ackground:
Eagle County School District (ECSD) serves 5,300 students across 16 schools with extreme racial and socioeconomic diversity characteristics of urban schools. More than 30% of the students are English language learners and 30% of the students are from low income families based on free/reduced price lunch eligibility. The area experiences high teacher turnover (21% of teacher spend less than 3 years in the district and 85% of the prinicipals) due to the high cost of living in the area (proximal to numerous ski resorts).
A summary of the Eagle County, Colorado Performance-Based Compensation plan that align with our design elements (listed below)
1) Ongoing, job-embedded professional development;
· Instructional Best Practices
· Increase training in core content areas
(2) Performance-based compensation;
· Pure performance based compensation system, increases are not additive and must be earned each year based on indexed student assessment results and teacher evaluations
(3) Evaluation based on professional standards;
· Eagle County Colorado’s Performance-Based Compensation plan evaluations for teachers are was based 50% on two annual classroom evaluations designed to measure teaching skills, knowledge and responsibility; the other 50% is based on student achievement and growth.
· Student Assessments made up of four components; District-Wide ACT, District-Wide CSAP (Colorado Student Assessment Program), Building-Wide CSAP using “Catch-up, Keep up”model., Building-wide NWEA.
(4) Career advancement options.
· Create tracking system for succession planning purposes for all teacher and prinicipals categorizing them as; master, mentor, career.
Quantitative and qualitative measures employed to baseline and monitor the program’s success are the program’s impact on student achievement, instruction and teacher effectiveness, which includes teacher attitudes; and recruitment and retention.
Monday, April 6, 2009
Northern New Mexico Performance-Based Compensation Program
(submitted by Gary Gee)
The NNM PBCP is a program to implement and evaluate a teacher and principal compensation system that uses measures of student achievement as the primary indicator of effective performance.
Four rural school districts in northern New Mexico (Espanola, Springer, Cimarron, and Des Moines districts) comprised the membership of the program. The districts vary in size of students served and size in square miles. All four of the districts face the pressures of low student achievement scores, climbing dropout rates, and the ability to recruit high quality teachers. The four districts have a high majority of Hispanic students, with a smaller Native American population.
New Mexico has raised teacher salaries by mandating minimum salaries for Levels I, II, III as established in the New Mexico 2003 Public School Reforms Act, and the state has been reviewing the current practices of evaluating and compensating principals.
The program offers incentives to teachers, principals, and education assistants for (1) school wide achievement; (2) individual classroom achievement gains; and (3) student achievement gains among (NCLB) high-need student groups. Incentives are also available to teachers and principals who demonstrate the use of additional skills and knowledge used in classrooms and schools. The incentives for teachers and principals range from $2,434-$3,651 per individual, and $1,217-$1,825 per individual for educational assistants. Wexford, an external evaluator, will assess the program.
Local resources are used for the program. Los Alamos National Labs provided $1.2 million to the Espanola schools, and funds from the U.S. Department of Education went to the other three schools. During the second year of the program, the Springer, Cimarron, and Des Moines districts did not participate due to financial difficulties, and the Taos Municipal School District joined the program.
The NNM PBCP is a program to implement and evaluate a teacher and principal compensation system that uses measures of student achievement as the primary indicator of effective performance.
Four rural school districts in northern New Mexico (Espanola, Springer, Cimarron, and Des Moines districts) comprised the membership of the program. The districts vary in size of students served and size in square miles. All four of the districts face the pressures of low student achievement scores, climbing dropout rates, and the ability to recruit high quality teachers. The four districts have a high majority of Hispanic students, with a smaller Native American population.
New Mexico has raised teacher salaries by mandating minimum salaries for Levels I, II, III as established in the New Mexico 2003 Public School Reforms Act, and the state has been reviewing the current practices of evaluating and compensating principals.
The program offers incentives to teachers, principals, and education assistants for (1) school wide achievement; (2) individual classroom achievement gains; and (3) student achievement gains among (NCLB) high-need student groups. Incentives are also available to teachers and principals who demonstrate the use of additional skills and knowledge used in classrooms and schools. The incentives for teachers and principals range from $2,434-$3,651 per individual, and $1,217-$1,825 per individual for educational assistants. Wexford, an external evaluator, will assess the program.
Local resources are used for the program. Los Alamos National Labs provided $1.2 million to the Espanola schools, and funds from the U.S. Department of Education went to the other three schools. During the second year of the program, the Springer, Cimarron, and Des Moines districts did not participate due to financial difficulties, and the Taos Municipal School District joined the program.
Florida’s Differentiation Pay
(submitted by Linda Wiederholt)
During the 2005-06 school year, 17 districts in Florida offered differentiated pay to staff schools that had proven difficult to staff and critical shortage areas were also included. The results were more successful in recruiting staff in the hard to place schools than in the shortage areas. There was not one set method, but plans were developed to meet local needs. In 2006 Florida passed laws requiring districts to develop differentiation pay plans. The pay differed not only for teachers, but also in several schools, for administrators. Thirteen districts offered differentiated pay for the hard to staff schools. Some schools based this on free and reduced lunch percentages while others based the hard to staff schools on the number of F’s. The amount paid ranged from $560 to $9,200. The two highest paid districts required the teachers to work a longer day and extended calendar. The average amount of dollars was between $1,000 and $4,000. Seven districts offered pay to recruit teachers in shortage areas. Once again the methods varied such as bonuses or pay increase. Even within an area such as Special Education, not all teachers qualified for the money. Differentiated pay for the hard-to-staff schools was financed mainly by state (FEFP) and/or local districts. The critical shortage teachers pay was financed mainly through the state.
In 2006 Florida Legislature’s provided $147.5 million within the Florida Education Finance Program (FEFP) in which the districts had to submit a performance pay plan, Special Teachers Are Rewarded (STAR)
http://www.fldoe.org/PerformancePay/pdfs/STAR_SuptMemo.pdf
http://edocs.dlis.state.fl.us/fldocs/leg/oppaga/2007/0702rpt.pdf
During the 2005-06 school year, 17 districts in Florida offered differentiated pay to staff schools that had proven difficult to staff and critical shortage areas were also included. The results were more successful in recruiting staff in the hard to place schools than in the shortage areas. There was not one set method, but plans were developed to meet local needs. In 2006 Florida passed laws requiring districts to develop differentiation pay plans. The pay differed not only for teachers, but also in several schools, for administrators. Thirteen districts offered differentiated pay for the hard to staff schools. Some schools based this on free and reduced lunch percentages while others based the hard to staff schools on the number of F’s. The amount paid ranged from $560 to $9,200. The two highest paid districts required the teachers to work a longer day and extended calendar. The average amount of dollars was between $1,000 and $4,000. Seven districts offered pay to recruit teachers in shortage areas. Once again the methods varied such as bonuses or pay increase. Even within an area such as Special Education, not all teachers qualified for the money. Differentiated pay for the hard-to-staff schools was financed mainly by state (FEFP) and/or local districts. The critical shortage teachers pay was financed mainly through the state.
In 2006 Florida Legislature’s provided $147.5 million within the Florida Education Finance Program (FEFP) in which the districts had to submit a performance pay plan, Special Teachers Are Rewarded (STAR)
http://www.fldoe.org/PerformancePay/pdfs/STAR_SuptMemo.pdf
http://edocs.dlis.state.fl.us/fldocs/leg/oppaga/2007/0702rpt.pdf
Ohio Teacher Incentive Program
Ohio Teacher Incentive Fund
OTIF was built on existing models- Teacher Advancement Program (TAP), Toledo Review and Alternative Compensation System (TRACS). As in other TAP schools the teachers are rewarded for:
1) Collaboratively succeed in significantly raising student achievement.
2) Assume additional curriculum, instructional, and school improvement responsibilities and leadership.
3) Volunteer for placement in difficult teaching assignments and demonstrate improved results in student achievement.
Design #1: Ongoing, Job-Embedded Professional Development-Not clear, but assumed “suggest professional development to enhance future performance in areas that are not meeting expectations.”
Design #2: Performance-Based Compensation Yes- $2000 per teacher to provide performance payouts based on demonstrated knowledge and skills.
Design Element #3: Evaluation Based on Professional Standards- Yes performance based on results from the Ohio Performance Index
Design Element #4: Career Advancement Options-None
OTIF was built on existing models- Teacher Advancement Program (TAP), Toledo Review and Alternative Compensation System (TRACS). As in other TAP schools the teachers are rewarded for:
1) Collaboratively succeed in significantly raising student achievement.
2) Assume additional curriculum, instructional, and school improvement responsibilities and leadership.
3) Volunteer for placement in difficult teaching assignments and demonstrate improved results in student achievement.
Design #1: Ongoing, Job-Embedded Professional Development-Not clear, but assumed “suggest professional development to enhance future performance in areas that are not meeting expectations.”
Design #2: Performance-Based Compensation Yes- $2000 per teacher to provide performance payouts based on demonstrated knowledge and skills.
Design Element #3: Evaluation Based on Professional Standards- Yes performance based on results from the Ohio Performance Index
Design Element #4: Career Advancement Options-None
Denver Public Schools
Denver Public Schools
ProComp
The ProComp system is a four year program that was designed to strategically solve issues of low student performance and teacher reward and retention in the district. The plan took several years to produce with the support of the teachers and community stakeholders. The initial program gave teachers the choice to buy in if they were already employed, but all incoming teachers were required to participate.
The system bases its pay on accomplishments in four areas:
1) Demonstrated student learning
2) Demonstrated classroom/school performance
3) Acquisition and demonstration of new knowledge and skills
4) Commitment to working in high-need schools and hard to staff positions
Design #1: Ongoing, Job-Embedded Professional Development-Yes, Both including tuition reimbursement for approved advanced degrees.
Design #2: Performance-Based Compensation Yes- Multiple sources including both quantitative and qualitative measures
Design Element #3: Evaluation Based on Professional Standards- Yes levels addressing multiple facets of pedagogy and professionalism
Design Element #4: Career Advancement Options-Tuition reimbursement
ProComp
The ProComp system is a four year program that was designed to strategically solve issues of low student performance and teacher reward and retention in the district. The plan took several years to produce with the support of the teachers and community stakeholders. The initial program gave teachers the choice to buy in if they were already employed, but all incoming teachers were required to participate.
The system bases its pay on accomplishments in four areas:
1) Demonstrated student learning
2) Demonstrated classroom/school performance
3) Acquisition and demonstration of new knowledge and skills
4) Commitment to working in high-need schools and hard to staff positions
Design #1: Ongoing, Job-Embedded Professional Development-Yes, Both including tuition reimbursement for approved advanced degrees.
Design #2: Performance-Based Compensation Yes- Multiple sources including both quantitative and qualitative measures
Design Element #3: Evaluation Based on Professional Standards- Yes levels addressing multiple facets of pedagogy and professionalism
Design Element #4: Career Advancement Options-Tuition reimbursement
Sunday, April 5, 2009
Philadelphia teacher and Principal Incentive Fund Project
Background. The overall purpose of the Philadelphia teacher and Principal Incentive Fund Project is to pilot a performance-based staff development and compensation system that provides teacher and principal incentives tied directly to student achievement growth and classroom evaluations within Philadelphia Charter Schools. The prior compensatory system was based on seniority and certifications/degrees and is not tied to student achievement. The first year of the program included approximately 175 classroom teachers and 5 school principals.
Incentives. The incentives included cash bonuses for individual teachers, principals, and instructional support staff, as well as opportunities for career advancement with salary increases. Mentor and master teacher roles were established. Bonuses for teachers were based on student achievement at the school level. For principals, 50 percent of the bonus was targeted for student achievement at the school level and 50 percent was based on an external program review of the implementation of the Teacher Advancement Program (TAP) program. Other teachers and staff bonuses were based on school-wide performance. Opportunities for full or partial bonuses were available.
Evaluation. An external evaluator was contracted to conduct the program evaluation, in collaboration with the district’s own Office of Research and Evaluation. Student Academic Growth will be used to measure year-to-year teacher and student progress to determine school and/or teacher effects on students’ academic achievement. Valid, reliable, standards-based observation rubrics will be used to assess teacher and principal effectiveness. Implementation measures include surveys and quarterly meetings.
Design Elements. (1) Ongoing, Job-Embedded Professional Development. Yes (through the TAP Program); (2) Performance-Based Compensation. Yes. Described above; (3) Evaluation Based on Professional Standards. Yes. Also based on Student Growth Models; and (4) Career Advancement Options. Mentor and master teacher roles were established.
Incentives. The incentives included cash bonuses for individual teachers, principals, and instructional support staff, as well as opportunities for career advancement with salary increases. Mentor and master teacher roles were established. Bonuses for teachers were based on student achievement at the school level. For principals, 50 percent of the bonus was targeted for student achievement at the school level and 50 percent was based on an external program review of the implementation of the Teacher Advancement Program (TAP) program. Other teachers and staff bonuses were based on school-wide performance. Opportunities for full or partial bonuses were available.
Evaluation. An external evaluator was contracted to conduct the program evaluation, in collaboration with the district’s own Office of Research and Evaluation. Student Academic Growth will be used to measure year-to-year teacher and student progress to determine school and/or teacher effects on students’ academic achievement. Valid, reliable, standards-based observation rubrics will be used to assess teacher and principal effectiveness. Implementation measures include surveys and quarterly meetings.
Design Elements. (1) Ongoing, Job-Embedded Professional Development. Yes (through the TAP Program); (2) Performance-Based Compensation. Yes. Described above; (3) Evaluation Based on Professional Standards. Yes. Also based on Student Growth Models; and (4) Career Advancement Options. Mentor and master teacher roles were established.
Friday, March 27, 2009
Washington, D.C. Public Schools
Michelle Rhee, the Chancellor of the District of Columbia Public Schools believes educators are tired of being in a system that does not recognize, reward and value people for the incredibly hard work they are doing every single day. Rhee is in favor of merit pay. Not only does she want to recognize teachers she wants to reward them. She wants to pay them a lot of money--more than $100,000, compared with the national average salary of $47,600.
Her proposed two-tier pay structure system would offer teachers two tracks, a green track and a red track.
Educators who give the "green light" would get a more substantial raise and would be financially rewarded based on how well their students perform. The catch is that they would have to give up their tenure and be on probation for one year.
Teachers opposed to taking on the probation risk would have the "red light" option, which allows them to keep their tenure. These teachers would get a raise worth less than their "green light" counterparts, and would not be eligible for performance-based bonuses.
Rhee's program reduces the focus on "input differentials", such as a teacher holding a master's degree. In traditional models such factors typically guarantee a higher pay scale. Instead, it would emphasize student outcomes and evaluate teachers' ability to "move students from point A to point B". No specific measurement for those evaluations have yet been determined. Rhee does not expect all kids to move up at the same rate but rather that all kids move up. Rhee's goal is to reward strong teachers and purge incompetent ones and weaken the tenure system that keeps bad teachers in the classroom. At this time negotiations with the teacher's union are still on the table. However, the Office of the State Superintendent announced plans to tie teacher licensing to student achievement, sidestepping the union and giving Rhee the power to fire underperforming teachers.
Her proposed two-tier pay structure system would offer teachers two tracks, a green track and a red track.
Educators who give the "green light" would get a more substantial raise and would be financially rewarded based on how well their students perform. The catch is that they would have to give up their tenure and be on probation for one year.
Teachers opposed to taking on the probation risk would have the "red light" option, which allows them to keep their tenure. These teachers would get a raise worth less than their "green light" counterparts, and would not be eligible for performance-based bonuses.
Rhee's program reduces the focus on "input differentials", such as a teacher holding a master's degree. In traditional models such factors typically guarantee a higher pay scale. Instead, it would emphasize student outcomes and evaluate teachers' ability to "move students from point A to point B". No specific measurement for those evaluations have yet been determined. Rhee does not expect all kids to move up at the same rate but rather that all kids move up. Rhee's goal is to reward strong teachers and purge incompetent ones and weaken the tenure system that keeps bad teachers in the classroom. At this time negotiations with the teacher's union are still on the table. However, the Office of the State Superintendent announced plans to tie teacher licensing to student achievement, sidestepping the union and giving Rhee the power to fire underperforming teachers.
Saturday, February 14, 2009
Next Meeting Scheduled
Hello All.
Thank you to everyone who has posted their summaries of the existing performance pay plans. As I discussed in an email earlier, we will not meet on February 16 due to President’s Day. It has been challenging to find an alternative date, so I have simply moved our next meeting to April 6 which was our planned next meeting anyway.
Keep blogging!
Paul
Thank you to everyone who has posted their summaries of the existing performance pay plans. As I discussed in an email earlier, we will not meet on February 16 due to President’s Day. It has been challenging to find an alternative date, so I have simply moved our next meeting to April 6 which was our planned next meeting anyway.
Keep blogging!
Paul
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
Project SMART – Houston Independent School District
Project SMART (Strategies for Motivating and Rewarding Teachers) focuses on teacher effectiveness and growth in student learning at the school, individual teacher, and principal levels. The incentive structure is comprised of three strands.
STRAND I: School value-added analysis of multiple years of data from the SAT-10 and TAKS.
STRAND II: Rewards core instructional staff for individual efforts at improving classroom/student test scores based on value-added analysis. In order to include more teachers, there are four parts of this strand to ensure the inclusion of the maximum number of core teachers in PK-12.
STRAND III: Rewards instructional staff for cooperative efforts at achieving or maintaining the Recognized or Exemplary performance of their students.
Principals will be eligible for rewards based on school performance in Strand I and Strand III, and on student value-added performance for Strand II.
The maximum reward for teachers is $3,000, increasing to $7,600 by the sixth year.
The SAS® EVAAS® system of value-added data, designed by William Sanders, is used to determine the impact of each teacher's instruction on learning.
Formative and summative evaluations are being conducted to determine the effectiveness of the Project SMART model.
STRAND I: School value-added analysis of multiple years of data from the SAT-10 and TAKS.
STRAND II: Rewards core instructional staff for individual efforts at improving classroom/student test scores based on value-added analysis. In order to include more teachers, there are four parts of this strand to ensure the inclusion of the maximum number of core teachers in PK-12.
STRAND III: Rewards instructional staff for cooperative efforts at achieving or maintaining the Recognized or Exemplary performance of their students.
Principals will be eligible for rewards based on school performance in Strand I and Strand III, and on student value-added performance for Strand II.
The maximum reward for teachers is $3,000, increasing to $7,600 by the sixth year.
The SAS® EVAAS® system of value-added data, designed by William Sanders, is used to determine the impact of each teacher's instruction on learning.
Formative and summative evaluations are being conducted to determine the effectiveness of the Project SMART model.
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Alaska Teacher and Principal Incentive Project
The Alaska Teacher and Principal Incentive Project combines components of merit-, knowledge, and performance-based compensation systems where performance rewards are based on a growth model for monitoring student achievement. The project will focus on teachers and principals who increase student achievement in math; build capacity for math instruction and principal leadership; and increase the overall number of highly-qualified math teachers in rural Alaska.
Incentives:
Incentives based on growth in student achievement at the school and classroom level are the primary components of the plan, followed by incentives for teachers and principals related to their performance evaluation, professional development, and for assumption of additional responsibility. Incentives based on student achievement include schoolwide growth rewards ($2,500-$5,500); annual incentives for math teachers ($750-$2250); and rewards for developing math individual learning plans ($750-$2250). Teacher performance incentives range from $250-$1000 and include teacher performance and evaluation, as well as Professional Growth (Plan-Implement-Evaluate-Refine – PIER) Plans for teacher leadership and math instruction. Additional responsibility incentives range from $1,500-$3,000 and include compensation for work beyond the contract day such as math tutoring, principal contract work, and mentoring during and after regular school hours. Other incentives include bonuses ($2,000-$4,000) for teachers who are highly qualified in math.
Incentives:
Incentives based on growth in student achievement at the school and classroom level are the primary components of the plan, followed by incentives for teachers and principals related to their performance evaluation, professional development, and for assumption of additional responsibility. Incentives based on student achievement include schoolwide growth rewards ($2,500-$5,500); annual incentives for math teachers ($750-$2250); and rewards for developing math individual learning plans ($750-$2250). Teacher performance incentives range from $250-$1000 and include teacher performance and evaluation, as well as Professional Growth (Plan-Implement-Evaluate-Refine – PIER) Plans for teacher leadership and math instruction. Additional responsibility incentives range from $1,500-$3,000 and include compensation for work beyond the contract day such as math tutoring, principal contract work, and mentoring during and after regular school hours. Other incentives include bonuses ($2,000-$4,000) for teachers who are highly qualified in math.
Monday, February 2, 2009
REAL Program in Chicago
In July 2006, the Chicago Public School System (CPS) entered into a collaboration agreement with the National Institute for Excellence in Teaching (NIET) to fund a Teacher Incentive Fund (TIF) requesting federal funds to implement the Recognizing Excellence in Academic Leadership (REAL) program. In November 2006, the U.S. Department of Education awarded a $27.5 million TIF grant to CPS to implent the REAL program. The foundation for REAL is a whole school reform model that is designed to increase student achievement by improving teacher quality and maximizing principal effectiveness. Incentives for teachers will include differentiated compensation levels based on classroom and school-level value-added student achievement gains along with classroom instructional performance. For principals, incentives are based on school level value-added student achievement gains along with the effectiveness of implementation. Participating schools must have a 75% poverty rate or higher. In the initial year of implementation for each of the ten (10) schools, 75% of the teacher-targeted bonus was linked to student achievement on state assessments and 25% was linked to multiple evaluations of teacher performance related instructional design and planning, instructional implementation, and the learning environment and responsibilities. As the program continues and capacity is strengthened, performance awards will be weighted increasingly on individual classroom achievement and classroom observations. CPS will allot $4,000 per teacher in the award pool teachers and $5,000 for principals. Participating schools had to have 75% staff approval for program participation.
Sunday, February 1, 2009
Changed Meeting Date
Hello All.
We originally had our next meeting of the Alternative Pay Task Force scheduled for February 2, 2009 at 4:30PM. I had intended on sending out a reminder sooner, but somehow January disappeared for me as I am sure it did you. Because there is not a lot of information posted yet on the blog, I am wondering if everyone needs a little more time (I know I could use a bit more time). I am suggesting that we move the meeting to February 16, 2009 to accommodate this. Please let me know if this new date creates a problem for you.
At our last meeting, we discussed each of us reviewing a current school district performance pay plan, writing up a short (100 words or less) summary of the plan, evaluating the plan based upon the design parameters we discussed in December, and posting the write-up to the blog. Jennifer and Lauren have wonderful examples below.
For February 16, I would like have each of us summarize the plan assigned (see the list below), and discuss components that aligned with our design elements: (1) Ongoing, job-embedded professional development; (2) Performance-based compensation; (3) Evaluation based on professional standards; and (4) Career advancement options.
Thank you all for your work on this, and your flexibility.
Paul
Existing Performance Pay Plans
Alan Abromovitz
Alaska Teacher and Principal Incentive Program
Lauren Conklin
Mission Possible (Guilford County Schools, North Carolina)
Jennifer Corum
Effective Practice Incentive Fund (EPIF) (Memphis City Schools, Tennessee)
The New 3R's: Rigor, Results and Rewards (Mare Island Technical Academy, California)
Mark Frost
Recognizing Excellence in Academic Leadership (REAL) (Chicago Public Schools)
Gary Gee
Northern New Mexico Performance-Based Compensation Program
Kyle Howe
South Carolina Teacher Incentive Fund
Ladue School District, Missouri
Mike Hoffman
Dallas Independent School District (Texas)
Texas Governor's Educator Excellence Grant
Paul Kelly
Philadelphia Teacher and Principal Incentive Fund Project (Pennsylvania)
Becky Kiefer
Weld County School District (Colorado)
Jeff Klein
Strategies for Motivating and Rewarding Teachers (Project SMART) (Houston Independent School District, Texas)
Debbie Knudsen
Effective Practice Incentive Fund (Washington, D.C. Public Schools)
Scott Marsh
Denver's Professional Compensation System for Teachers (ProComp)
The Ohio Teacher Incentive Fund
Linda Wiederholt
Florida's Merit Award Program (MAP)
Unassigned
Eagle County School District Performance-Based Compensation Program (Colorado)
We originally had our next meeting of the Alternative Pay Task Force scheduled for February 2, 2009 at 4:30PM. I had intended on sending out a reminder sooner, but somehow January disappeared for me as I am sure it did you. Because there is not a lot of information posted yet on the blog, I am wondering if everyone needs a little more time (I know I could use a bit more time). I am suggesting that we move the meeting to February 16, 2009 to accommodate this. Please let me know if this new date creates a problem for you.
At our last meeting, we discussed each of us reviewing a current school district performance pay plan, writing up a short (100 words or less) summary of the plan, evaluating the plan based upon the design parameters we discussed in December, and posting the write-up to the blog. Jennifer and Lauren have wonderful examples below.
For February 16, I would like have each of us summarize the plan assigned (see the list below), and discuss components that aligned with our design elements: (1) Ongoing, job-embedded professional development; (2) Performance-based compensation; (3) Evaluation based on professional standards; and (4) Career advancement options.
Thank you all for your work on this, and your flexibility.
Paul
Existing Performance Pay Plans
Alan Abromovitz
Alaska Teacher and Principal Incentive Program
Lauren Conklin
Mission Possible (Guilford County Schools, North Carolina)
Jennifer Corum
Effective Practice Incentive Fund (EPIF) (Memphis City Schools, Tennessee)
The New 3R's: Rigor, Results and Rewards (Mare Island Technical Academy, California)
Mark Frost
Recognizing Excellence in Academic Leadership (REAL) (Chicago Public Schools)
Gary Gee
Northern New Mexico Performance-Based Compensation Program
Kyle Howe
South Carolina Teacher Incentive Fund
Ladue School District, Missouri
Mike Hoffman
Dallas Independent School District (Texas)
Texas Governor's Educator Excellence Grant
Paul Kelly
Philadelphia Teacher and Principal Incentive Fund Project (Pennsylvania)
Becky Kiefer
Weld County School District (Colorado)
Jeff Klein
Strategies for Motivating and Rewarding Teachers (Project SMART) (Houston Independent School District, Texas)
Debbie Knudsen
Effective Practice Incentive Fund (Washington, D.C. Public Schools)
Scott Marsh
Denver's Professional Compensation System for Teachers (ProComp)
The Ohio Teacher Incentive Fund
Linda Wiederholt
Florida's Merit Award Program (MAP)
Unassigned
Eagle County School District Performance-Based Compensation Program (Colorado)
Monday, January 26, 2009
Guilford County Schools: Mission Possible
Guilford County Schools (Guilford County, North Carolina):
Mission Possible is a five year plan designed to to retain and recruit a highly qualified staff who work together to increase student achievement. It began in November 2006 when only one of the schools made AYP in 2004-2005. To measure the schools participating in the program, Mission Possible will use value-added data to measure student achievement.
Prior to Mission Possible, Guilford County schools implemented funding for 20 schools to differentiate the salaries of technical teachers, beginning teachers, and special education teachers. In addition, North Carolina awards principals and teachers a $750 bonus if students show one year's growth and $1500 if they achieve higher than that. This, along with the Teacher Incentive Fund grant for more than $1.5 million will allow the participating schools money for teacher and administrative incentives.
Does this plan meet the design elements from our last meeting?
Design #1: Ongoing, Job-Embedded Professional Development--yes
Design #2: Performance-Based Compensation--yes and no(YES, through value-added data, AYP, and state ABC standards; NO, not all teachers are eligible for these incentives.)
Design Element #3: Evaluation Based on Professional Standards--yes (360 degree feedback and skill-based training, SERVE Center in NC will conduct the evaluation, providing both formative and summative evaluations.)
Design Element #4: Career Advancement Options--unsure (Program states that it will support "significant professional development opportunities".)
Mission Possible is a five year plan designed to to retain and recruit a highly qualified staff who work together to increase student achievement. It began in November 2006 when only one of the schools made AYP in 2004-2005. To measure the schools participating in the program, Mission Possible will use value-added data to measure student achievement.
Prior to Mission Possible, Guilford County schools implemented funding for 20 schools to differentiate the salaries of technical teachers, beginning teachers, and special education teachers. In addition, North Carolina awards principals and teachers a $750 bonus if students show one year's growth and $1500 if they achieve higher than that. This, along with the Teacher Incentive Fund grant for more than $1.5 million will allow the participating schools money for teacher and administrative incentives.
Does this plan meet the design elements from our last meeting?
Design #1: Ongoing, Job-Embedded Professional Development--yes
Design #2: Performance-Based Compensation--yes and no(YES, through value-added data, AYP, and state ABC standards; NO, not all teachers are eligible for these incentives.)
Design Element #3: Evaluation Based on Professional Standards--yes (360 degree feedback and skill-based training, SERVE Center in NC will conduct the evaluation, providing both formative and summative evaluations.)
Design Element #4: Career Advancement Options--unsure (Program states that it will support "significant professional development opportunities".)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)