Nothing Matters More than a Quality Teacher Sander’s cross-sectional work found that effective teachers boosted the math scores of low-achieving students

Nothing Matters More than a Quality Teacher

•Sander’s cross-sectional work found that effective teachers boosted the math scores of low-achieving students 39 percentile points more than students assigned to the ineffective teachers.


•Sanders longitudinal work demonstrated that students who performed equally well in math in second grade showed enormous performance differences three years later, depending on the quality of the teachers.


•Rivers longitudinal work found that average achieving students assigned to 4 years of ineffective teachers had only a 40 percent chance of passing the Tennessee high school exit examination. The same students assigned to 4 years of effective teachers had an 80 percent chance of passing.

Salaries not competitive

Everyone gets same pay

Costs of training not warranted by salary

Women have more career opportunities now

Little collegiality

Little respect from community

Often unpleasant, dangerous environment

New Ways to Attract TeachersNew Ways to Attract Teachers

Increase Salaries

School Debt Forgiveness

Housing Subsidies

Perks

PR Campaign

New Recruitment Strategies

Accelerated Teacher Education

More Rigorous Training

small

isolated efforts

not school-centered

poorly designed

poorly implemented

rather than systemic reforms

solve one problem only to create another

Programs to Attract & Retain High Quality Teachers

TAP – Both Old and New

Multiple Career Paths Career Ladders

Performance Pay Odden,Denver,Cincinnati

Assessment Sanders, Danielson, NBPTS

Ongoing, Applied ???Professional Development

Expanding the Pool N.J. Alt. Cert, Troops to Teaches, Teach for

America

TAP is unique because it ties both teacher performance assessment & student value added to teacher compensation & supports that with a unique professional development tool.

Single Career PathTeacher Position Only

Requiring the same level of:• professional qualifications• responsibility• authority• assessment rigor

Multiple Career PathsSenior, Mentor & Lead Positions

Requiring increasing levels of:• professional qualifications• responsibilities• authority• assessment rigor

Models for the Teaching Profession:

Career Advancement

Traditional Model TAP Model

Salary Schedule Drives Compensation

Lock-step salary determined only by years of

experience and training units accrued.

Performance and Responsibility Drive

Compensation

Salary determined by level of responsibilities and effectiveness of performance.


Compensation


Uneven Accountability

• Idiosyncratic evaluation standards & procedures

• Rewards and sanction unrelated to evaluation outcomes

• Support provided for deficiencies only

Performance-based Accountability

• TAP standards, procedures and performance rubrics

• Hiring, advancement and compensation tied to evaluation

• Support provided for growth


Professional Accountability


Inservice/Course-based Professional Development

• Individual commitment, intermittent activities

• Goals and activities tied to personal and financial interests of the individual

• Unconnected to evaluation

Ongoing Applied Professional Growth

• Schoolwide commitment, weekly, site-based, teacher lead activities

• Goals and activities tied to standards, local SIP & analysis of student learning outcomes

• Used to support and reinforce evaluation growth goals


Professional Growth


Improving Teacher Quality Through Performance-based Accountability

Evaluating teacher performance means: • observing what teachers do in their classrooms,

• rating how well they do it, and• assessing each teacher’s and the school’s impact on student achievement.

Teaching Performance Standards

Five Performance Levels

Evaluation includes school and classroom achievement

Multiple EvaluatorsEvaluation support

professional growthPerformance tied to

compensation

TAP Teacher Accountability Versus Past Teacher Accountability Efforts

Checklist of Teaching Behaviors

Two Performance Levels

Evaluation excludes student achievement

One EvaluatorEvaluation supports

deficiencies onlyPerformance

independent of compensation

TAPPast Efforts

TAP Teaching Performance Standards:Skills Knowledge & ResponsibilitiesWhat do the teacher performance

standards look like?

•5 levels of performance ranging from exemplary to proficient to unsatisfactory

• Descriptive narratives of expected performance

Teacher Performance Standards Examples:

• Communicating Directions & Instructional Content

• Questioning

• Thinking

TAP Teaching Performance Standards

Who rates teacher performance?Four Qualified School-based Evaluators

• Administrator• Master Teacher• Mentor Teacher• Self

• How often is each teacher observed?

• 10 times per year

• Administrator - at least 2 times per year

• Master teacher - at least 6 times per year

• Mentor teacher - at least 2 times per year

TAP Classroom and School Value-Added Achievement

• Base decisions on value-added gains

• Use the TAP value-added statistical model

• Set leveled criteria for school gains, and classroom gains (13%, 8%, 4%, Years Growth, Negative gain)

• Test every year

• Use reliable and valid tests

• Tie student level data to teacher each year

Teacher Compensation

• Abysmally low

• Not differentiated

• Not tied to teaching performance

• Not tied to student achievement

• Based on teachers years experience and units earned which are both poor predictors of student achievement.

TAP Compensation

• Pays teachers based on performance

• Pays teachers differently based on performance.

Three types of performances count:

1.Teaching Performance Standards: Skills, Knowledge & Responsibilities – 50%

2.Classroom Achievement - 20%

3.School Achievement – 30%

Augment not supplant single salary schedule

Reward teachers for achieving school wide goals

Financial incentives for low performing schools

Bonuses for passing National Board

How TAP Compensation System Has Evolved

Performance awards are given as a bonus to be earned each year.

Performance awards supplement rather than replace traditional step and column pay scale.

No one earns less than they would have earned under the traditional compensation system.

Performance awards are not cumulative and must be constrained by available funds, usually augmenting salaries

by $5,000 or less

50% of the bonus is awarded for skills and knowledge 50% is based upon student achievement (value-added)

30% school-wide for all teachers20% based on achievement of individual

teacher’s students

How TAP Compensation System Has Evolved

Since subject specific tests are often unavailable, the student achievement element of the bonus for high school teachers is complicated.

Bonuses are criterion referenced rather than relative, which means that any teacher who meets a standard receives the

bonus.

No one loses money (compared to what they would have earned without TAP) for poor performance.

Teachers who score well on the skills and knowledge part can earn bonuses even if their students’ scores do not

improve.

There must be the opportunity for all teachers to get a bonus of some amount. We cannot say only the top X% will receive

bonuses.

If teacher work more days, they must get paid for them at least at their former daily rate.

Implementating TPBA System

Develop Teacher Evaluation System

1.Establish career, mentor, and master teaching performance standards

2.Establish career, mentor, and master teacher responsibilities performance standards

3. Review the TAP T-PBA policies

4.Establish the criteria for classroom achievement gains attributed to the teacher

5.Establish the criteria for the school achievement gains

Implementation: Compensation

Establish the school or district compensation model

1. Establish TAP Salary Augmentations2. Establish TAP Performance Award Fund3. Establish Performance Award Weights

Implementation: Teacher Evaluation Training

Participate in the teacher performance-based accountability training

1.Train all evaluators using the TAP video training materials

2.Certify all evaluators3.Continue training throughout the

year

We Have Revised Our Model as Follows

Most masters and mentors come from existing staff .

New teacher salaries are higher or not lower than before TAP.

New teachers probably will not be hired at the bottom of the ‘associate’ range.

Significant time off from school for masters is unrealistic at the start.

Master teachers will have to spend more time teaching than anticipated.

Tenure not eliminated.

Ratios of mentor and masters vary with available resources.

Unanticipated costs: paying for tests not now given, travel expenses for teachers to get training, training materials.

Intermediate Outcomes

Teachers opt for new system vs. existing system

Changes in types of individuals applying

Number of applicants

Differences in characteristics of people hired

Changes in teacher retention rates

Changes in which teachers stay in classroom

Survival rates in the first five years

Changing nature of collective bargaining

Stakeholder perceptions of staff quality & professionalism

Teacher satisfaction data

Process Issues

Number of schools using the model

Distribution of TAP schools by location, SES, ethnicity

Amount of discretionary funds to support TAP

Support from private foundations and corporations

Extent to which schools adhere to the five principles

The Cost of TAP

Incremental costs = 6% of budget OR $400/student

No current teacher worse off

Salary supplements for Master & Mentor teachers

New teacher positions

New specialists hired

Associate teachers’ summer professional growth

Turnover savings not kept by school

Traditional salary schedule increases in place

We Can Cover Costs By

Changing parameters (master & mentor ratios)

Keeping turnover savings in the schools

Converting regular salary schedule increases into performance pool

Utilizing existing grants (Title I for aides or lead teachers)

New money

Total Number of AZTAP School 7

Number in year one implementation 2

Number in year two implementation 5

School Characteristics Range in TAP School

Student Population 400 to 1,350 students

Ratio of Master to Career Teachers 9/1 to 17/1

Ratio of Mentor to Career Teachers 3/1 to 8/1

Number of Cluster Groups 4 to 10

Time Cluster Groups Meet Weekly 1 hour to 4 hours

Grades Represented K-2 -K-4 -K-6 -K-12 - 3-8

Overview of AZTAP School Characteristics

Why the Slow Growth of Performance Pay?

Steps on the special interests of powerful education groups.

Unions do not want system where any members are disappointed.

Parents always want smaller classes for their kids despite lack of evidence that class size matters.

Smaller classes make things easier for teachers in their classrooms.

Standards, accountability and compensation based on performance put more pressure on

teachers.

School boards & districts that see teacher quality initiatives as devolving power from districts to individual schools.

Education schools see their market for credentials and professional development courses

getting smaller


Strong vested interests oppose having teachers held accountable & evaluated by student performance.

They disparage research that concludes that teachers are responsible for student achievement and should be rewarded accordingly

Some people do not find the research compelling because it depends upon test scores as the measure of

student performance.

They claim test scores may be a fatally flawed measure of student learning

Teachers think using test scores for evaluation is unfair because they depend upon who is in their class – THEY DO NOT UNDERSTAND OR ACKNOWLEDGE VALUE ADDED (GAINS RATHER THAN LEVELS)


Schools have other responsibilities than student achievement.

In earlier generations, kids who could learn were in school and those who couldn’t learn left to pursue

unskilled work.

Then it was decided that in the name of equity and social justice (and to keep delinquent kids off the

street), all kids should stay in school, regardless of what they could learn.

Schools were distracted from main goal of helping kids learn.

To show effectiveness, teachers needed more achievable/ abstract/different goals than student

learning to justify efforts.

Focus moved away from what kids learn to how they feel.

K-12 education has focused on affective domain that what kids learn has gotten short shrift

Extremely radical to now change entire focus of education


Effective teachers are defined as raising student test scores, but there is little evidence on the characteristics of such teachers.

We still do not know what these effective teachers do that is different or how to get others to do those

things.

Little agreement about what expert pedagogy means, and little empirical confirmation of effective

practice.

Traditionally, teachers have been expected to demonstrate their effectiveness-however defined-only

while in school one time through National Board certification, not annually.

Systemic policy change requires leadership &support at the school, district and state levels. Those in positions of leadership may resist because:

School principals have rarely been instructional leaders

Most principals are more often building and personnel managers

Such efforts are controversial

They have other priorities

They require a huge commitment

It is hard work



Some don’t truly believe that there are many things wrong with American Schools.

If schools are ineffective, that is due to poverty, race, geography, or lack of funding – but not due to the need for systemic change in the schools.

Unfortunately, there is not universal belief all kids can learn.

There appear to be simpler solutions for improving schools like Nat.Board, across board raises,

increasing standards for teachers or class size reduction.

Education is generally viewed as a state or local responsibility, so we must convince 17,000 separate organizations of its merit.

Why the Slow Growth of TAP?

Other priorities

Unwilling to fight teachers unions

Belief that pluses of Perf. Pay outweighed by the negatives

Reluctance of school boards to support site based programs

Reform is not likely to be pivotal in reelection/reappointment

No evidence yet that TAP improves student test scores

Sticker shock – high cost compared to other reforms

Lack of new funds – state budget problems

Belief that political/educational payoff would be better if discretionary funds were spent elsewhere

Unwillingness to spend disproportionate share of discretionary funds on small # of TAP schools

What It Takes to Successfully Implement Whole-School Reform

Commitment to all components of reform model.

Buy-in by entire staff

Minimum of 80% buy-in.

Consensus of teacher support

Implementation must be by choice rather than mandated

Low teacher turnover

Commitment by staff to work beyond traditional levels to shift school paradigm.


Political support by:

School board

District leadership

Teachers associations/unions

Community

State education agency

State legislature


Teacher perceptions

Need for reform

Readiness of students to learn

Support for all reform elements

Limited classroom management issues


Consistent and stable leadership at school and district levels

Implement in well-managed schools

Strong principal with authority to make changes at the school level

Strong superintendent with commitment to program

Leadership communicates well with staff

Personal commitment to program


Support of program developers and/or design team

Clear communication of program

Flexibility to adapt to local context

Ongoing training

Research support

Technical support

Ongoing teacher training

Orient new teachers

Provide ongoing support to continuing teachers


Ongoing financial support

Appropriate reallocation of resources

Acquisition of new, ongoing funding


Compatibility of assessments to curriculum standards and teaching strategies

Confidence that achievement gains will be captured by assessments used.

Appropriate use of student-level, teacher-level and aggregated school-level data

Consistency of implementation within and acrossschools

Absence of conflicting or distracting reforms being implemented at school

Absence of pressure from outside groups to implement alternative or additional reforms


Implement on a small-scale before trying to implement on a large-scale

implement in 2 or 3 schools in a district, adding more schools gradually

Continued increase in schools implementing reform

Smaller schools easier to implement than secondary schools

Elementary schools easier to implement than secondary schools

Allow time for implementation: 3-5 years minimum


Long –term commitment by school and district leadership: 5-20 years

Research to study impact of program on student learning must be long-term

Results cannot be expected until 2-3 years after full implementation

Longitudinal data is necessary

Track students and staff over time

Documents

Nothing Matters More than a Quality Teacher Sander’s cross-sectional work found that effective teachers boosted the math scores of low-achieving students