Teacher Compensation: Standard Practices and Changes in Wisconsin. WCER Working Paper No. 2016-5
Author: Kimball, Steven M.
Date: 2016-08-00
Type: Tests/Questionnaires
Subjects: Teacher Salaries,Compensation (Remuneration),Educational Attainment,Merit Pay,Knowledge Level,Employment Level,Competition,Teacher Leadership,School Districts,Administrators,Semi Structured Interviews

Over many decades, teachers' compensation has been determined through standard practices, commonly represented by the single salary schedule. While these practices served districts well in a number of respects, many argue that new forms of teacher pay could provide powerful levers for changing teacher performance and improving student achievement by enhancing recruitment, development, and retention efforts for effective educators (Committee for Economic Development, 2009; Odden &amp; Kelley, 2002; Odden &amp; Wallace, 2008; TNTP, 2014). Historically, experiments with alternative compensation programs have been rare or episodic. Notable reforms included Kentucky's school-based performance award program, the Charlotte-Mecklenburg, North Carolina, school-based performance award program, and the Los Angeles Vaughan charter school knowledge and skills-based compensation system. Multiple school systems in several states implemented the National Institute for Excellence in Teaching's teacher career management and compensation program known as the TAP System. The well-documented Denver ProComp system also involved a broad compensation and associated career management program restructuring. To encourage broader experimentation with compensation and human resource reforms, the U.S. Department of Education administered the Teacher Incentive Fund, in which states and districts competed for millions of dollars in grants to implement new performance-based forms of teacher pay in high-need schools (U.S. Department of Education, 2016, July 18). Additionally, the Race to the Top program (U.S. Department of Education, 2016, June 6) embraced an improvement agenda that included uses of new educator effectiveness measures to support professional growth, and educational equity and accountability goals. As a result, the prevalence and pace of compensation reform has increased nationally. Many Wisconsin school districts initiated their own teacher pay design and delivery transformations following the passage of Wisconsin Act 10 in 2011 (Beck, 2014; Mendez, 2014; Richards, 2012, August 19; Richards, 2012, November 22). Act 10 eliminated collective bargaining rights for most public employees, retained teacher compensation bargaining only for base pay increases, and limited that bargaining to the percentage change in the consumer price index (Wisconsin Act 10, 2011). With new flexibility at their disposal, and an undercurrent comprising many national compensation experiments, Wisconsin districts have begun moving away from standard compensation practices. Although pay changes are the focus of state media coverage, there are few information sources about the variety and scope of Wisconsin compensation revisions. In this paper, the authors first provide an overview of two standard compensation practices that are common around the United States. We include terminology and exhibits that illustrate the basics of such practices. They then summarize seven major types of compensation reform initiatives that are being undertaken throughout the country. The focus next turns to Wisconsin district teacher compensation reform initiatives. The authors describe key findings obtained from interviews with Wisconsin district leaders, along with our review of compensation-related district documents. They situate their findings within standard compensation practice to illustrate where and how much Wisconsin compensation practices have changed. The paper concludes with key questions districts should consider as they revise pay systems or reflect on pay changes.