New UW–Madison Report Finds Wisconsin School Districts Rejecting Teacher Performance Pay

WEC Researchers Analyze Act 10 Results a Decade After Implementation

September 4, 2025   |   By Karen Rivedal, WCER Communications

A working paper from the Wisconsin Center for Education Research (WCER) at the University of Wisconsin–Madison examines how pay practices have changed in Wisconsin school districts that experimented with reforms to traditional teacher salary schedules following the enactment of Act 10 in 2011. This landmark legislation limited collective bargaining for public employees and allowed districts to abandon seniority and credit-based systems to create performance-based pay for teachers.

The paper, “Teacher Compensation Practices When Collective Bargaining Disappears: A Follow-up Study 10 Years After,” from the Wisconsin Evaluation Collaborative (WEC) at WCER, built upon findings of a 2014 study that looked at data from 25 school districts across the state. Although most of these districts initially transitioned away from traditional models emphasizing pay raises based on seniority and advanced degrees after Act 10, the changes were short-lived. By fall 2024, most districts had dropped performance-based elements, often within just a few years of implementing the new systems.

In comparison to the 2014 study, there were substantial declines in performance-based pay systems, from 47% of the districts to just 12% in 2024.

“Almost all the districts that experimented with using teacher performance as more than a minimal requirement for pay progression or bonuses have abandoned this approach,” reported the paper co-authored by WEC Co-Director Steve Kimball. “Overall, we find that teacher compensation practices have changed substantially in the roughly 10 years since this set of districts launched reform efforts after Act 10.”

Performance-based pay wasn’t the only strategy that districts largely dropped. For example, some districts experimented with pay systems that rewarded the acquisition of specific knowledge and skills associated with effective teaching methods, rather than just advanced general degrees. By fall 2024, most districts had also abandoned that approach.

Other factors that may have influenced districts’ experimentation with new pay systems include revenue limits, declining enrollment, and state funding below the rate of inflation, said study authors. Districts also mentioned regional teacher labor markets factoring into their compensation approach. These districts explained that their systems could make them less competitive than those with a more traditional schedule.

“Respondents often referenced what others were doing in their immediate areas,” reported the study authors. “These regions represented surrounding communities that compete for teaching talent.”

However, the report found that a few of the changes initially enacted by the study districts after Act 10 have persisted beyond initial adoption.

For example, most districts still use the increased flexibility provided to them under Act 10 to set higher starting pay for teachers in hard-to-staff or shortage fields, such as high school math and science and special education. Districts also have kept, to varying degrees, approaches to address the statewide challenge of recruiting and retaining teachers, such as benefit enhancements, longevity pay, district recognition, and changes to build or maintain a productive culture and climate.

The report found that in practice, using teacher performance as a major pay factor fell out of favor for four main reasons cited by the districts:

• staff discontent,
• principals’ inability or unwillingness to make performance distinctions,
• the effort and complexity of the required administrative process, and
• perceptions that flexibility led to inequities.

To collect data, members of the study team interviewed district administrators and reviewed district documents describing teacher pay systems. The 25 districts in the sample group were first identified for the related 2014 WEC study through consultation with the Wisconsin Association of School Boards and reviews of other sources, including media accounts, district employee handbooks, and websites that described those districts as having made substantial changes to their teacher pay systems.

The working paper also quoted district leaders’ observations on perceived problems with using performance pay:

• “It was pitting teacher against teacher. We found it was devastating to morale and retention.”
• “Principals were not comfortable telling teachers they were not top performers.”
• “The concept (of performance pay) was good, but it just didn’t work.”

The sample mainly included smaller districts in a mix of rural, town, suburban, and city locations, along with a wide range of student enrollment across different regions of the state. Madison and Milwaukee, the state’s two largest districts, were not included since they both made only minor changes to pay systems after Act 10.

Future research is planned to explore areas including salary differences across specialties and whether salaries in hard-to-staff fields have changed relative to those of other teachers. Researchers also hope to expand the sample to include more districts.

In addition to Kimball, paper authors are Anthony Milanowski, Bradley Carl, Jessica Arrigoni and Elisabeth Geraghty. Read the full paper for more details on the study.

About the Wisconsin Evaluation Collaborative

The Wisconsin Evaluation Collaborative conducts and supports program evaluations within education and community systems through partnerships with school districts, professional associations, state agencies, education-based community organizations, and Cooperative Educational Service Agencies (CESAs). It is made up of a community of evaluators with diverse content and methodological expertise from across WCER and the School of Education at UW–Madison. For more information about WEC, visit wec.wceruw.org.

About the Wisconsin Center for Education Research

The Wisconsin Center for Education Research at UW–Madison’s #1 ranked public School of Education is one of the first and most productive education research centers in the world. It has assisted scholars and practitioners in developing, submitting, conducting and sharing grant-funded education research for over 60 years. WCER’s mission is to improve educational outcomes for diverse student populations, positively impact education practice and foster collaborations among academic disciplines and practitioners. Learn more at wcer.wisc.edu.