Differentiated Staffing

The differentiated teaching staff concept emerged in the mid-1960s as a movement to (a) find ways to deal with critical teacher shortages in selected curricular areas, (b) find some way of breaking away from the lockstep salary schedule without resorting to merit pay, and (c) creating within the teaching profession room for a talented teacher to remain a teacher without having to leave the classroom for school administration.

One of the earliest proponents of differentiated staffing was Dwight Allen, then a young professor at Stanford University. Allen proposed a four-level structure comprised of different offices and roles for classroom teachers. He envisioned places for associate teachers, staff teachers, senior teachers, and professors. The first two levels would be hired on a 10-month contract, the second two on a 12-month contract. Allen proffered three essential conditions for a model of differentiated staffing: (1) a minimum of three differentiated teaching levels, each having a different salary range, (2) a maximum salary at the top teaching category that was at least double the maximum at the lowest, and (3) substantial direct teaching responsibility for all teachers at all salary levels, including those in the top brackets.

In 1969 Allen's model, with some modifications, was implemented in the Temple City, California, school system under the leadership of its farsighted superintendent, M. John Rand. The Temple City plan was modified and became an exemplar for the nation. Renamed the career ladder plan, it was first installed in Tennessee under the leadership of Governor Lamar Alexander. By 1985, 31 states had enacted some form of legislation aimed at creating teacher career ladders. The Southern Regional Education Board even created a Career Ladder Clearinghouse to network the career ladder movement.

One of the most critical issues with installing a differentiated staff or career ladder plan was the necessity to grandfather some teachers who were overpaid for their responsibilities. As a differentiated staff was put into place, some teachers with greater seniority than their placement would permit were making more than the salary range specified. For a differentiated staffing plan to function within about the same costs, it was eventually going to have to place a cap on the number of teachers who could be placed in the top ranks. After grandfathering, it was estimated at least 40% of the teachers would be in the associate teacher category, 30% in the staff teacher placement, 18% in the senior teacher position, and only 12% in the master teacher category. Thus, to put into place the new staffing system, staffing costs were higher initially and remained higher until all those teachers who were overpaid for their rank had retired or left the school system.

Other problems with the differentiated staffing/ career ladder concept was that unless the school structure and scheduling system were altered, the school could not easily take advantage of the new duties teachers could or would be performing. For this reason, flexible scheduling became a necessary ingredient to fully utilize the benefits of the differentiated staff. Flexible scheduling changed school routines in fundamental ways and encountered parental resistance when students were not in traditional classrooms all day long, somewhat akin today with concerns raised with block scheduling.

...