Teacher Advancement Program Lewis C. Solmon President National Institute for Excellence in Teaching February 22, 2007

1. National Institute for Excellence in Teaching Teacher Advancement Program Lewis C. Solmon President National Institute for Excellence in Teaching February 22, 2007 © 2007. National Institute for Excellence in Teaching. All rights reserved.

4. Percentage of Variance inStudent Achievement Accountedfor by Various Factors SOURCE: Ferguson, 1991

5. Magnitude of quality effects (TX) 10X class size reduction 5 years of effective teacher = SES gap Magnitude of quality effects (Gary, IN) Effective  Ineffective equals 1 year achievement Evidence on Teacher Quality Source: Hanushek, 2003

6. The Human Capital Challenge • There are many effective teachers—just not enough • Percent of teachers scoring in top decile of high school achievement test: • 1971-74 24% • 2000 11% • Out of field teaching is rampant: • 61% of physical science teachers in high poverty schools are not prepared in the subject they teach • Too many pedagogy classes; too few in subject areas and pedagogy not research based • Attrition: 1/3 of teachers leave after 3 years of teaching; 1/2 by fifth year • Those with high test scores more likely to leave • The most inexperienced teachers teach in high poverty schools

7. Why Don’t People Choose Teaching? • Salaries not competitive • Costs of training not warranted by salary • Everyone with same experience and credits gets same pay • Difficult to support families on one teaching income • Start career and retire with same title and job description • Rarely do supervisors try to see how effective you are • Little collegiality • Few opportunities to get better at what you do • Women have more career opportunities now • Often unpleasant, dangerous environment • Sometimes little respect from community

8. A comprehensive research-based reform, TAP improves student learning by improving teacher effectiveness. Teachers have powerful opportunities for career advancement, professional growth, fair accountability and competitive compensation. TAP is a structure for operating a school TAP institutionalizes instructional excellence and professionalizes the teaching profession What is TAP?

9. What is TAP? TAP is a research-based school improvement model designed to attract, develop, retain and motivate the best talent to the teaching profession, with the ultimate goal of increasing student achievement and reducing the achievement gap. • The comprehensive TAP system is built on four elements: • Multiple Career Paths • Instructionally Focused Accountability • Ongoing Applied Professional Growth • Performance-based Compensation

10. What is TAP? To Some:TAP is a professional development program that makes successful hard work pay off.To Others:TAP is a performance pay program that provides a great deal of support to teachers.Message:Do not implement performance pay in a vacuum – please!

11. Why Do Performance Pay Plans Fail? • Imposed on teachers • Do not provide mechanism for poorly performing teachers to get better • Teachers not prepared to be assessed • Fear of bias, nepotism of evaluators, don’t trust the principal—feel many are not competent to evaluate • Evaluation criteria not fair (student test scores vs. value added) or justified by research

12. Why Do Performance Pay Plans Fail? • Process adds work for teachers and bonuses too small to justify the extra effort • Some teachers lose money • Zero-sum game causes competition • Fear that the program will not be sustainable

13. Our Conclusions Regarding Performance Pay • Performance pay alone is not enough • Must be supported by strong, transparent and fair teacher evaluation system • Need professional development to deal with areas of improvement • Teachers are willing to be evaluated if they are prepared for it • Bonuses keep them willing to do extra work

14. Career continuum for teacher Compensation commensurate with qualifications, roles and responsibilities Excellent teachers remain connected to the classroom TAP: Multiple Career Paths

15. TAP: Instructionally Focused Accountability • Comprehensive system for evaluating teachers • Based on clearly defined instructional standards and rubrics • Multiple evaluations by more than one trained, certified evaluator • Teachers held accountable for their classroom instructional practice, and achievement growth of students in classroom and school

16. TAP: Ongoing Applied Professional Growth We have found that professional development in what we call cluster groups is extremely effective in improving teacher skills and practices that result in greater student achievement and growth. We also see that all teachers can get better, many poor teachers can become competent, and good teachers can become great. • Restructures school schedule so teachers can meet regularly during the school day • Focus on improving instruction • Uses student data to identify instructional needs

17. TAP: Performance-based Compensation • Higher pay is granted for: • Excellent teacher performance, as judged by experts • Student achievement gains (value-added) • Different functions/additional duties Our model would support higher pay: • If the teacher’s primary field is difficult to staff, or if the teacher is in a hard-to-staff school • For relevant teacher training and degrees, and National Board Certification

18. Performance Awards • All teachers can get bonus of some amount • Everyone meeting a standard gets bonus • Eliminates “zero sum game” mentality and competition • Teachers who score well on skills can earn bonuses even if student scores do not improve, and vice versa

19. Skills and Knowledge • 50% of bonus for skills and knowledge • Can get over nepotism/favoritism worry with clear evaluation system and multiple classroom visits with multiple trained/certified evaluators • Followed up by efforts to help get better • Must deal with the possibility of creeping grade inflation

20. Student Achievement 50% of bonus is based on student achievement growth • 20-30% school-wide for all teachers (gives incentive to help others get better) • 20-30% based on achievement of individual teacher’s students Value-added assessment • Statistical model to measure growth in student achievement from pre-to-post-testing • Eliminates problem of having students with different levels of ability

21. State and District Level: Based on TAP’s success, $86 million for teacher quality through Q-Comp in Minnesota in 2005 $147.5 million for STAR as a performance pay option for districts in Florida in 2006 $100 million proposed for teacher performance pay in Texas Growing Momentum

22. State and District Level: State proviso in South Carolina allowing technical assistance funds to pay for performance pay programs, specifically TAP More than 20 Governors have proposed initiatives in teacher compensation reform Large urban districts implementing various performance pay models including Chicago, Denver, Minneapolis, Cincinnati, Columbus, Cleveland, Dallas, Houston, Philadelphia, Memphis and Washington D.C. Growing Momentum

23. Federal Level: Bipartisan Teacher Incentive Fund (Bush Administration) TEACH Act (Kennedy, Miller) Innovation Districts Act (Obama) NCLB reauthorization teacher quality provisions (Title II - $3 billion annually) Growing Momentum

24. TAP in Louisiana The number of schools implementing TAP has gone from 6 in the fall of 2004 to 37 in the fall of 2006. In JFK Elementary, where 97% of students receive free/reduced price lunch, the percent of students at the Mastery level increased from 6% (2004-05) to 25% (2005-06). Forest Hill Elementary was voted as LA Title 1 School of the Year for the 2005-06 school year. The first 6 schools to reopen in New Orleans Parish after the hurricane are TAP schools. What’s Happening in the States?

25. TAP in Florida In 2005-06 Stewart Street Elementary in Gadsden County ranked #15 of the top 100 elementary schools in the state (a gain of 88 pts from the previous year). Similar elementary schools in Gadsden County gained or decreased from 44 points to -15 points, respectively. The school grade increased from an “F” to a “C” on the state’s A+ plan. Gray Middle School in Lake County ranked #18 of the top 75 middle schools in the state, gaining 71 points. Similar middle schools in Lake County gained from 57 points to 4 points. Gray Middle School from a “C” to an “A” on Governor Bush’s A+ plan. What’s Happening in the States?

26. Columbus, Ohio (NEA) Lake County, Florida (AFT) Minneapolis, Minnesota (AFT) Cincinnati, Ohio (AFT) Union Support for TAP

27. 2000-01 Arizona 2001-02 South Carolina 2002-03 Arkansas Colorado (Eagle) Florida Indianapolis Archdiocese 2003-04 Louisiana 2004-05 Minnesota 2005-06 Ohio Texas Washington, D.C. 2006-07 Wyoming Knoxville, TN Colorado Springs Six of eight new schools in Algiers section of New Orleans, LA Charter School in Las Vegas, NV Next Chicago, IL The Growth of TAP

28. Current district/school budgets Van Buren Calcasieu Parish, LA Louisiana State legislative appropriations Wyoming Florida Minnesota--QComp State DOE efforts SC Proviso re Title I Allocations in TX, SC, OH, FL, AZ Ballot initiatives Eagle Co., CO Arizona NOT TAP but take note of Pro Comp in DENVER Private foundations Walton for AR Lilly for ArchIndy Broad for Minneapolis Federal funds FIE grant Approps for states Teacher Incentive Fund Sources of Funds for TAP

29. RESULTS!

30. Teacher Support for TAP Elements: 2004-05 and 2005-06 School Years

31. Collegiality Collegiality is very strong in TAP schools • Cluster groups facilitate collegiality • Rewards for school wide gains also inspire collegiality • Not a zero sum game

32. Recruitment Principals report that TAP positively impacts recruiting for open positions. Forty-seven percent of principals say it is easier to hire good teachers.

33. One of the most costly challenges facing schools is high teacher turnover.  Nationally, more than 50% of new teachers leave before they have been teaching five years. High turnover presents a drain on dollars which could be otherwise allocated, and negatively impacts student learning as new teachers must be trained each year. Improved recruitment and retention of effective teachers in TAP schools, especially high need schools. At Bell Street Middle School in South Carolina, teacher turnover was a serious problem with approximately 40% of teachers leaving in the 1999-2000 school year, and 32% the next year.  TAP was introduced in the 2001-2002 school year, and since the 2003-04 school year this rate has consistently been below 10%. Reducing Teacher Turnover

34. When TAP begins implementation the attrition rate is approximately 12%—usually people we would want to leave In established TAP schools the attrition rate is approximately 6% Since there are more new schools every year, teacher retention in TAP schools was similar to national figures on average (8-9%) Retention

35. Attracting effective teachers to high need schools. TAP has drawn highly effective teachers from high SES schools to lower SES schools implementing TAP – reversing the traditional flow of more effective teachers to higher SES schools. In Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana, at least 75% of the teachers assuming the 60 master teacher positions in TAP schools, transferred from a higher SES school to one with a lower SES. Similar patterns were seen in South Carolina TAP schools. Attracting Talented Teachers to High Poverty Schools

36. TAP teachers get significantly better results than the average teacher in regular public schools. More TAP teachers are above average in terms of student achievement gains. Fewer are far below. Sixty-four percent of TAP schools nationwide increased their percent of students at proficient or above in Math and English from 2003-2004 to the 2004-2005 school year. High Poverty Schools 64% of TAP schools are schools with 30% or more receiving free/reduced price lunch. 54% of these schools increased their percent of students at proficient or above from 2003-2004 to the 2004-2005 school years. Rural Schools In rural TAP schools, 55% of schools increase their percent of students at proficient or above from 2003-2004 to the 2004-2005 school years. Increased Student Achievement

37. On average, TAP teachers produce higher student achievement growth than non-TAP teachers. On average, more TAP schools outperformed similar non-TAP schools in producing an average year’s growth or more in both reading and math achievement. In most comparisons between TAP schools’ AYP results and statewide AYP averages, TAP schools compare favorably with the state as a whole when considering TAP schools’ higher share of students on free or reduced-price lunch. TAP teachers compared to non-TAP teachers experience higher quality professional development, more opportunities for collaboration and collegiality, and more ways to improve their effectiveness in the classroom. Effectiveness of TAP: Results From Our Evaluation Report

38. In evaluating TAP teachers and similarly TAP schools, SAS EVAAS calculates the effect of each teacher on student progress as assessed by the difference between the growth scores of the teacher’s students and the average growth scores of the control group, which defines a year’s growth. We then place each teacher (TAP and control) in one of five categories. Teachers in categories “1” and “2” produced less than an average year’s growth with their students, and teachers in categories “3”, “4”, and “5” produced a year’s growth or more with their students. Evaluating TAP Using Value-Added Gains

39. Under each of the five categories, we noted which of the two groups, TAP or control, outperformed the other in each state. In categories “1 and 2” the “outperforming” group is the one with the smaller of the two percentages, meaning that fewer teachers produced less than an average year’s growth. In categories “3, 4, and 5” we noted which group had the higher of the two percentages, meaning that more teachers produced an average year’s growth or more in their students’ achievement. This is documented in the following summary charts. Evaluating TAP Using Value-Added Gains

40. Percent of Comparisons in which TAP Teachers Outperform Controls

41. TAP Teachers vs Control TeachersNational Aggregated Teacher Effect

42. National Aggregated Teacher Effect

43. Percent of Comparisons in which TAP Schools Outperform Controls

44. TAP Schools vs Control SchoolsNational Aggregated School Effect

45. National Aggregated School Effect

46. www.talentedteachers.org lsolmon@talentedteachers.org © 2007. National Institute for Excellence in Teaching. All rights reserved.