Building Teacher Quality in the Kansas City NCTQ Report

8/13/2019 Building Teacher Quality in the Kansas City NCTQ Report

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/building-teacher-quality-in-the-kansas-city-nctq-report 1/58

update cover with original art

in the Kansas City, Missouri School DistrictBUILDING TEACHER QUALITY

January 2011



THIS STUDY WAS UNDERTAKEN ONBEHALF OF THE 17,400 CHILDREN WHOATTEND THE KANSAS CITY, MISSOURISCHOOL DISTRICT.

ABOUT NCTQThe National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ) is a non-partisanresearch and policy organization working to ensure that every childhas an effective teacher.

PARTNER AND FUNDERSThis project was done in partnership with the Urban League ofGreater Kansas City and the Greater Kansas City Chamber ofCommerce. It was made possible by a grant from the Ewing Marion

Kauffman Foundation. Additional funding was provided by the Bill andMelinda Gates Foundation.

THE NCTQ TEAM FOR THIS PROJECTEmily Cohen, Project DirectorAileen Corso, Valerie Franck, Kate Kelliher and Betsy McCorry


http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/building-teacher-quality-in-the-kansas-city-nctq-report 3/58Building Teacher Quality in the Kansas City, Missour i School Distr ict |

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

GOAL 1. STAFFING

GOAL 2. WORK CULTUREGOAL 3. EVALUATIONS

GOAL 4. TENURE

GOAL 5. COMPENSATION

TABLE OF CONTENTS

3 11

2131

41

45



This study looks at the policies and practices shaping teacher qualityin the Kansas City, Missouri School District (KCMSD). It is part ofa series of analyses by the National Council on Teacher Quality inschool districts across the nation.

Framing this analysis are ve policy goals for improving teacher quality:

1. Staf ng. Teacher assignment is based on the mutual consentof principals and teachers, with district policies facilitatingthe access of schools to top teacher talent.

2. Work culture . Policies encourage a professional andcollaborative culture, including a work schedule that allowsfor suf cient planning time.

3. Evaluations . Teachers’ performance evaluations play acritical role in advancing teacher effectiveness.

4. Tenure . Tenure is a meaningful milestone in a teacher’scareer and advances the district’s goal of building a corps ofeffective teachers.

5. Compensation . Compensation is strategically targeted toattract and reward high quality teachers, especially those inhard-to-staff positions.

For this analysis we explored the policies (found in both the collectivebargaining agreement and state law) that shape teacher quality. Wecollected personnel data from the district and met with teachers,principals, union leaders and district administrators to get a betterunderstanding of how these policies play out in practice. We alsocompared the policies in KCMSD with those of surrounding districtsand the 100-plus districts found in the NCTQ’s TR 3 database,www.nctq.org/tr3. Lastly, we laid out a blueprint of suggestedimprovements and highlighted possible solutions that have beensuccessful elsewhere.

Many of the recommendations in this document require changes instate law or in contract language. Since collective bargaining is notmandatory in the state of Missouri, the teachers’ contract shouldnot be seen as an obstacle to reform. Most of our recommendationssimply require that the district make signi cant improvements tohow it conducts its daily business. Though all school districts strugglewith ef ciency, the degree to which Kansas City struggles is cause forconcern. The district’s poor record-keeping and lack of data systemswere alarming. KCMSD was often unable to provide us with the mostbasic information on its workforce and much of the data it did providewas unusable.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

THE MAJORITYOF NCTQ’SRECOMMENDATIONSCAN BE ENACTED BYIMPROVING DISTRICTAND SCHOOLMANAGEMENTPRACTICES.



These data problems prevented us from exploring key issues thatwe were able to review in other districts. Improving the district’stechnology and data systems should be a key goal of KCMSD. Failureto make these changes will hinder the district’s efforts to make otherimprovements.

For a complete list of the workforce data KCMSD should collect andreview on view NCTQ’s Teacher Quality Checklist at:http://www.nctq.org/tr3/docs/nctq_teacher_quality_checklist.pdf

Summary of ndings and recommendations

1. STAFFINGPrincipals’ authority to staff their schools is limited, underminedby centralized, seniority-based assignment practices. In KCMSD,teachers are assigned to schools by the central of ce, often withoutan opportunity for school of cials to interview candidates or tovoice preferences. When the district closed 26 schools at the endof the 2009-2010 school year, KCMSD missed a key opportunityto allow principals to build new school teams, instead reassigningdisplaced teachers in order of seniority and without attention totheir effectiveness. Many teachers were laid off because they lackedseniority in the district, without any regard to their classroomperformance.

Teacher retention is higher in KCMSD than in other urban districtsNCTQ has studied. Despite a number of transitions in recent years,such as a new superintendent and school closures, three out of four

teachers who were teaching in the 2007-2008 school year were stillworking in the district in the 2009-2010 school year.

Primary Recommendations

• Permit principals and their school hiring teams to determinewhich teachers work in their schools.

• Use performance as a factor in determining teacher assignments,whether when staf ng schools for vacant positions or whendeciding which teachers go when positions must be cut.

• Change state law to permit districts to dismiss a displacedteacher who remains without an assignment after one year.

2. WORK CULTUREKCMSD provides the longest instructional day among surroundingdistricts, but has one of the shortest school years in the nation. Theshort school year is attributable to an unusual state law setting theminimum number of schools days to 174 days, comparing unfavorablyto a 180-day national average.



In spite of a sensible sick and personal leave package of 12.5 days a year,attendance patterns of KCMSD teachers merit attention. Teachersuse almost all of their allotted sick leave, missing an average of 9.6days of the 10.5 allowable days in the 2009–2010 school year. Sickleave is taken disproportionately on Mondays and Fridays. Absencesincrease as teachers gain more seniority. Tenured teachers have onethird more absences than their nontenured peers, and elementaryteachers have one third more absences than high school teachers.


• Adjust teacher work schedule to an eight-hour day to facilitatecollaborative planning with other teachers, individualizedassistance for students and outreach to parents.

• Lengthen the student school year to a minimum of 180 days tobe consistent with the national average.

• Improve tracking of attendance and provide principals withregular attendance reports.

• Make teacher attendance a component of teacher evaluations.

3. EVALUATIONSKCMSD teachers can receive a satisfactory evaluation rating withoutevidence that they are increasing student learning. The district doesa poor job of identifying ineffective teachers even relative to theunderreporting by most U.S. school districts: Only six teachers were

identi ed as “not meeting standards” last school year.


• Make student performance the preponderant criterion on whichteachers are evaluated.

• Develop a team of independent evaluators to validate principalevaluations and provide content-speci c feedback on teacherinstruction.

• Collect and examine student feedback on teacher instruction.

• Change state law to allow teachers only one opportunity to appeala dismissal decision.

4. TENUREKCMSD does little to make tenure meaningful. The district does nothave a process whereby teachers and the principals in whose schoolsthey serve must present evidence of teacher effectiveness.



KCMSD does not keep records on the number of teachers who qualifyfor tenure each year, nor the number of teachers on a provisionalcontract who were dismissed.


• Develop a tenure tool kit to assist principals in making informedand deliberate tenure decisions.

• Hold a tenure review that factors in value-added data on teachereffectiveness to decide whether to award tenure.

• Reward teachers who earn tenure with a signi cant increase inpay, the largest structural pay increase in their careers.

• Aim to dismiss the bottom-performing 25 percent of nontenuredteachers each year.

5. COMPENSATIONKCMSD’s pay structure for teachers is misaligned with districtneeds and teacher quality goals. Although KCMSD deserves creditfor exploring performance pay through various grant programs, ithas done little to address underlying structural problems in teachercompensation.

KCMSD spends 17 percent of its teacher payroll, $8 million a year,to compensate teachers for obtaining advanced degrees. Whilemany assume advanced degrees (generally master’s degrees) maketeachers more effective, research concludes decidedly otherwise,particularly for degrees not related to the subject matter taught.

KCMSD teachers have the lowest starting salary of the surroundingschool districts. While salaries ultimately recoup some of theircompetiveness as teachers gain experience, lifetime earnings neverrecover from the initial setback of low starting pay in KCMSD.

KCMSD reserves the largest raises for teachers with the mostexperience. Raises for teachers in their 19th year are nearly threetimes larger than for teachers in their rst two years of teaching.

Until KCMSD relieves signi cant wage compression, whereby thetop performing teachers earn the same as less effective peers, itscompensation structure will remain inherently unfair to talentedteachers.




• Redirect pay tied to degree-based compensation to a paystructure predominantly premised on a teacher’s effectiveness, ademand for a teacher’s skill and a teacher’s willingness to teach inchallenging environments.

• Raise the starting salary of KCMSD’s teachers so that KCMSDcompensation is competitive with surrounding districts.

• Redistribute raises associated with experience to earlier in ateacher’s career, awarding the largest raise at the tenure mark.

• Attend to the details of the district’s performance pay program,funded by a federal grant from the Teacher Incentive Fund,to ensure that the bonuses go primarily toward teachereffectiveness, teachers with high-demand skills and placement ofeffective teachers in high-needs schools.



BUILDING TEACHER QUALITY IN KANSASCITY, MISSOURI SCHOOL DISTRICT

This analysis reviews the KCMSD teacher policies linked most di-

rectly to teacher effectiveness. NCTQ frames this analysis around vepolicy goals for improving teacher quality:

1. Staf ng. Teacher assignment is based on the mutualconsent of principals and teachers, with district policiesfacilitating the access of schools to top teacher talent.

2. Work culture . Policies encourage a professional andcollaborative culture, including a work schedule that allowsfor suf cient planning time.

3. Evaluations . Teachers’ performance evaluations play acritical role in advancing teacher effectiveness.

4. Tenure . Tenure is a meaningful milestone in a teacher’scareer and advances the district’s goal of building a corps ofeffective teachers.

5. Compensation . Compensation is strategically targeted toattract and reward high quality teachers, especially those inhard-to-staff positions.

Methodology

• First, a team of NCTQ analysts reviewed the district’s currentteachers’ collective bargaining agreement, 1 school board policiesand district circulars. We also looked at any state laws that mightaffect local policy.

• We compared the laws and policies in KCMSD and the state ofMissouri with the 100-plus school districts found in our TR 3 database(www.nctq.org/tr3). This exercise allowed us to determine wherethe school district falls along the spectrum of teacher quality policiesand to identify practices that KCMSD might emulate. In a numberof areas, we also collected data from school districts that surroundKCMSD, which are its biggest competitors for teacher talent.

• We spoke with teachers, principals, parents, community leaders,district administrators and union leaders to understand how policiesplay out in practice.

• We looked at a range of teacher personnel data to give us a betterunderstanding of the outcomes of teacher hiring, transfer, evaluation,attendance and compensation policies.

• We sent drafts of our analysis to both the district and the union toverify its accuracy.

1 Collective Bargaining Agreement for TeacherCounselors and Librarians, Kansas City,Missouri School Distric t 2008 -2011.


http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/building-teacher-quality-in-the-kansas-city-nctq-report 13/58Building Teacher Quality in the Kansas City, Missouri School Distr ict |

STAFFING

Guiding principles behind the goal

• With no exceptions, principals and/or school committees selectthose applicants they wish to interview and have the nal say overwho is hired.

• Teachers who have lost their current assignment and who proveunsuccessful in a year’s time in obtaining a new assignment areeither terminated or placed on unpaid leave.

• When positions must be cut due either to a surplus (also calledexcessing) or layoffs, teacher performance is a key factor indeciding who stays or goes.

• Policies require retiring and resigning teachers to provide notice

before the transfer season begins.• School assignments for both teachers new to the district and

those transferring within the district are decided no later than theend of the current school year.

• The district supports principal hiring by recruiting candidates withthe personal and professional characteristics found to correlatewith teacher effectiveness.

Framing the KCMSD staf ng this past year was a “right-sizing” process,

which resulted in the closure of 26 schools and the relocation of a largeportion of the district’s workforce. Students and staff were mergedinto the remaining schools, leading to the layoffs of approximately9 percent of the teacher corps (110 teachers) and early retirementbuyouts for an additional 18 percent of the workforce (221 teachers).

I. Mutual consent staf ng

PRINCIPALS’ AUTHORITY TO STAFF THEIR SCHOOLS ISLIMITED, UNDERMINED BY CENTRALIZED, SENIORITY-BASED ASSIGNMENT PRACTICES.

Principals in KCMSD have little authority over the staf ng of theirschools. Although the contract states that each school should havea “transfer selection committee” to interview candidates for vacantpositions and make recommendations to the principal, we found littleevidence that these committees are active or even exist. Rather,teachers are assigned to schools by the central of ce, often withoutgiving schools an opportunity to interview candidates or to voicepreferences. Principals interviewed by NCTQ could identify only a

GOAL #1 TEACHERASSIGNMENT ISBASED ON THEMUTUAL CONSENOF PRINCIPALS ANTEACHERS, WITHDISTRICT POLICIEFACILITATINGTHE ACCESS OFSCHOOLS TO TOP

TEACHER TALENT

The last time Ihired a teacherof my choosing

was in 1997.

– KCMSD principal



handful of times they were able to hire teachers of their choice. One reason this committee structure may be ignored is that therules under which the committees are supposed to operate areinherently awed. The district requires the committees to intervieweach teacher who applies for a position, regardless of how suitable acommittee may judge a particular candidate. Hiring committees andprincipals should be able to screen candidates rst and interview onlythose they deem the most promising.

For the 2010-2011 school year, the district’s ve “turnaround” schoolsenjoyed a waiver from the district’s centralized approach. These veschools were permitted to interview and select a portion of theirteaching staffs.

A th ugh KCMSD’s staf ng icies are n t unusua am ng arge urbandistricts, a few f rward thinking districts, n tab y Washingt n, D.C., NewY rk City, Ba tim re and Chicag (a , ike KCMSD, have AFT-af iateduni ns) have m ved away fr m a centra ized a r ach t staf ng and n w

give sch s fu auth rity ver teacher hiring and assignment.

WHAT IS THE HIRING AUTHORITY OF KCMSD PRINCIPALS?

...regarding teacherswho are seekinga position intheir school whoare transferringv untari y ?

...regardingteachers seekinga position intheir school whoare transferringinv untari y ?

Can HR assign

a teacher to aschool withoutthe principal’sconsent?

According tothe teachers’contract

Teachers voluntarilytransferring schoolsmay apply for up tothree vacancies.

School-basedcommittees must

interview eachcandidate and make arecommendation tothe principal.

Principals may notrecruit and hireteachers other thanthe pre-screenedrecruits who havea contract with thedistrict.

Yes

What happensin practice

HR places teachers . HR places teachers .Yes

All of thestafing decisionshave been madefor me.

– KCMSD principal



AFTER KCMSD “RIGHT SIZED” AT THE END OF THE 2009-2010 SCHOOL YEAR IT MISSED A KEY OPPORTUNITY TOSTAFF SCHOOLS IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF STUDENTS.

Transfers during reorganization

The KCMSD school district missed an opportunity at the end of the2009-2010 school year to strategically build new school staffs andallow principals to select their teams. With the right-sizing process,nearly one-half of the workforce was forced to nd new positions,as their prior assignments were in closed schools. According tointerviews with senior leaders in the district and union, the initialplan was to allow principals at merging schools to interview andselect their new teachers. However, the process of reorganizationwas cumbersome and lengthy, and the district did not allow enoughtime for site-based hiring to take place.

With so much uncertainty and time running out before the start

of school, KCMSD (with help from the union) was forced to llassignments in the fastest way possible, resorting to placing teachersin order of seniority. Had the process started sooner, the right sizingof the district would have meant much more than school closures:it would have been an opportunity for principals to build new teamsand for teachers to actively apply for new positions. Implementinga mutual consent approach during the reorganization would havesignaled a new beginning for KCMSD schools and put the district onthe forefront of staf ng models nationally.

LayoffsKCMSD’s contract with the Kansas City Federation of Teachersrequires teachers with the least amount of seniority to be the rstto go when there are layoffs. While certi cation and professionaldevelopment are also listed as factors, seniority is effectively theprevailing determinant. As a result, teacher performance was notfactored into these decisions, a frustration that was emphasizedby both teachers and principals in NCTQ-led focus groups.Understandably so. Research shows that experience bears littlecorrelation to a teacher’s impact on student performance after a fewyears in the classroom. 2

Notably, state statute does permit performance to factor into district

layoff decisions, but only for tenured teachers. As KCMSD laid offmostly, if not all, nontenured teachers, this policy was not able tosave the jobs of high-performing, more junior teachers.

I’ve seenoutstandingteachers losetheir jobs,

while seniorteachers keeptheirs. I’m40 and theyoungest personin my school.Why wouldyoung teachersgo into thisprofession ifthey are goingto lose theirjobs because ofseniority?

– KCMSD teacher

2 Rice, J.K. (August 2010). The im act f teex erience: examining the evidence and im icati ns.CALDER Institute.



II. Equitable distribution

TEACHER RETENTION IN KCMSD IS HIGHER THAN INOTHER URBAN DISTRICTS NCTQ HAS STUDIED.

RetentionDespite a number of transitions in recent years, such as a newsuperintendent and school closures, three out of four teachers whowere teaching in the 2007-2008 school year were still working in thedistrict in the 2009-2010 school year. This three-year retention rateis better than that of other districts NCTQ has reviewed (Baltimore’srate stands at 65 percent and Boston’s at 47 percent).

Distribution of experienceIn the past four years, the distribution of teachers with various levelsof experience was fairly consistent within KCMSD. For example, inboth the 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 school years, about 13 percent of

teachers were in their rst two years of teaching. Commendably, thedistrict’s inexperienced teachers do not appear to be clustered in thedistrict’s poorest schools, a pattern seen in many other school districts.On average, the percentage of inexperienced teachers was the same forthe district as a whole as it was for KCMSD’s poorest schools.

Figure 1. Distribution of teacher experience, 2006-2009

20

18

16

1412

10

8

6

4

2

01-2 3-5 6-10 11-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 31-30 36+

2009

2008

2007

2006 P e r c e n

t a g e

o f T e a c

h e r s

In the ast f ur years, the distributi n f teachers with vari us eve s fex erience was fair y c nsistent.

Source: KCMSD personnel data



III. Attracting top talent

LESS THAN HALF OF KCMSD’S TEACHERS GRADUATED FROMSTRONG COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES.

One important indicator of promising teacher talent is a teacher’s

academic background. There have been many studies over the yearsshowing that teachers with higher scores on tests of verbal ability,such as the SAT or ACT, or teachers who have graduated from moreselective colleges, are more likely to be effective. 3 For example, astudy by the Illinois Education Research Council found the followingmeasures to be linked to a teacher’s ability to produce academicgains among students: the selectivity of a teacher’s undergraduateinstitution, a teacher’s SAT or ACT scores, and a teacher’s pass rateon state licensure exams. 4 In sum, teachers who were themselvesgood students tend to be good teachers.

Unfortunately, most school districts, including KCMSD, do not collectdata on most of these indicators, with the exception of a teacher’sundergraduate institution. To explore this measure of a teacher’sacademic capital, NCTQ reviewed the undergraduate institutions ofall teachers working in KCMSD for the 2009-2010 school year. Basedon rankings compiled by U.S. News & W r d Re rt, 41 percent ofteachers graduated from a school ranked either “most” or “more”selective. KCMSD is recruiting most of its teachers from schools withrelatively low admissions standards.

Figure 2. Selectivity of KCMSD teachers’ undergraduate institutions

These rankings sh u d serve as n y a r xy f r the academic ca iber fteachers. The abe s are br ad and ca ture a range f sch s. F r exam e, astudents that graduate fr m a Kansas high sch are guaranteed admissi nint Kansas State University, a th ugh U.S. News & W r d Re rt ranks theinstituti n as “m re se ective.” Sch s ranked as se ective genera y acce tstudents wh fa we be w the mean n c ege entrance exams.

Source: KCMSD and U.S. News & W r d Re rt

Least Selective

Less Selective

Selective

More Selective

Most Selective

N/A

39%

5%

1%2%

43%

10%

3 Boyd, D., Lankford, H. Loeb, S., Rockoff, J& Wyckoff, J. (2007). The narr wing ga inY rk City teacher qua i cati ns and its Imf r student achievement in high verty schWashington, DC: The Urban Institute.

4 White, B., Presley, J. & DeAngelis, K. (20Leveling up: Narrowing the teacher academiccapital gap in Illinois. I in is Educati n RC unci (IERC), 2008-1.



The caliber of a teacher’s undergraduate institution is just one pieceof information KCMSD’s Human Resources (HR) of ce and schoolprincipals should consider when hiring teachers. Other features of the

hiring process should include:• Presentation of a brief sample lesson or video submission of lesson

• Résumé that includes a summary of quali cations and experience

• Transcripts from colleges and universities attended

• Assessment of a teacher’s history of perseverance, life satisfactionand track records of past success—academic or otherwise—sincethese character traits have proven to be strong predictors of futuresuccess in the classroom. Examples of such assessments includeGallup’s “TeacherInsight” or Haberman “Star Teacher Interview.”

• For currently employed teachers transferring from another school,student performance data, portfolios of teacher and student workand teacher evaluation records.

THE 10 LARGEST PRODUCERS OFTEACHERS WORKING IN KCMSD

COLLEGE / UNIVERSITY

University of Missouri-Kansas City

University of Central Missouri

Northwest Missouri State University

Park University

University of Missouri

University of Kansas

Missouri State University

Lincoln University

Avila University

Missouri Western State University

More Selective

Selective

Selective

Selective

More Selective

More Selective

Selective

Less Selective

Selective

Less Selective

US NEWS ANDWoRlD REpoRTRANKING

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10



IV. Incomplete data

DUE TO POOR RECORD KEEPING BY KCMSD, NCTQWAS UNABLE TO EXPLORE A NUMBER OF ISSUES UNDERTHIS GOAL.

An ef cient hiring timeline begins early in the spring and ensures that thebulk of hiring and assignment takes place before the end of the schoolyear. This kind of timeline facilitates good hiring practices that minimizedisruptions to schools. Moreover, early hiring timelines are necessaryfor schools and teachers to nd mutually acceptable placements.

KCMSD was unable to produce three critical pieces of staf nginformation that are essential to understanding the hiring timeline:1) offer dates of employment for teachers new to the district; 2)placement dates for teachers transferring schools in the district;and 3) dates teachers noti ed the district of their resignation orretirement. Such information, which we have routinely obtained fromother districts, would provide more insight into KCMSD’s staf ngtimeline and its ability to attract top talent, screen applicants andselect those who are the best t.

Recommendations for KCMSD

1. Implement mutual consent hiring in all schools for all positions.Principals and their school hiring teams should be allowed to determinewhich teachers work in their schools. Given that approximately onequarter of a teacher’s effectiveness may be attributed to his or her“ t” in a school, 5 it follows that principals should be able to chooseteachers whom they view as a good match. KCMSD allows somemutual consent hiring to take place in its turnaround schools, but itshould extend this privilege to all schools and for all staf ng decisions.

Principals and school hiring teams should be trained in good hiringpractices, including interviewing techniques that identify the qualitiesmost predictive of a teacher’s future success and that determinewhether that teacher’s teaching style makes her a good t for theschool. The best model we have observed is the hiring protocol usedby Teach For America (TFA) , well worth emulating in KCMSD.

TFA looks for a history of perseverance among its candidates, forpeople who are satis ed with their lives, and for candidates with trackrecords of past success—academic and otherwise--since these traitshave proven to be the best predictors of future success in the classroom.

Where it’s been done:New York City’s 2005 contract with the teachers’ union institutedmajor reforms requiring both teachers and principals to mutuallyagree on a teacher’s placement. In other words, schools have the right

5 C. Kirabo (2010). Match Qua i ty, W rkerpr ductivity and W rker M bi ity: Direct Efr m Teachers. National Bureau of EconomicResearch.



to choose which teachers they want to hire, regardless of a teacher’sseniority, and teachers have to apply to vacancies, rather than beingassigned to schools by HR. To make these reforms possible, thedistrict created a centralized system through which teachers can viewvacancies. According to a report by The New Teacher Project (TNTP),the reforms have brought about many bene ts, including greater jobsatisfaction among teachers. Washington, D.C. , and Chicago have alsonegotiated mutual consent hiring policies in their contracts.

2. Shift application and screening to the school level. Teachers should beable to apply for positions directly to the school(s) of their choice, andschool hiring teams and principals should screen candidates. Schoolsthen would select only the most promising teachers to interview.

3. Use performance as a factor in determining which teachers will belaid off when jobs must be cut. Research shows that experience isa poor proxy for effectiveness after the sharp learning curve of the

rst three years. Therefore, it should not be the deciding factor indetermining teacher assignment, whether for teachers transferringschools within the district or when the district faces layoffs. Statelaw permits performance to factor into teacher layoffs for tenuredteachers, and the district’s contract should take this same approachfor nontenured instructors as well. Performance-based layoffs, donewith the proper supports and data, not only are more cost-effective(because fewer positions must be cut), but they also best serve theinterests of schools and students by enabling schools to retain high-performing teachers, even if the teachers have not been in the systemfor a long time.

4. Recruit top candidates early. The HR of ce should have the capacityto offer contracts to promising candidates in high-needs areas andother promising candidates in the spring. Offering general contractsin the spring, particularly in shortage subject areas, to top candidatesis a strategy that bene ts both the employer and employee: The newteacher has the guarantee of a job, and the district has the guaranteeof a stellar applicant working in their district. Under such a model,new teachers would interview directly with individual principals tosecure their actual assignments. Targeting these early recruitmentefforts for teachers in math, science and special education is a wisestrategy; in that way, when vacancies occur in these shortage areas, acrop of high-quality candidates is available.

Recommendation for Missouri

Change state law to permit districts to dismiss a displaced teacherwho remains without an assignment after one year. Currently,Missouri law does not allow school boards to terminate a teacher’scontract for failure to nd a position. Several other states, however,



do afford districts this authority. This reason for dismissal, a so-called“exit strategy,” is critical if districts are to fully implement mutualconsent hiring.

If districts are not permitted to terminate unassigned teachers aftera certain period of time, they ultimately are left with little choice butto compromise their commitment to mutual consent hiring by force-placing teachers into assignments without a teacher’s or principal’smutual consent. In addition, in the absence of such an exit strategy,districts are left to pay the salaries of unassigned teachers whoremain on the district payroll until they are hired by a principal, anunattractive proposition and a considerable waste of public money.

Where it’s been done:In Nevada , state law permits a teacher’s termination to be the resultof “a justi able decrease in the number of positions due to decreasedenrollment or district reorganization.” In Colorado , teachers who do

not nd assignments within two years may not be terminated, butthey may be placed on unpaid leave.



GOAL #2 POLICIESENCOURAGE APROFESSIONAL ANCOLLABORATIVECULTURE WITH AWORK SCHEDULETHAT ALLOWSFOR SUFFICIENTPLANNING TIME.

WORK CULTURE

Guiding principles behind this goal

• Teachers’ on-site work schedule is eight hours, incorporating

blocks of time for individual and common planning.• Sick leave is commensurate with the number of months a teacher

works per year (e.g., 10-month contract provides 10 days of sickleave); sick and personal leave include bereavement, religious,emergency, and family illness.

• Attendance policies foster a professional culture: Teachers notifyadministrators directly of their absence, and principals can requestdocumentation for habitual leave; attendance is a factor in teacherevaluations and tenure decisions.

“What makes a good teacher?Teaching is not just standingin front of the classroom. Itis working as part of a team,sharing responsibility for theschool and students.” – KCMSD teacher

I. Work schedule

THE DAILY WORK SCHEDULE FOR KCMSD TEACHERS,THOUGH TYPICAL AMONG MOST AMERICAN SCHOOLDISTRICTS, FAILS TO MEET THE MODERN DEMANDS OFTHE PROFESSION.

While KCMSD has an impressively long school day compared toother districts, teachers may have too much time in front of studentsand not enough time to plan. The work of an effective teacher goes

far beyond direct contact with students in class. Good teachinginvolves planning lessons, evaluating student work, collaboratingwith colleagues, meeting with parents and working with studentsindividually. The current structure of the workday in most Americanschool districts does not accommodate these needs. In the morethan 100 American school districts tracked in NCTQ’s TR 3 database,the average workday for elementary teachers is 7 hours, 25 minutes,but only includes an average of 44 minutes of planning time.



Last year, the KCMSD school district and teachers union agreed toincrease the teacher workday to 7 hours, 45 minutes, a necessary moveto reconcile an extension in the student instructional day that wouldhave resulted in time students were on site without adult supervision.

Figure 3. Work schedule for teachers in KCMSD andsurrounding districts

Source: KCMSD and surrounding districts’ contracts a nd policies

Tw districts in the regi n stand ut f r their w rk schedu es f r teachers:Center and liberty. They each have an n-site w rkday f eight h urs with55 minutes each day f r a anning eri d and an ther h ur s it bef reand after sch in which t an r meet with students. C nsequent y,they are with chi dren a r ximate y 75 ercent f the day, as sed t83 ercent f the day in KCMSD, and c m aring m re fav rab y t highachieving nati ns (see be w).

The typical American school day model differs radically from those inhighly successful schools, such as the Knowledge Is Power Program(KIPP) charter schools, and in high-performing nations, such as Singa-pore and Japan. For example, teachers in Japan are with students only60 percent of the day; the remaining time is spent mostly planning les-sons, collaborating with other teachers and meeting with students. 6

Compensation is often a major obstacle to increasing teacher worktime. Teachers want to be paid more for working more. Should a 3percent (15 minute) increase in the teacher workday be rewardedwith a 3 percent raise? Such a raise would be quite costly to thedistrict and would result in only a modest raise for teachers.

The basic structure of the salary schedule (see Goal 5) is a far moreimportant factor in determining the competitiveness of hourly paythan are minor adjustments mirroring increases in teacher worktime. A 3 percent adjustment results in an average increase of lessthan one dollar per hour and approximately $1,500 annually. For

K C M S D

B l u e

V a l l e y

C e n t e r

G r a n d v i e w

H i c k m

a n

M i l l s

L e e ’ s S u m m i t

L i b e r t y

N o r t h

K a n s a s C i t y

P a r k H i l l

R a y t o w n

S h a v n e e

M i s s i o n

H o u r s p e r

d a y

Before/after school work time

Preparation time

Teaching

8

7.5

7

6.5

6

5.5

5

Stevenson, H., & Stigler, J. (1992). Theearning ga : Why ur sch s are fai ing andhat we can earn fr m Ja anese and Chinese

ducati n. New York: Touchstone.



successful teachers, an eight-hour day is no more than a codi cationof the reality. In other words, top teachers are already working thisschedule. Mandating this for all teachers would be a step toward amore professional environment in all KCMSD schools.

KCMSD STUDENTS ARE SHORTCHANGED BY ONE OFTHE SHORTEST SCHOOL YEARS IN THE COUNTRY.

While the instructional year in KCMSD is comparable to thesurrounding districts, it is shorter than most of the districts inNCTQ’s TR 3 database. The shortfall appears largely to be attributableto an unusual state law setting the minimum number of school daysto only 174, one of the lowest state requirements nationally. Moststates mandate a minimum of a 180-day student instructional year, aminimum that some argue is still insuf cient. 8

Figure 4. State instructional time requirements

Source: NCTQ TR3

database.Nati na y, students attend an average f ne m re week f sch a yearthan students in Miss uri.

Laudably, the work calendar in KCMSD includes 10 professionalworkdays when students are not present. These 10 days are dispersedappropriately throughout the year: ve days before the start of school,four days throughout the year (largely corresponding to end of gradingperiods) and one day at the end of the instructional calendar.

174 or fewer days

175-177 days

181 or more days

178-180 days

Issue not addressed in statelaw/policy or is decided atthe local level

7 Figures were calculated based on the averagsalary for a teacher with a ma ster’s degree.

8 Obama, B . (March 10, 2009). PresidentObama’s Remarks to the Hispanic Chamber Commerce on a Complete and CompetitiveEducation. Washington Marriott Metro CentWashington, DC.



II. Teacher attendance

ALTHOUGH KCMSD’S LEAVE PACKAGE ISAPPROPRIATELY DESIGNED, PROVIDING ADEQUATELEAVE WITH PROVISIONS TO REDUCE UNNECESSARY

ABSENCES, THE DISTRICT DOES A POOR JOBTRACKING TEACHER ABSENCES.

Figure 5. Sick leave granted in comparative samples

Source: 2008-2011 Kansas City, Missouri School District Collective Bargaining Agreement,Bureau of Labor Statistics and TR 3 database

KCMSD’s eave ackage is in ine wi th sch s nati na y and with whather r fessi ns r vide 12-m nth em yees.

Figure 6. Leave policies in KCMSD and other districts NCTQhas studied

Source: 2008-2011 Kansas City, Missouri School District Collective Bargaining Agreement;2007–2012 Baltimore City Public Schools Collective Barga ining Agreement; 2006 –2010 BostonPublic Schools Collective Bargaining Agreement; 2008 – 2011 Hartford Public Schools CollectiveBargaining Agreement; 2010–2013 Seattle Public Schools Collective Bargaining Agreement.

KCMSD’s eave ackage is a r riate y structured, wi th ut excessivea tments r unnecessary eave categ ries frequent y seen in thersch districts.

10.5 10.710

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Average amongTR3 districts

Sample of12-month

professionals

KCMSD

K C M S D

B a l t i m

o r e

B o s t o n

H a r t f o r d

S e a t t l e

Additional paid leave days

Sick and personal

30

25

20

15

10

5

0



Retirement buyback. KCMSD, like many districts, reimburses teachersfor some portion of accumulated unused sick leave at retirement.Teachers are reimbursed at 75 percent of their daily pay rate at thetime of retirement for any unused days, up to a maximum of 175 days. 9

Such buyback policies were often negotiated when teacher salarieswere not keeping pace with the market and districts and unionsreached compromises on bene ts packages to sweeten deals. Teachersalaries have largely improved over the past decade, but such buybackpolicies have remained in place. These policies should also serve as anattendance incentive, but as KCMSD teachers use 90 percent of theirallotted sick leave, it does not appear this policy has much of an impact.

Attendance Patterns. In spite of a sensible sick and personal leavepackage of 12.5 days a year, the frequency and occasions with whichKC teachers are absent merits attention.

• Teachers in KCMSD use almost all of their allotted sick leave,missing an average of 9.6 days of the 10.5 allowable days in2009–2010. 10

• Nearly 50 percent of all sick leave absences in KCMSD occureither on Mondays or Fridays, while absences mid-week aresigni cantly lower.

• Absences increase as teachers gain more seniority. Tenuredteachers have one third more absences than their nontenuredpeers, and elementary teachers have more absences than theircolleagues teaching high school.

9 Buyback rate is calculated based on 3 perceper year of employment, up to 25 years.

10 Figures include all absences, includingextended leaves.



As has been the case in other districts we have studied, we found nocorrelation between high teacher absenteeism and the challengingnature of a school environment as indicated by its poverty rate.Surprisingly, we also did not nd that schools in KCMSD with highteacher absenteeism had any higher student absenteeism.

While teachers’ two days of personal leave may be used at theirown discretion, sick leave is designated only for legitimate personalor family illness. However, attendance records of KCMSD teacherssuggest that teachers appear to be using some of their sick leave forother purposes.

Figure 7. National statistics for absences due to sick leave,by occupation

Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. L abor force statistics from the current populationsurveys 2003-2008, Table 47, 2009-21010 KCMSD attendance records.When c m aring sick eave usage am ng r fessi na s, s eci ca yinc uding th se wh interact with sick e e, such as nurses r d ct rs,KCMSD teachers sti a ear t use m re days.

The following graphs explore varying trends seen in teacherattendance patterns.

OTHERATTENDANCEPOLICIES INKCMSD

• Up to ve days of ateacher’s sick leave may beused for family illness.

• Teachers’ two personaldays are noncumulativeand cannot be used on the

rst and last days of school,before or after a holiday orwhen absence would resultin a “hardship” for thedistrict.

• As is standard practice inmany districts, 10 days’notice is required forpersonal leave unless theleave is an emergency.

• Appropriately, a doctor’scerti cate is required after

ve consecutive days of

absence or when misuseof leave is suspected.This gives principals someability to monitor leave forexcessive use.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

KCMSD teachers

All

Social services

Healthcare

4%

3.3%

5.2%

4%



Figure 8. Sick leave incidences by day of the week

Source: 2009–2010 KCMSD attendance records

M st absences ccur n M ndays and Fridays.

Figure 9. Average absences by grade level


E ementary teachers missed 30 ercent m re days than their c eaguesteaching high sch .

Figure 10. Average absences by tenure status


Tenured teachers in KCMSD used 35 ercent m re eave days thantheir n ntenured c eagues, mirr ring a trend n ted by researchers thatsuggests increased j b security c rre ates with reduced eff rt, as measuredby attendance. 11

M o n d a y

T u e s d a y

W e d n e s d a

y

T h u r s d a y

F r i d a y

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

22.5%20.4%

13.2%

18.8%

25.1%

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Elementary Middle High

10.45

8.437.63

A v e r a g e a

b s e n c e s

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Tenured Nontenured

10

6.6

A v e r a g e a

b s e n c e s

11 Jacob, B. ( January 2010). The effect fem yment r tecti n n w rker eff rt: Efr m ub ic sch ing.Washington, DC: NatioResearch Council.



Figure 11. Average absences for teachers with zero to 30 years experiencein KCMSD

Source: 2009–2010 KCMSD attendance recordsTeachers’ average absences c imb steadi y as teachers’ years fex erience increase.

The trend of increasing absences as teachers gain experience in thesystem may be partly explained by a policy that allows teachers toaccumulate unused sick leave each year. Accumulation is capped at175 days, perhaps providing an incentive for veteran teachers to takemore absences. Some may argue that the increased absences forolder teachers may be due to increased health problems. However,national data suggest that women ages 55 and over have a slightlylower absence rate than women ages 25 to 54 (4.2 percent vs. 4.4percent), perhaps because younger women are primarily responsiblefor caring for their children when they are sick. 12

Poor record keeping. Data collected from the district reveal signi cantrecording errors, including over 20 percent of all absences occurringon Saturdays, with additional absences on Sundays as well. NCTQexcluded these data from our analysis, but it certainly indicates thatKCMSD record keeping is far from accurate. In addition, recordsreveal frequent adjustments to individuals’ leave balances, which thedistrict explains are due to absences recorded in error.

NCTQ could only analyze attendance records from the 2009-2010school year, as records from 2006–2008 failed to properly documentteacher absences.


KCMSD’s policies are largely in the right place to fosterprofessionalism, given an almost eight-hour workday and reasonableleave allotment. However, the policies, particularly those related toteacher attendance, are not enforced.

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Labor forceatistics from the current population surveys003-2008, Table 46.



Ultimately, it falls to the individual school, inspired largely by theprincipal and senior faculty, to create a culture in which sick leaveis not synonymous with personal leave. Practices such as requiringteachers to report absences directly to their principal, rather thansimply requesting a substitute through the automated system, can goa long way toward creating a professional culture.

1. Adjust teacher work schedule to an eight-hour day. Although theKCMSD teacher workday is just short of 7 hours and 45 minutes,and many teachers are likely working longer days already, an 8-hourschedule will enable the district to formally provide teacherswith more on-site, structured planning time that may be used forcollaborative planning with other teachers, individualized assistancefor students and outreach to parents.

2. Improve record keeping and provide principals with regular

attendance reports. This is not a minor, procedural recommendation.NCTQ has yet to see a district with such poor record keeping. Poorrecords make it impossible to hold teachers or principals accountablefor ignoring rules and standards of professional practice. Betterrecords would enable principals to more actively discourage teachersfrom abusing sick leave.

3. Shift leave reimbursement policy from retirement to an annuabuyback. As KCMSD teachers use 90 percent of their allotted sickleave, the current policy appears to do little to improve teacherattendance. Shifting the incentive to reimburse teachers for unusedsick leave annually may do more to improve teacher attendance.

4. Make teacher attendance a component of teacher evaluations.


Lengthen the student school year to a minimum of 180 days to beconsistent with the national average.



EVALUATIONS


• All teachers receive an annual evaluation rating.

• Objective evidence of student learning is the preponderantcriterion on which teachers are evaluated.

• Classroom observations focus on a set of observable standardsthat gauge student learning.

• Evaluations factor in multiple observations by multiple parties, suchas a school administrator, senior faculty, central of ce evaluatorsand content experts. These observers provide regular feedback toteachers on their classroom instruction.

• Evaluations offer multiple rating levels to distinguish performance

among teachers, with ratings de ned to clearly distinguishperformance differences among teachers.

• Observations occur early enough in the school year to providesuf cient time for struggling teachers to improve and foradministrators to make a nal decision about a teacher’s continuedemployment by year’s end.

• Decisions about a teacher’s employment termination occur swiftlyand are made before a panel of educators, not in a court of law.

Making teacher evaluations meaningful is perhaps the most critical

goal of any district’s human capital strategy. However, as in manydistricts, KCMSD teacher evaluations have been treated as mereformalities, rather than as important tools for helping teachersimprove their craft. District policy should re ect the importance ofevaluations so that both teachers and principals use them as a toolfor improving teaching and for determining classroom assignment andeven compensation.

While KCMSD’s latest evaluation instrument (its third in three years)is a step in the right direction, it lacks the proper components toensure a meaningful and fair process.

GOAL #3 TEACHERS’PERFORMANCEEVALUATIONS PLAYA CRITICAL ROLEIN ADVANCINGTEACHEREFFECTIVENESS.



I. Role of student performance

THE KCMSD TEACHER EVALUATION INSTRUMENTFAILS TO SUFFICIENTLY ACCOUNT FOR A TEACHER’SIMPACT ON STUDENT PERFORMANCE. TEACHERS

CAN RECEIVE A SATISFACTORY EVALUATIONWITHOUT EVIDENCE THAT THEY ARE INCREASINGSTUDENT LEARNING.

While KCMSD’s evaluation instrument requires evidence thatteachers are using student work, including standardized tests results,to inform their classroom instruction, the district does not requireteachers to supply evidence that they are increasing student learningto receive a satisfactory evaluation rating.

Given that teachers do not need to supply such evidence, the

ratings KCMSD uses in its new evaluation instrument (Ineffective,Needs Improvement, Effective, Highly Effective) are misnomers.The categories suggest that effectiveness is measured by a teacher’simpact on student achievement. But since no such data are collected,nor is the observation adequately assessing student achievement,such designations are misleading.

KCMSD’s new evaluation instrument, adapted from theCharlotte Danielson model, evaluates teachers on the

v :

Each standard is composed of multiple elements on which teachersare evaluated. The combined individual element scores determinethe overall rating for the standard. No single element or standardcarries a greater weight than another.

While at rst blush these factors used by KCMSD to evaluateteachers appear to be reasonable, they fail to strike at the heart of ateacher’s impact on student performance. KCMSD’s approach focusestoo much on teacher behaviors, that is, what the teacher is doing,rather than what the teacher’s behaviors are producing in students.

123

45

Teachers know the content they teach.

Teachers facilitate learning for the students.

Teachers establish a respectful environment fora diverse population.

Teachers re ect on their own practice.

Teachers demonstrate leadership.

MISSOURI HASALL THREE KEYNECESSARY DATAELEMENTS IN

PLACE TO TRACK ATEACHER’S IMPACTON STUDENTACHIEVEMENT,BUT DOES NOT YETUSE THESE DATAOR MAKE THEMAVAILABLE TO THESTATE’S SCHOOLDISTRICTS.



By way of contrast, consider Washington, D.C.’s, new IMPACT evaluation instrument. Rather than asking“what the teacher knows,” the D.C. rubric assesses how the teacher is imparting knowledge to students, usingstudent behavior in response to the teacher as a measure of the teacher’s skill.

An example pulled from each of the two instruments follows.

HOW DOES KCMSD’S NEW EVALUATION COMPARE?

Washington, DC-IMPACTKCMSD-Performance-Based

Teacher Evaluation

Component Deliver content clearly. Teacher has a dynamicpresence in the classroom AND delivers contentthat is 1) factually correct, 2) well organized, and3) accessible and challenging to all students.

Teachers know the content appropriate totheir teaching specialty and recognize theinterconnectedness of content areas/disciplines.

How theteacher’sclassroompresence isassessed

Teacher is assigned ne f f ur ratings. The anguagehere describes the highest erf rmance eve .

Has a dynamic presence:• Maintains student interest by using engaging body

language, tone, and volume• Speaks clearly using age appropriate language• Delivers content with con dence• Conveys enthusiasm for content

N te: A teacher d es n t need t be theatrica inher r his resentati n. A variety f sty es can yie ddynamic instructi n.

Presents information without any mistake thatwould leave the students with a misunderstandingat end of class. Delivers content in a well-organized manner. For example, the teacher mightbegin by activating prior knowledge and thenpresent concepts in a logical sequence so that eachidea builds on the previous one.

Makes content accessible and challenging to allstudents according to different levels of learningreadiness. For example, the teacher might• Spend additional time with certain students to

ensure that they can access the content or toensure that they are adequately challenged.

• Assign leveled texts to different groups ofreaders.

• Make speci c, appropriate accommodations and/or modi cations for students with special needs.

Teacher is assigned ne f ve ratings. The anguagehere describes the highest erf rmance eve .

Demonstrates a basic level of content knowledge.

Extends knowledge of subject beyond content inteaching specialty and sparks students’ curiosityfor learning beyond the required coursework.

Collaborates with teachers from other gradesor subject areas to establish links betweendisciplines and to in uence school-widecurriculum and teaching practice.

The D.C. rubric ffers much greater s eci city, te s the eva uat r exact y what t k f r and describes what g d racticeks ike, a whi e f cused n the utc mes the teacher has n students rather than n the teacher’s behavi rs in is ati n.



II. Evaluation ratings

KCMSD EVALUATION RATINGS ARE OUT OF SYNC WITHactual teacher performance in the district:

• In 2009, less than half of one percent of teachersreceived either a “needs improvement” or “does notmeet standards” evaluation rating.

• 28 percent of teachers received a rating of “exceedsstandards.”

• 37 percent of KCMSD teachers, although evaluated,received no rating at all. It is unclear if principals didnot assign ratings or the ratings were not entered intothe district’s centralized database.

Recently the district has done a better job evaluating teachers. In the2009-2010 school year 91 percent of teachers were evaluated, butagain, the evaluation ratings do not re ect actual teacher performanceas measured by student performance. Only six teachers received a“needs improvement” or a “does not meet standards” rating last year.

Figure 12. Evaluation ratings of tenured teachers, 2009-2010school year

Source: 2009-2010 KCMSD evaluation records

The district has n rec rded eva uati n rating f r m re than a third f itsteachers—meaning that there is n gauge rec rded at the district eve fh w teachers are erf rming.

It is unlikely that 28 percent of the KCMSD teacher corps isperforming at an exemplary level, especially when students arechronically underperforming. In a district where three quarters of3rd graders, for example, are not pro cient in math, clearly there is alack of adult accountability.

Received evaluation(but no rating was assigned or recorded)

Does not meet standards

Needs improvement

Progressing towards standards

Meets standards

Exceeds standards

28%

34%

37%

0%0%

1%



KCMSD’s evaluation instrument should more closely mirror actualteacher performance, identifying roughly 15 percent of teachers asexemplary and 15 percent as ineffective. An instrument that fails toalign with teacher contribution to student performance is invalid.

III. Observations and ongoing feedback WHILE KCMSD’S NEW EVALUATION INSTRUMENTREQUIRES THAT TEACHERS BE OBSERVED MULTIPLETIMES, OBSERVATIONS ARE PERFORMED ONLY BY THESCHOOL PRINCIPAL, WHO MAY HAVE NO EXPERTISE INTHE TEACHER’S SUBJECT AREA. THERE IS NO CHECK ONTHE ACCURACY OF A PRINCIPAL’S RATING.

KCMSD’s new evaluation policy requires teachers to be evaluatedannually. Prior to the current school year, KCMSD required tenuredteachers to be evaluated only once every three years. (The districtgoes well beyond the minimum requirement of the state, whichrequires nontenured teachers to be evaluated annually and tenuredteachers to be evaluated only once every ve years.)

New regulations in KCMSD also require all teachers to be formallyobserved once each semester and three times informally eachsemester. 13 This is an ambitious undertaking, and while frequentfeedback is critical for teacher development, it is unclear if thereis training and support for principals to complete this obligation.For example, it does not appear that the principal can delegate the

responsibility for any of the observations to another administrator.Evaluating a teacher on a regular basis is important, but the processneeds to be heavily supported by the district if it is going to yieldmeaningful data and help teachers to grow.

KCMSD’s new teacher evaluation timeline (beginning 2010-2011)

1ST SEMESTER 2ND SEMESTER 3RD SEMESTER

• One formalobservation and postconference

• Three informalobservationsand optionalpost-observationconferences

• One formal observationand post conference

• Three informalobservations andoptional post-observation conference

Summative evaluation andconference

13 These observations must last a full classperiod. The teacher must be provided a ve-day window as to when the formal observatiowill occur.



IV. Dismissing ineffective teachers

NOT ONLY DOES KCMSD DO A POOR JOBIDENTIFYING INEFFECTIVE TEACHERS, IT DOES A POORJOB REMOVING THE FEW TEACHERS IT IDENTIFIES

FROM THE CLASSROOM.

Only 23 teachers have received an unsatisfactory evaluation in thepast three years in KCMSD. Ninety percent of these teachers hadreceived multiple years of unsatisfactory evaluations. Whereas statelaws and contracts often impede the ability of districts to removeineffective teachers, KCMSD does not appear to face such constraints:Missouri law states that a teacher who is rated unsatisfactory can bedismissed within one school year, provided the principal noti es thedistrict and teacher by March 15.

The opportunity for multiple appeals, however, has the potentialto signi cantly lengthen the process. In accordance with state law,tenured teachers may appeal the district’s decision before the localschool board. Further appeals may then be taken to the circuit courtand the court of appeals.

As yet another indication of the district’s inattention to human capitalmanagement, KCMSD was unable to provide a list of the number ofteachers dismissed for poor performance over the past ve years,instead grouping all departures together, whether due to resignation,poor performance or misconduct.


1. Make student performance the preponderant criterion on whichteachers are evaluated. While student learning should be measured inmultiple ways, some measures, such as standardized test results, offergreater accuracy and should, therefore, carry greater weight. Themost promising model for calculating a teacher’s impact on studentlearning is called “value-added,” because it separates a teacher’s skillsfrom other factors beyond the teacher’s control that might in uencestudent achievement (i.e., socio-economic status or limited Englishpro ciency). While the timing and quality of most standardized testsraise legitimate questions about the ability of such tests to measurean individual teacher’s true value, these tests are not without merit.They do in fact correlate with positive outcomes for children in howwell they predict both a child’s future ability to succeed as a studentand even as a functioning adult.

Other measures of student achievement that districts may considerincorporating include:

• Formative assessments, such as district or school exams ornationally normed tests



• Examples of student work connected to speci c learningstandards that are rand m y selected for review by evaluators(not by the teacher)

• Examples of typical assignments, assessed for their quality and rigor

• Periodic checks on progress in the curriculum, coupled withevidence of student mastery of the curriculum from quizzesand tests

Where it’s been done:Washington D.C. , provides one of the strongest examples of a districtrequiring that student achievement be the preponderant criterion ofevaluations; in fact, 50 percent of a teacher’s rating is determinedby value-added data. It is important to note here that the teacherevaluation policies in D.C. are not subject to negotiation with thelocal union, but rather are considered a part of management’s rightto determine at its own discretion. As collective bargaining is not arequirement in Missouri, it is possible that KCMSD may be able toadopt a similar policy.

In consultation with its teachers’ union, the New Haven publicschools system recently revamped its evaluation instrument. Almosthalf of a teacher’s rating is determined by student growth goals.Measures of progress include standardized tests, district assessmentsand student work. The remainder of a teacher’s rating is largelydetermined by classroom observation, which focuses on evidenceof student learning rather than on teacher behaviors, as does theKCMSD evaluation instrument. Also, when the teacher’s rating fromthe observation does not match the teacher’s student growth rating,the mismatch generates an automatic review by the central of ce, animportant check and balance to the system. Teachers who receiveeither the highest or lowest evaluation rating from their principal arealso automatically reviewed by another evaluator.

NeedsImprovement

(NI-1)

NeedsImprovement

(NI-1)

Developing((Dv-2)

Developing(Dv-2)

Effective(Ef-3)

Effective(Ef-3)

Strong(st-4)

Strong(st-4)

Exemplary(ex-5)

Exemplary(ex-5)

I n s

t r u c

t i o n a

l p r a c

t i c e

a n

d

p r o

f e s s i o n a

l v a

l u e s

Student learning growth

NI-1

NI-1

NI-1

Dv-2*

Ef-3*

NI-1

NI-2

Dv-2

Ef-3

Ef-3*

Dv-2

Dv-2

Ef-3

St-4

St-4

Ef-3*

Ef-3

St-4

St-4

Ex-5

Ef-3*

St-4*

Ex-5

Ex-5

Ex-5

* Ratings with this degree of mismatch are subject to review by the NHPS central office



2. Implement an electronic evaluation system and ensure that allteachers receive a rating . The district should be able to easily identifyteachers who are routinely found to be performing poorly as well asthose who perform above expectations. Such a system should go along way toward helping the district hold its principals accountablefor conducting evaluations.

3. Develop a team of independent evaluators to validate principalevaluations and provide content-speci c feedback on teacherinstruction. These evaluators should be content experts and shouldserve the dual purpose of validating principal evaluations andassessing content-relevant instruction. This is particularly importantfor teachers in the upper grades.

Evaluations that regularly incorporate the views of multiple, trainedobservers (particularly experts in subject areas) allow the district togauge the robustness of individual principals’ ratings. When a principal’s

observations nearly match those of an outside evaluator, teachers canbe more con dent that the principal is unbiased and skilled at evaluation.If they do not match, the school district should increase training forprincipals in performing evaluations. Additional observations andevaluations can be conducted to the degree the district can affordthem. Even if only one teacher in a building is checked by a third-partyevaluator, principals will take this task more seriously.

Where it’s been done:Hillsborough County (FL) and Washington D.C., both employteams of content experts, usually former teachers in the system,to evaluate teachers. D.C.’s “master educators” perform twoobservations of each teacher while Hillsborough’s “peer evaluators”perform one. These observations are in addition to observations byschool administrators. Observations by both master teachers andadministrators factor into the teacher’s evaluation rating. Mastereducator positions are full-time. Hillsborough employs 75 teachers inthis capacity and D.C. employs 31 teachers.

4. Collect and examine student feedback on teacher instruction.Feedback from students can help teachers improve and can giveevaluators a better sense of teacher instructional practices. Newresearch from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation shows that

student feedback on teacher performance correlates with a teacher’seffectiveness as measured by value-added data. This nding isparticularly important as districts are struggling with how to developobjective measures of performance for teachers in nontested subjects.



A QUESTIONNAIRE FOR STUDENT FEEDBACK MIGHTlook like the following:

DIRECTIONS: HOW MUCH DO YOU AGREE OR DISAGREE WITH THEFOLLOWING STATEMENTS? CIRCLE ONE OF THE FOLLOWING ANSWERS:

Source: The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

Where it’s been done:Montgomery County, Maryland , Fairfax County , Virginia schools usestudent surveys to provide feedback to high school teachers. Thesurveys are not an element of the formal evaluation, however.

A student group in Boston recently lobbied successfully for ananonymous student evaluation of high school teachers. The evaluationwill only be seen by the teacher and the principal and will not befactored into the teacher’s formal evaluation.

Washington D.C. , has also developed a teacher survey to be usedby high school students. Again, the survey will only be viewed by theteacher and the principal.

When I work hard in this class,an important reason is that theteacher demands it.

I don’t like asking the teacher inthis class for help, even if I need it.

The teacher in this class calls onme, even if I don’t raise my hand.

I have pushed myself hard tocompletely understand my lessonsin this class.

If I were confused in this class, Iwould handle it by myself, not askfor help.

One of my goals in this class is tokeep others from thinking I’m notsmart.

STRONGLY AGREE AGREE DISAGREE STRONGLYDISAGREE

1

2

3

4

5

6



Recommendations for Missouri

1. Provide districts with data on teacher effectiveness and require thatthis information be a preponderant criterion in teacher evaluations.

Where it’s been done:Tennessee stands out as one of the few states that require districtsto use its student and teacher-level longitudinal data system as afactor in the evaluations. Student growth makes up 50 percent of anevaluation, 35 percent of which is derived from value-added data.

2. Require that all teachers statewide be formally evaluated annually.Although KCMSD now requires that all teachers be annually evaluated,many districts simply follow the state policy of evaluations only onceevery ve years for tenured teachers.

3. Allow teachers only one opportunity to appeal a dismissal decision.

Missouri’s dismissal policy does not differentiate between licenserevocation and a district’s decision to terminate teachers for poorperformance. Consequently, the law effectively permits teachers toappeal their dismissal multiple times, a time intensive and expensiveprocess that harms districts and may deter principals from taking thenecessary steps to dismiss ineffective teachers. Dismissal decisionsshould be made only at the local level. Only if a teacher’s license is inquestion should further appeals be permitted.



TENURE


• From the rst week of school until the tenure decision, the districtinvests in new teachers’ professional development, with particularattention given to a successful launch in the rst year.

• Evidence of effectiveness is the preponderant criterion for makingtenure decisions.

• Teachers are eligible for tenure no sooner than four years to enablethe district to collect three years of data of teacher effectiveness.

• The decision to award tenure is made by a panel of reviewers.

• Teachers receive a signi cant pay increase after earning tenure,

perhaps the largest of their careers.

I. State role

MISSOURI SHOULD BE DOING MORE TO ENSURETHAT DISTRICTS HAVE SUFFICIENT INFORMATION ONTEACHERS BEFORE AWARDING TENURE.

The decision to grant tenure is a local decision; however, the parametersare established at the state level. Although Missouri appropriatelyrequires that teachers be in the classroom ve years before theyare eligible for tenure, the state should be doing more to ensurethat tenure is a meaningful decision. For example, Missouri collectsthe necessary data to assess a teacher’s value-added effectiveness;however, the state does not provide these data to districts, a vitalfactor that could inform teacher evaluations and tenure decisions.

Figure 13. Time period for earning tenure

Source: National Council on Teacher Quality, State Teacher Policy Yearbook 2009

Miss uri is am ng three states that require a r bati nary eri d f ve rm re years; the ther tw are Indiana (5) and ohi (7).

GOAL #4 TENURE IS AMEANINGFULMILESTONE IN ATEACHER’S CAREEAND ADVANCES THDISTRICT’S GOAL BUILDING A CORPOF EFFECTIVETEACHERS.

N u m

b e r o f s

t a t e s

Missouri



I. Local role

KCMSD DOES LITTLE TO SUPPORT PRINCIPALS INMAKING TENURE DECISIONS OR IN MAKING THETENURE PROCESS MEANINGFUL FOR TEACHERS.

In order for KCMSD to attach the importance to the tenure decisionthat it deserves, it needs to begin keeping better records. KCMSDdoes not track either the number of teachers who qualify for tenureeach year the number of teachers on a provisional contract who weredismissed. The district does not track the reasons teachers leavethe district or, instead grouping together all departures, whethervoluntary or involuntary. Furthermore, KCMSD has no processwhereby teachers and the principals in whose schools they servemust present evidence of teacher effectiveness.

A sound support system for probationary teachers include thefollowing elements:

• Assigning a full-time instructional coach for the rst month ortwo of school 14, followed by classroom observations by masterteachers

• Videotaping lessons, followed by constructive critiques

• Reducing the course load, at least in the rst semester

• Strategically building informal relationships, by placing a new teacherin a classroom that is close to a master teacher’s classroom 15

• Offering release time to rst- and second-year teachers to observemaster teachers

• Offering grade- and subject-level seminars with other new teachers

A timeline for making tenure meaningful

YEAR DISTRICT ACTION

Years 1-4

At the end of each year before tenure, the principalmakes a decision as to the teacher’s continuedemployment. The district may terminate a teacher atany time without cause. The district should supportprincipals in knowing where teachers are in theirprobationary period.

Year 5At end of year four, tenure is decided. Cumulativeevidence of teacher effect iveness is reviewed by a panelof educators from outside the school and includes inputfrom the teacher, school principal and department heads.

These coaches may be retiring teachersho agree to delay their retirement by a few

months, passing on their knowledge to theext generation before they leave.

Research nds that peer effects accountor approximately one quarter of a teacher’sffectiveness and that placing strug gling or newachers with high-performing peers improvesacher performance. Kirabo, C. (2010).

Match qua i ty, w rker r duct ivity and w rkerm bi ity: Direct evidence fr m teachers.National

ureau of Economic Research.




1. Develop a tenure tool kit to assist principals in making informedand deliberate tenure decisions. Such a tool guides principals througha teacher’s probationary period by organizing his or her progress and

ling deadlines for denying and granting tenure.

Where it’s been done:New York City implemented an online “tenure tool kit” to helpsupport principals in making tenure decisions. The number of teachersdenied tenure or placed on an extended probationary period morethan doubled in the year after New York’s tool kit was introduced:from 25 in 2005–2006 to 66 the following year. In 2007–2008, 164teachers were denied tenure, and 246 had their probationary periodextended.

2. Hold a tenure review, factoring in value-added data on teachereffectiveness, to decide whether to award tenure to teachers. Tenureshould be a signi cant milestone in a teacher’s career and awardedonly after deliberate and thoughtful consideration of a teacher’sperformance. KCMSD should develop a review process in whichboth the principal and teacher are required to present the cumulativeevidence of teacher effectiveness.

3. Reward teachers who earn tenure with a signi cant increase inpay, the largest structural pay increase in their careers. A meaningfultenure process warrants a salary structure that recognizes a teacher’saccomplishments as revealed by the process.

4. Aim to dismiss the bottom-performing 25 percent of nontenuredteachers each year. Examining consistent patterns of teacherperformance, economists recommend that districts should routinelydismiss at least the bottom-performing 25 percent of teacherseligible for tenure in order to build a high-quality teaching corpsthat is capable of making signi cant gains in student achievement.Denying tenure to the least ef fective teachers (as measured by theirvalue-added impact on student standardized test scores) wouldhave a comparable impact on learning as reducing class size by vestudents per class. 16 Although KCMSD is hiring few new teachers,

this strategy would nonetheless have a signi cant impact on thequality of the teaching corps as a whole.

16 Goldhaber, D., & Hansen, M. (2009). Assess ing the tent ia f using va ue-addestimates f teacher j b erf rmance f r matenure decisi ns. Seattle, WA: Center onReinventing Public Education.



COMPENSATION


• The district’s salaries are competitive with other school districts

in the area.• Raises are tied to a teacher’s performance and the teacher’s impact

on student learning.

• Compensation is higher for effective teachers willing to serve inhigh-needs schools or who are quali ed to teach critical shortagecontent areas.

Like most school districts in the United States, KCMSD’s paystructure for teachers is misaligned with district needs and teacherquality goals. With teacher salaries and bene ts accounting forapproximately 65 percent of most school districts’ budgets, rethinkingteacher compensation to better meet the districts’ needs should bea strategic goal.

As this analysis will explain, KCMSD could more wisely allocateresources currently tied up in factors not related to a teacher’simpact on student learning to better align with the districts’ needsand teacher quality goals.

I. Salary comparisons with nearby districts

KCMSD’S SALARIES ARE NOT COMPETITIVE WITHSALARIES OFFERED IN SURROUNDING DISTRICTS.

KCMSD teachers have the lowest starting salary of the surroundingschool districts. While salaries ultimately recoup some of theircompetiveness as teachers gain experience, the starting salary itselfneeds to be attractive as a mechanism for recruiting talent.

GOAL #5 COMPENSATIONIS STRATEGICALLYTARGETED TOATTRACT ANDREWARD HIGH-QUALITY TEACHERESPECIALLY THOSEIN HARD-TO-STAFFPOSITIONS.



Figure 14. Salary trajectory in KCMSD and surrounding districts

Source: KCMSD and surrounding districts’ 2010-2011 salary schedulesKCMSD sa aries fa in ast ace f r starting teacher ay, but by the end fa teacher’s career, KCMSD’s ay sca e is m re c m etitive, m ving u fr m

ast ace t f urth.

KCMSD’s salaries become more competitive as teachers gain moreexperience, however, lifetime earnings never recover from the initialsetback of low starting pay.

Figure 15. Lifetime earnings in KCMSD and surrounding districts(in current dollars)

Source: KCMSD and surrounding district’s 2010-2011 salary schedules

lifetime earnings f r teachers in KCMSD are $161,000 ess than teachersin Shawnee Missi n at ne extreme and $136,000 m re than teachers inN rth KCMSD at the ther. If starting sa aries were m re c m etitive withthe surr unding districts, KCMSD w u d be am ng the districts with thehighest ifetime earnings tentia .

K a n s

a s C i t y

B l u e V a l l e y

C e n t e

r

G r a n

d v i e w

H i c k m a

n M i l l s

L e e ’

s S u m

m i t

L i b e r t y

N o r t h K

a n s a

s C i t y

P a r k H

i l l

R a y t o

w n

S h a w

n e e M

i s s i o n

L i f e t i m e e a r n

i n g s o v e r a

3 0 y e a r c a r e e r

$1,800,000

$1,700,000

$1,600,000

$1,500,000

$1,400,000

$1,300,000

1 7 9 113 5 15 17 1913 21 25 27 2923

$35,000

$45,000

$55,000

$65,000

$75,000

$30,000

$40,000

$50,000

$60,000

$70,000

Years of experience

A n n u a

l s a

l a r y

Kansas City

Blue Valley

Center

Grandview

Hickman Mills

Lee’s Summit

Liberty

North Kansas Cit

Park Hill..............

Raytown

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .



II. Degree-based compensation

KCMSD SPENDS 17 PERCENT OF ITS TEACHER PAYROLL,($8 MILLION A YEAR), TO COMPENSATE TEACHERS FOROBTAINING ADVANCED DEGREES.

While many assume that advanced degrees (generally master’s degrees)make teachers more effective, research concludes decidedly otherwise,particularly for degrees not related to the subject matter taught.

Why doesn’t more education make a difference? It may be becauseschool districts (and often states) routinely boost a teacher’s pay for anyadvanced degree, regardless of its relationship to the subject taught. Forinstance, few teachers select a degree that will advance their subject-matter knowledge: Nationally, even at the secondary level, fewer thanone in four degrees is in the teacher’s content area. At the elementary

level, only 7 percent of these degrees are in a content area. 17

In addition to raising teachers’ salaries for having a degree, KCMSD alsohelps to subsidize tuition, spending just over $100,000 on these degreesin the 2008-2009 school year. Although this represents a relativelyinsigni cant expenditure, it is nonetheless an expense with littlepromise of return. Compensation and bene ts should all be directedtoward results in the classroom, not coursework in and of itself.

KCMSD’s compensation structure for teachers is largely based on thetraditional salary schedule, awarding teachers with lockstep raisesfor experience as well as post-baccalaureate coursework. The statereinforces this notion as well, requiring that the minimum starting salaryis at least $25,000 for a teacher with a bachelor’s degree, but $33,000for a teacher with a master’s degree and 10 years of experience. Whilethe minimum salaries mandated by the state are far lower than mostdistricts would pay, they send a strong signal to districts of how theyshould structure teacher pay. By way of contrast, the district fails toreward teachers for more meaningful measures of a teacher’s value,such as the relative demand for a teacher’s skills, willingness to serve inchallenging environments and their classroom effectiveness. 18 Source: 2009 State Teacher Policy Yearboo

Taking additi na c ursew rk fastest—and n y--way t ea

higher sa ary. It is n sur risethat 84 ercent f KCMSD teachhave master’s degrees.

Figure 16. What role does thestate play in deciding teacherpay rates?

17 National Center for Education St atistics(2002). The c nditi n f educati n 2002 32-2). Washington, DC: U.S. Depart ment oEducation.

18 Missouri Revised Statutes: 163.172.1

17 9 25

S e t s m

i n i m u m

s a l a r

y

s c h e

d u l e

G i v e

s f u

t o d

S e t s m

i n i m u m

s a l a r

y

AlabamaAlaska

ArizonaArkansasCalifornia

ColoradoConnecticutDelaware

District of ColumbiaFloridaGeorgia

HawaiiIdahoIllinois

IndianaIowaKansas

KentuckyLouisianaMaine

MarylandMassachusettsMichigan

MinnesotaMississippiMissouri

MontanaNebraskaNevada

New HampshireNew JerseyNew MExico

New York North CarolinaNorth Dakota

OhioOklahomaOregon

PennsylvaniaRhode IslandSouth CarolinaSouth Dakota

TennesseeTexasUtah

VermontVirginiaWashington

West VirginiaWisconsinWyoming



0

0.0025

-0.0025

0.005

-0.005

0.0075

-0.01

-0.0075

0.01

0.0125

-0.0125

Small, butSignicant Effect

0.015

-0.015

-0.0175

-0.02

M o

d e r a t e

E ff e c t =

0 . 0 6

M o d

e r a t e

E f f e c t = - 0 . 0

6

POSITIVE

NEGATIVE

S C H N

I D E R,

1 9 8 5

S C H N

I D E R,

1 9 8 5

S C H N

I D E R,

1 9 8 5

S C H N

I D E R,

1 9 8 5

S C H N

I D E R,

1 9 8 5

M O N K

, 1 9 8

3

M O N K

, 1 9 8

3

R I O R D A

N, 2 0

0 6

R I O R D A

N, 2 0

0 6

R I O R D A

N, 2 0

0 6

G O L D H

A B E R &

B R E W E R,

2 0 0 0

H A R R I S &

S A S S, 2

0 0 7

H A R R I S &

S A S S, 2

0 0 7

H A R R I S &

S A S S, 2

0 0 7

H A R R I S &

S A S S, 2

0 0 6

H A R R I S &

S A S S, 2

0 0 7

H A R R

I S & S A S S, 2

0 0 7

G O L D H

A B E R &

B R E W E R,

2 0 0 0

G O L D H

A B E R &

B R E W E R,

1 9 9 7

G O L D H

A B E R &

B R E W E

R, 1 9

9 7

G O L D H

A B E R &

B R E W E R,

1 9 9 3

H A R R I S &

S A S S, 2

0 0 7

H A R R

I S & S A S S, 2

0 0 7

H A R R

I S & S A S S, 2

0 0 8

C L O T

F E L T E R, L A

D D, &

V I D G O R

, 2 0 0

7

C L O T

F E L T E R, L A

D D, &

V I D G

O R, 2 0 0 7

C L O T

F E L T E R, L A

D D, &

V I D G

O R, 2 0 0

7

C L O T

F E L T E R, L A

D D, &

V I D G O R

, 2 0 0 7

C L O T

F E L T E R, L A

D D, &

V I D G

O R, 2 0 0

7

C L O T

F E L T E R, L A

D D, &

V I D G O R

, 2 0 0 7

C L O T

F E L T E R, L A

D D, &

V I D G O R

, 2 0 0

7

G O L H A

B E R & A N

T H O N Y

, 2 0 0 7

G O L H A

B E R & A N

T H O N Y

, 2 0 0

7

G O L H A

B E R & A N

T H O N Y

, 2 0 0

7

G O L H A

B E R & A N

T H O N Y

, 2 0 0

7

H A N U

S H E K,

E T A L.,

1 9 9 8

S t u d i e s o r

i n d i v i d u a

l e s t i m a

t e s

f i n d i n g a

n e g a

t i v e e

f f e c

t

S t u d i e s o r

i n d i v i d u a

l e s t i m a

t e s

f i n d i n g a p o s i t i v e e

f f e c

t

NO EFFECT

Small, butSignificant Effect

THE IMPACT OF TEACHERS’ ADVANCED DEGREES ON STUDENT LEARNING



Figure 17. Percentage of teachers with a master’s degree

Source: NCTQ internal analysis

KCMSD ties with l s Ange es f r the highest ercentage f teachers h dinga master’s degree. Hartf rd, B st n and New Y rk run a c se sec nd.

Figure 18. Percentage of teacher payroll spent on degree-basedcompensation in KCMSD and other urban districts

Source: NCTQ internal analysisTh ugh dwarfed by Seatt e (a district that heavi y rewards teachers f rc m eting u t the equiva ent f three master’s degrees), KCMSD s endsa arger ercentage f its res urces n degree-based c m ensati n thanm st f the districts tracked by NCTQ.

K a n s

a s C i t y

N a t i o n

a l a v

e r a g e

B a l t i m o

r e C i t y

B o s t o

n

C h i c a

g o C l

a r k

G w i n n

e t t

H a r t f o r

d

H o u s t o

n

L o s A

n g e l e s

M e m p

h i s

M i a m

i D a d

e

N e w Y o

r k

P r i n c e G

e o r g e ’

s

S e a t t l e

100.0%

75.0%

50.0%

25.0%

0.0%

'

K a n s a

s C i t y

B a l t i m o

r e C i t y

B o s t o

n

C h i c a

g o C l

a r k

G w i n n

e t t

H a r t f o r

d

H o u s t o

n

L o s A

n g e l e s

M e m p

h i s

M i a m

i D a d

e

N e w Y o

r k

P r i n c e G

e o r g e ’

s

S e a t t l e

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

20.0%

30.0%

35.0%



III. Compensation tied to teacher experience

KCMSD SPENDS MORE THAN $24 MILLION (35 PERCENTOF ITS TEACHER PAYROLL) ON EXPERIENCE-BASED

COMPENSATION.KCMSD reserves the largest raises automatically awarded each yearfor teachers with the most experience. Raises for teachers in their19th year are nearly three times larger than they are for teachers intheir rst two years of teaching.

Figure 19. Structure of raises in KCMSD associated withteacher experience

Source: NCTQ analysis of KCMSD 2010-2011 salary schedule

The average raise ver the ast ve years f the sa ary schedu e in KCMSDis 86 ercent m re than the average raise ver the rst ve years.

This disproportionate structure of raises does not square withwhat a large body of research teaches us about the relationshipbetween experience and effectiveness. In fact, research shows thatthe relationship between experience and effectiveness is not linear.Reserving the largest raises for teachers at the end of their careerdirects a disproportionate share of the resources to veteran teacherswho have the promise of a pension in their near future to keep them in

the classroom. Meanwhile, novice teachers have little incentive to stayin a system that makes them wait years before earning a viable salary.

Although experienced teachers undoubtedly offer many bene ts thatcannot be measured by test scores, experience bears little correlationto effectiveness after roughly three years. 19 Teachers who are on atrajectory of excellence are generally as excellent in their third yearas they will be in their tenth or twentieth. Average teachers aregenerally as average in their tenth year as their third. Weak teachers

1 7 9 113 5 15 17 1913

Annual Raise

$0

$500

$1,000

$1,500

$2,000

$2,500

$3,000

9 Hanushek, E., Kain, J., & Rivkin, S. (1998).Teachers, sch s, and academic achievement.



are, on average, no weaker in their third year than their fteenth. 20

Top performers in other professions can earn high salaries muchearlier in their careers, without having to wait two decades beforethey reach maximum earnings. A lawyer, for example, can expect toreach his or her highest salary (excluding a few years of extra higherearnings toward the career end) around age 35, a doctor aroundage 40. In contrast, a teacher in KCMSD does not reach maximumearnings until the age of 55. 21

Figure 20. A slower climb

Source: Vigdor, Jacob. Scrap the Sacrosanct Salary Schedule, Education Next, Fall 2008,Vol. 8, No. 4

In m st sch districts it takes teachers a decade nger t reach eakearnings than it d es f r ther r fessi na s.

IV. Rewarding effective teachers

ALTHOUGH KCMSD DESERVES CREDIT FOR EXPLORINGPERFORMANCE PAY THROUGH VARIOUS GRANTSTHAT IT HAS RECEIVED, THEY DO LITTLE TO ADDRESSUNDERLYING STRUCTURAL PROBLEMS IN KCMSD’SCOMPENSATION STRATEGY.

Until KCMSD’s pay structure relieves signi cant wage compression,whereby the top performing teachers earn the same as less effectivepeers, its compensation structure will remain inherently unfair totalented teachers.

TIF grant. Beginning in the 2011-2012 school year, KCMSD will pilota program funded by the federal Teacher Incentive Fund (TIF) in 10schools, spending an additional $13.6 million over ve years to lookfor more targeted ways to compensate teachers. 22

20 Why experience does not matter as much awe think it should has not been fully explaineby research. Some theorize that youngerteachers make up for what they do not knowby working much harder and longer hours.

Others theorize that teachers do not continueto improve because professional developmenis so poor.

21 Vigd r, J. (2008, Fa ). Scra the sacr sasa ary schedu e, Educati n Next , 37-42.

22 Schools selected based on student eligibilifor free-and-reduced price lunches, schoolenrollment, Missouri Assessment scoresand the numbers of language-de cient LLPstudents. At least 75 percent of the schoolfaculty had to vote to participate in theprogram. http://www2.ed.gov/programs/teacherincentive/index.html

Age

R e

l a t i v e

E a r n

i n g s

Doctor

Lawyer

Teacher

25 40 42 45 5030 35 60 6555

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0



While the district’s application ranked high by US Department ofEducation reviewers, there is cause for concern in how KCMSD plansto implement this grant. It does not appear to be the case that studentgrowth is the preponderant criteria for awarding bonuses. Insteadteacher bonuses will be determined by the following three factors: 1)student growth (measured for both individual teachers and schoolsas a whole); 2) loosely de ned professional growth; and 3) associatedwraparound factors (attendance, discipline, parental involvement).

The “professional growth” component raises some cause for concern.KCMSD’s TIF application states that teachers will be eligible for anaward on the basis of participation in any training that “manifests itselfon a regular basis in classroom practices and advanced certi cationin their eld.” This ambiguous de nition could well lead to teachersearning bonuses for taking coursework or earning national boardcerti cation (if that is what advanced certi cation implies and whichis already covered under another incentive grant), neither of which

means that teachers will be getting bonuses for highly effectiveclassroom performance observed and measured by the district.There are other potential problems that the district should address.It is unclear if schools must agree to participate during all three yearsof the grant or if the schools can change each year. The averageamount of the award, an estimated amount of $2,000 to $4,000,maynot be signi cant enough to have any measurable impact. Teacherscould earn a comparable payment for coaching the school footballteam, for example.

Central High incentive program. In addition to the TIF grant, teachersat Central High School will be eligible for bonuses ranging from

$2,000 to $5,000, depending on which subject they teach. 23 The rulesfor this program appear to have more rigor and speci cs than the TIFgrant. Teachers of foreign language, mathematics, science and specialeducation will be eligible for bonuses totaling $5,000, with $3,000bonuses available for communication arts teachers and $2,000 for allother teachers. To qualify for a bonus, teachers must show that theirstudents have made signi cant improvement, de ned as a 20-pointgain. Teachers set goals for individual students and class performancethat must be approved by a district level committee.

National Board. Teachers can also earn raises for acquiring NationalBoard Certi cation—but few qualify. Only four teachers in thedistrict have ever obtained National Board Certi cation. It is unclearif any of those teachers are still employed by KCMSD.

KCMSD will pay $3,500 to teachers who “successfully apply for andpursue” National Board Certi cation. The very terms under whichteachers earn this initial bonus are costly: All a teacher has to do is toapply for certi cation, not necessarily earn it. In addition, the districtwill make another $3,500 permanent adjustment to a teacher’s salaryfor achieving National Board Certi cation. 24

23 http://www2.kcmsd.net/Lists/News1/DispForm.aspx?ID=1254&Source=http%3A%2F%2Fwww2.kcmsd.net%2FPages%2FEmployees.aspx

24 Teachers are required to remain in thedistrict a minimum of three years or will haveto repay the district.




The teacher pay structure should be predominantly premised onteacher effectiveness, demand for a teacher’s skill and willingness toteach in challenging environments. The highest performing teachersshould earn dramatically higher salaries than less effective peers ofthe same experience level. While it is critical for KCMSD to be able todraw top teacher talent into its schools by offering competitive salaries,the only practical way to achieve this is by making the earning potentialfor top teachers more in KCMSD than in surrounding districts.

Figure 21. Model pay structure

In the hy thetica structure m de ed ab ve, the raises tied t teacherex erience are minima and are arge y ass ciated with c st f ivingraises. Teachers are, h wever, awarded three raises tied t ex erience: neafter b th the rst and sec nd years (when rinci a s make a decisi n nwhether r n t t renew a teacher’s c ntract). The argest increase ccursat the tenure mark. Additi na raises bey nd the tenure mark are awardedf r teacher effectiveness n y (as de icted by the d tted ine).

Because dramatic overhaul of the salary schedule demands apolitically favorable environment, we present a variety of approachesto incrementally shift teacher pay.

1. Raise the starting salary so that KCMSD pay is competitive withsurrounding districts.

2. Eliminate salary differentials for earning an advanced degree for anynew teacher hired in the system. Redirect savings to three districtneeds: awarding effectiveness, hiring teachers with much-needed skillsand placing effective teachers in the schools with the greatest needs.

3. Redistribute raises associated with experience to earlier in ateacher’s career, with the largest raise awarded at the tenure mark.Reserving the largest raises for teachers with the most experience isan ineffective retention strategy and does not align with research on

$30,000

$40,000

$50,000

$60,000

$70,000

$80,000

1 7 9 113 5 15 17 19 2113

l

Current pay structure

Hypothetical pay structurewithout factoring effectiveness

Pay for highly effective teacher



the impact of experience on teacher effectiveness. Providing signi cantbonuses at the tenure mark would incentivize teachers to stay in theclassroom during the period when there is the highest turnover.

4. Attend to the details of the TIF grant, ensuring that the bonusesgo primarily toward teachers in high needs schools who havedemonstrated their effectiveness or hold high demand skills. TheCentral High model appears more promising than the TIF program,as currently described.

Where it’s been done:Baltimore City’s new contract with the local teachers union createda new and innovative pay structure for teachers that eliminatesautomatic raises for experience and reconsiders the weight givento coursework completion. Furthermore, the pay system allowsteachers who want to assume greater responsibilities and leadershippositions in their school to also earn higher salaries without leaving

the classroom, known as a career ladder approach.


Eliminate state salary requirements. Missouri should repeal its lawrequiring higher salaries for teachers with advanced degrees andexperience and instead allow districts full autonomy in structuringtheir salary schedules.



National Council on Teacher Quality

1420 New York Avenue, Suite 800Washington, DC 20005

T 202.393.0020 F 202.393.0095www.nctq.org

Building Teacher Quality in the Kansas City NCTQ Report

Documents

Transcript of Building Teacher Quality in the Kansas City NCTQ Report