Search nctq.org

Or search by choosing a tag
Training and Recruitment

Teacher Prep, Licensure, Student Teaching

Staffing

Hiring and Assignment, Supply and Demand, Teacher Diversity, Work Day

Evaluation and Support

Evaluation, Professional Development, Retention and Tenure

Compensation

Pay, Benefits

Differential Pay: Connecticut

Retaining Effective Teachers Policy

Look at National Findings
Goal

The state should support differential pay for effective teaching in shortage and high-needs areas.

Meets a small part of goal
Suggested Citation:
National Council on Teacher Quality. (2011). Differential Pay: Connecticut results. State Teacher Policy Database. [Data set].
Retrieved from: https://www.nctq.org/yearbook/state/CT-Differential-Pay-9

Analysis of Connecticut's policies

Connecticut neither supports differential pay by which a teacher can earn additional compensation by teaching certain subjects nor offers incentives to teach in high-needs schools. However, the state has no regulatory language preventing local districts from providing such differential pay in these areas.

For the 2010-2011 school year, the Commissioner of Education designated the following subjects as teacher-shortage areas: bilingual education (PK-12), comprehensive special education (K-2), English (7-12), intermediate administrator, mathematics (7-12), music (PK-12), remedial reading and language arts (1-12), school psychologist, speech and language pathology and world languages (7-12). Qualifying teachers assuming positions in these subject areas could benefit from either the Teachers' Mortgage Assistance Program or a Rehiring of Retired Teachers program. In the latter, teachers could return to work and, for a limited time, not be subject to the earnings limit if they teach in a subject-shortage area.   

Citation

Recommendations for Connecticut

Support differential pay initiatives for effective teachers in both subject shortage areas and high-needs schools.
Such policies can help districts achieve a more equitable distribution of teachers. Although the state's mortgage assistance and rehiring of retirees programs are a step in the right direction, the state should consider how to expand these programs so that all teachers, not just retirees or those purchasing a home can benefit. A salary differential is an attractive incentive for every teacher.

State response to our analysis

Connecticut recognized the factual accuracy of this analysis.

    • Best practice
    • Meets goal
    • Nearly Meets goal
    • Meets goal in part
    • Meets a small part of goal
    • Does not meet goal

  • Connecticut

    Connecticut map
Performance Pay
Select another topic
Delivering Well Prepared Teachers
Expanding the Pool of Teachers
Identifying Effective Teachers
Retaining Effective Teachers
Exiting Ineffective Teachers
Research rationale

Two recent studies emphasize the need for differential pay. In "Teacher Quality and Teacher Mobility", L. Feng and T. Sass find that high performing teachers tend to transfer to schools with a large proportion of other high performing teachers and students, while low performing teachers cluster in bottom quartile schools (CALDER: Urban Institute 2011).  Another study from T. Sass et al found that the least effective teachers in high-poverty schools were considerably less effective than the least effective teachers in low-poverty schools.

Charles Clotfelter, et al., "Would Higher Salaries Keep Teachers in High-Poverty Schools? Evidence from a Policy Intervention in North Carolina," Sanford Institute of Public Policy, Duke University, May 16, 2006 at:
http://papers.nber.org/papers/w12285.

Julie Kowal, et al., "Financial Incentives for Hard to Staff Positions," Center for American Progress, November 2008.

A study by researchers at Rand found that higher pay lowered attrition, and the effect was stronger in high-needs school districts. Every $1,000 increase was estimated to decrease attrition by more than 6 percent. See S.N. Kirby, et al., "Supply and Demand of Minority Teachers in Texas: Problems and Prospects," Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 1999; 21(1): 47-66 at: http://epa.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/21/1/47

We use cookies

We use cookies to recognize your repeat visits and preferences, as well as to measure the effectiveness of campaigns and analyze traffic. To learn more about cookies, including how to disable them, view our Privacy and Cookie Policy. By clicking "Accept" or by continuing in the site you consent to the use of cookies unless you have disabled them.

Dismiss Accept