Journal of School Administration Research and Development Spring 2020

EssayResearch Article JSARD ISSN: 2470-850X Online Vol. 5, Issue 1 (2020), pp. 24-34 JSARD.org The Relationship Between Districts’ Teacher Salary Schedule Structures and the Qualifications of Their Teacher Staffing Profile Henry Tran, University of South Carolina David G. Buckman, Kennesaw State University

Abstract: Many school administrators face difficulties The problem of focus is how to increase the staff- hiring teachers with the requisite job credentials and ing of teacher personnel with proper qualifications. qualifications. In this paper, we argue for the potential Rice et al. (2009) present several types of policy aimed of salary structures to influence teacher staffing. Spe- at addressing teacher staffing issues, including eco- cifically, the purpose of this study is to examine nomic incentives, avenues into the profession, hiring whether restructuring teacher compensation salary strategies, professional development, and working schedules is associated with attracting larger shares of conditions. We focus on economic incentives, given teachers with the necessary baseline qualifications for that they are the most employed or recommended the job (i.e., “highly qualified teachers” or HQT) in a policy option by states and public school districts non-collective bargaining state. Fixed effects regres- (McClure & Reeves, 2004; National Conference of sion using panel data from 2012-2014 for 80 of South State Legislatures, 2017). Rice et al (2009) argue that Carolina’s public school districts was used to address even within economic incentives, there are a variety of the purpose of the study. The percent of classes not tools that can be used to address teacher staffing such taught by HQT was found to increase as districts be- as: 1) salary schedule modifications, 2) salary enhance- come more backloaded. This provides supporting evi- ments, 3) limited duration incentives, 4) tuition subsi- dence concerning the benefits of frontloading salary dies and remission, 5) in-kind incentives and benefits, schedules. Additionally, potential drawbacks of front- and 6) retirement benefit waivers. Salary schedule loading salary schedules should be examined to im- modification is the focus of this paper, and we theo- prove the knowledge base of the potential costs rela- rize that frontloading teacher salary schedules may tive to benefits of frontloading salary structures. increase the staffing profile of appropriately qualified teachers for school employers. Keywords: teacher salary, salary schedule, pay, quali- The theoretical justification linking frontloaded fications, retention salary schedules to teacher staffing profile is based on the argument that beginning teachers are more sensi- tive to pay in terms of employment decisions than Over the past 30 years, the importance of educational seasoned teachers, both from an a recruitment and a credentials and qualifications (i.e., degrees, diplomas, retention perspective (Hendricks, 2015; Jacobson, certificates, and license) across all employment has 1988a; Jacobson, 1988b). This is because individuals increased and now serve as prominent apparatuses who are just beginning their career are influenced by for job requirements in service of employee selection starting salaries when making career choices (Monk & and screening (Isopahkala-Bouret, 2015). The prob- Jacobson, 1985). In addition, more experienced teach- lems are often exacerbated for public employees like ers are less likely to make major career and employer teachers, as individuals with advanced qualifications moves (Mark & Anderson, 1978) and less influenced are more likely to consider higher paying alternatives by salary when it comes to their employment reten- (McGinnis et al., 2016). Of interest to decision-makers tion (Murnane et al., 1987), while less experienced is to what extent policy can ameliorate these condi- teachers are most vulnerable to leaving the district or tions. profession altogether (Margolis, 2008). Given that providing larger raises earlier in the district’s fixed

Volume 5 ▪ Number 1 ▪ Spring 2020 6 Journal of School Administration Research and Development Spring 2020 rate salary schedule (i.e., frontloading) creates more proxies of cumulative teacher quality in the study. competitive wages for new or early-career teachers, These findings that support the importance of subject especially those with higher credentials and qualifica- matter expertise and the possession of a bachelor’s tions (Bó, Finan, & Rossi, 2013), this study examines degree align with the HQT requirements. whether districts that frontload their salary schedules Others have provided discounting evidence are associated with having more teachers with the against the aforementioned qualifications. For exam- baseline qualifications, thereby increasing the dis- ple, when studying kindergarten student achievement trict’s staffing profile of such teachers over time. gains in the area of math and reading, Guarino et al. (2006) found no significant relationship between Literature Review teachers having a full certification (i.e., completed all state level certification requirements) and/or ad- Teacher Qualifications vanced degrees with student achievement in math. Research has consistently found that teachers are the Philips (2010) found that teachers with full or ad- greatest resource capable of directly impacting stu- vanced certifications had less influence on student dent learning within schools (Bowen & Mills, 2017; math scores as compared to those who did not hold Goldhaber, 2015). Therefore, to support the technical full or advanced certifications. core of the school (i.e., teaching), it is imperative that Other researchers have offered partial or mixed the teaching force is appropriately staffed. One of the support for subject area certification and the posses- most relevant pieces of legislation that has addressed sion of a bachelor’s degree on student achievement this is the No Child Left Behind (2001) (NCLB) Act, gains. For instance, in their study utilizing a national where the metric of “highly qualified teacher” (HQT) longitudinal data source from 1988 as well as supple- was created and all districts were mandated to em- mental data sources from 1990 and 1992, Goldhaber ploy HQT to staff their classrooms (Strunk & Zeehan- and Brewer (2000) report that there is no evidence that delaar, 2011). According to this legislation, to be teachers with a standard teacher certification outper- deemed as “highly qualified,” teachers must hold a form teachers with emergency credentials. Yet when bachelor’s degree, have full state teaching certifica- analyzing teacher degrees, they found that teachers tion, and demonstrate competency (usually through with a bachelor’s or master’s degree in mathematics successful passage of a test) in each core academic produced higher math student achievement scores subject taught as defined by the state. Unfortunately, than teachers with out-of-subject degrees, thus sup- teachers with these qualifications are unequally dis- porting the influence of teacher subject matter degrees tributed in the field, with more disadvantaged stu- and subject matter expertise on student achievement. dents (e.g., underrepresented minorities, low income Although the literature has produced inconclusive and poor academic backgrounds) more likely to be results on this topic, the baseline qualifications and taught by teachers that are not HQT (Goldhaberet al., credentials as outlined by the HQT metric matter from 2015). a staffing perspective in the field, as they are employ- Research findings have been mixed concerning ment requirements listed on most job advertisements. the importance of the teacher qualifications highlight- That is, they have practical significance. Therefore, ed in NCLB for student achievement. Some studies this study seeks to provide evidence to guide policy have suggested its importance (Darling-Hammond et that can assist hiring agents with increasing their em- al., 2005). For example, Lee (2018) analyzed a national ployer’s share of employees who meet the recom- longitudinal dataset of 7th and 10th grade boys and mended minimum competency standard (i.e., bache- their respective teachers spanning from 1987-2007, lor’s degree and state teaching license in their specific finding that teacher level of education and teacher content area) for public school teaching. subject matter expertise influenced student short-term and long-term achievement. These results suggested Backloaded and Frontloaded Salary Structures that when controlling for other metrics of teacher The traditional uniform teacher salary schedule em- quality and/or qualifications, a one standard devia- ployed by most public school districts usually pay tion increase in cumulative teachers’ level of educa- teachers based on their experience and educational tion or cumulative teachers’ subject matter expertise attainment (Tran, 2018). However, the traditional was positively associated with students’ average schedule is not uniform across all districts, and the mathematics increases (standard deviations of 0.032 variance within these pay structures can address spe- and 0.067, respectively). Lee also found that teacher cific school and district needs. For example, districts subject-matter expertise was the only measure to re- have the authority to choose the salary percentage main statistically significant when controlling for all

Volume 5 ▪ Number 1 ▪ Spring 2020 7 Journal of School Administration Research and Development Spring 2020 increments associated with each step of the salary The yearly returns to experience gains schedule. When analyzing teacher salary structure, means the additional pay teachers receives Monk and Jacobson (1985) were the first to research from one year to the next to reward them the distribution of salary increments within school for the additional year of experience accu- districts, and they focused on the distribution for vet- mulated. These yearly experience gains de- eran and novice teachers. They argued that pay in- termine the slope of the salary schedule crease premiums vary across districts and the manner between any two years on the schedule. in which those premiums are distributed can poten- Our measure of salary schedule structure in tially influence teacher staffing. They conducted a lon- effect compares the slope of the schedule gitudinal analysis spanning across a decade and late in the teaching career to the slope early found that most school districts were backloaded, in the teaching career, highlighting the de- which awarded larger salary premiums to veteran gree to which districts structure salary teachers as compared to new and/or early career schedules to provide premiums to veteran teachers. Similar to Monk and Jacobson’s work, other teachers versus novice teachers. We refer to researchers (Vigdor, 2008; Lankford & Wyckoff, 1997) the relative returns to experience late in the found evidence of the prevalence of the common use teaching career as the relative experience of backloading teacher salary schedules, whereby ex- premium (Grissom & Strunk, 2012, p. 670- perienced teachers were paid a higher average premi- 671). um than early career teachers. Although backloading salaries can be rewarding Relative premium is then calculated by their for- to veteran teachers, the frequent use of backloading mula: teacher salary schedules can be problematic in that it may negatively influence desired school outcomes. For example, when analyzing data from a cross- sectional data set from a national sample of schools in The variable πV represents the average annual ex- 28 states to study the influence of salary structures on perience premiums for veteran teachers and πB repre- student achievement, Grissom and Strunk (2012) sents the average annual experience premiums for found not only that backloading was negatively asso- beginning teachers. Higher relative experience premi- ciated with the proportion of students reaching the ums suggest that district salary schedules are more proficiency benchmark, but also that this relationship backloaded, as veteran teachers receive higher salary was stable across the elementary, middle, and high experience premium gains than beginning teachers. school grades. Explicitly, their findings support that Panel data captures the fact that these returns may districts with greater relative experience premiums vary yearly. (i.e., higher salaries) for experienced teachers relative Five years was used as the line of demarcation to beginning teachers had higher rates of students that distinguished veteran and beginning teachers scoring below proficiency on math and reading stand- because of several reasons. First, the bulk of prior re- ardized assessments. Relatedly, districts with front- search has suggested that the relationship between loaded salary schedules (i.e., paid larger raises to teachers’ ability to improve students’ academic teachers early in their career and smaller raises to vet- achievement and their experience attenuates after the eran teachers) had more students who achieved and initial five years of teaching (Hanushek & Rivkin, surpassed the proficiency standards across grade lev- 2007; Rivkin et al., 2005). Second, teacher turnover is els. In sum, the structure of the teacher salary sched- most prevalent within the initial five years of teaching ule can have important implications for the teaching (Hendricks, 2015; Lindqvist et al., 2014; Margolis, body. 2008), and this is often considered the “sorting-out phase” characterized by high mobility as compared to Empirical Framework later phases where teachers are less likely to leave a district or the profession (Mark & Anderson, 1978). Procedures Third, teacher tenure (which can be thought of as a This study relies on a measure of the salary schedule symbol of the ending of a teacher’s novice status) is structure developed by Grissom and Strunk (2012) granted by year five in most states (Grissom & Strunk, that captures yearly teacher salary premiums at differ- 2012). In this study, beginning teachers were those ent experience levels, comparing the premium gains within the first five years/steps of the teacher salary of veteran to beginning teachers. They explain, schedule, whereas veteran teachers are those within the final five years/steps of the teacher salary -

Volume 5 ▪ Number 1 ▪ Spring 2020 8 Journal of School Administration Research and Development Spring 2020

Schedule. detection by addressing more confounding influences. Grissom and Strunk (2012) relied on the use of For instance, cross-sectional analysis cannot determine Schools and Staffing Survey data, and one limitation whether the predictor temporally precedes the de- associated with this was that they were only able to pendent variable, thereby resulting in a possible spu- observe teacher salaries for year 0, 10, and 20, whereas rious relationship between the two (i.e., the relation- the present study’s data included the entire spectrum ship between the two variables is produced by a joint of the salary schedule from minimum to maximum association with at least one other unaccounted for pay, with a focus on growth comparisons between variable) (Mernard 1991). However, with panel data, initial and final five years of the teacher salary sched- time precedence criterion can be identified through ule. They were also limited to a cross-sectional set of having multiple years of data and the effects of extra- data that does not capture changes in salary structure neous unaccounted for variables can be better ac- over time and its relationship to outcomes. This study counted for than in cross-sectional data (Finkel, 1995). relies on panel data analysis that mitigates these limi- To answer the research question, the relationship tations. between districts’ percent of classes not taught by HQT and teacher salary schedule structures is exam- Research Question ined. it represents the percent change of classes not While teacher salary reform has been a topic that has being taught by a HQT in district i at time t. Beyond received frequent attention in recent years by state the outcome variable, relativeexperiencepremiumBA it de- and federal policy, “there has been relatively little em- notes the experience premium paid to veteran teach- pirical examination of the incentives built into salary ers with a bachelor’s degree (BA) relative to beginning schedules as they appear in the majority of districts teachers with a BA. Districts with larger values of rela- today” (Grissom & Strunk, 2012, p. 675). Past research tive experience premium are more backloaded. Xit by Jacobson (1988a) found empirical evidence linking represents the vector of observed time-varying covari- both higher entry level salary premiums to improved ates that represent working condition factors that can ability to recruit teachers with more advanced educa- influence teacher recruitment and retention. These tional training and higher salary offerings later in the factors include districts’ poverty index (which is a salary schedule for teacher retention. However, this composite of the percent of districts’ students eligible work focused on a specific geographic region in New for Medicaid services and/or qualify for free/reduced York, a collective bargaining state, approximately lunch), percent of students with disability other than three decades ago. Jacobson recommended that future speech, enrollment, percent of students classified as work examine the impact of the structure of teacher English Language Learners (ELLs), number of years salary schedules on labor market outcomes in non- the superintendent has led the district (to capture ad- collective bargaining states. To explore this, we ask to ministrative consistency), student teacher ratio (a what extent does changes in districts’ salary schedule proxy for class size), and per pupil expenditures (a structure (e.g., degree of backloading salary gains for measure of district’s capacity and/or willingness to more experienced teachers) correspond with changes spend). All variables besides percentages and dum- in their percent of classes not taught by HQT? mies received natural logarithmic transformation for the final analysis so coefficients can be interpreted as Analytical Strategy elasticities. Wi represents the vector of unobserved but fixed variables that may potentially contaminate the Estimates will be biased to the extent that districts’ impact of frontload on Y. unobserved variables influence the outcomes. To miti- gate this bias, panel data was used to account for fixed Model 1: unobserved impacts so that estimates avoid biases from omitted time-invariant characteristics such as it = + 1relativeexperiencepremiumBA it + Xit + Wi + it district culture, community support, etc. Because this To the extent that observed time-varying covariates study focuses on a three year time interval, it is more and the unobserved fixed contaminant variables ex- likely that many of these omitted characteristics plain all effects on it beyond the effects of frontload- would have remained stable and not have changed in ing, the coefficient of 1 can be seen as the effect of any substantive manner during this time period. districts’ salary schedule structure on Y. Panel data allows for the capturing of not only the relationship between two variables, but also changes The second model is a replica of Model 1 with the in that relationship across time. While this does not exception of the relative experience variable, which guarantee detection of a causal effect of the independ- now compares the salary premium of veteran teachers ent variable on the outcome, it does better get at such with a master’s degree (MA) to beginning teachers

Volume 5 ▪ Number 1 ▪ Spring 2020 9 Journal of School Administration Research and Development Spring 2020 with a MA. in South Carolina are frontloaded (i.e., 94% for teach- ers with BA and MA in 2012; 90% for BA and 92% for Model 2: MA in 2013; 90% for BA, and almost 94% for MA in it = + 1relativeexperiencepremiumMA it+ Xit + Wi + it 2014). Districts that provide equal returns to experi- ence for veteran or beginning teachers have a relative Sample experience premium of zero. In the data, there is only The data for this study was obtained from South Caro- one district that fell into this category for MA. ’s department of education’s public access files. The increased prevalence of frontloaded salary Our sample consists of 80 out of the 811 traditional schedules compared to backloaded salary schedules public school districts in South Carolina from the found by past studies (Jacobson, 1988a; Lankford & years 2012 to 2014, employing and educating approxi- Wyckoff, 1997; Monk & Jacobson, 1985; Murnane et mately 98% of the state’s teachers and students, re- al., 1987) may not only be a reflection of this study’s spectively. These specific years were intentionally se- focus on a Right-to-Work state, but also of the policy lected because they are the most recent years of con- goal of increasing the focus on starting salaries es- secutive data available in which all the variables of poused by numerous parties, including educational interest were available and the state maintained a con- reformers (Vigdor, 2008). That is, the increasing preva- sistent state standardized test (the PASS test). In 2015, lence of frontloaded salary schedules found in our the test of years prior were discontinued with the study may not only be a reflection of the geographic transition to SCPASS, and 2016 represented a bench- context, but also the recency of the study. Districts mark year for a new state test (South Carolina Depart- may be increasingly frontloaded because of the bene- ment of Education, nd). Changing state standardized fits found to be associated with such salary schedules tests can alter traditional education practice, thereby (Grissom & Strunk, 2012). influencing the attractiveness of the profession given Descriptive statistics for the state’s school districts the negative relationship between accountability pres- can be found in Table 1. The table identifies both with- sure and teacher supply (Margolis, 2008). Additional- in- and between-district variations. As evident from ly, state standardized tests/accountability emphasis the table, the dataset also includes wide variation in could influence Wi in ways that would threaten the ranges for district variables. This is advantageous be- internal validity of the estimate of frontload because cause it increases the representativeness and generali- the fixed unobservable characteristics would then zability of the study’s results. For example, the study vary, representing additional sources of confounding includes a wide variation of poverty indexes for dis- influences to the outcomes. For these reasons, the fo- tricts, ranging from districts with relatively small per- cus was on 2012 to 2014. centages of impoverished students (28%) to districts In addition, the state of South Carolina is benefi- with impoverished students representing the majority cial to explore for several reasons. First is the issue of (98%). In addition, the dataset includes ranges in dis- relevance, given that the state has been struggling trict size from less than 1,000 students to over 70,000 with major teacher shortages. For example, there were enrolled. 6,218 newly hired certificated teacher positions in 2014 One major criticism of past teacher salary studies -15 and about 5,280 who did not return to their teach- is the “lack of historical information and missing ing position that same year (Center for Educator Re- measures of state policy” (Hanushek & Rivkin, 2006, cruitment, Retention, & Advancement, 2016). Further- p. 1062). Because this study uses panel data, changes more, the bulk of prior state-based research on tradi- in salary offerings within districts can be captured. A tional teacher salary schedule structures has focused significant Hausman test suggests that the use of a on collective bargaining states (Jacobson, 1988b; Lank- fixed effects model over a random effects model is ford & Wyckoff, 1997; Monk & Jacobson, 1985; appropriate (p<.05). To account for district specific Murnane et al., 1987), where the general consensus errors, robust standard errors were clustered at the was that districts in these states primarily backloaded district level, resulting in conservative estimates of the their salary schedule due to union pressure that bene- coefficients. fits veteran teachers. Recommendations were made that future research should examine traditional teach- Results er salary structures in non-collective bargaining states The relative experience premium variable was con- (Jacobson, 1988a) to determine if patterns are differ- verted to a dummy variable indicating whether a dis- ent. trict was frontloaded (i.e., relative experience premi- Supporting speculation that the degree of front- um being > 0) or backloaded for Models 1 and 2 (our loading may differ in right-to-work states relative to primary models) to assist in our determination of the collective bargaining states, the bulk of school districts

Volume 5 ▪ Number 1 ▪ Spring 2020 10 Journal of School Administration Research and Development Spring 2020

Table 1

Descriptive Statistics for the Study Sample

Standard Variation Mean Minimum Maximum Deviation Overall 4.38 7.01 0 64.1 Percent of classes not taught Between 6.56 0.17 52.2 by HQT Within 2.43 -11.72 16.28

BA Relative Premium Overall -51.41 38.03 -100 103 Between 35.13 -100 103 Within 14.73 -113.08 26.92 MA Relative Premium Overall -54.41 43.54 -318 137 Between 38.00 -149.33 137 Within 21.24 -223.08 64.92 Overall 32234.98 1464.78 29523 36810 Teacher Salary for BA with Between 1469.44 29523 36810 zero experience Within 140.95 31620.31 33257.31 Overall 36794.25 1635.62 33804 42371 Teacher Salary for MA with Between 1640.75 33804 42371 zero experience Within 167.75 36090.25 38014.91 Overall 47001.37 2708.07 39821 53076 Average Teacher Salary Between 2647.29 41574 52325 Within 701.56 44670.03 49395.37 Overall 88.00 13.58 27.76 98.49 Poverty Index Between 13.63 28.14 98.37 Within 0.84 74.73 80.83 Overall 13.14 2.69 6.9 21.7 Percent of Students with Disability (other than Between 2.67 7.5 20.85 speech) Within 0.38 11.99 14.29 Overall 8817.51 11321.76 725 74550 Enrollment Between 11310.12 764.33 72915 Within 298.26 7525.84 10452.51 Overall 18.39 59.41 0 756 Percent of ELL Students Between 36.06 0 263 Within 46.94 -243 511 Overall 20.89 3.76 4.35 29.11 Student-Teacher Ratio Between 3.09 10.83 25.77 Within 2.32 8.26 27.84 Overall 9568.09 1935.69 6599 26289 Per Pupil Expenditure Between 1718.73 7219 16297.67 Within 885.44 4457.42 19559.42

Overall 5.53 4.91 0 30 Superintendent’s years at the Between 4.45 0.5 23 district Within 2.09 -3.80 23.20

Volume 5 ▪ Number 1 ▪ Spring 2020 11 Journal of School Administration Research and Development Spring 2020 relationship between salary schedule structure and benefits of frontloading. For example, salary schedule the teacher staffing profile. The results of Models 1 premiums have been linked to student achievement. and 2 are displayed in Table 2. For instance, in the area of teacher performance, Tran The fixed effects model demeans all of the varia- (2017) analyzed panel data to assess the potential im- bles based on the within-district mean; therefore, the pact of how districts’ utilized relative labor markets to results suggest that the greater the increases in relative set teacher salaries. He found that school districts that experience premium (i.e., the more backloaded dis- paid teachers according to the average market salary tricts’ salary schedules), the larger the percentage of saw a higher percentage of students who scored profi- their classes not taught by HQT. Changes in the rela- cient or above on science standardized tests than dis- tive experience premium for teachers with a BA was tricts that paid less than the average market salary. statistically significant at p<.05 and for teachers with a Likewise, there have been other empirical findings MA at p<.001. Other statistically significant variables that support the linkage between higher pay and for Model 1 and 2 include student-teacher ratio in the higher levels of student outcomes (Grissom & Strunk, expected direction (i.e., larger student teacher ratio 2012; Lin, 2010; Tran & Buckman, 2016). As such, insti- results in larger percentage of classes not taught by tuting higher pay bumps earlier in teachers’ career HQT, as larger student teacher ratio, or larger class may bring teacher salaries closer or even above the size is often considered an unattractive employment average market salary, assist in recruiting teachers condition) and per pupil expenditure (which had a with stronger qualifications, and increase student positive relationship with the percentage of districts’ achievement. classes not taught by HQT, suggesting that districts Our study also has implications for education may have to spend more to compensate for the fact leaders. One of the most important tasks of the school the talent needs are not met- for example, through principal is the hiring of a qualified teacher workforce remedial programs). These results are consistent with (Tran, Buckman, & Johnson, 2020). While districts our hypotheses and the literature. across the United States, especially in high poverty regions, face challenges with teacher recruitment, they Sensitivity Analysis also experience dwindling funding (Black, 2016), often Sensitivity analyses with more conservative specifica- limiting their ability to provide financial incentives to tions were conducted to test the robustness of the effectively recruit new teachers. Consequently, it be- findings. Specifically, to account for variation in geo- hooves school employers to consider how they may graphic wage pressure within the state from differing better repurpose existing resources to maximize their regional labor markets (as measured by non-educator potential to hire the teachers they need. Evidence from salaries for comparably educated and trained workers this study provides the hiring agents, typically the within each region), salaries were adjusted by the school principal, an opportunity to engage with dis- comparable wage index (Taylor, 2006). trict leadership about ways to expand the recruitment Moreover, instead of relying on an indicator for pool of qualified teachers for their schools. frontloading, Models 3 and 4 relied on the actual rela- Like all studies, this study is not without limita- tive experience premium as the predictor. This asks a tions. For instance, this study focused on a specific slightly different, but related question to Models 1 and state--South Carolina. While this was intentional be- 2. The main models asked whether presence of front- cause the objective, as suggested by prior research loading is associated with changes in the outcome, (Jacobson, 1988a), was to improve our understanding whereas the robustness check models inquire about of teacher salary structures in a state where mandato- the extent that changes in the degree of frontloading ry collective bargaining is not prevalent, it may re- has that relationship. As can be seen in Table 3, while strict generalizability of the results. In addition, HQT the coefficients for the teacher supply variables are is a minimum competency measure and may not accu- smaller given the change in scale, the findings were rately define a more effective teacher; however, it was nonetheless consistent in that more frontloaded teach- the definition used by federal policy and still contin- er salary schedules were negatively associated with ues to have substantive implications in the field for the percent of classes not taught by HQT. recruitment and retention purposes. Furthermore, there has not been consensus concerning a universally Discussion, Implications, and Conclusion accepted definition of a “quality teacher,” given criti- cisms of the lack of reliability of measures such as val- The findings from this study support that the qualifi- ue-added scores (Yeh, 2013). Also, as mentioned, the cations of school employers’ teacher staffing profiles evidence base on the importance of the qualification increases as districts’ frontloaded their teacher salary inputs that comprise HQT for student achievement is schedules. This builds on the literature suggesting the

Volume 5 ▪ Number 1 ▪ Spring 2020 12 Journal of School Administration Research and Development Spring 2020

Table 2 Table 3

Regression Analysis for Primary Analysis Regression Model for Sensitivity Testing Variables Percent of Percent of Variables Percent of Percent of classes not classes classes not classes not taught by not taught taught by taught by HQT by HQT HQT HQT Frontloaded Salary -0.08** Relative Experience 0.0002** Schedule for teach- (0.024) Premium for BA (0.0001) ers with BA Relative Experience 0.0003**** Frontloaded Salary -0.12** Premium for MA (0.00007) Schedule for teach- (0.04) ers with MA Poverty Index 0.65 0.27 Poverty Index 0.51 0.81 (0.54) (0.43) (0.50) (0.51) Percent of Students -0.13 0.014 Percent of Students 0.25 -0.45 with Disability (0.60) (0.57) with Disability (0.68) (0.63) (other than speech)

(other than speech) Log of Enrollment -0.094 -0.016 Log of Enrollment -0.1 -0.035 (0.15) (0.12) (0.15) (0.145) Percent of ELL Stu- -0.007 -0.006 Percent of ELL Stu- -0.009 0.007 dents (0.01) (0.01) dents (0.015) (0.0118) Log of Superinten- 0.008* 0.007* Log of Superinten- 0.006 0.005 dent’s years at the (0.004) (0.004) dent’s years at the (0.004) (0.004) district district Log of Student- -0.55**** -0.047**** Log of Student- -0.06**** -0.061*** Teacher Ratio (0.015) (0.013) Teacher Ratio (0.016) (0.15) Log of Per Pupil 0.32*** 0.31*** Log of Per Pupil 0.31** 0.28** Expenditure (0.11) (0.101) Expenditure (0.13) (0.127) Constant -2.39** -2.73*** Constant -2.14** -2.5** (0.96) (0.84 ) (1.132) (0.93) Observations 150 150 Observations 150 150 Imputations 60 60 Imputations 60 60 Adjusted Within R- 0.83 0.83 Within R-squared 0.91 0.84 squared Number of Dis- 80 80 Number of Dis- 80 80 tricts2 tricts1 Rho 0.98 0.98 Rho 0.99 0.95 Note. Robust standard errors in parentheses. **** p<0.001, *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.10 Note. Robust standard errors in parentheses. 2 A district was removed because of missing data. **** p<0.001, *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.10 1 A district was removed because of missing data.

Volume 5 ▪ Number 1 ▪ Spring 2020 13 Journal of School Administration Research and Development Spring 2020

mixed (Lee, 2018; Goldhaber & Brewer, 2000). Finally, Goldhaber, D., & Brewer, D.J. (2000). Does teacher the findings of this study cannot support causal con- certification matter? High school teacher certifica- clusions, although efforts were taken to increase the tion status and student achievement. Educational rigor of analysis to better safeguard against threats to evaluation and policy analysis, 22(2), 129-145. the internal validity of the study. Goldhaber, D., Lavery, L., & Theobald, R. (2015). Une- Despite these limitations, this study makes im- ven playing field? Assessing the teacher quality portant contributions to the literature on teacher com- gap between advantaged and disadvantaged stu- pensation by advancing our knowledge of the current dents. Educational Researcher, 44(5), 293-307. teacher pay structure. Beyond the benefits already Grissom, J.A., & Strunk, K.O. (2012). How should mentioned, it has also been argued that frontloading school districts shape teacher salary schedules? teacher salary schedules will better align it with the Linking performance to pay structure in tradition- compensation structure of professionals such as doc- al compensation schemes. Education Policy, 26(5), tors and lawyers who often reap the full earning po- 663-695. tential from their expertise within the first ten years of Guarino, C.M., Hamilton, L.S., Lockwood, J.R., & their career (Vigdor, 2008). This study builds on the Rathburn, A.H. (2006). Teacher qualifications, in- literature that provides empirical support for such a structional practices, and reading and mathematics decision. Future research should examine the poten- gains of kindergarteners (NCES 2006-031). Washing- tial drawbacks of frontloading salary schedules to im- ton, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National prove the knowledge base of the potential costs rela- Center for Education Statistics. tive to the benefits of frontloading salary structures. Hanushek, E., & Rivkin, S.G. (2007). Pay, working conditions and teacher quality. Future of Children, Note 17(1), 69-86. 1Estimates of 1 of the school districts was not in- Hanushek, E.A., & Rivkin, S.G. (2006). Teacher Quali- cluded in the final analysis because of missing data as ty. In Hanushek, E.A., & Welch, F. (Eds.), Hand- explained in Tables 2 and 3. book of the economics of education, 2 (pp. 1051-1078). Elsevier B.V. References Hendricks, M.D. (2015). Towards an optimal teacher salary schedule: Designing base salary to attract Bó, E.D., Finan, F., & M.A. Rossi (2013). Strengthening and retain effective teachers. Economics of Educa- state capabilities: The role of financial incentives tion Review, 47, 143-167. in the call to public service. Quarterly Journal of Isopahkala-Bouret, U. (2015). Educational credential- Economics, 128(3), 1169-1218. ing of an aging workforce: Uneasy conclusions. Bowen, D., & Mills, J.N. (2017). Changing the educa- Adult Education Quarterly, 65(2), 83-99. tion workforce? The relationships between teacher Jacobson, S. (1988a). Alternative practices of internal quality, motivation, and performance pay. Teach- salary distribution and their effects on teacher re- ers College Record, 119(4), 1-32. cruitment and retention. Journal of Education Fi- Center for Educator Recruitment, Retention, & Ad- nance, 14(2), 274-284. vancement. (2016). A report on the Fall 2015 supply Jacobson, S. (1988b). The distribution of salary incre- and demand. http://cerra.org/media/ ments and its effect on teacher retention. Educa- d o c u - tional Administration Quarterly, 24(2), 178-199. ments/2016/1/2015_Supply_Demand_Report.pdf Lankford, H., & Wyckoff, J. (1997). The changing . structure of teacher compensation, 1970-94. Eco- Darling-Hammond, L., Holtzman, D.J., Gatlin, S.J., & nomics of Education Review, 16, 371-384. Heilig, J.V. (2005). Does teacher preparation mat- Lee, S.W. (2018). Pulling back the curtain: Revealing ter? Evidence about teacher certification, Teach for the cumulative importance of high-performing, America, and teacher effectiveness. Education Poli- highly qualified teachers on students’ educational cy Analysis Archives, 13(42), retrieved from outcome. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analy- https://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/147/273 sis, 40(3), 359-381. Finkel, S.E. (1995). Causal analysis with panel data. Lin, T.C. (2010). Teacher salaries and student achieve- Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishing. ment: The case of Pennsylvania. Applied Economics Goldhaber, D. (2015). Teachers clearly matter, but Letters, 17(6), 547-550. finding effective teacher policies has proven chal-

lenging. In Ladd, H., & Goertz, M. (Eds.), Hand- book of Research in Education Finance and Policy (pp. 146-165). New York, NY: Routledge.

Volume 5 ▪ Number 1 ▪ Spring 2020 14 Journal of School Administration Research and Development Spring 2020

Lindqvist, P., Nordanger, U.K., & , R. (2014). Tran, H. (2017). Does the pay stance of South Carolina Teacher attrition the first five years – a multifacet- public school districts influence their math and ed image. Teaching and Teacher Education, 40, 94- science achievement scores? Journal of Education 103. Finance, 43(2). 105-122. Mark, J.H., & Anderson, B.D. (1978). Teacher survival Tran, H., & Buckman, D. (2016). Pay for progress: The rates: A current look. American Educational Re- relationship between Florida districts’ teacher sal- search Journal, 15(3), 379-383. ary offerings and their high school dropout rates. Margolis, J. (2008). What will keep today’s teachers Journal of School Public Relations, 37(3), 320-346. teaching? Looking for a hook as a new career cycle Vigdor, J. (2008). Scrap the sacrosanct salary schedule. emerges. Teachers College Record, 110(1), 160-194. Education Next, 8(4), 36-42. McClure, C., & Reeves, C. (2004). Rural teacher recruit- Yeh, S.S. (2013). A Reanalysis of the Effects of Teacher ment and retention: Review of the research and practice Replacement Using Value-added Modeling. Teach- literature. Nashville, TN: Appalachia Educational ers College Record, 115(12), 1-35. Laboratory. McGinnis-Johnson, J., & Ng, E.S. (2016). Money talks Authors or millennials walk: The effect of compensation on Henry Tran, MPA, PHR, SHRM-CP, Ph.D., is an assis- nonprofit millennial workers sector-switching tant professor of the Department of Educational Lead- intentions. Review of Public Personnel Administra- ership and Policies at the University of South Caroli- tion, 36(3), 283-305. na. He researches education human resources (HR) Mernard, S. (1991). Longitudinal research. Newbury and strategic talent management, and is author of a Park: Sage Publication. book on the topic for Routlege/University Council for Monk, D.H., & Jacobson, S.L. (1985). The distribution Educational Administration (UCEA). of salary increments between veteran and novice teachers: Evidence from New York State. Journal of David G. Buckman, Ph.D., is an Assistant Professor of Education Finance, 11, 157-175. Educational Leadership and Ed.S. Program Coordina- Murnane, R.J., Singer, J. & Willett, J. (1987). Changes tor in the Department of Educational Leadership at in teacher salaries during the 1970s: The role of Kennesaw State University in Kennesaw, Georgia. He school district demographics. Economics of Educa- studies school human resources and school finance tion Review, 6(4), 379-388. issues in the P-12 educational environment. National Conference of State Legislatures. (2017, Octo- ber). Tackling teacher and principal shortages in rural areas. LegisBrief, 25(40), 1-2. Rice, J., Roellke, C., Sparks, D., & Kolbe, T. (2009). Piecing together the teacher policy landscape: Multi-level case study findings from three states. Teachers College Record, 111(2), 511-546. Rivkin, S.G., Hanushek, E., & Kain, J. (2005). Teachers, schools, and academic achievement. Econometrica, 73, 417-458. South Carolina Department of Education. (nd). Test Dates – South Carolina Department of Education. Re- trieved from https://ed.sc.gov/tests/assessment- information/test-dates. Strunk, K.O., & Zeehandelaar, D.B. (2015). Added bo- nus? The relationship between California school districts’ specialized teacher staffing needs and the use of economic incentive policies. Educational Policy, 29(2), 283-315. Taylor, L.L. (2006). Comparable wages, inflation and school finance equity. Education Finance and Policy, 1(3), 349-371. Tran, H. (2018). Taking the mystery out of South Carolina school finance (2nd edition). ICPEL Publications.

Volume 5 ▪ Number 1 ▪ Spring 2020 15