OPINION: Teacher bonuses won’t solve the real problems in Alaska schools

The Legislature recently overwhelmingly passed an education budget that better funds our schools and also places the responsibility for recruiting and retaining teachers right where it belongs, in the school districts. The governor, by threatening a veto if he doesn’t get his way, seems intent on forcing the state to implement a teacher bonus program. The governor has said that the bonuses should be implemented for three years to see if they will work to improve teacher recruiting and retention. In the governor’s recent press conference, he repeatedly referenced the editorial in the ADN supporting bonuses. In that editorial, the editors asked who wouldn’t want a bonus. That is not the right question. It should be who will stay if they are offered a bonus. The answer is that bonuses retain very few, if any, teachers in the long term.

There has been a lot of research on the teacher recruiting and turnover issues; they are not unique to Alaska. Massachusetts tried a signing bonus program offering $20,000. While it did help to a degree, the dropout rate of all those hired after three years was 46%. In North Carolina bonuses only made teachers 15% less likely to leave and there was no positive long-term effect on retention. When the bonus was gone so was the reduction in intent to leave. In a study of Denver’s public schools retention rates only increased by 2.1%. In a 2020 research paper, published by the Oxford Review of Education, a comprehensive look at research on teacher recruitment and retention included 52 separate studies. The overall effect of bonuses and incentives ranged from 12% to 25% reduction in the likelihood teachers will leave but the moment the incentives were gone so were the reductions in intent to leave. Clearly, bonuses and incentives have not been shown to be a long-term solution to the recruitment and turnover problem.

The obvious question is, “Why won’t bonuses and incentives work to decrease turnover?” It is because unless the basic minimums for compensation have been met, other employment opportunities are more attractive and turnover goes up. When looking at why people are willing to stay or not, one needs to understand what is driving their behavior. One of the more robust findings in management is that insufficient pay leads to higher turnover and lower motivation. Money will not result in sustained motivation, but if pay is insufficient and employees are dissatisfied with compensation it will result in increased turnover. Fredrick Hertzberg discovered that the things that motivate people are separate and distinct from those that dissatisfy them. The dissatisfiers he called “hygienes.” It is important to note that meeting the minimums to prevent dissatisfaction only results in no dissatisfaction. Satisfaction with a job and motivation comes from growth, achievement, recognition, autonomy and advancement. The things that can dissatisfy employees include pay, policy and administration, work conditions and supervision. If employees are dissatisfied, they are prone to be less motivated and more likely to leave.

The report created for the Alaska Department of Education and Early Development, the product of the Alaska Governor’s Working Group on Teacher Retention and Recruitment, titled: “Teacher Retention and Recruitment Survey Results,” found that compensation, retirement benefits and health care benefits were all in the top five issues of importance to teachers in this state. For teachers, pay was No. 1. Interestingly, the Teacher Retention and Action Plan, also a product of the working group, acknowledges the primacy of compensation and then punts rather than calling for the increases that will address this problem. In the report, eight of the top 10 items of greatest importance to the teachers are all “hygienes” or dissatisfiers. In other words, the basic minimums to attract and retain employees have not been, and are not being, met. In fact, according to the Institute for Education Sciences, ies.ed.gov, during the past nine years, teacher turnover in Alaska has ranged from 18% to 33%. That means that the teacher turnover rate for Alaska has been up to five times higher than for the nation as a whole.

It is clear what needs to be done. To permanently reduce turnover, the entire compensation package for teachers needs to be massively improved. Turnover rates from 18% to 33% for the past 9 years is a clear demonstration that compensation, increasing class sizes, and other working conditions are driving turnover. It has been shown repeatedly that teacher turnover has a negative effect on student outcomes. If we take effective steps to reduce teacher turnover, it will improve student outcomes. If we reduce class sizes, it will improve student outcomes. If we fund the gifted programs, optional programs and charter schools, it will improve student outcomes. To continue to do what we have been doing and expecting turnover to go down and student outcomes to improve is not rational.

If the governor gets his way and a bonus program is implemented instead of solving the real problem, there will be a brief improvement in recruiting and retention followed by an exodus when the program ends, and we will be right back where we are now. There is no reason to think Alaska will be any different than any other place that has tried bonuses and incentives and failed to attract and retain teachers for the long run.

There is common ground here between the Legislature and the governor. Both sides want to see teacher recruitment be more successful, for teacher turnover to be reduced, and for student outcomes improve, so there are common goals to strive for. Why not add the governor’s proposed funding for bonuses to the Base Student Allocation and work with the superintendents to create realistic goals for reduction of teacher turnover and for recruiting new teachers? Then let the superintendents do their job using their best judgment and hold them accountable for achieving the goals they agreed to for the next three years.

It is likely that if we try that, it will be more effective at reducing turnover and increasing recruitment than the bonus program will. Additionally reducing turnover, and potentially lower class sizes, as a result of more adequate funding will have a positive impact on student outcomes over the course of three years. This approach will be a win for all Alaskans.

Frank Jeffries is a retired professor emeritus of management who taught for 24 years at the College of Business and Public Policy at the University of Alaska Anchorage after spending 20 years in private industry in a variety of management positions.

The views expressed here are the writer’s and are not necessarily endorsed by the Anchorage Daily News, which welcomes a broad range of viewpoints. To submit a piece for consideration, email commentary(at)adn.com. Send submissions shorter than 200 words to letters@adn.com or click here to submit via any web browser. Read our full guidelines for letters and commentaries here.