Transcript QUALITY COMPENSATION FOR TEACHERS OR “Q COMP”

QUALITY COMPENSATION FOR
TEACHERS OR “Q COMP”
Minn. Stat. 122A.413-415
Proposed and Signed by Governor Tim Pawlenty
Chas Anderson
651-582-8207 or [email protected]
Minnesota Department of Education
July 2006
www.education.state.mn.us
History of Alternative Teacher
Compensation and Q Comp
Alternative teacher compensation grant
program pilot passed in 2001 and started in
2002
--$3.6 million per year allocated
--Local design
--Focused on alternative salary schedule and
career ladders for teachers
-Five school districts participated in the program

History of Alternative Teacher
Compensation and Q Comp
Teacher Advancement Program
--Launched in 2004 in two school districts –
Waseca and Minneapolis
--State received a federal teacher quality
enhancement grant
--Q Comp was largely designed after TAP – one
big difference is the requirement of the
alternative salary schedule in Q Comp.

History of Alternative Teacher
Compensation and Q Comp







Governor Pawlenty took office in 2003.
As a legislator and as House Majority Leader, he strongly
supported alternative teacher compensation.
The state had a $4.5 billion deficit in 2003 – alternative
compensation proposal was put into planning stage.
Governor directed the Department of Education to look at various
models and take input from stakeholders.
Governor proposed “Q Comp” in 2005.
Most state education organizations eventually supported the
proposal; there was significant support from local teachers and
administrators working on or implementing performance pay.
Q Comp passed in July 2005 during a special session of the
Minnesota Legislature.
What are steps for Q Comp?

1.
Stages of Q Comp Application
Transition Planning Year (requires set aside money for
staff development and letter of intent)
2.
Pre Approval / Approval of Application – preapproval available for districts who either have a settled contract
without an alternative compensation plan or for districts without a
final contract.
3.
Implementation of Q Comp beginning October
1, 2005 or October 1, 2006. Districts or school sites
must request to waive transition year requirement.
Application Process for Q Comp
•
•
•
•
School districts will be given a formal review with the
status of their Q Comp Proposal within 30 days of the
Department’s receipt of the application.
Districts will have 30 days to revise applications.
Districts or school sites may send in an application for
the Q Comp program.
State (Department of Education) has final approval of
Q Comp application.
Districts may enter into a four-year contract (instead of
two year contract) under Q Comp.
Letters of Intent – Transition Year
How many school districts and charter
schools stated their intent to submit a Q
Comp plan for 2006-07 or 2007-08 school
year?
 134 School Districts
 1 Intermediate District
 1 School Within a School
 40 Charter Schools
Approved and Pending Districts and
Charter Schools for the 2005-06 and
2006-07 school years (as of June 28, 2006)
2005-06 school year:
9 school districts
3 charter schools
2006-07 school year:
14 school districts approved (total of 23 school districts)
1 charter schools approved (total of 4 charter schools)
14 school district applications pending
13 charter school applications pending
Total if all are approved: 37 school districts, 17 charter schools or 159,908
students
Note: 343 school districts and 124 charter schools or approximately 850,000
students in Minnesota
Funding Totals for 2005-06 school
year




Metro Districts = $8,801,900
Rural Districts = $4,575,220
Charter Schools = $276,120
Total (FY 2006) = $13,253,240
State Funds Available for 2006-07
School Year
$30,626,260 allocated for the 2006-07
school year
$42,009,740 remains to be allocated
before October 1, 2006.
Funding not allocated will revert back to the
general fund for FY 2007 but will be
available in the base budget for FY 2008.
Q Comp Funding – FY 2007 or 200607 School Year






$75.636 million in FY 2007 for basic state aid. Funding is
permanent to base budget as long as district, school site, or
charter school operating the Q Comp program.
Equal to approximately $260/student in aid the first year and
$190/student aid and $70/student levy the second year.
Levy equalized to $5,913 Adjusted Net Tax Capacity (ANTC)
Board approved levy
Categorical aid program and part of general education
Districts must also use 2% staff development set aside (about
$100/student).
Q COMP COMPONENTS





Component #1: Multiple Career Paths or
Career Ladders
Component #2: Job-embedded
Professional Development
Component #3: Performance Pay
Component #4: Teacher Evaluations and
Observations
Component #5: Salary Schedule
Component #1: Compensation and
Ratios for Multiple Career Paths Examples
Duties
Team meetings
Job-embedded professional development
Demonstration of teaching
Team teaching
Mentoring new teachers
Content coaching
Teacher evaluations
Peer or cognitive coaching
Compensation
Release time
$3,000-$8,000 salary augmentation
Important Issues/Tips:
Competitive hiring and selection
process
Ratios of career ladder to classroom
teachers
Training
Teacher evaluations
Retaining role as teacher
Rotation of teachers in career
ladders
Mentoring new teachers and career
ladder positions
Component #2: Site-based Professional
Development Activities
How will professional/staff development work
under Q Comp?
 Aligned with district improvement plan, school
improvement plan and staff development plan.
 Site-based and determined by student data
and teacher needs.
 Developed by classroom practitioners who will
field test research-based strategies.
Component #2: Example of
Professional Development Activities
Q Comp Schools
 Name of PD activities vary – for example, some are called: cluster
groups, professional learning communities, team meetings, etc.
 Led by career ladder teachers
 Meet between 45-90 minutes per week
 Data driven
 Can be grade level or interdisciplinary – configuration decided at
local level
 Specialists are included in each cluster or meet separately
 Some clusters/learning communities, etc. meet before school and
some during the day but all of them meet during the teacher
regular workday.
Component #2: Professional
Development Tips
Tips:
• Tightly align 2% staff development set aside
• Drive staff development plans to the site – high
schools will look different from elementary
schools, etc.
• Importance of hiring process with career ladder
teachers
• Remember the specialists!
Component #3: Performance Pay

Why performance pay?

Attract and retain quality teachers
–
–
Beginning salaries perceived as too low.
Experienced teachers have cap on salary increases
later in their career.
Component #3: Performance Pay
How does it work?
 Individual evaluations
 School and student achievement gains (local
assessment and/or state assessment – local
option)
 Measures of student achievement
Component #3: Performance Pay
Requirement for Q Comp
Describe how at least 60 percent of teacher
compensation increases within a performance
pay system aligns of teacher performance
measures with student academic
achievement and progress as outlined in
Section 122A.414, clause 4. Use table below
and add narrative to describe how each of the
checked items will be used as evidence and
linked to performance pay.
Components #3: Example of
Performance Pay
The 60 percent of teacher compensation as aligned
with performance pay system will be divided equally as
follows:
(1) 50% based on professional growth or how much
change in teacher practice and the effect on student
achievement is documented by Professional Standards
Rubric.
(2) 50% based on student achievement measures that
include local standardized tests and teacher
assessments and school-wide student achievement as
measured by MCAs.

Component #3: Performance Pay
Tips
• Focus on systemic compensation changes and not
individual teacher based.
• Try not to place too much performance pay
compensation in one criteria or measurement.
• Use multiple data points.
• Embed as much of performance pay as possible.
• Local review of compensation system is important.
Component #4: Purpose of Teacher
Evaluation





Improve teacher quality
Identify areas of strength and have teacher
share with colleagues
Identify areas of need to design individual
support and professional development
Encourage collaboration and collegiality
Reward professional growth-individually, by
team, and by school.
Component #4: Example of
Teacher Evaluation





Aligned with Minnesota Standards of Effective
Practice and recertification requirements.
Rubric with four domains: A-Planning, B-Climate,
C-Instruction, and D-Professionalism.
Includes Lesson Plan and Curriculum Maps with
integration of student standards (Domain A)
Includes 3-4 observations (Domains B & C) over
course of year to measure professional growth.
Includes Individual Professional Growth Plan
(Domain D).
Component #4: Teacher Evaluation
Tips
Tips:
• Use multiple evaluations – at least three. Everyone has a bad day
a work!
• Watch and monitor for inter-rater reliability, including score
inflation.
• One person should not control a teacher’s compensation – this
needs to be a team to ensure inter-rater reliability.
• Evaluation rubric must be reasonable and focused on instruction.
• Make sure you have an appeals process in place.
• Remember the specialists! You may need to modify evaluation
rubrics for specialists.
Component #5: Salary Schedule
Historical Background
Three phases of the development of teacher pay:
 Phase I: Lasted until roughly the 20th century, teacher pay was
negotiated between an individual teacher and school board. As
districts grew and consolidated, this became a problematic
process and unpopular with teachers due to favoritism.
 Phase II: Salary schedule included some merit pay components,
and the pay differed based on grade levels, with high school
teachers being paid more than elementary teachers. This lasted
until 1920’s/pre-WW II.
 Phase III: The “single salary schedule” was accelerated around
the WWII time period and pay was based on the level of
experience and personal development through advanced
education degrees and course credits, not by merit or grade level.
The unification of the salary schedule was eventually embraced by
NEA and AFT.
Component #5: Salary Schedule
Types of Salary Schedules not based on “steps and lanes:
• Knowledge and skill based pay: Base pay progression that
rewards teachers for developing and using skills required for
achieving high performance standards.
• School-based Performance Award: Goal oriented incentive
program that rewards teachers when goals regarding student
performance are met or exceeded.
• Pay Competitiveness: Salary levels that are adequate to recruit
and retain top talent, including higher salaries for teachers in
license shortage areas or hard-to-staff schools.
Q Comp allows districts to take the “best” in each of the three above
and incorporate it.
Component #5: Salary Schedule
Under the Q comp program, a school district will
need to negotiate a new salary schedule that is
not based exclusively and “reforms” the
lockstep steps and lanes system. A school
district and exclusive representative will need
to design a new salary schedule. It is expected
that no teacher would receive a pay cut under
a new salary schedule – they would start from
where they left off on steps and lanes.
Component #5: Salary Schedule
Examples
Mounds View:
Career I: BA degree
Career II: MA degree, completion of Mounds View certification program,
and/or career ladder position.
After establishing a teacher as “Career I” or “Career II”, teachers move on the
salary schedule based on performance – teacher evaluations and
assessments.
St. Francis:
Teachers move on the salary schedule based on performance – teacher
evaluations and assessments. Once the performance is met, the teacher
moves up on the salary schedule. Beginning teachers earn more than
state average and increases are greater than the steps and lanes salary
schedule but all increases are based on performance.
Department of Education
Contact Information
Q Comp Program
Linda Trevorrow
651-582-8871 or [email protected]
Pat King, School Improvement Director
651-582-8655 or [email protected]
Chas Anderson, Deputy Commissioner
651-582-8207 or [email protected]
Q Comp Funding:
Terri Yetter, Program Finance Specialist
651-582-8868 or [email protected]
Tom Melcher, Program Finance Director
651-582-8828 or [email protected]