I missed the Center for American Progress event on Teacher Compensation in Charter and Private Schools, but I did manage to read the paper presented at the event.  The paper's subtitle is Snapshots and Lessons for District Public Schools.  Snapshots seems accurate--the authors did some interviews with school officials at assorted charter and private schools that provide some insight into their compensation practices.  Lessons?  I'm not so sure.

Maybe it's a "glass half full/glass half empty" kind of thing, but if almost two-thirds of charter and private schools use a salary schedule, it's hard to really see them as blazing the trail for change.  Plus, almost half of private school enrollment is in Catholic schools, and over 90 percent of these schools use a salary schedule.  The data instead imply that, for most charter and private schools, it is perhaps easier or more fair to use a salary schedule than to negotiate individually with every teacher.

Even the authors themselves seem to be a little confused by what they are saying.  In the Executive Summary, they say that "many charter and private schools do not use a schedule at all," but then on page 7, they write that "many charter and private schools report using a salary schedule."  Which is it?

Can we learn from any school--private, public charter or regular public school--about what paying teachers "differently" means for public education?  Sure. But one thing I didn't get from this paper was whether the various pay incentives "worked."  That is, did they lead to improved instruction and, therefore, student achievement gains?  Nancy Van Meter from the AFT served as a respondent to the paper and raised this issue and others in her comments (see here).  Isn't this the primary argument for changing how teachers are paid? (Well, not for Rick Hess, but for most people.)

Final word: much of this debate seems to boil down to how motivated folks are by incentives.  I have worked in environments with a salary schedule for most of my adult life, where performance incentives are not available, and it doesn't really bother me.  It would, though, bother me if a colleague of mine doing similar work with the same level of expertise and years of experience made a lot less than I did.  Sara Mead at The Quick and the Ed, on the other hand, thinks these are private matters. People are different.

What motivates most teachers?  If someone chooses teaching, where more often than not they will work under a salary schedule, is their motivation primarily intrinsic?  If so, are they somehow not motivated to improve student achievement?  Is that why ed reformers think we need to attract folks into the profession who are motivated by performance incentives, because these teachers will focus more on student achievement?  I don't have all the answers, but these are questions worth debating, so if this paper continues the debate, I guess that's a good thing.

* This title also makes me think of the expression, Is the Actor Happy?, and this album of the same title.  Vic Chestnut is great--if you have never heard of him, give him a listen.  And, I will send an AFT t-shirt to the first (only?) person who can identify the movie in which Chestnut has a cameo.