Transcript Teacher Advancement Program

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.
Percentage of Variance in
Student Achievement Accounted
for by Various Factors
SOURCE: Ferguson, 1991
Evidence on Teacher Quality
 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
Source: Hanushek, 2003
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
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
What is TAP?
 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?
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:
1. Multiple Career Paths
2. Instructionally Focused Accountability
3. Ongoing Applied Professional Growth
4. Performance-based Compensation
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!
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
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
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
TAP: Multiple Career Paths
 Career continuum for teacher
 Compensation commensurate with
qualifications, roles and responsibilities
 Excellent teachers remain connected to the
classroom
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
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
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
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
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
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
Growing Momentum
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
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
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)
What’s Happening in the States?
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?
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.
Union Support for TAP
 Columbus, Ohio (NEA)
 Lake County, Florida (AFT)
 Minneapolis, Minnesota (AFT)
 Cincinnati, Ohio (AFT)
The Growth of TAP
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
Sources of Funds for TAP
 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
RESULTS!
Teacher Support for TAP Elements:
2004-05 and 2005-06 School Years
Multiple Career Path 2005
2006
40.5
42.1
Professional Growth 2005
2006
31.4
37.0
37.0
25.9
Accountability 2005
2006
49.8
66.2
29.1
33.9
Performance-based Compensation 2005
2006
49.3
59.4
34.4
40.1
Collegiality 2005
2006
15.3
23.6
36.6
52.6
71.7
22.1
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Percent
Average
Support / Strongly Support
90
100
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
Recruitment
Principals report that TAP positively impacts recruiting for open
positions. Forty-seven percent of principals say it is easier to hire
good teachers.
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
31
33
36
36
Attracted more
inquires
Attracting better
applicants
Neutral
47
18
36
31
Increased quantity of Easier to hire good
applicants
teachers
Agree/Highly Agree
Reducing Teacher Turnover
 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%.
Retention

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%)
Attracting Talented Teachers to
High Poverty Schools
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.
Increased Student Achievement
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.
Effectiveness of TAP:
Results From Our Evaluation Report
 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.
Evaluating TAP Using ValueAdded Gains
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 ValueAdded Gains
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.
Percent of Comparisons in which
TAP Teachers Outperform Controls
100%
100%
100%
75%
63%
50%
25%
0%
1&2
3, 4 & 5
Value-Added Score
1-5
TAP Teachers vs Control Teachers
National Aggregated Teacher Effect
National Aggregated Teacher Effect
45%
38%
30%
26%
25%
14%
15%
0%
TAP
Control
Percent of Teachers Achieving More than
ONE Standard Error Above an Average
Year's Growth
TAP
Control
Percent of Teachers Achieving More than
TWO Standard Errors Above an Average
Year's Growth
Percent of Comparisons in which
TAP Schools Outperform Controls
100%
100%
100%
75%
67%
67%
67%
57%
Math
50%
Reading
25%
0%
1&2
3, 4 & 5
Value-Added Score
1-5
TAP Schools vs Control Schools
National Aggregated School Effect
National Aggregated School Effect
45%
40%
32%
30%
26%
18%
15%
0%
TAP
Control
Percent of Schools Achieving More than
ONE Standard Error Above an Average
Year's Growth
TAP
Control
Percent of Schools Achieving More than
TWO Standard Errors Above an Average
Year's Growth
© 2007. National Institute for Excellence
in Teaching. All rights reserved.
www.talentedteachers.org
[email protected]