Alternate Teacher Compensation

1. Alternate TeacherCompensation History, Research, and Current State

2. Overview • History of current pay structure • National historical perspective • Research findings • Wisconsin’s story • The bigger picture • International models • State models • Wisconsin models • Implications

3. 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

4. Benefits of the single salary system • Fairness: Equity for race and gender • Objectivity: Eliminates judgment about teacher quality. • Ease of administration: Predictable funding year-to-year, 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)

5. 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

6. 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).

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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)

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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

14. Wisconsin models • Points systems • Performance-based systems • Goal attainment bonus systems • Educational incentive bonus systems • Single ladder review systems

15. 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

16. 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

17. 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

18. Questions?

19. Bonus Slides Connecting compensation to a bigger picture

20. 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

21. 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

22. 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

23. 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

24. 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…

25. Educator Effectiveness