Promoting Teacher Professionalism: Lessons Learned from Portland’s Professional Learning Based Salary Schedule, by Rachael B. Lawrence

In 2007, Portland Educational Association and Portland Public Schools in Maine negotiated a new salary schedule, designed to promote teacher professional learning and increase their lifetime earnings. This “Professional Learning Based Salary Schedule” (PLBSS) is a departure from the traditional single salary schedule. Instead of rewarding teachers for “growing older and getting another degree” (interview, 2013), PLBSS rewards participation in a wide variety of professional learning opportunities, including teacher-developed and -led offerings. Evaluation of PLBSS reveals that teachers feel valued by their district and community, engage in high levels of professional learning, and take coursework relevant to their classroom needs (Rallis, Churchill, Lawrence, & Darling, 2011). PLBSS may serve as a model for teacher compensation reform, as it supports and advances professionalism by unifying teacher and professional development and teacher compensation to promote instructional improvement.

Supporting teacher professionalism matters because teaching is a profession, as opposed to a trade or a craft. Professions have a technical knowledge base, agency over use and development of that knowledge, an orientation to serve the needs of their clients (the students), and control over their work environment (see Darling-Hammond, 1985; Louise, Kruse, & Bryk, 1995). Professional workforces, in general, are highly valued by the public for their expertise (e.g. doctors and lawyers); high external valuation by those outside of the profession, whether it be financial or in the form of appreciation, usually accompanies professional status (Darling-Hammond, 1985; Hanushek, 2010).

However, teachers in the United States struggle to be treated as professionals. Public opinion and resulting policies neglect teacher professionalism in two key ways: first, the public and politicians distrust the professional knowledge base, so teachers are not fully entrusted to take agency for their own learning (professional development); and second, teacher compensation does not reflect high valuation (relatively low salaries and diminishing appreciation from the public). Teacher PD has a reputation of being meaningless and irrelevant to practice, and the average teacher salary is atypically low for careers with professional status. With regard to teacher PD, for example, Evans (2008) warns:

Despite the bravado reflected in prescriptive conceptions of teacher professionalism that incorporate rally calls to preserve, or regain, professionals’ power over their own destiny, the advent of new professionalisms is often seen…as a professional development initiative which has, to all intents and purposes, swept away such conceptions of professionals’ autonomy and control over their work-related remits and roles (24).

The form and content of professional development matters significantly. The most maligned vehicles for PD are workshops, which take place outside of the context of the workday and the school and are deficient in time and content—any learning that transpires within them cannot be adequately reinforced in the classroom (Yamagata-Lynch & Haudenschild, 2009). On this issue, Borko (2004) writes:

Despite recognition of its importance, the professional development currently available to teachers is woefully inadequate. Each year, schools, districts, and the federal government spend millions, if not billions, of dollars on in-service seminars and other forms of professional development that are fragmented, intellectually superficial, and do not take into account what we know about how teachers learn (pg. 3).

School districts, nationwide, provide a majority of their PD in a form like that described above. A policy like PLBSS can change this negative dynamic. PLBSS strategically uses time and money to support professional learning opportunities designed by the teachers in conjunction with district-identified needs and goals.

Teacher compensation, another factor in supporting professionalism, is a contentious issue. Many politicians and business leaders support performance pay, which is not a new concept, having gone through several false starts and failed experiments in the past. Renewed interest in performance-pay stems from the belief that instructional performance can be assessed through value-added scores and student achievement data (Firestone, 1994; Koppich, 2010; Springer & Gardner, 2010). However, formulas that attempt to assess teacher performance using these data require complex calculations controlling for countless variables, In districts that use these formulas, teachers are often unable to identify why they did or did not receive a performance incentive. The specific practices being incentivized need to be clear; a teacher should be able to easily identify why they earned performance pay in order for this policy to be effective (Johnson & Papay, 2009).

Proponents of performance pay believe it will attract a brighter and more ambitious candidate pool to teaching. This assumption reflects distrust of both professional knowledge and the ability of teachers to refine that knowledge. In reality, performance-pay policies fail those who are intrinsically motivated, as many teachers are. Additionally, scholars have argued that such policies are not sufficient on their own: “While pay-for-performance could attract a stronger pool of applicants with better basic communication skills or subject-matter knowledge, other strategies, such as professional development, would be needed to enhance the capacity of the current teaching force” (Johnson & Papay, 2009, pg. 16). Growth and refinement of instructional capacity is needed to improve classroom performance and increase academic outcomes for students.

PLBSS is a moderate alternative to both performance pay and the status quo, skills- and knowledge-based pay structure. Instead of incentivizing test results or relying on evaluation and value-added scores, teachers are rewarded financially for activities expected to increase instructional capacity, resulting in improved student performance. Proponents argue that, “[u]nlike other pay approaches, it does not interfere with teachers’ developmental processes, pit teachers against each other, encourage teachers to withhold information from superiors, or induce teachers to see teaching as a means to an end” (Conley & Odden, 1995, 225). PLBSS does not rely solely on higher education attainment and years of experience, but ties career advancement to in-service learning.

Portland’s PLBSS rewards multiple modes of professional learning. Constructed from the traditional single-salary schedule, it retains lanes (educational attainment) and steps (years of experience) for income advancement. The key departure from the single-salary schedule is the variety of PD offerings that provide credit for advancement. For every hour spent in qualified PD, teachers earn Salary Contact Hours (SCH). SCH is accumulated through college courses (15 SCH per credit hour), district-approved and -developed opportunities, and independent learning projects. Teachers need 225 SCH for a lane change, which is permitted every four years. Teachers have considerable autonomy in the selection of learning activities; however, the district and teachers collaborate to ensure quality control through a joint committee that reviews proposals for relevance to the teacher’s classroom and content assignment. Teachers who participate must include at least one selection from the district’s identified priority areas for improvement.

Portland teachers have remarkably high participation and satisfaction rates with PLBSS. Approximately 80 percent of the staff has lane advancement, and 75 percent recommend it for use in other districts. Portland teachers agree that PLBSS increases their interest in professional learning and contributes to improved student outcomes (Rallis et al., 2011). PLBSS challenges U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan’s opinion that money spent on PD does little to improve the quality of teaching (Remarks to the NEA, 2009). Evidence suggests that professional learning in Portland may impact both teacher quality and student learning and achievement. Teachers note the following:

• “Due to coursework in these areas I notice: Improved reading data—all students meeting/exceeding expectations. Increased parental involvement. Stronger math skills.”
• “Teaching is an art, but my students’ NECAP scores are up…more are meeting the standard.”
• “Students now are scoring better on literary text on the NWEAs after taking my class.”
• “Because of a professional learning course I took last year, I now use more forms of formative assessment and remediation and differentiation in my classroom to ensure that students are meeting the content and skills standards of the course.” (Rallis et al., 2011, pg. 11)

Initial analysis of teacher PD participation and student standardized test data from four PPS elementary schools suggests a potential relationship between high PD participation and high student achievement growth (Rallis, Keller, Lawrence, & Soto, unpublished study).

According to Portland teachers, PLBSS promotes collaboration, peer-to-peer learning opportunities, reflective practice, and a focus on identifying classroom needs. It supports professionalism, as teachers exercise autonomy over their professional knowledge by seeking continuous improvement in delivering services to students, their chief clients. In addition, PLBSS provides teachers with the opportunity to advance their livelihoods through professional learning. The program invests in and highly values teachers, enabling the district leadership and teachers to work together to make effective change through the PD system. PLBSS stands as a potential model for other school systems across the country for improving teacher professional learning, driving positive school change, and compensating teachers in a way that honors and encourages professional performance.

Rachael Lawrence is a doctoral candidate in Educational Policy and Leadership at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, where she is the Managing Editor of the American Journal of Evaluation. Her research interests include professional learning, collaboration for school improvement, and program evaluation.

References

Borko, H. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the terrain. Educational Researcher, 33(8), 3-15.

Conley, S. and Odden, A. (1995). Linking teacher compensation to teacher career development. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 17(2), 219-237.

Darling-Hammond, L. (1985). Valuing teachers: The making of a profession. Teachers College Record, 87(2), 205-218.

Darling-Hammond, L. and McLaughlin, M. W. (1995). Policies that support professional development in an era of reform. The Phi Delta Kappan, 76(8), 597-604.

Duncan, A. (2009). Remarks of Arne Duncan to the National Education Association. http://www2.ed.gov/news/speeches/2009/07/07022009.html.

Evans, L. (2008). Professionalism, professionality, and the development of education professionals. British Journal of Educational Studies, 56(1), 20-38.

Firestone, W. A. (1994). Redesigning teacher salary systems for educational reform. American Educational Research Journal, 31(3), 549-574.

Hanushek, E. A. (2010). The economic value of higher teacher quality. Economics of Education Review, 30, 466–479.

Johnson, S. M. and Papay, J. P. (2009). Redesigning teacher pay: A system for the next generation of educators. Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute.

Koppich, J. E. (2010). Teacher unions and new forms of teacher compensation. The Phi Delta Kappan, 91(8), 22-26.

Rallis, S. F., Churchill, A. C., Lawrence, R. B., and Darling, J. (2011). Supporting professional learning: Impacts of the PLBSS in Portland Public Schools. Retrieved from http://portlandea.org/PDF/PLBSS%20final%20report%208.1.11.pdf.

Springer, M. G., and Gardner, C. D. (2010). Teacher pay for performance: Context, status, and direction. The Phi Delta Kappan, 91(8), 8-15.

Yamagata-Lynch, L. C. and Haudenschild, M. T. (2009). Using activity systems analysis to identify inner contradictions in teacher professional development. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25, 507-517.