H I S T O RY , R E S E A RC H , A N D C U R R E N T S TAT E

ALTERNATE TEACHERCOMPENSATION

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-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)

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?

C O N N E C T I N G C O M P E N S A T I O N T O A B I G G E R P I C T U R E

BONUS SLIDES

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