Traditional Salary Schedules versus Diversified Salary Schedules - Essay Example

Traditional Salary Schedules versus Diversified Salary Schedules Affiliation Traditional Salary Schedules versus Diversified Salary Schedules Introduction Traditionally teachers used to be paid on a single salary scheme. The amount of money paid was based on two elements; number of years and the number of professional qualifications or rather education credits and degree that the teacher has acquired so far. The technique was developed to solve the issue of inequity that existed at that time whereby minorities, women and teacher for elementary school were looked down upon since they received lesser salaries as compared to their counterparts. Thus, it was prudent for a more inclusive salary scheme to be developed so as to ensure all teachers are remunerated equality without any form of segregation. Ideally, the traditional pay mechanism does not fit in the modern educational environment. This is because the primary objective of education in the current era is not only to improve performance marginally but to double or even triple the outcomes (Johnson, Papay, & Economic Policy Institute, 2009). That notwithstanding, the ancient technique does not have any element within its salary provisions that can be directly linked to raising the performance of the students that is the sole objective of education. Though some institutions still practice it today, some other organizations have resorted to diversified salary schemes whereby numerous elements are considered to determine the payment teachers receive commensurate to the goals of the organization. Diversified salary schedules provide direct incentives to the tutors to improve the quality of their instruction while enhancing the pupils’ performance. The technique incorporates some elements in its structure that include; pay for the acquisition of new knowledge and skills, performance based team or group pay and organizational bonuses. The educational sector is dynamic, and new ramifications are coming up each day. The tutors, therefore, need to have a remuneration system that motivates them and at the same time is aimed at the organizational objectives together with the primary goal of enhancing the learning experience of the students (Landolfi and Phillips, 2003). Propionates argue that implementing single salary schemes ensures equity in the remuneration process for all teachers as the method overcomes any form of salary discrimination. In that sense, the technique will be serving the interest of the minorities that is teachers in elementary school and other who want to match the salaries of their colleagues. But then equity is not the only motivation for developing a salary scheme the primary intention of remuneration is to motivate the teachers so as to enhance the overall performance of the students. In this case, single pay system might have achieved the notion on equitable salaries for all teachers. However, the same technique is not effective in attracting, motivating and retaining exemplary teachers (Thompson, Crampton, & Wood, 2008). As much as the issue of equality is addressed by single salary schemes it brings about a situation whereby the teachers are not motivated. Furthermore, we cannot make a blanket argument that it enhances equality. All the method does is to achieve equity for the minority teachers and their counterparts by coming up with a single form of a payment structure that applies to all teacher indiscriminately. It is prudent that as much as it tries closing the gap between various ranks of teachers, it fails to motivate the tutors to perform more. Moreover, it’s not their performance that matters but the duration they have been in the profession together with the added lanes. The technique encourages teachers to be self-satisfied with no vigour to achieve more to enhance the performance of the students. The performance of the students is the core goal of education, and single salary schemes have not taken into consideration any aspect of the objective I the determination of the salaries of teachers (Springer, 2009). The findings indicate that there is a minimal relationship between the years that a teacher has taught to the quality of education offered. In some instance, the relationship does not exist after five years and while other statistics indicate that after twenty years of teaching the result is negative since the quality of teaching by those tutors tends to diminish. In that light, single salary scheme utilizes years of experience as one of the elements to determine the pay that teachers receive. It is prudent that a teacher with thirty years of experience will attract a better pay than one who has only taught for four years. Based on the revelations from the findings it is evident that single scheme technique is rewarding numbers other than performance and quality from the teachers. The effectiveness of the method in question as the rationale for rewarding teachers whose quality does not translate to increased student performance is still in question. However, currently single salary scheme is the most prevalent remuneration technique in all schools, and its practice can be attributed to approximately 95% of all schools in America. Despite the full practice, the technique presents some shortcomings and inefficiencies that ought to be fixed. This can be done by implementing a diversified salary schedule that takes into consideration both the objective of education as well as the motivation of teachers (Thompson, Crampton, & Wood, 2008). Similarly, evidence that links the completion of bachelors course work to the improvement of teaching quality is minimal. Lanes is another element that is used to determine payment in the traditional single salary scheme. Thus, the parameter is not sufficient to suggest a salary increment since the traditional technique did not have any restrictions concerning the kind, of course, that teacher undertook that would warrant a pay rise. Some tutors in pursuit of increased salaries conducted inconsequential courses that added little value to their knowledge and skills and, in the long run, do not add value to the performance of the students. Enhancing knowledge and skills is crucial to quality teaching but the kind of knowledge to be acquired should be in line with the teachers’ competencies. For instance, if a tutor is teaching mathematics, the additional courses that he/she might wish to undertake should be related to mathematics, to create a close link of knowledge advancement that can justify improved performance in the students. As much as the traditional salary schedule has some sense of predictability of income among the teachers, it fails to provide an elaborate career ladder for the teacher to enhance their skills salaries as well as the quality outcomes (Johnson, Papay, & Economic Policy Institute, 2009). The traditional salary schedule has some bottlenecks that hinder its effectiveness in providing a comprehensive compensation system that rewards teachers and education at the same time. Thus, it is prudent for a more strategic system to be developed that will try to link the teachers’ pay to the returns of educational goals. The step and lanes technique that forms the basis for the implementation of the traditional salary scheme does not measure adequately the payment in relation to the kind of knowledge and skills that teachers require to ensure they improve the students’ performance. The disjoint is solved by the diversified salary schedules that offer a more pragmatic approach to teachers’ salaries by considering some factors as determinants for that influence their level of payment. Incidentally, the ancient technique has no element that can be directly linked to the students’ performance that is the core objective of the education system in general. Thus, regardless of the goals or objectives that it achieves it fails to address the fundamental goal of learning thus depicting its inefficiency. On the other hand, diversified salary techniques tend to provide direct incentives for tutors to improve the quality of learning that is administered at the same time enhance students’ performance. That notwithstanding, the new system attempts to have provisions that have incentives for professional development particularly in disciplines that are related to the school or the district at large to ensure a direct relationship between the knowledge and skill levels of the tutor with the quality of learning that is administered (Thompson, Crampton, & Wood, 2008). Technology has advanced and today it is easy for the performance progress of the students to be monitored by retrieving the data. Thus, the diversified system attempts to relate the teachers’ compensation to the advances of the students they are administering in what is commonly referred to as performance-based compensation. It enhances accountability; efficiency at the same time raises the education standard since the tutors will be more concerned about progress in their respective subjects. In that light, the overall goal of education will be achieved since the teacher will have an individual responsibility to ensure improved performance to attract a better pay (Odden and Kelley, 2002). However, critics point out that the model will only guarantee high test score with no corresponding improvement in education as a whole. Conversely, the manner in which diversified salary schemes are packaged they can attract and retain qualified teachers in high-need subjects, as well as a hard-to-staff school. It is premised on the fact that in exceptional situations like the ones mentioned above the teacher who can rise up to the need will often receive a better pay. That acts as a motivation to solve the issue of understaffing in marginalized areas as teachers are not willing to work in hardships while receiving the same pay as their colleagues in conventional job places. Additionally, some subjects such as Science and Mathematics tend to be technical and thus only a few tutors will prefer to specialize in the same. The high-need subjects will receive qualified teacher to administer learning thus benefiting the students and education as a whole since it would have built capacity in that discipline to facilitate learning in schools (Landolfi and Phillips, 2003). The primary elements that diversified salary schemes are based on include the following; skill and knowledge pay, group-based pay and performance pay. All these are universal parameters that have been in use in the corporate world whereby they have proved to be effective as they have driven firms to success. Based on performance payment the tutors are going to receive salaries that are in line with the outcomes of their students. Some critics argue that performance-based pay subjects’ teachers to factors that are beyond their control in the sense that they can offer quality learning, but the students choose not be serious about their studies thus leading to poor performance. But then education is a holistic process that is not only premised on test scores but varied elements that are also taken into consideration. In the event that the students fail due to lack of seriousness it means the teacher failed to instil discipline in the students or rather assisting them to understand the importance of learning and thus the need to be focussed in their studies (Landolfi and Phillips, 2003). Relatively, skill and knowledge based pay rewards the tutor on the experience progression that they have attained in their particular line of speciality or in a discipline that is of importance to the school or the district at large. That aspect ensures that there is a balance or rather a correlation between knowledge levels and the quality of learning that is administered to the students. Additionally, diversified salary schedules have provisions for rewarding performance based on group or collective efforts by the teacher. The move is noble since it encourages cohesion and teamwork among the teacher and in the long run it will promote the achievement of broad objectives that meet the expectation of the school at large (Johnson, Papay, & Economic Policy Institute, 2009). Conclusion Traditional salary schedules have been in practice for long, and they are still practiced by a significant number of schools across America. However, given the dynamic nature of education and the business environment in general it is prudent for a more comprehensive technique to be employed so as to strike a balance between performance and satisfying the needs of the teachers. In that light, diversified salary schedules is an emerging technique that is comprehensive in nature and which seeks to address the issue of teachers’ compensation from a broad perspective to satisfy both the objectives of the education system while administering equitable and fair compensation to the teachers. The benefits of implementing diversified salary schemes far outweigh those of utilizing the traditional salary schedules and thus it will be prudent if the new technique is employed to spur performance at the same time motivate teachers to improve the quality of learning in institutions. Recommendation The traditional salary scheme has been marred by a number of inefficient with regard to the ramification in the current situation in the education sector thus it needs to be revamped or rather be replaced with the diversified salary schedule technique since it tends to address the pertinent issues more robustly that the former. Districts and schools should consider implementing the diversified salary techniques in phases to determine to what extent they are workable and whether they are more efficient as compared to the previous methods. Relatively, the idea of rewarding numbers that is a primary element in the traditional salary schedules should be abolished and a more efficient technique adopted. The practice does not justify if the numbers that are rewarded go on to translate into performance or enhance quality hence diversified salary schedules should be employed to overcome the bottlenecks of the traditional salary schedules. References Johnson, S. M., Papay, J. P., & Economic Policy Institute. (2009). Redesigningteacherpay: A systemforthenextgeneration of educators. Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute. Landolfi, E., & Phillips, S. (2003). Alternative teachercompensationsystems. Kelowna, BC: Society forthe Advancement of Excellence in Education. Odden, A., & Kelley, C. (2002). Payingteachersforwhattheyknowanddo: New andsmartercompensationstrategies to improveschools. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Corwin Press. Springer, M. G. (2009). Performance Incentives: Their growingimpact on American K-12 education. Washington, D.C: Brookings Institution Press. Thompson, D. C., Crampton, F. E., & Wood, R. C. (2008). Moneyandschools. Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education. Appendices Questionnaire Section 1 1. What do you understand by traditional salary schedules? 2. What do you understand by diversified salary schedules? 3. Which type of salary scheme is implemented by your school district? 4. What are some of the benefits that are associated with traditional salary schedule? 5. What are the advantages of diversified salary scheme? Section 2 6. Given a chance which compensation technique would you choose to be implemented in your school district? Why? 7. Do you think the parameters (years of experience and number of courses) used in traditional salary schedules are efficient in determine the wages of teachers? 8. Do the years of experience directly translate to quality in the teaching process? 9. Are you satisfied with the compensation technique that is currently employed by your school district? If not what are some of the changes you would like to be implemented? 10. What is your perception on the diversified salary schedules? 11. Can the diversified salary schedules solve the shortcomings of traditional salary schedules? Read More