Teacher Evaluation and Rewards OECD Mexico Joint Workshop December 1-2, 2009

1. Teacher Evaluation and RewardsOECD Mexico Joint WorkshopDecember 1-2, 2009 Susan Sclafani National Center on Education and the Economy

2. Teacher Evaluation Systems • Prerequisites for Success • Robust Data System • Valid and Reliable Measure of Teacher Performance • Support for Improvement of Teacher Practice • Case Studies from the US • City of Denver, Colorado • State of Delaware • State of Texas

3. Denver ProComp Four Components of Plan • Student Growth • Annual Objectives: 1% salary increase for 2, 1% bonus • Colorado State Assessment Program Results: 3% * • Distinguished Schools: 2% bonus • Professional Evaluation • Satisfactory: 3% once every 3 years • Market Incentives • Hard to Staff: 3% bonus • Hard to Serve: 3% bonus • Knowledge and Skills • Professional Development Units: 2% salary increase • Graduate Degrees/Certifications: 9% salary increase • Tuition Reimbursement: Up to $1000

4. Denver ProComp Evaluation Results • Student Growth • Great variations in teacher effects on student growth • Voluntary ProComp participants may be more effective • Slight majority of ProComp teachers believe SGOs will improve student performance • Professional Evaluation • Majority of ProComp teachers • Market Incentives • Hard to Staff: 3% bonus • Hard to Serve: 3% bonus • Knowledge and Skills • Majority of teachers completing PDUs believe it will improve student achievement • Tuition Reimbursement: Up to $1000

5. State of Delaware Current Teacher Evaluation System: DPAS II • Quality assurance • Collection of credible evidence about the performance of educators. • Used to make important decisions: recognizing effective practice, recommending continued employment, recommending an improvement plan, or beginning dismissal proceedings. • Professional growth • Enhancing the skills and knowledge of educators. • Improve their professional practice in ways that will contribute to improved student learning: • Self-assessment and goal-setting, working with colleagues, taking courses, attending workshops, designing new programs, piloting new programs or approaches, developing proficiency in test data analysis, and many other learning opportunities, educators

6. State of Delaware Teacher Evaluation System: DPAS II • Tracks • Track I, for beginning teachers, promotes growth and new learning through mentoring, frequent observations, and support systems. • Track II, for tenured teachers--that is, most teachers in the system-promotes professional learning experiences through self-assessment, goal setting, data collection, formative evaluations, study groups, action plans, and evaluation in which teachers play an active role. • Track III, for tenured teachers needing assistance, focuses on remediating difficulties and recommending further action. • Future Plans • Add student achievement based on state tests as factor • Offer incentive pay

7. State of Texas Governor’s Educator Excellence Grant (GEEG) • Provided three-year grants to 99 schools that are in the top third of schools serving highly disadvantaged students and earning an accountability system rating of exemplary or recognised. • 75% of the funds go to teachers determined by the school through objective measures to have demonstrated impact on student achievement and collaboration. • School developed plan and had to use gains in student test scores, measures teacher collaboration, and can add subjective measures of teacher collaboration, teaching in hard to staff positions, and teacher initiative and commitment • Results • No clear evidence of impact on student achievement • No evidence that plan design components had impact on student achievement growth • Greater the size ofincentive, lower the attrition rate

8. State of Texas Texas Educator Excellence Grants Program, (TEEG) • Awarded incentives to schools serving proportions of disadvantaged students that fall in the top half of the state distribution and that have achieved either high scores or great improvement of scores on the state accountability tests. • Required that 75% of the funds go to teachers determined by the school through objective measures to have demonstrated impact on student achievement and collaboration. • Results • No impact on student achievement though more targeted and data-driven instructional practices used by those getting incentives • Sharp increase in teacher turnover among those who did not receive awards or received small awards • Marked increase in teacher retention among those teachers who received high bonus amounts ($3 000)

9. State of Texas District Awards for Teacher Excellence (DATE) • Allows school districts to design own plan. • 50+% opened program to all schools • 40% limited participation to selected schools • Requires that at least 60% of the funds reward teachers determined by the school to be most effective; 40% can be used for teacher stipends, teacher mentors, principal incentives, awards to other employeesor TAP • Results not yet available

10. Common Issues • Quality of Teacher Evaluation System • Timing of Use in Incentive Program • Only After Teachers Understand and Respond to Evaluation Feedback (DE) • Evaluation Done Every Three Years in Denver (Denver) • Use of Test Scores • Required, But Allowed Other Measures of Student Achievement (Texas) • Counted Them Only For Teachers of Math and English/Reading, Gr. 3-HS (Denver ) • Will Use Them After Thorough Implementation of Teacher Evaluation

11. Implementation Issues Development of a Performance Improvement Strategy and Plan Identification of “Champion” for the Plan Constant Communication with Stakeholders Development of Broad Political Support Budget for Extra Staff Time and Consultants Design of a Pilot Program to Test Design Continued Engagement of Top Management