Compensating Excellence &
Rewarding Performance
Patrick F. Bassett, NAIS President
www.nais.org
Compensating Excellence &
Rewarding Performance
• Evaluation Conundrums
• Evaluation vs. Contracting:
The Quadrant Approach
• New Compensation Models
• Trouble-shooting Solutions
• Financial Modeling Tools
Compensating Excellence &
Rewarding Performance
• Evaluation Conundrums
Rewarding Excellence
Current Conundrums:
 Are faculty evaluation systems adequate and
appropriate to identify excellence? See
http://www.ratemyteachers.com
 When we lose teachers, at what age and stage
does this happen?
 Are we meeting needs of teachers at differing
ages and stages?
Rewarding Excellence
Current Conundrums
 What skills should we define as worthy of reward?
– More management and leadership roles
– More technologically adept
– Teacher as researcher
 Why do independent school salary designs all look the same?
The culture of schools’ workplace militates against innovative
thinking about compensation: Teachers prefer predictable, noncompetitive compensation and resist being “singled out.”
NOTE: Recent research shows, on the other hand, that rigid
pay scales discourage high ability individuals to enter or stay in
teaching. (Goldhaber, The Urban Institute, “How Has Teacher Compensation
Changed?” Selected Papers in School Finance 2000-2001)
Rewarding Excellence
Failed Reform Movements of the 1980s & 1990s:
 Merit Pay: Failed… Why?
... because its zero sum design pits colleague against colleague,
failing to recognize that effective schools are effective in
proportion to the climate of collegiality and collaboration that
exists within them. (cf. Ideas & Perspectives, 4/3/200)
 Career Ladder (teacher becomes administrator): Failed…
Why?
...because its design provides non-teaching jobs for a fixed
number of excellent teachers, thus offering a way out of the
classroom for the best professionals in schools, just the opposite
of how a high-performance school should deploy its best
teachers.
Compensating Excellence &
Rewarding Performance
•Evaluation vs. Contracting:
The Quadrant Approach
Rewarding Excellence
Faculty Evaluation: The truth of the matter…
 Faculty evaluation tied to contracting: Everyone gets
an “A-” or better from faculty peers: useful,
constructive criticism seldom shared (because of the
fear--irrational or otherwise-- that it will be used as
weapon by an administrator to bludgeon a colleague).
 No teacher thinks any administrator is remotely
qualified to judge his or her brilliance in the
classroom.
Rewarding Excellence
 Everyone already knows who the “high performers”
and “low performers” are on a faculty, including all
the students and parents.
 Current evaluation system linked to contracts and pay
is counterproductive (producing anxiety and distrust)
rather than productive (helping teachers become
learners).
 Change the rubric from “faculty evaluation” to “faculty
professional development,” and place it within the
province of the faculty (led by the dean of faculty or
department heads or lead teachers) See “Creating a
Healthy Faculty Culture” monograph. Purpose: collegial
exchange about good pedagogy.
Rewarding Excellence
 Adopt a Teacher as Researcher Model: What works?
How can we document it? What would work better?
– “Experience the best teacher?” If this were so, we’d
be better parents for our third child than our first.
– “Reflection on Experience is the best teacher.”
(George Forman, UMass professor). (cf. The
Teaching Gap)
 Contracting an administrative team function, not an
academic function.
.
Rewarding Excellence
 Mid-year 360 for all faculty and staff: feedback.
 Annual assessment by the administrative team of each
faculty and staff member’s overall contribution to the
community, and effectiveness as…
– classroom teacher/staff administrator.
–
–
–
–
–
role model
coach
advisor
supervisor
team player (as colleague, supporter of school,
etc.)
– life-long learner, researcher, “risk-taker”
Rewarding Excellence
 Jack Welch/GE performance & attitude quadrants
approach:
– “High Performance” = effective teaching, coaching,
advising (demonstrable student learning and
successes)
– “Good attitude” = modeling the core values,
supporting kids, parents, colleagues (including
leadership).
 Annual contracting conversations between employee
and division head/business manager related to results of
assessment:
– Quad 1 (High Performance/Good Attitude): reward
– Quad 2 (Poor to Avg Performance/Good Attitude):
train
– Quad 3 (High Performance/Bad Attitude): confront
– Quad 4 (Poor Performance/Bad Attitude): dismiss
Compensating Excellence &
Rewarding Performance
New Compensation Models
• Pay for Performance (the
corporate model)
• Broadband (the professions
model)
• Rank/Tier (the university model)
Pay for Performance Model
 Adapted from the corporate world; superimposed upon
a traditional pay scale system; least difficult to
implement (even in a union shop). (E.g., Scale goes up
by COL or more, but additional pool of say $100,000 is
added as performance bonus at the end of the year.)
 Bonuses related to an evaluation system: the
administrative team decides who receives a bonus and
how much.
 Bonus sometimes an absolute amount ($2500 or $1250
or $0); sometimes a percentage of salary (2% or 1% or
0%); sometimes both (group and individual rewards).
Pay for Performance Model
 Sometimes the bonus (not the base or step increase) is
“pay at risk,” dependent on school-wide goals being
achieved.
 At one school, the bonus is not paid until the following
September, and only to returning staff.
 NAIS recommends that the pay for performance
approach be distinct from “merit pay” schemes: the
former is a “raised ante” approach, the latter, zero sum:
i.e., you can “reward” high performing teachers with
“more pay for more work” (e.g., mentoring younger
teachers, coordinating curriculum, etc.) or reward
groups (some or all faculty and staff) for achieving
goals.
Pay for Performance Model:
Rohan Woods School Example
 Board allocates an overall percentage increase in salary
budget: e.g., 6%.
 2% is COL that everyone receives.
 2% is pay for performance: faculty designed the
performance rubric, but head determines amount of
“bonus” for each individual.
 2% is group performance reward for school-wide goals
being achieved. Current year = monthly updating of
every staff member’s home page, including the head’s.
Teachers post lesson plans for peer critiques. Past year’s
goals = increase parent participation in surveys; write
the character curriculum.
Broadband Model
 Borrowed from the professional world of law and
engineering, the broadband system replaces 25 or
more salary steps with three overlapping salary bands.
 A typical broadband approach might have band one
at $30-$45,000, band two at $40 - $55,000, and band
three at $50-$75,000.
 The benefit of the approach is that each band can be
defined by differing expectations for workload and
performance and skill set (e.g., no jump to next band unless use
technology, take on leadership, etc.)
Broadband Model
 Promotion from one band to the next accompanied by
a major increase in salary, justified by a thorough
evaluation review, after a fixed number of years at each
band (3 -5 years), but it may be quicker.
 Overlap of the bands for flexibility: a top of the Band
One teacher may be promoted to Band Two but
negotiate being close to the bottom of that band in
exchange for fewer responsibilities; a hot shot in Band
One who takes on an extra workload may be paid more
than someone in Band Two.
 Bands:
Broadbanding Model:
Louisville Collegiate Example (01-02)
– Band One: 0-7 years of experience, Bachelor’s
degree = $26,500-36,440.
– Band Two: 8-19 years of experience, Master’s or
15 years + with BA = $31,000-47,000.
– Band Three: 20 or more years of experience,
Master’s = $41,000-60,000.
 Priorities for moving within bands: experience;
professional development annually; contributions of
time to students/school beyond contractual
obligations; degrees earned.
 Number of Faculty at each Band: 24/16/22.
Faculty Rank System (Tiers/Career Ladder)
 Modeled on university system.
 Appeal as egalitarian approach, where all faculty at a
particular rank earn the same fixed salary.
 Three or four ranks with significantly differentiated
salaries: intern/novice at $25,000; instructor
(experienced teacher) at $50,000, team coordinator
(mentor) at $60,000; master teacher at $75,000+. (Plus
stipends for additional responsibilities.)
 Promotion from one rank to the next dependent upon a
major evaluation review (including administrative
review, peer review, portfolio demonstrations, etc., akin
to the rigors of a “tenure” review at the college level).
Faculty Rank System (Tiers/Career Ladder)
 Promotion is accompanied by a major jump in salary.
 Expectation of the system is “up or out” except in some
cases for the top rank where sometimes only a few
(perhaps endowed) positions are available.
 Promotion occurs within a fixed number of years (three
to five) at each rank but with the opportunity for
quicker promotion.
 New, experimental, and university-based schools seem
most inclined to utilize the rank system.
 Approach dictates that the administration make hard
choices when a teacher is up for promotion since
mediocre performance cannot just be accepted “for one
more year.”
!
Faculty Rank/Tier Model:
Tuxedo Park Example (02-03)
 Level One: 0-2 years of experience; base of $30,000;
expectations: beginning teachers being mentored and
participating in professional development opportunities.
 Level Two: 3-7 years of experience; base of $36-42,000;
expectations: advanced degree; multi-dimensional, effective
teaching; integrated technology into teaching; knowledge of
related educational research; team player; support teams and
school.
 Level Three: More than 7 years of experience; base of $42-
68,000; expectations: advanced degree, acknowledged as master
teacher; leadership roles within the department and division; lead
two interdisciplinary projects per year; mentor others in using
technology; strong loyalty and support of the school.
Compensating Excellence &
Rewarding Performance
• Trouble-shooting Solutions
Rewarding Excellence
Points To Ponder:
 Who Populates the Compensation Task Force and
Why?
 What Goals & Strategies Would We Set in a Re-
engineered Compensation Philosophy?
 What Are the Issues To Trouble-shoot and Road
Test?
 What Tools are Available To Project Various
Scenarios?
Development of Compensation Philosophies
Set Goals (6):
 Recruit All-star Teachers.
 Retain the best of the best.
 Reward exceptional performance and group
performance.
 Meet the needs of faculty at differing ages/stages.
 Improve collegiality and the environment
advantage.
 Move the institution forward.
Development of Compensation Philosophies
Trouble-shooting
 Seeking Higher “Productivity”
 Marketing Larger Classes to Parents
 Getting Senior Faculty on Board
 Development of a Recruitment Strategy.
 Running Financial Scenarios
Teacher Recruitment: New Solutions
The Solutions:
• Address the Conundrums of Hiring (Ed Ryan, Hiring
the Best). Avoid…
 Hiring for what one knows rather than who one is.
 Hiring quickly and firing slowly.
 Hiring for previous experience rather than for future
potential. (Moneyball strategy?)
• Utilize the NAIS Career Center: www.nais.org
(searchable database of >1000 resumes)
• Join Teachers of Color Networks: Nemnet.com & The
Diversity Network (deep database, all faculty of color)
Teacher Recruitment: New Solutions
• Grow your Own: Intern/Teacher Training Projects in
Independent Schools: Culver, Shady Hill, Friends School Detroit,
University School (OH) (12-mo. Master’s/Certification program with
Ursuline College: $13K tuition pays for staffing, mentors, college fees; most are
adults seeking career change, all with BA/BS degrees. 18 University School
teachers are now graduates of the program.)
• Market to your own Constituencies: Parent, Alumni:
Website and Listserv announcements.(“Why I Stay…” in Independent
School, Spring 2003: “I didn’t think to teach here; the school sought me.”)
• Give Referral Bonuses to your Faculty: $1000 per new
teacher referred & hired.
• Market Collaboratively (NAIS & A/I & Local
campaigns): College Campuses, Military Publications, Ed Week,
etc.: e.g., Princeton Collaborative
Teacher Recruitment
Campaign
Brochure
Teacher Recruitment
Website: www.isadvocacy.org/teachers
Ads in Ed Week Jan – May,
NYTimes Online, etc.
Mailings to 400
Colleges
Incentivize Coming to your School
Repaying Teachers’ Student Loans
 Debt levels impact career choice
– Low teaching salaries make it difficult for new teachers to
manage student loan debt: Providing non-salary benefits to
reduce the debt burden help make the decision easier
 Creates tangible incentive separate from salary increase and
promotes retention
 Repay student loan principal and interest as long as teacher is
employed
– Payment amount would be approximately $125 per month (or
$1,500 per year) for every $10,000 in outstanding principal
– Assumes a ten-year repayment term, 8.25 percent interest rate
– Would be lower with longer repayment periods and/or lower
interest rates
Student Loan Debt1 and Repayment2
Monthly Payment/Annual Payout
Degree
Awarded
Bachelor’s
Master’s
Doctorate
1Source:
Type of
Institution
Amt Borrowed
(Median)
Interest Rate@
4.86 percent
(current)
Interest Rate@
8.25 percent
(max)
Public 4-year
$15,375
$162.03 / $1,944
$188.58 / $2,263
Private 4-year
$17,250
$181.78 / $2,181
$211.58 / $2,539
Public 4-year
$17,341
$182.74 / $2,193
$212.69 / $2,552
Private 4-year
$24,409
$257.23 / $3,087
$299.38 / $3,593
All
$24,078
$253.74 / $3,045
$295.32 / $3,544
American Council on Education web page, http://www.acenet.edu/faq/viewInfo.cfm?faqID=21, as provided in the 1999-2000 National
Postsecondary Student Aid Study conducted by NCES.
2Source: Student loan repayment calculators at www.finaid.org. “Current” interest rates apply to Federal Stafford loans disbursed between 7/94 and
6/98. Loans disbursed thereafter currently have a 4.06 percent interest rate. No Federal Stafford loans may exceed an 8.25 percent interest rate.
Psst! 'Human Capital‘ -DAVID BROOKS
“What Works” for Success
New York Times Op-Ed, Nov 13, 2005
 Educational Reform in America: We’re wasting our time
and money.
 David Brooks: “The only things that work are local, human-
to-human immersions that transform the students down to
their very beings. Extraordinary schools, which create
intense cultures of achievement, work. Extraordinary
teachers, who inspire students to transform their lives, work.
The programs that work touch all the components of human
capital.”
– PFB Note: There’s no better description of an
“independent school.”
The End!
For More Resources on this Topic, Go to www.nais.org
Patrick F. Bassett, President
bassett@nais.org