Change pay, change teaching?

Would changing the way we pay teachers change teaching? The Christian Science Monitor looks at Denver’s experiment with performance pay.

Taylor Betz will make a lot more as a high school math teacher this year than her normal salary might suggest.

There’s the $2,300 bonus she gets for working at a “hard-to-serve school,” the $2,300 for filling a “hard-to-staff position,” the $2,300 that all teachers at her school are likely to get for raising student scores on state tests, the $2,300 “beating the odds” bonus she gets for significantly raising the math scores of her own students, and a few smaller bonuses.

Rookie teachers want their pay linked to results, reports NPR, looking at D.C.’s younger teacher corps. Experienced teachers tend to be dubious.

Update: Speaking to the National Science Teachers Association, Education Secretary Arne Duncan called for differential pay.

“We need to respond to the market by paying more to teachers in high-need subjects like science and math,” Duncan told the audience. “I’m a big believer in differential pay. I want to reward excellence by paying teachers and principals who do a great job in the classroom.

“I want to reward them for going into struggling school districts,” he continued. “That’s where the challenge is. If you’re going to take on a tough job, you should be rewarded.”

Differential pay is much easier to implement than performance pay.

About Joanne


  1. Count me as being dubious. I’ve been in my current building for 4 years. The math scores have gone up every year since I’ve been there. How much is me, how much is the other support, how much is the students? I don’t know. I would’ve benefited from performance pay.

    I do know, however, that there are many students who have been taught by experience that they can do minimal work and be pushed through without learning anything. The administration is deathly afraid of parents who would be angry that their children are failing and seek to blame anyone else. More often than not, they capitulate and say that the teacher should’ve been on the phone with every parent of every student who’s failing every single day.

    Merit pay will be useless unless it’s a part of an overall and drastic overhaul of the system. Unless and until parents and students are made responsible for their own performance, nothing done about teachers will make any real difference.

  2. Count me as dubious, number two. The financial incentive is not the motivation for excellent teachers. As Dennis Fermoyle has noted on his blog, more pay wouldn’t encourage him to work harder because he already does his job to the best of his ability out of a passion for his subject and for educating kids. I can’t imagine there are many truly great potential teachers out there who are lured away from passionate commitment to education, simply because they can make more money in finance or marketing or whatever.

    As an English teacher, I have often heard comments that we work harder than most – or at least put in more hours – because of the grading of essays. Of course, that’s only true for teachers who assign a lot. My AP Language students will write between 30 and 35 in-class essays these year. With two sections and fifty students, and an average grading time of eight minutes an essay, that’s a lot of time outside of class. Yet, I’m not leaving the profession or assigning more or less based on pay. Some administrators in schools where I’ve worked have argued that English teachers should teach one less section than other teachers because of grading time. I wouldn’t be opposed to that, though it’s never been accepted at the highest level.

    Some have lamented how much time good English teachers put in versus good PE teachers. They may have a point. Yet, this was my choice. I could have been a PE teacher, but my passion is in English, and I am driven by excellence, not by money.

  3. I think this sentence in this very well-written, balanced article nails it: “Another possibility: The change in pay structure attracts and retains better-qualified people who might not otherwise enter teaching.”

    I just don’t believe that most teachers will do anything tremendously differently just because of a new pay structure. The vast majority of teachers are doing the best they can – high-quality professional development, not a different pay structure, is what can help them do even better.

    However, it is entirely possible that many candidates — especially the younger generation — don’t even consider the profession because of its generally regressive pay structure which doesn’t reward based on effort, performance or leadership, but on years of experience, degrees and credits — which have little or no relationship to teacher effectiveness. Those who do may well leave prematurely because of the inability to be compensated for their efforts.

    It is also possible that were pay structures to change dramatically — along the lines of Denver Pro Comp — an influx of new candidates to the profession could change the culture of teaching within schools and districts and have an even broader impact beyond themselves as individuals. We should keep our eye on places like Denver to see if that occurs.

  4. Look at it this way:

    If we asked a teacher, “I we pay you more, will you teach better?” what would they say?

    Probably, “I’m teaching as well as I can now.”

    The supposition that ‘pay for performance’ will result in improved performance is ridiculous, because it implies (falsely) that teachers are somehow holding out on their best effort in the expectation that someone will eventually pay them more for it.

    The implementation of wage incentives has actually very few impacts:
    – on whether or not qualified people take the job in the first place
    – on whether people currently employed stay employed (or do or do not take part time jobs to supplement their income)
    – on whether or not currently employed people add to their responsibilities in a manner that would not normally be expected (evening or weekend supervision, summer classes).

    Any other putative effect of wages is pure fantasy.

  5. We’ve got three votes from the “teaching is far too elevated a calling to respond to mere money” contingent.

    Count me dubious about the excess of dubiousness.

    From what I’ve been able to observe there are rather more pedagogical house-painters then Michelangelos. That being the case, I think measuring performance and paying accordingly is a pretty reliable way to encourage good performance. Combine that with a periodic culling of the herd and America’s educational results will positively sparkle.

    Of course just improving the breed isn’t sufficient; the environment’s also got to be conducive to good performance.

    Regarding that necessity, and to assuage the injured self-esteem of teachers deprived of artistic pretensions by performance pay, let’s get rid of all non-teaching personnel with the exception of one principal per school. That ought to free up enough budget to really sweeten those performance bonuses.

    Oh, and those principals? Performance pay, and vulnerability to that periodic culling, for them as well.

    Can I get an amen?

  6. Ooops, make that four votes for “what I do inhabits the airy realms of philosophy and is not amenable to vulgar measurement”.

  7. Tom in GA says:

    I don’t think that most good teachers want more pay – they want more administrative support and less kowtowing to the politically well-connected in the community. Plus, I think most teachers would be supportive of tying success to pay and retention if the metrics were valid; good teachers don’t want to stay in weaker schools and districts because superiors won’t accept that standardized testing numbers may be relatively accurate and all those As they encourage teachers to GIVE out are worthless.

    A good friend from high school had several careers post college graduation but decided to teach high school in a suburban Alabama high school after his wife got a job in the area. He reiterated a point to me last weekend: he cannot tell his students what he thinks is the truth (about their academic futures and behaviors) because it’s all a numbers game. Administrators are more worried about having one less drop-out than they are one less trouble-maker. Administrators are more worried about getting another one into college then they are getting another one well-prepared for college.

  8. I’m a skeptic all around. Defenders of the NEA position on merit pay abandon their objection, that teachers work for love, when merit pay is not on the table. Then they insist that more money will attract better teachers. Clearly, those better teachers want more than the current salary. Suporters of merit pay have not addressed the issue of manipulation of the process by insiders. The registrar can steer problem students to any teachers whom the system wants to punish or drive from the profession, and steer the immigrant Chinese and Koreans to the union faculty reprepresentatives whom the union wants to reward.

    I see similar problems with enhanced pay for shortage areas. Teacher contracts, with their class size requirements, and district- or State-mandated credential requirements create shortages. Further, not all “Science” is a shortage ares. Physics and Chemistry, perhaps. Biology is not.

    Maybe Calc. teachers are in short supply, but this may well be a function of our method of instruction. Math and Physics (I except lab Physics, here) will be the first classes to be automated. Perhaps even English Grammar could be automated (word processors evolved from an attempt to standardize grading of written English). If “Math class” is a 500 seat hall filled with desk-top machine at which students work at their own pace and all the teacher does is keep order, then expensive expertise may not be necessary.

  9. “What works?” is an empirical question which only an experiment can answer. A competitive market will generate more information than will a State-monopoly system. The US State-monopoly school system is like an experiment with one treatment and no controls, a retarded experimental design.

  10. Margo/Mom says:

    I am interested that the dubious responses fall in the “teachers are working as hard as they can,” category, and don’t really respond to some the the things that differentiated pay is being used to support. Working hard and caring a lot may attract a few very special teachers to teach in “hard to staff” schools. But many who start there leave for greener pastures in the suburbs. Most folks make a choice regarding content area based on personal preference. Putting a bump up on the salary of hard to fill positions may well balance the allure of moving away from teaching to more lucrative fields for those in the more saleable skill areas. Might tip the balance between teaching science in elementary vs high school.

    If “working harder” is what is required to move test scores up for poorly performing schools, why not give a bonus to schools that make it (and I especially love the “beating the odds” qualifier). True, this one is a spray and pray approach, and might reward some hangers on–but generally it might bring teachers on board together with curriculum that has to be laid on above now.

    What I do know is that we cannot continue as we have–discounting every possible solution to the US mediocre standing among nations–even discounting any comparisons that show the US to be lagging.

  11. And the money for all this performance pay is coming from exactly where?

    I’ll bet my pink-slipped colleagues out in California would love to know that.

    You folks are already screaming about how much money is spent on education. Imagine if you had a teaching cadre full of people earning multiple bonuses (because you’d cull those not good enough to do so).

    I think bonus pay would be great. Every single one of my kids takes a high stakes test this year. Last year my average AP score was a 4.2. Nearly all my kids pass the state test at proficient or above. If there were performance pay, I’d be raking it in. I just don’t think the money is really there.

    In general, even very bad teachers work hard. Real reform would build time into our day to tighten up our pedagogy and work better. We shouldn’t all be out here trying to figure it out on our own in our little monkish worlds.

  12. I do believe that teachers need to be any part of the conversation surrounding merit pay. I also think that any plan for merit pay needs to be coupled with strong administrators at the school site who are willing to buck the system a bit and with strong integrity not to punish the teachers they may not like. Sadly, for as long as I’ve been a teacher (in my 8th year), I’ve not ever seen a principal with those qualities.

    In fact, my current schedule for this school year has led me to strongly believe he has let our past conflicts interfere with what may have been best for my students. I also am a strong and vocal member of my union. The schedule this year has me teaching three different courses to four different ability levels. As a multiple subject credential teacher, my principal has the authority to do this. However, I must admit that effectively having 7 preps has pretty much killed my ability to do as much as I have in the past. Typically, teachers at the same grade level as me in my district, only teach two subject matter to no more than two different ability levels. (We have GATE, benchmark, strategic, and intensive grouped in ability levels based upon the CAT-6. I am teaching groups of students from each designated group and have almost 100 student contacts.)

    Luckily, I do have the GATE and Benchmark students in courses that are tested (Language Arts) so I have no doubt that my students will perform very well on the CAT-6 in May.

  13. I see the fundamental problem is the large bureaucracy, at the k-12 level, at college ed schools and various ed-related agencies, unions, consultants etc; all of these want to keep and expand their power under the current system. That is the nature of any bureaucracy and it stifles innovation, accountability etc. The only real way out is to give each family X amount per child, which can follow that child anywhere, including homeschooling expenses (with documentation in each case and severe penalties for fraud). It’s hard to see how it would be worse than what we have now.

  14. I was thinking about the math of that, momof4, this week. I was on the phone with the parent of a naughty teenager and she told me that their experience transferring back to the public schools has been great. She said that the teachers were much better than at the private school the student previously attended for which they were paying $12K/year (about average for local parochial high schools). Keep in mind I was not telling her what a wonderful, charming fellow her son had been that afternoon. This got me thinking (not always a good thing).

    Our average per student spending is about $8K. When I figure my taxes, I think I send about $2.5k per year to the school district.

    So, if the cost to the parent for private school is $12K.
    The cost to the public school district is $8K.
    And the cost to the public school parent is, oh we’ll call it $3k…
    And if the education at the parochial school is no better than what we’re offering, then where’s the big bargain?

    Keep in mind the cadillac education (non-boarding) around these parts is about $20K (a total steal compared to some place like Sidwell Friends, etc. in D.C.). Yes, public schools have a tax base that is much wider than tuition payers, but those private schools have some pretty plump endowments.

    I just wonder if people are being realistic about what a world class education really costs. I’m thinking it is somewhere about $25K/student.

  15. If you pay more than $4,000 per year for education, you’re buying prestige or social exclusion, not education. Or, if you consider taxation, freedom from prison.

    NCES routinely underestimates per pupil budgets. Hor example, the State of Hawaii spends about $2.4 billion to operate the 180,000 State-wide school district. By some magic of accounting, the NCES and Hawaii DOE compute a per pupil budget of $9,000 per pupil. Even $2.4 billion understates the total, as this does not count capital costs (ten years ago, the State DOE spent about $200,000 per room to build classroom buildings. It must be more now).

    It does not take 12 years at $12,000 per pupil year (a more realistic figure, nationally) to teach a normal child to read and compute. Most vocational training occurs more effectively on the job than in a classroom. State provision of History and Civics instruction is a threat to democracy, just as State operation of newspapers would be (is, in totalitarian countries).

    Across industries, across countries, monopolies deliver wretched goods at high cost. The education industry is not a natural monopoly. Beyond a very low level, there are no economies of scale at the delivery end of the education industry as it currently operates. “Natural monopoly” is the usual welfare-economic argument for State (government, generally) operation of an industry. Education only marginally qualifies as a public good as economists use the term and the “public goods” argument implies subsidy and regulation, at most, not State operation of an industry.

    What we in the US call “the public school system” originated in anti-Catholic bigotry. The US State-monopoly school system has become an employment program for dues-paying members of the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel, a source of padded supply and construction contracts for politically-connected insiders, and a venue for State-worshipful insiders. The US State-monopoly school survives on dedicated lobbying by current recipoients of the US taxpayers’ $500 billion+ per year revenue stream.

  16. I really believe the pay doesn’t make that big a difference. What does make a difference is who gets retained. Like many other school districts, ours is now in the process of making cuts. Yesterday, I talked to a teacher who got the word this week that he is being cut. He is clearly better than another more senior teacher in his field. I frequently see this guy working after hours in our school, while I’ve never seen the guy who is safe. He is not the only “better” teacher in our school district who is in this situation. Losing good teachers while keeping mediocre ones is a tragedy for the kids in our school district, and this type of thing goes on all around the nation.

  17. As a teacher who taught in an exemplary school and then accepted the challenge of a troubled school, I know that merit pay would not have made a difference in my performance.

    It always bothers me when people think that someone from the business sector could come in and do a bang up job of teaching in difficult situations. All they need is an attractive salary to get them in the door. I have watched some of these people attempt to teach and realize that it isn’t all that easy. Some of them were brilliant in their fields but were easily frustrated when students misbehaved or didn’t catch on immediately.

  18. I’m one of those teachers who will never benefit from any merit system as currently proposed. Why? Because I’m a special ed, resource room teacher at the secondary level. If one of the kids on my caseload shows incredible growth in reading, math or writing, who’s responsible–me, the content area teacher, or a sudden spurt of maturity? Cynical as I am, I seriously doubt I’d ever get any documented credit for sped kid performance improvements. The credit for that would go to the content teacher.

    Most of my work really does focus on developing explicit teaching of skills some students just haven’t acquired yet. My readers really aren’t that low (which will change in a couple of years, provided the upcoming budget cuts don’t dump me from my position), but their writing skills and their organizational skills are poor. Writing gets measured on a test, but what measures improvement in organization–and that includes keeping binders clean and straight, using planners effectively, learning to stay on task, learning to look for and use cues within the text to answer questions, and learning to write their names on a paper and turn it in on time? Nothing that is addressed by any merit pay scheme I’ve read so far.

    And by “explicit teaching of skills” I don’t mean utilizing a script or any canned curriculum. So far I’ve not come across any one curriculum that works for this specific group of students. The overall DI methodology–model, prompt, check does work, but any scripted stuff I’ve encountered is sad, to say the least. A lot of it comes down to constant monitoring, reminding, and modeling appropriate behaviors. I figure it takes 3-6 months to turn student habits around, and that’s if the student buys into the program. Once they get the feeling of success, and find out how it feels, then that works for many of them.

    Problem is, you can’t measure that kind of progress on a test. It’s very intensive teaching, and not cost-effective from the bean-counter point of view.

  19. I started this year working for a district that offers performance bonuses. I’m not anything different this year, because I have always done the best job I could.

  20. I think Stephen makes an excellent point. In addition, though, I am always bothered by the whole idea of rewarding math and science teachers. Some of the worst teachers I ever had were math and science teachers, and one of the subjects to teach is English, or indeed, any language. I know– I did it for years.

  21. Bill Leonard says:

    Malcolm Kirkpatrick has it about right.

    FWIW, I have frequently heard the “natural monopoly” argument about education, too. The fact of the matter is, there are natural monopolies, but such entities basically begin and end with extremely capital-intensive enterprises such as gas and electric utilities, and traditional (pre-wireless) telephone systems.


  22. Ms. Cornelius, I agree that a good English teacher with a B.Ed. and an infectious love of poetry is worth more than an abusive Math PhD., but I think Steven is blowing smoke. Where is his evidence? The teacher unions routinely argue that enhanced pay will attract better new talent and help retain good teachers. Many analysts have suggested that expanded private-sector opportunities for smart women contributed to the decline in school system performance.

    “Pay for performance” does not have to mean enhanced pay for people with specialized expertise (Math and Science). It could (and should) mean improved student performance. But here a new issue arises: performance in what areas? Suppose a school were to add “Horseshoes” to the curriculum. How much would it be worth to enhance students’ skill at the game of Horseshoes? How ’bout Tiddlywinks? Jackstraws? Chess? Sumerian Cuneform? Bonsai?

    Would you recommend the same curriculum (excepting language differences) to students in rural Botswanna and to students in suburban Antwerp? Don’t you think the rural Botswanna kids would be better off with instruction in identification of venomous reptiles and succulent tubers? Or does everyone really need to read “Hamlet”? If you eschew this as “cultural imperialism”, why is it any less cultural imperialism for Ed.D.s to insist that blue-collar US kids atudy a college-prep curriculum?

    Why do schools require 12 years of English, anyway? Once a kid learns to decode the phonetic alphabet and to read at the level of the daily paper, what do we gain by cramming “British and American Literature” and “World Literature” down unwilling throats?

    Why do schools require 12 years of Social Studies? The Sociologist David Reisman (“The Lonely Crowd”) recommended deferring History instruction to college, as he felt that many teachers would not resist the temptation to indoctrinate students.

    Here’s a thought experiment: take 20 medium-sized suburban and rural school districts. Randomly assign to one or another of two groups (“Experiment” and “Control”). In the control group, instruct as usual for 12 years. In the experimental group, abolish Social Studies instruction for 11 years, and substitute one extra recess. In the last year, tell students that graduation requires a passing grade on six books from a Chinese menu of 300 books in World History (at least 1 book), European History (at least one book), US History (at least one book), History of X (Technology, Engineering, Science, Medicine, Mathematics, Astronomy, Chemistry, etc. At least one book), Sociology/Economics/Psychology/Anthropology (at least one book). Five years after the end of instruction, test a sample of students from each group on their general; knowledge of Social Studies (or use another measure of civic virtue, such as arrest records or voting participation). My money would be on the experimental group to outperform the controls.

    Leonard, A further problem with the “natural monopoly” argument (at least with the implication, which people usually make, that State control will enhance the general welfare), is that it assumes that State actors are intelligent, well-informed, and altruistic.

  23. I forgot to add: in my thought experiment, students get a period of Study Hall to read the books which they select. There is no instructor.

  24. Roger Sweeny says:

    Five years after the end of instruction, test a sample of students from each group…

    You have stumbled upon one of the greatest problems in education. We know almost nothing about how much students’ “learning” has stayed with them. Partly for practical reasons, schools don’t try to measure any knowledge that is more than nine and a half months old.

    What little we do know–from tests given by various organizations–indicates that students take very very little subject matter knowledge from their courses.

  25. A quick comment on the per pupil cost numbers. Typically, cost per pupil is used to compare similar districts within a state. One cost that can be so wildly out of whack, in that it bears no relationship to the district itself but instead to the special needs of one or more students, is special ed.

    So, states typically remove special ed funds and special ed pupils from the totals to arrive at the published cost per pupil figure.

    Which is a valid methodology, but most people don’t understand that. They simply divide the total district budget by the total number of students and then complain that the district spends too much money per pupil.

  26. Pay more for teachers in struggling school districts. So what happens if the struggling school district improves and is no longer struggling? Do you now pay them the standard, which is less than before? Seems like that’s an anti-incentive.

    It would be interesting to see the repercussions of that.

  27. Malcolm, most students near me already do not get twelve years of social studies instruction– it’s all been abolished in the elementary grades in a mad and misguided quest to raise math and science scores, still lying like a couple of dead guppies in a brackish aquarium.

    And it’s “cuneiform” (meaning “wedge-shaped”), the English and social studies teacher in me fells compelled to point out. And students deprived of knowledge of literature and history end up being incapable of analysis of language at higher levels, such as developing facility at interpreting verbal input or being able to analyze and detect biased material in, say, that same newspaper you mentioned in your thought experiment.

    Why should we acquiesce in not shoving Hamlet down an “unwilling throat” but insist on shoving the Pythagorean theorem down that same throat? We need to ask why students don’t understand why Hamlet– or understanding the factors behind decline and fall of the Roman Empire– is absolutely contemporary and relevant.

  28. Anyone have any information on merit pay at private schools? The searches I did provided a lot of statements of opinion, but no facts.

  29. Kirk Parker says:


    “If we asked a teacher, ‘If we pay you more, will you teach better?’ what would they say? Probably, ‘I’m teaching as well as I can now.'”

    Sure, but is that any different from how the average factory worker or union plumber would answer?

    But if instead of taking peoples’ self-reporting at face value, we could observe (undetected) a wide variety of teachers who gave that answer, we’d find:

    * Some who really were, and were in fact doing a good job at that level of effort.

    * Some who really weren’t, but could do a good job if the were putting in the effort (i.e. they are lazy or otherwise unmotivated)

    * Some who maybe really were working at the peak of their potential, but if so you’d wish they’d go do something else instead.

    This phenomenon is of course by no means confined to education. I suspect it’s actually universal (in my own field of software development there is widely considered a 10x or even higher difference between the best and the merely adequate.)

  30. Andy Freeman says:

    You folks have all missed the point.

    The ones who pointed out that current teachers are doing their best were closest.

    Higher pay isn’t for existing teachers, it’s to attract their replacements.

  31. (Ms. Cornelius): “…(S)tudents deprived of knowledge of literature and history end up being incapable of analysis of language at higher levels, such as developing facility at interpreting verbal input or being able to analyze and detect biased material in, say, that same newspaper you mentioned in your thought experiment.”

    I do not accept that “not forced to consume” equals “deprived of”. Do you like classical music? I love classical music (broadly speaking: Gregorian Chant through Ralph Vaughan Williams). I do not play any instrument, cannot read musical notation, and I will clear a room if I try to sing, but I love to listen. I know three people who actively dislike classical music. They all were made to study piano as children.

    (Ms. Cornelius): “Why should we acquiesce in not shoving Hamlet down an “unwilling throat” but insist on shoving the Pythagorean theorem down that same throat? We need to ask why students don’t understand why Hamlet– or understanding the factors behind decline and fall of the Roman Empire– is absolutely contemporary and relevant.”

    “It is, in fact, nothing short of a miracle that the modern methods of instruction have not yet entirely strangled the holy curiosity of inquiry; for this delicate little plant, aside from stimulation, stands mainly in need of freedom; without this it goes to wreck and ruin without fail. It is a very grave mistake to think that the enjoyment of seeing and searching can be promoted by means of coercion and a sense of duty. To the contrary, I believe it would be possible to rob even a healthy beast of prey of its voraciousness, if it were possible, with the aid of a whip, to force the beast to devour continuously, even when not hungry, especially if the food, handed out under such coercion, were to be selected accordingly. –Albert Einstein–
    “Autobiographical Notes,”
    __Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist__
    Paul Schilpp, ed. (1951), pp. 17-19 (© 1951 by the Library of Living Philosophers, Inc.)

    “There is too much education altogether, especially in American schools. The only way of educating is to be an example–of what to avoid, if one can’t be the other sort.” –Albert Einstein–
    __The World As I See It__, p.22 (Citadel Press).

    “Give into the power of the teacher the fewest possible coercive measures, so that the only source of the pupil’s respect for the teacher is the human and intellectual qualities of the latter.” –Albert Einstein–
    __Ideas And Opinions__, p. 61, (Three Rivers Press).

  32. David Cohen says:

    One more Californian here wondering where the money will come from. But, if they get the money part right, I’m in favor of performance pay, with the following conditions:

    1. “performance” is measured in multiple ways. Test scores only cover certain subjects, and have dubious value, especially in isolation, and especially at the secondary level, once many students stop caring.

    2. Evaluation procedures and “performance” must be well-defined through a collaborative process involving teachers and administrations.

    Someone above mentioned Denver’s Pro-Comp system, which is not the only model of its kind, but worth studying. Teachers have some say in establishing goals and measures of effectiveness, but not total autonomy.

    Think of performance pay as leverage and incentive for teachers to work differently, not harder. Teachers need more roles and more opportunities to improve learning, and performance pay can be attached to a system that differentiates the work we do and the pay we earn, based on differences in skills, experience, preparation, leadership, mentorship, other added roles, etc.