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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)