In June, The Washington Post published an op-ed arguing that if schools evaluated and paid teachers based on student outcomes they would achieve better results. As proof of what’s possible, the authors—scholars Eric Hanushek and Margaret Raymond of the Hoover Institution—cited teacher pay initiatives in two cities: Washington, D.C., and Dallas.
For Ohioans, these reform efforts are likely unknown. But there’s a lot to learn from their experiences that could help inform a successful merit-pay strategy in the Buckeye State.
First, some background. Officials at the District of Columbia Public Schools (DCPS) began linking teacher performance to pay and retention during the 2009–10 school year. Under this system, known as IMPACT, teachers who were rated “ineffective” were dismissed and those rated “minimally effective” were given one year to improve. Higher-performing teachers were eligible for a bonus of up to $25,000 each year they earned a rating of “highly effective.” According to an analysis[1] published in Education Next, DCPS dismissed the majority of very low-performing teachers during the early years of IMPACT, while other low performers were 50 percent more likely to voluntarily leave. Those who stayed got better, likely responding to the large financial incentive. “Improved teaching was common,” the analysis finds, and “student achievement increased as a result.”
A few years later, the Dallas Independent School District (ISD) replaced traditional salary schedules with a pay system tied to evaluations. Teachers’ compensation was based on their evaluation score averaged over two years, though salaries were only adjusted downward if teachers scored at a lower level for three consecutive years. Performance-based salaries during the first year ranged from $45,000 to $90,000. A separate Education Next analysis, co-authored by Hanushek, found that in the four years (2015–2019) after Dallas ISD adopted its new performance-based system, student performance on standardized tests improved while scores in similar Texas schools stayed flat. Like D.C., teacher turnover during implementation was concentrated among lower-rated teachers.
For Ohio policymakers, who are considering if and how to implement teacher merit pay in the Buckeye State, three lessons stand out.
1. Implementing effective performance pay initiatives requires radical change, which in turn requires political courage.
In their op-ed, Hanushek and Raymond observe that, despite positive outcomes for students in both districts, “performance-related reforms have not caught on in the rest of the nation’s schools.” That’s disappointing but not surprising, given the considerable controversy, pushback, and political fallout that comes with such sweeping reforms.
Washington, D.C., and Dallas are instructive examples. In the nation’s capital, the chancellor who oversaw the launch of IMPACT, Michelle Rhee, caused plenty of waves. She eventually resigned after the mayor who appointed her, Adrian Fenty, failed to win reelection, in part because of what was happening in DCPS. There were also plenty of clashes in Dallas, some of which began even before bold changes were implemented. According to Education Next, the teacher turnover rate “rose sharply” in Dallas when performance pay reforms were “highly publicized but still in the development stage.” This produced “major shifts” in the workforce, as the share of novice teachers with no prior experience quadrupled within three years.
For Ohio, there are two lessons to be learned. First, if state leaders want to use performance pay to boost student outcomes, then tinkering on the edges of teacher evaluation and rigid salary schedules isn’t going to cut it. Radical change will be required. Second, enacting radical change is controversial and will lead to considerable pushback and political fallout. (Just ask former Governor John Kasich, who also tried to implement merit pay, along with a host of other collective bargaining changes.) If Ohio leaders are prepared to stand their ground and spend significant political capital on the issue, then they could embrace teacher performance pay as an evidence-based way to boost student outcomes. But if they’re going to repeat their unfortunate history of backing down from evidence-based reforms when the going gets tough, they should probably sit this one out.
2. Locally-driven efforts are more likely to be successful than those managed by the state.
As is the case for many states, Ohio’s history with top-down teacher policy reform isn’t a pretty one. In 2011, lawmakers introduced a statewide initiative aimed at supporting novice teachers with a residency model like those used in the medical field. After lots of pushback and making significant revisions to the program in 2015, 2017, 2018, 2021, and 2023, Ohio is now right back where it started—requiring very little support for new teachers. State-managed teacher evaluations experienced a similar rollercoaster, with lawmakers responding to persistent pushback by making almost constant tweaks until finally passing legislation last year that allows districts to forgo the state’s framework and develop and use their own.
In short, the top-down stuff hasn’t been very successful. But Dallas offers an alternative that Ohio is already poised to emulate. Dallas ISD began its teacher-pay reforms after new state rules enabled districts to develop their own frameworks for rating teacher performance. Texas also uses its Teacher Incentive Allotment to provide schools with “lasting funds for outstanding Texas teachers to remain in the classroom and improve student outcomes.” If Ohio lawmakers eliminate the mandatory step-and-lane salary schedules currently in state law, that would open the door for innovative Ohio districts to do what did Dallas did. Creating a system that incentivizes districts to innovate (rather than forcing it on them) and leaves nuts-and-bolts implementation up to local leaders would help Ohio avoid repeating history.
3. Multiple measures of effectiveness are crucial.
Opponents of performance pay often argue that it’s difficult to measure teacher contributions to student learning, and thus unfair to link student outcomes to teacher pay. In an attempt to make evaluations as fair as possible, many districts have utilized multiple measures of teacher effectiveness to assign ratings that determine pay.
That’s true in both Dallas and D.C. The evaluation system in Dallas included ten classroom observations (some of which were unannounced) each year by the same observer, evidence of student progress toward established learning objectives, test-based measures of achievement growth relative to comparable students, and schoolwide achievement. Dallas ISD also surveyed students in grades 3–12 each spring and incorporated their responses into teacher ratings. Meanwhile, during the first three years of IMPACT, DCPS assigned teachers a rating based on classroom observations, various measures of student learning, a schoolwide value-added measure, and contribution to the school community (as assessed by the principal). Of the five classroom observations conducted for each DCPS teacher, three were conducted by an administrator and two by “master educators” who worked with several schools. Only the first observation was announced in advance.
Research also supports using multiple measures when it comes to performance pay. According to a comprehensive meta-analysis, student test scores improve when pay is not based solely on test scores. To ensure fairness and gain teacher buy-in in Ohio, it will be crucial for districts and schools (under the direction of the state) to include multiple measures in any framework that ties teacher impact to compensation.
***
Performance pay for teachers is the definition of a sticky subject. There is evidence from districts like Dallas and D.C., as well as other places, that it can boost student outcomes. But there’s also a long history of controversy and pushback, not to mention significant questions about how to design and implement programs to ensure they’re fair and effective. It’s too soon to tell how serious Ohio policymakers are about trying (again) to bring teacher merit pay to the Buckeye State. But as they explore their options, they’d be wise to heed the lessons outlined above.
[1] The analysis first appeared in the Fall 2017 issue and is based on data from the first three years of IMPACT (2009–10, 2010–11, and 2011–12).
