutes devoted to teaching reading in a school, etc.
 The plan must include all classroom teachers and must be equally rigorous for
all grades and disciplines.
o In order for the plan to be fair, the chance of a high school math teacher
achieving a distinguished evaluation must be similar to the chance of an
elementary art teacher receiving a distinguished evaluation.
o It is the acceptance of this principle that requires the District to develop
assessments for all grades and disciplines.
Revised 21 Feb 12
Page 4
 The HSD2 plan will compensate teachers based on their overall effectiveness and
that compensation should be markedly differentiated.
o The plan should be a true pay-for-performance plan, not an incentive pay plan.
Teachers who are more effective should earn significantly more money than a
less effective teacher.
 The implementation of the plan must be standardized.
o The development, administration, and scoring of assessments, for example,
should be standardized across the District.
 HSD2 will start “version one,” knowing that there will have to be revisions.
o As Chip Heath and Dan Heath note in Switch, the key is to “look for a strong
beginning and a strong ending and get moving.”3
3
Chip Heath and Dan Heath, Switch (New York, New York: Broadway Books, 2010), p. 93.
Revised 21 Feb 12
Page 5