Transcript Pay for Performance Programs in Arizona

Pay for Performance Programs
in Arizona
• Arizona Performance Based
Compensation System
• Arizona Career Ladder Programs
CPRE Conference
February 21, 2007
Performance Based Compensation
System
(ARS §15-977)
2
February 21, 2007
Performance Based Compensation System
History

Arizona voters passed Proposition 301 in
November, 2000

The purpose is to
–
–
3
increase education funding
Implement specific financial and academic
accountability measures
February 21, 2007
Performance Based Compensation System
Revenues
4

.5¢ sales tax

The 2000 estimate:
–
Generate $445 million each year for 20 years
–
About 55 percent of that—or $252 million—will go
towards the Classroom Site Fund
February 21, 2007
Performance Based Compensation System
Classroom Site Fund Monies

2003: $224 million

2004: $232 million
Source: State Auditor General
5
February 21, 2007
Performance Based Compensation System
Classroom Site
6

40 Percent: Performance pay for teachers

20 percent: Base compensation increases

40 percent: menu items (district needs)
February 21, 2007
Performance Based Compensation System
Unresolved Issues
7

The law did not define “teacher”

It also did not define the term “performance”
or contain any additional guidance
February 21, 2007
Performance Based Compensation System
Performance Compensation Legislation
8

SB 1074 passed in 2005 and became
effective August 12, 2005

Requires School District Governing Boards to
adopt a performance based compensation
system

Created the Arizona Performance Based
Compensation System Task Force
February 21, 2007
Performance Based Compensation System
Task Force Duties
9

Evaluate one-fourth of programs annually

Report on programs’ effectiveness

Offer improvement recommendations
February 21, 2007
Performance Based Compensation System
Task Force Recommendations

10
The first set of recommendations were provided in
July, 2006:
–
Performance Based Assessment must be reflective of
comprehensive goal setting at the district, school and
classroom level
–
Goals should be individually tailored to the situations and
needs of each school/district
–
Promoting individual student performance should be the
direct and primary focus of school/district goal setting
February 21, 2007
Performance Based Compensation System
Task Force Recommendations
11
–
Districts/schools should select indicators that best reflect
their unique operating environment
–
PBC plans should promote continuous improvement by
encouraging the development of new skills and knowledge
by teachers that are designed to achieve district/school
goals
–
Rigorous professional development that is aligned to
school/district goals is a vital component to continuous
improvement
February 21, 2007
Performance Based Compensation System
Task Force Recommendations
12
–
PBC goals should be objective, measurable and timely
so that overall performance can be assessed in a
transparent way by district, school and community
stakeholders
–
Systemized data collection and analysis should be a key
ingredient in successful PBC plans
–
PBC plans should reflect broad-based input in its design,
implementation and evaluation as a matter of good practice
and accountability
–
Each teacher’s performance based compensation should
be substantially based on their individual efforts in support if
the district/school goals
February 21, 2007
Career Ladder Programs
(ARS §15-918)
13
February 21, 2007
Arizona Career Ladder Program
Purpose
14

Increased student academic achievement

Teacher recognition and compensation for
performance at increasingly higher skill
levels

Quality, sustained, job-embedded
professional development
February 21, 2007
Arizona Career Ladder Program
Components
As defined by Arizona Revised Statute §15-918, district
Career Ladder Programs must provide for:
15

Increasingly higher levels of pupil academic progress as
measured by objective criteria

Increasingly higher levels of teaching skills

Increasingly higher levels of teacher responsibility

Professional growth

Equal teacher pay for equal teacher performance
February 21, 2007
Arizona Career Ladder Program
History
16
1984
Competitive grant planning money available to
design a performance based compensation
program for teachers
1985
The Arizona legislature created the Arizona
Career Ladder Program as a five-year pilot
1990
The Career Ladder Program received
“permanent” legislative status
1993
No further expansion is authorized—limiting
Career Ladder to 28 districts
February 21, 2007
Arizona Career Ladder Program
Funding
17

5.5% of District’s base funding = Career
Ladder allocation for that district

District assesses a 22¢ per $100/assessed
valuation for local funding

Difference between allocated amount and
locally raised funds is paid by state
appropriations
February 21, 2007
Arizona Career Ladder Program
Research/Evaluation
Mary Walton Braver (1989, ASU), (Career
Ladder Pilot Project)
Analysis of the impact of the Career
Ladder on student academic achievement
using a comparison of prior to and
following implementation
18
February 21, 2007
Arizona Career Ladder Program
Research/Evaluation
Packard and Dereshiwsky (1990)
Positive outcomes were noted for Career
Ladder teachers related to:
–
–
–
19
student achievement
curriculum and instruction and
teacher skills development and leadership
February 21, 2007
Arizona Career Ladder Program
Research/Evaluation
Datasphere Inc. (1992-93)
Results of a survey distributed to




school board members
Administrators
career ladder teachers, and
non-career ladder teachers
concerning the impact of the Career Ladder
Program on student progress and
achievement
20
February 21, 2007
Arizona Career Ladder Program
Research/Evaluation
Sloat (1994)
Comparing student achievement in Career Ladder
districts and non-Career Ladder districts:
Career Ladder districts out-performed non-Career Ladder
districts in three areas:
1.
2.
3.
21
Drop out rate
Graduation rate
Standardized and Norm Referenced Tests
February 21, 2007
Arizona Career Ladder Program
Research/Evaluation
Danzig (1999)
22

All 28 participating Career Ladder districts are
designed with multiple steps and levels,
demonstrating a career cycle for teachers with
expectations for contributions greater than just
“years of experience”

An essential aspect of every district’s plan is the
focus on teaching and monitoring of student
outcomes
February 21, 2007
Arizona Career Ladder Program
Research/Evaluation
Sloat (2002)
Comparative study between the 28 Career Ladder districts and
similar Non-Career Ladder districts on the Stanford 9 assessment,
Grades 2 through 8, Reading, Language, and Mathematics:
23
–
Career Ladder districts out-performed non-Career Ladder districts at
every grade level, 2-8, in Reading, Language, and Mathematics as
indicated by the median scores.
–
Career Ladder districts out-performed non-Career Ladder districts at
every grade level, 2nd through 8th, in Reading, Language, and
Mathematics as indicated by the mean NCE scores.
–
The level of difference indicated was SIGNIFICANT, statistically speaking,
at all grade levels and in all subject areas except for 6th grade Reading.
February 21, 2007
Arizona Career Ladder Program
Research/Evaluation
Dowling, et al (2007)
The Effects of the Career Ladder Program on Student
Achievement

Students in Career Ladder schools are performing significantly better on AIMS
measures than did students in non-career ladder schools, even after adjusting
for differences in student and school characteristics

The impact of the Career Ladder program seems to be greater in math and
reading
Although the statistical methods are different and the measures
of student performance are different throughout the studies on
Career Ladder, the results continue to be positive.
24
February 21, 2007
Arizona Career Ladder Program
Reasons for Success
25

Districts have the autonomy to design and implement plans
aligned with the needs/initiatives of the district yet adhere to
statutes

Student achievement is the primary focus

Programs are teacher driven as opposed to state mandated,
top-down directives

Over time, Arizona’s Career Ladder districts have maintained
the integrity and the intent of the incentive-based programs

All programs must undergo regular evaluation as part of the
reapplication process
February 21, 2007
Resources/Contacts
Jan Amator
Deputy Associate Superintendent
Highly Qualified Professionals Unit
602-364-2294
[email protected]
Lisa Kelley
Education Program Specialist for Career Ladder
602-364-2191
[email protected]
Website: http://www.ade.az.gov/asd/CareerLadder/
26
February 21, 2007