Question: "The school district I work for is in the midst of adopting a Knowledge-Based Compensation System for all groups (administrators, teachers, and support staff). We are currently struggling with the daunting task of identifying skills and knowledge that will lead to performance pay. My question is this: what is the downside to this structure? The powers that be are convinced that this system will lead to better student achievement. This makes intuitive sense but I’m wondering what research there is to support this notion?"

Response:

With regard to the research, it's still being amassed. A critical issue that can easily be ignored is the need for rethinking roles and functions and the new knowledge and skills required when this is done.

Here's a few documents to start with that deal with the topic as it is generally discussed:

• >>"The reliability and validity of pay-for-knowledge compensation systems" at
  http://www.snc.edu/socsci/chair/336/payforkn.htm

• "Alternative Teacher Compensation" at
  http://www.ericdigests.org/2001-3/teacher.htm

For an example of the implications that arise related to rethinking the skills and knowledge, see the following document related to support/learning support staff:

• "Framing New Directions for School Counselors, Psychologists & Social Workers" http://smhp.psych.ucla.edu/pdfdocs/report/framingnewdir.pdf.
  (It contains guidelines regarding continuing professional development and frameworks related to levels of competence.)
  
  To highlight this critical matter, here's a brief excerpt from this document:

Framework 2
Levels of competence and professional development and possible types of certification. The second framework stresses the need to articulate different levels of competence and clarify the level of professional development at which such competence is attained. It also highlights types of certification that might be attached to the different levels of competence and professional development.

Key outcome criteria for designing preservice programs (including internship) are conceived as developing at least the minimal level of competence necessary to qualify for initial employment. The appropriate certification at this level is described as a preliminary credential.

Criteria for professional development at Level II is defined as the level of competence necessary to qualify as a proficient school practitioner. This competence can be developed through on-the-job inservice programs designed to "Induct" new professionals into their roles and functions. Such an induction involves providing support in the form of formal orientation to settings and daily work activity, personalized mentoring for the first year on-the-job, and an inservice curriculum designed specifically to enhance proficient practice. At the end of one school year's employment, based on supervisor verification of proficient practice, a "clear credential" could be issued.

Both with respect to ongoing professional development and career ladder opportunities, availability of appropriate on-the-job inservice and academic programs offered by institutions for higher education is essential. These should be designed to allow professionals to qualify as master practitioners and, if they desire, as supervisors/administrators. At the same time, it is important to appreciate that few school districts are ready to accept formal certification at these levels as a requisite for hiring and developing salary scales. Thus, such certification is seen as something to be recommended -- not required.

Because of the many controversies associated with renewal of certification, the best solution may be to tie renewal to participation in formal on-the-job inservice programs. This presupposes that such inservice will be designed to enhance relevant competencies for pupil service personnel.

Cross-cutting all levels of competence are foundational knowledge, skills, and attitudes related to such topics as (a) human growth, development, and learning, (b) interpersonal/group relationships, dynamics, and problem solving, (c) cultural competence, (d) group and individual differences, (e) intervention theory, (f) legal, ethical, and professional concerns, and (g) applications of advanced technology.

Submit a request or comment now.

UCLA Center for Mental Health in Schools
Dept. of Psychology, P.O.Box 951563, Los Angeles, CA 90095.
tel: (310)825-3634
email: Linda Taylor ~ web: https://smhp.psych.ucla.edu