A subtle shift is taking place in the way educators think about teacher compensation, and market forces are driving the change. Education policy-makers are slowly warming to the idea of paying bonuses to attract teachers in hard-to-staff disciplines such as math, science, and special education.
If proponents of the idea have their way, teachers with the right skills could be in line for bonuses of up to $15,000.
For years teachers have been paid according to a rigid scale that takes into account only teachers’ level of education and years of service. Except for one half-hearted and poorly advertised attempt two years ago ($1,800 bonuses for certain teachers in selected schools) the state has never made a distinction in pay between teachers based on the subject taught.
That is beginning to change. Because starting salaries for math and science professionals are much higher in the private sector than in public schools, school districts are having more trouble finding competent teachers in those fields. Last year for example, North Carolina colleges and universities graduated only three people with teaching degrees in physics. Administrators are responding to the problem by calling for special bonuses and salary supplements to lure qualified scientists and mathematicians into classrooms.
This concept, known in education circles as differential pay, is not popular with everyone. Teachers unions, in particular, have bridled at the idea because union officials fear it will sow disunity among their members. The National Education Association does not have an official position against differential pay, but many of its state affiliates have attacked differential pay schemes when these have been suggested in their states. North Carolina Association of Educators (the state’s NEA affiliate) President Eddie Davis has been an outspoken critic of paying teachers based on the subjects they teach.
Nevertheless, there are signs that North Carolina may be ready to move ahead with differential pay. When the General Assembly convened in May, incoming UNC system President Erskine Bowles asked the Joint Education Oversight Committee to approve a pilot plan to offer bonuses of up to $15,000 apiece to hire 90 new math and science teachers in selected counties.
The Senate liked the idea, but cut back on the price tag by lowering the number of new hires to 30. Under the Senate’s plan the State Board of Education would select three counties to receive funding for 10 new teachers each. The teachers would have to be fully certified, and would have to teach math or science at the middle or high school level.
A number of prominent figures in the education establishment have already lined up behind the idea. At a presentation to legislators in May, John Dornan, of the Public Schools Forum, warned that for North Carolina to remain economically competitive its schools had to improve instruction in math and science. In a veiled allusion to the teachers’ union, he told legislators that despite expected opposition from some groups it’s time to start thinking seriously about paying what it costs to get good math and science teachers into classrooms.
Contacted later for this story, he elaborated. “Education is almost alone in refusing to recognize that there is such a thing as supply and demand. Look at the private sector and salaries are differentiated by supply/demand, responsibility and, in many cases, performance…We simply are not going to meet our obligation to ensure that all young people are taught by qualified teachers if we don’t begin paying teachers in high-demand fields such as math and science more than other teachers.”
The North Carolina Association of School Administrators, as well as the North Carolina School Boards Association, each has endorsed differential pay. NCSBA lobbyist Leanne Winner said the association “supports the notion of differentiated pay for teachers in hard-to-staff schools and in hard-to-staff subject areas.” Harkening to the failed effort to test the idea two years ago, Winner also stressed that teachers, principals, and personnel directors must be made well aware of any such program in order for it to be effective.
The fate of the Senate’s pilot plan was unknown as of press time. The House appropriations subcommittee on education did not include the provision in its version of the budget in early June. But local school districts are not waiting for the state to take the lead on this issue. Superintendent Terry Grier of Guilford County Schools recently announced his own version of differential pay, funded with local money. Called “Mission Possible,” the program seeks to turn around poor performance by luring the best teachers into schools with the worst track records.
The Mission Possible incentives include bonuses of up to $14,000 for teachers who agree to teach in a shortage area at one of 20 low-performing schools, and whose students meet certain goals in test scores. Shortage areas for Guilford schools include English as well as math, but not science. Recognizing the importance of leadership in school improvement, the Guilford plan also includes bonuses for principals whose schools achieve adequate yearly progress.
Despite opposition, differential pay and similar reforms seem to be ideas whose times have come. A number of market-friendly proposals aimed principally at improving math and science instruction have been introduced in the General Assembly this session. One would allocate $1.6 million for 50 two-year scholarship loans to prospective teachers of math, science, special education, or English as a second language. Students could avoid repaying the loans by serving in the public schools for three years after graduation.
Another bill would appropriate funds for lateral-entry scholarships, designed to lure practicing math and science professionals into teaching careers. Still another would provide up to $20 million for local systems to use how they see fit to recruit and retain teachers in shortage areas.
Legislators seemed to have figured out that in a free economy, the market sets the price of services, and that if one wishes to obtain a service such as quality math or science instruction, one must pay the market price.
Jim Stegall is a contributing editor of Carolina Journal.