Pay for performance

Washington state’s basic education funding formula isn’t the only thing that’s out of date. So is the way we pay teachers. The chief determinant for pay is seniority. The needs of students and districts are secondary. Merit is labeled divisive.

But in this age of accountability, the state has reams of data that expose problem areas and can help identify the better teachers. Problem is, the collective bargaining system has not adjusted to the times, so we’re stuck with inefficient, across-the-board salary schemes.

That has to change, because the pressure to spend more on education is growing. The state Legislature’s task force is trying to find ways to adequately finance basic education. The bulk of education spending goes to teachers. Something has to give.

Superintendent of Public Instruction Terry Bergeson is calling for a major overhaul in how teachers are paid. The state needs more flexibility to raise the quality of education.

For instance, the state needs more qualified math and science teachers, but labor contracts stymie efforts to recruit them. Starting pay is about $34,000. The best candidates can easily make more money in other lines of work.

Aside from seniority, the other way teachers can bump up their pay is to get an advanced degree. But legislative researchers report a weak link between master’s degrees and student performance. Yet, a five-year teacher with an advanced degree makes about 19 percent more than a teacher with a four-year diploma, regardless of performance.

Where the extra schooling has shown to pay off is in the fields of science and math, as long as those teachers focus their degrees on those subjects. But labor contracts don’t differentiate. A master’s degree in education lands the same pay increase.

The key factor is experience, not advanced degrees, so the extra pay should flow to effective teachers. That, in turn, would help to retain them. However, the state would need to devise a way to measure outcomes beyond test scores. Otherwise, the better teachers would have little incentive to leave high achieving schools for tougher assignments.

Union leaders aren’t thrilled with that prospect. It’s no surprise that the Washington Education Association directed a “loss of trust” vote at Bergeson during its May meeting in Spokane. On flexibility for teacher pay, union leader Rich Wood, is singing a tired refrain: “We need to pay teachers competitively. That means higher base pay.”

It’s this same line of reasoning that recently cost the state math and science grant money, because the cash wouldn’t be divvied up across the board. The thought of an instructor applying for such a grant was viewed as pitting one teacher against another.

The state needs to stand up to the unions if it has any hope of addressing the coming challenges. Linking pay to performance is sensible. Devising better outcome-based parameters is long overdue. Having the flexibility to target money where it’s most needed is essential.