Teacher Salaries, Pay-for-Performance

Let me start by digressing.
Are great teachers paid enough?
In my opinion, no!  Great teachers deserve a much higher salary.

Are mediocre teachers paid enough?
In my opinion, mediocre teachers need to seek out coaching, raise their performance, and then should be eligible for a salary increase.

Are under performing teachers paid enough?  In my opinion, yes!
They are paid way too much.  If they don’t improve and sustain the improvement, they should be ushered out of the profession.

Teachers are currently paid according to a combination of two factors:  the number of years worked as teachers (steps or rows) and the number of qualified units of education (columns).  The actual “step and column” chart looks like a spreadsheet and is a public document.

Based on the old LCUSD web site, the step and column schedule for 2007-2008 can be found at:

(I don’t know how long this site will be available on-line.)

The “step and column” salary schedule has no adjustment for great teachers, mediocre teachers or under performing teachers.  Pay is based on years worked and units earned.

If you are wondering:
On the 2007-08 Professional Employee Salary Schedule, the first step, first column pays $42,991 per year.  The last step, last column pays $82,231 per year.  That does not include benefits, such as the District share of health benefits or the District contribution to the retirement plan.

The challenge is that a high performing teacher with ten years of service may earn a salary of $57,757.  In the classroom next door, there may be a mediocre teacher with fifteen years of service and more units earning $68,504.

Under the current system, there is no way for an administrator to increase the salary of a higher performing teacher.  This system is remarkably inefficient.  It under pays some stellar teachers and over pays a few notably poor teachers.

There are several arguments against pay-for-performance.  One is that teachers will stop cooperating.  They will take all their good ideas, use them in their own classroom and refuse to share them with their peers.  Another argument against pay-for-performance is that it only works if the school has a highly qualified principal who recognizes and rewards great teaching.  It is true that qualified principals are very important to strong schools.

A great teacher deserves a higher salary without regard to years in service or units earned.  A great teacher that takes the time to share ideas and work with peers deserves an even higher salary.

Qualified principals are capable of knowing who is working with peers and who is not.  (Although there are exceptions in every field, for-profit organizations also reward top performers and often reward those who work with peers and coach junior staff.)

There are ways for teachers to add to their earnings.  They can take on extra responsibilities.  The District pays a modest stipend to a teacher that becomes a coach, a sponsor of a major student organization, or similar position.  These are small amounts of money for a major increase in time and responsibility.  This is not the same as paying higher salaries or bonuses to great teachers.

The La Cañada Unified School District is prevented from implementing a performance-based salary schedule by the teacher contract.

Is there a way to change this?  In theory, changes in the salary system can be negotiated.  Do charter schools suffer from this restriction?  I think that depends on the type of charter.  In my opinion, it would be well-worth the time to research the options.