editorials

It hasn't been a good week for Q Comp, but the important Minnesota education initiative still holds promise.

Q Comp (Quality Compensation) is a voluntary program designed to link pay raises for teachers to their success with students. About 72 of nearly 500 schools districts and charter schools statewide signed up to develop their own adjusted pay plans, with participants receiving an extra $260 per student annually. Since its inception in 2005, the state has spent about $140 million on the program.

Gov. Tim Pawlenty has recommended requiring the alternative teacher pay program for all schools, but three recent evaluations of the program raise enough questions about its effectiveness to put that idea on hold.

On Tuesday, the state's legislative auditor released a report showing no clear evidence of improved student performance. The review concluded that it's difficult to "disentangle'' the pay plan from several other schools initiatives. The auditor's analysis did not take a position on the program, but recommended several steps the state Department of Education could take to improve oversight and the application process.

In its own study, the Education Department said Q Comp is on the right track, but could not statistically link the program to greater student achievement.

On Sunday, a Star Tribune article found that about 99 percent of the roughly 4,200 eligible teachers received merit raises under the program.

So if there is little evidence that the pay hikes improve student learning -- and nearly everyone gets a raise anyway -- why continue the program? Because Q Comp has lived up to some of its goals, and it deserves more time to determine its impact on learning. Only 11 school districts and charters have participated for three or more years, so results are limited. Although Q Comp was touted as a merit-pay initiative, that's only part of what the law requires. Educators can receive pay increases for receiving good job reviews, working more collaboratively and for mentoring other educators. Those are worthwhile efforts. National research shows collaborative staff development improves teacher quality, which can lead to better student outcomes.

And under the program, a variety of compensation models have been developed to replace the outdated steps-and-lanes schedules that primarily reward longevity and additional education -- even if those factors do not affect student performance.

When the Q Comp legislation was adopted in 2005, this Editorial Board said the program was an experiment worth trying. Concerned that about half of all new teachers leave the profession within five years, it argued that talented new educators needed greater incentive to stick with education. And top-notch veteran educators should have opportunities to share their skills and earn more without leaving the classroom for administrative jobs.

It also questioned whether new pay systems would address challenges such as poverty and language barriers, whether higher salaries would be sustainable over time, and whether the additional dollars would drive improved learning.

After four years, those questions remain. That's why this is not the time to require the program for all districts and schools. Better to continue it on a voluntary basis, adopt the legislative auditor's recommendations and gather more data.