New Directions in Teacher Evaluation and Compensation

1. New Directions in Teacher Evaluation and Compensation Third Annual CPRE National Conference Chicago, Illinois November 21-22, 2002 Sponsored in part by Atlantic Philanthropic Services and the Carnegie Corporation.

2. Based on: Paying Teachers for What They Know and Do by Allan Odden and Carolyn Kelley Corwin Press, 2002, Second Edition CPRE Research & State/Local Policies Further information, research and cases: www.wcer.wisc.edu/cpre

3. Roots of Our Efforts • December 1992 conference • Presentation by Jim Kelly, President of the National Board: create high standards for teaching practice and then assess teacher practice and provide National Board Certification • Claims that was inputs-based, and inconsistent with an output oriented system • Al Shanker said it was “pay for knowledge and skills,” what private sector organizations were doing when they restructured • Two years of seminars of key AFT, NEA, and National Board leaders around pay innovations

4. Three New “Big” Ideas • Knowledge and Skills Based Pay (KSBP): replacing or augmenting pay for Years of Experience and Education Units/Degrees • School Based Performance Awards (SBPA) : when school qualifies, all faculty/support staff receive a bonus • Salary incentives for teachers in shortage areas, in low performing/hard to staff schools, or for engaging in teacher leader roles

5. Fits the History of Teacher Compensation Change • From late 19th to early 21st centuries: teacher compensation structures “lagged” those developed and tried in the private sector • That is what is now happening, as KSBP, group bonuses based on organizational performance, and salary incentives for workers in “hot” labor markets appeared in private sector beginning late 1970s and early 1980s

6. Early Pay Initiatives in Education • National Board Certification – KSBP • Kentucky and Charlotte-Mecklenburg – School-Based Performance Award Programs (SBPA) • Douglas County, Colorado – KSBP • Robbinsdale, Minnesota – KSBP • Vaughn Charter School – KSBP and SBPA • Cincinnati – SBPA and KSBP • Charlotte’s Framework  Performance-Based Evaluation and an infrastructure for KSBP

7. Related Changes • Performance-based teacher licensure system – PRAXIS III, INTASC, Connecticut BEST system • Latter half of the 1990s and early 2000s • Numerous districts – Philadelphia, Steamboat Springs, Minneapolis, LaCrescent (MN), Manitowoc (WI), Menomonee Falls (WI), Greendale (WI) • States – KSBP in Iowa, efforts in Illinois, Florida, Wisconsin, Washington, Kentucky – 25 states with SBPAs • Milken TAP Program • Denver – “merit pay” experiment • Framework evaluation – Washoe, Newport News, etc. • HLM value-added work – Sanders, North Carolina, Dallas

8. Comments on Pay and Evaluation Innovations • Extensive – scope is broad and deep • Greater variety than at any time in history • Emerging in wealthy/poor, large/small, urban/ rural, and public as well as private and church affiliated schools • Reflect viable approaches to performance pay and evaluation in education, and usually help to boost salaries • Are expanding and remaining on the policy and practice agenda – they have “legs”

9. Why These Changes? • Some education systems just “jump on the bandwagon” – but that does not produce lasting change • Most are making these changes for strategic reasons

10. Broad Reasons for Why …. • Want to improve student achievement • Want to broaden and deepen teachers’ instructional expertise • Want to raise teacher salary levels

11. Strategic Understanding of Evaluation & Compensation Changes • As strategies to accomplish the goals of standards-based education reform -- greater student learning • Prime factor linked to improved learning is better instruction • So change evaluation and professional development systems to reinforce continued acquisition and deployment of standards-based instructional practices • Alter pay system to provide pay increases when teachers’ instructional practices improve to higher standards

12. Strategic rationales, continued …. • As a strategy to enhance teaching as a profession • Adopt clear and specific standards for teachers • Align professional development to those standards • Evaluate teachers for developing and teaching to the standards • Develops accountability for teachers to professional standards of practice • As a strategy to increase teacher salary levels • Link pay increases to improvements in teacher performance • Increase teacher pay levels to recruit and retain good teachers

13. What is Needed for Knowledge and Skills-Based Pay • Identification of what good teaching is, the knowledge and skills needed to do it, or teaching standards linked to student standards and teacher career stages • A professional development strategy to help teachers acquire and deploy that instruction • Assessments of knowledge and skills -- how to assess and who should do it • Linkage to a salary schedule

14. What is Needed for School-Based Performance Awards • Measures of student performance • Calculations of change in performance • “Stretch” but reachable change targets • Enabling conditions, including KSBP • Valued rewards – bonus levels in the $1000-$3000 per teacher range • Predictable funding

15. Measurable Levels of Performance 1. Beginning teacher -- entry level 2. Novice – effective teaching and classroom management 3. Developing Professional – beginning content specific teaching – level for professional license 4. Professional – solid array of professional expertise including mastery of content specific teaching 5. Advanced – assessment & instructional design A national example: National Board Certified

16. Two Major Approaches to KSBP Plans • Redesign the entire salary schedule to include knowledge and skills as a core element that triggers major salary increases • Keep current steps and lanes structure and add knowledge and skill elements

17. An Add-On Approach

18. Another Add-On Approach

19. Full KSBP Model

20. A Dual Approach: Full KSBP + Leadership Model

21. Salary Benchmarking Needed • Both approaches need salary benchmarking – public sector and the top paying suburbs – to identify salary levels needed – especially in urban districts – to compete for talent in the labor market • Both structure of teacher pay – knowledge and skills, with a school-based performance bonus – and level of pay must change to recruit and retain high-quality teachers

22. Additional Knowledge and Skills • For permanent pay increases: • License in a second subject • License in a shortage area -- mathematics, science, technology, high poverty school • Masters in area of license, or just content area • Expertise for a comprehensive school design • For one time payments, e.g. • computer software, district provided pd classes • For leadership roles • lead teacher, curriculum council chair, peer assessor, school mentor/coach/instructional facilitator

23. Are these systems working? • Emerging research results from: • Studies of operation and impact of knowledge and skills-based performance evaluation systems without links to pay – Reno, Newport News, Anoka Hennepin • Analyses of plans in Iowa and Philadelphia • Studies of operation and impact of knowledge and skills-based evaluation systems with links to pay – Cincinnati, Vaughn, LaCrescent

24. Overall Finding • The vision of instruction, the new evaluation system, the professional development systems are all HUGE improvements from past practice • There are several important, positive impacts, including early HLM analysis showing linkages between evaluation scores and valued-added learning • But, there are glitches in design and implementation, which second generation programs should overcome

25. Key Impacts • Evidence in two places – Cincinnati, Vaughn – of positive correlations between evaluation scores and value added student learning growth – so systems are valid – a major finding • Acceptance of the standards by nearly all teachers and belief that the standards reflect what teachers do and that they are fair • Stronger acceptance by new teachers – gives them some help on basic instructional and classroom management strategies and they more inclined to mold themselves to the district vision of instruction

26. Impacts, continued …. • Other instructional impacts • More reflection on instructional practice, especially to focus on individual student needs • More attention to student content standards • More work to develop “standards-based” lesson plans • More attention to classroom management

27. Alignment of HR system • Not yet done comprehensively or well in most places – “will get to it” • Because of operational complexities, conversations about improving instruction not as extensive as hoped – can that really happen in a meaningful way if the principal is the major assessor and s/he not licensed at same grade level and content area as the teacher? • Need to make evaluations look more like professional development – so structure assessment around an instructional unit and score like Connecticut does using videos rather than observations

28. Promises & Pitfalls of Efforts So Far • KSBP is designed around a state, district or school definition of good instruction, which is a big Plus • This is right but not easy • Not that much common understanding of what good instruction is or what it looks like • Too little content specific focus on instruction in the systems that are operating

29. Promises and Pitfalls, cont’d …. • Professional development and evaluation still not very connected, and when they are, they look too different • Core professional development is about teaching standards-based curriculum units • A core way to evaluate teachers is around a curriculum-unit-based portfolio • When done this way, the pd/evaluation link is strategic, clear and efficient – evaluation then is not an extra burden

30. Promises and Pitfalls, cont’d …. • Pay more attention to implementation; implementation glitches are what leads to problems • The Cincinnati system was psychometrically valid and reliable, yet voted down • Implementation glitches overcame technical soundness • Funding shortfalls are beginning to create cynicism: Iowa, California, etc.

31. Promises and Pitfalls, cont’d …. • Add-on plans are more “popular” and easier to implement but less “strategic” than plans that fundamentally restructure • Teacher salary levels matter – NYC – when we hike pay, we reduce teacher shortages • Growing realization that new ways to pay teachers and higher teacher salary levels need to be woven into definitions of school finance adequacy – for example, Washington – LARGE upside potential for higher salaries if this link can be made

32. Bottom Lines … • Performance-based teacher pay and evaluation are ideas whose time has come • Multiple efforts all over the country – growing and expanding with some considerable success • We know how to design these systems • The Big caution – focus more on communication, roll out, implementation • Keep plugging – the many possible upside gains should continue to propel the movement despite some errors and oversights made by the early movers

33. Just a Few Conference “Rules” • Conference open to all types of teacher salary and evaluation innovations, presence on the agenda isn’t CPRE endorsement • Everyone is encouraged to and is allowed to disseminate their organization’s literature • We’re hear to listen and learn, not to take issue with what presenters have designed and are operating