Transcript Alternate Compensation

ALTERNATE TEACHER
COMPENSATION
HISTORY, RESEARCH, AND CURRENT STATE
OVERVIEW
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
History of current pay structure
National historical perspective
Research findings
Wisconsin’s story
The bigger picture
International models
State models
Wisconsin models
Implications
HOW WE GOT HERE
• Evolution of schools and compensation
• Single salary model implemented in 1921 in Des
Moines and Denver
• In nearly all schools by 1950
BENEFITS OF THE
SINGLE SALARY SYSTEM
• Fairness: Equity for race and gender
• Objectivity: Eliminates judgment about teacher
quality.
• Ease of administration: Predictable funding year-toyear, minimal administrative effort to supervise.
• Collegiality: Avoid pay-based disgruntlement.
• Higher Education: Emphasis on educational credits
causes teachers to focus on their own education
and learning.
(WEAC, 2011)
NATIONAL REFORMS
• A Nation At Risk, 1983
• United States students performing well below their peers
(Coates-McBride & Kritsonis, 2008)
• Report made recommendations on how to improve education
• Improving talent pool
• Improving knowledge of effective teaching practices
• Some districts explored alternate compensation (Podursky &
Springer, 2007)
• American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and Race to
the Top, 2009
•
•
•
•
•
Increase achievement
Close achievement gaps
Increase graduation rates
More rigorous standards
More robust data systems
WHY THE FOCUS ON TEACHERS?
There is a growing body of quantitative
research that demonstrates a positive
relationship between teacher abilities
and student performance (Goldhaber,
2010) and some researchers conclude
that “improving the quality of teachers is
the key element to improving student
performance” (Hanushek, 2008, 5).
CURRENT COMPENSATION
• Teachers operating under multiple systems
• New Wisconsin requirements aren’t represented
• Create a waiting game for teachers wishing to
and deserving to advance
• Growth is implied
• Longevity
• Credit attainment
• Limits what we value and reward
WHAT NEA HAS TO SAY
NEA Supports a Professional Growth Model for
Compensation that:
• Rewards additional leadership and responsibility
• Rewards knowledge and skills that improve
teaching
• Rewards practice that improves student learning
outcomes, based on evidence of student progress
• Compensates teachers for contributions outside of
direct classroom teaching
• Provides salary, professional growth opportunities,
and career earnings of comparably prepared
professionals
NEA.org
WHAT AFT RECOMMENDS
• Genuine collaboration
• Adequate base
• Performance pay components must be based
upon multiple points of data
• Incentives
• Clear criteria
• Available to everyone
• Bonuses for
•
•
•
•
National Board Certification
Hard-to-staff positions / schools
Mentorship
Additional responsibilities
American Federation of Teachers. Differentiated Pay Plans. http://aft.org
INTERNATIONAL MODELS
• Finland, Portugal, Turkey (Woessman, 2011)
• Bonuses earned through evaluations
• Mexico (Woessmann, 2011)
• Bonuses for student achievement
• India Study (Muralidharan, 2011)
• 3% bonus for Individual Incentive or Group Incentive
• Both groups showed growth (14 to 20 percentile points)
• Individual Incentive population showed more
• Sweden (Lundstrom, 2012)
• Base pay inflation increases
• Supervisor-assigned bonuses of 0% to 20%
• Georgia (Kobakhidze, 2010)
• Education incentive and longevity
• Organisation for Economic Cooperation and
Development (Woessmann, 2011)
UNITED STATES MODELS
• New York City (Springer & Winters, 2009)
• $3000 / per union member bonus for meeting standardized
test score benchmarks
• $1500 / per union member bonus for meeting 75% of
standardized test score benchmarks
• Chicago’s TAP (Glazerman and Seifullah, 2010)
• Individual Teacher Bonuses
•
•
•
•
Achievement Data
Performance
Mentoring / Coaching other Teachers
$1100 to $15,000
UNITED STATES MODELS
• Minnesota Q-COMP (Sojourner, West and Mykerezi, 2010)
• Teacher Pay for Performance
• School Pay for Performance
• Evaluation Pay for Performance
• Houston: Aspire Program (Coates-McBride & Kristonis, 2008)
• Collaboration, reduced absenteeism, value-added
• Stipend-style up to $7300 per teacher
UNITED STATES MODELS
• Denver: ProComp (Goldhaber & Walch, 2012)
• Knowledge and Skills
• 6.4% top performing building
• 6.4% high growth building
• 1% per Student Growth Objective met
• Comprehensive Professional Evaluation
• 1% - 3% successful evaluation
• Market Incentives
• 6.4% for hard to staff buildings or positions
• Knowledge and Skills
• 9% advance degree
• 2% professional development program
• $1000 - $4000 tuition reimbursement
WISCONSIN MODELS
•
•
•
•
•
Points systems
Performance-based systems
Goal attainment bonus systems
Educational incentive bonus systems
Single ladder review systems
WHAT WE CAN TAKE AWAY
• Student learning can be quantified
• Standardized test scores can be good feedback,
but need to be controlled for outside factors if used
for high stakes decision-making
• Effective teachers are a significant variable in
student learning and school improvement
• Teacher learning and application impacts student
learning
• Collaboration makes schools stronger and increases
student achievement
• A system that creates competition is detrimental to
our schools
A NEW MODEL COULD
• Expand what we value
• Eliminate teachers working in three separate
models of expectations
• Compensation model focusing on credits and
longevity
• State-wide model focusing on student and
professional growth
• Licensure model focusing on professional
practice
TAKE-AWAYS
• Seek to reward, not motivate
• Use genuine collaboration
• Be transparent
• Create a system that
• Is unique to your district
• Represents what your district and community values
QUESTIONS?
BONUS SLIDES
CONNECTING COMPENSATION
TO A BIGGER PICTURE
THE BIGGER PICTURE
• Individual, professional, and institutional
growth
• Professional Learning Communities
• Response to Intervention
• ESEA Waiver
• Common Core Standards
• Smarter Balanced Assessment
• School Report Cards
• Educator Effectiveness
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING
COMMUNITIES
• Focus: individual, professional, and institutional
growth
• Four questions:
• What do we want students to know and do?
• How will we know when they are able to?
• What will we do if they don’t?
• What will we do if they already can?
• Growth is measured through assessment
• Desired result?
• Professional growth
• Increased student achievement
• Increased individual and school-wide
performance
RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION
• Focus: individual and institutional growth
• A system for student growth
• Academic
• Behavioral
• Collaboration
• Desired results?
• Increased student achievement
• Increase individual and school-wide
performance
ESEA WAIVER: AGENDA 2017
• Common Core Standards
• Desired result? Increased student achievement through
increased rigor
• Individual and institutional growth
• Smarter Balanced Assessment
• Desired result? Growth for every student
• Individual and institutional growth
• School Report Card
• Desired results? Student growth, school-wide growth, closing
the gap, graduation, attendance
• Individual and institutional growth
• Educator Effectiveness
• Desired results? Increased accountability for professional
performance and student growth
• Individual, professional, and institutional growth
HOW IT WORKS
• Evaluated every three years
• Formal, informal, and walk-through observations based
on Charlotte Danielson framework
• Intense evaluator training
• Goals are set (small group or individual)
• Student Learning Outcomes
• Professional Practice
• Electronic portfolio
• Can incorporate student feedback
• Assessment data is reviewed
• **Note, evolving based on pilot findings…
EDUCATOR EFFECTIVENESS