What Works? What Doesn’t? Overview of Teacher Compensation: What Works? What Doesn’t? James H....

Overview of Teacher

Compensation: What Works? What What Works? What

Doesn’t?Doesn’t?

James H. StrongeCollege of William and MaryWilliamsburg, Virginia

Teacher Pay and Teacher Quality: What’s the Connection?

• Attract • Develop• Retain

Student

Achievement

Quality Teacher

s

Qualities of Effective Teachers

EFFECTIVE TEACHERS

Prerequisites

Organizing for

Instruction

Classroom Management &

Instruction

Implementing Instruction

Monitoring Student

Progress & Potential

The Person

Job Responsibilities and Practices

Used with the Permission of Linda Hutchinson, Doctoral Student, The College of William and Mary

Background

Performance-Based Pay

• Teachers are awarded bonuses, either individually or collectively, based on student progress

• Teachers receive bonus based on specified district, school, or teacher-based goals

• Models use student growth or value-added approach, focusing on student growth rather than criterion-based performance

Performance-based Pay: Does it work?

• Focuses on an outcome of education – increased student achievement– Research supports that highly

effective teachers impact student achievement (See for example, Wright, Horn, & Sanders, 1997)

– School-based pay for performance can be effective (See for example, Cooper & Cohn, 1999; Dee & Keys, 2004; Ladd, 1999)

Performance-Based Pay Advantages/Disadvantages

Advantages• Focuses on

outcomes of education

• Promotes monitoring student progress

• Allows recognition of outstanding teachers

• Focuses on student growth

Disadvantages• Determining valid and

reliable assessments• Too much testing• Teachers focus on

tested material and activities only

• Using quotas promotes competition rather than collaboration

Support for Performance-Based

Pay

• Houston Independent Schools– Student achievement increased during

implementation of performance-based pay– When teachers received bonuses there was

a positive impact on future students’ growth– Teachers who had a less positive influence

on student growth and did not receive awards were more likely to leave the district

– Teachers who had more of a positive influence on student growth and received awards were likely to stay

White and Lendro (2010)

Support for Performance-Based

Pay

• Evaluation of Achievement Challenge Pilot Project in Little Rock, AR– Students whose teachers were eligible for the

bonuses outperformed other students in math by nearly seven percentile points, in language by nearly nine percentile points, and in reading by nearly six percentile points

– Teachers in the performance pay schools reported being more satisfied with their salaries than teachers in non-participating schools

Ritter et al. (2008)

Mixed Results for Performance-Based

Pay

• Dallas Incentive Program– Collective incentive program in which all

faculty and staff in top performing schools received a bonus

– Positive and relatively large gains for Hispanic and White seventh grade students compared to other cities

– Similar effect not noted for African-American students

Ladd, H. (1999)

Teacher Effects and Student Achievement

• Chicago Public Schools– Biggest impact of a higher quality teacher,

relative to the mean gain of that group, was among African American students

– A one standard deviation, one semester increase in teacher quality raises ninth-grade test score performance by 0.20 grade equivalents (23% of the average annual gain) for African American students and 0.13 grade equivalents (11% of the average annual gain) for Hispanic students

– Aaronson, Barrow, & Sander (2007)

Teacher Effects and Student Achievement

• Los Angeles Study

“…if all black students were assigned to four highly effective teachers in a row, this would be sufficient to close the average black-white achievement gap”

- Haycock & Crawford (2008), pg. 15

Non-Supportive Results for

Performance-Based Pay

• Nashville Tennessee Financial Incentives– Incentives had no effect on the test

scores overall– Teachers who participated in the study

generally favored increased pay for better teachers in principle

– Researchers did not believe that the teachers of students who qualified for the bonuses were actually better teachers

Springer et al. (2010)

Pay and Student Achievement: Research Results

Higher pay increases student achievement

•A relationship exists between student achievement and teacher pay (See for

example, Cooper & Cohn, 1999; Dee & Keys, 2004;

Harris & Sass, 2007; Ladd, 1999; Loeb & Page, 2000)

Higher pay does not result in increased student achievement

•A relationship between student achievement and teacher pay does not exist or is minimal (See for example, Hanushek & Rivkin, 2007; Ladd, 1999)

Date here

VIRGINIAVIRGINIAPerformance Pay PilotPerformance Pay Pilot

2011 – 12 2011 – 12

VIRGINIAVIRGINIAPerformance Pay PilotPerformance Pay Pilot

2011 – 12 2011 – 12

Date here

History of Performance-Pay PilotHistory of Performance-Pay PilotHistory of Performance-Pay PilotHistory of Performance-Pay Pilot

SIG SchoolsSIG Schools• SIG schools invited to

participate in pilot• SIG schools awards

funded through School Improvement Grant Federal Funds

• Up to $3,000 bonus

• SIG schools invited to participate in pilot

• SIG schools awards funded through School Improvement Grant Federal Funds

• Up to $3,000 bonus

Hard-to-Staff SchoolsHard-to-Staff Schools• Gov. McDonnell invited

hard-to-staff schools to participate in Performance Pay Pilot

• The Virginia General Assembly approved $3 million in incentives for Hard-to-Staff Schools

• Up to $5,000 bonus for qualifying teachers

• Gov. McDonnell invited hard-to-staff schools to participate in Performance Pay Pilot

• The Virginia General Assembly approved $3 million in incentives for Hard-to-Staff Schools

• Up to $5,000 bonus for qualifying teachers

Date here

Requirements of the PilotRequirements of the PilotRequirements of the PilotRequirements of the Pilot

• Implementation of the 2011 Guidelines for Uniform Performance Standards and Evaluation Criteria for Teachers

• Forty percent of total teacher evaluation based on student progress

• Implementation of the 2011 Guidelines for Uniform Performance Standards and Evaluation Criteria for Teachers

• Forty percent of total teacher evaluation based on student progress

Date here

What are the Methods to Use for Connecting What are the Methods to Use for Connecting Teacher Performance to Teacher Performance to

Academic Progress? Academic Progress?

What are the Methods to Use for Connecting What are the Methods to Use for Connecting Teacher Performance to Teacher Performance to

Academic Progress? Academic Progress?

Student learning, as determined by multiple measures of student academic progress, accounts for a total of 40 percent of the evaluation.

Student learning, as determined by multiple measures of student academic progress, accounts for a total of 40 percent of the evaluation.

Teachers % of Evaluation Based on Student Growth Percentiles (SGPs)

% of Evaluation Based on Other Student

Academic Progress Measures

Reading and Math for whom SGPs are available

20 20

Support reading and math for whom SGPs are available

No more than 20 20 to 40

No direct or indirect role in teaching reading or mathematics in grades where SGPs are available

N/A 40

Date here

SGPSGP

High growth > 50%

Moderate growth > 40%

Low growth < 10%

High and/or moderate growth >

80%Low growth

< 20%

High and/or moderate growth <

50%Low growth =

21% to 49%

High and/or moderate growth

< 50%Low growth >

50%

Student Achievement Goal Setting

Student Achievement Goal Setting

Exceed Goal > 50%Meet Goal > 40%

Did Not Meet Goal < 10%

Exceed and/or Meet Goal > 80%

Did not meet goal < 20%

Exceed and/or Meet Goal < 50%

Did Not Meet Goal = 21% to 49%

Exceed and/or Meet Goal < 50%

Did Not Meet Goal > 50%

Other Measures

Other Measures

Other indicators of student

achievement/ progress indicates exemplary student

performance


achievement/ progress

indicates on-target student performance


achievement/ progress indicates

inconsistent student performance


achievement/ progress indicates overall low student

performance

Rating on Standard 7 –

Student Academic Progress

Rating on Standard 7 –

Student Academic Progress

Exemplary Proficient Developing/ Needs Improvement

Unacceptable

Decision Rules for Rating on Standard 7

Date here

““Other” MeasuresOther” Measures““Other” MeasuresOther” Measures

AcceptableAcceptable

Student performance on other standardized measures that assess growth and are not part of SGPs or goal setting

Expert ratings of student performance (e.g., band performance ratings)

Student performance on other standardized measures that assess growth and are not part of SGPs or goal setting

Expert ratings of student performance (e.g., band performance ratings)

UnacceptableUnacceptable

Class gradesClass grades

Date here

Decision Rules for Decision Rules for Performance PayPerformance Pay


A teacher must be rated as overall “Exemplary” in order to qualify for a performance pay bonus.

To be rated as overall “Exemplary,” a teacher must have a total of 35 or better out of a maximum of 40 on the cumulative summative rating.

A teacher with a rating of “Unacceptable” on any teacher standard will not be eligible for a performance pay bonus, regardless of the total points earned.

A teacher must be rated as overall “Exemplary” in order to qualify for a performance pay bonus.

To be rated as overall “Exemplary,” a teacher must have a total of 35 or better out of a maximum of 40 on the cumulative summative rating.

A teacher with a rating of “Unacceptable” on any teacher standard will not be eligible for a performance pay bonus, regardless of the total points earned.

Date here



Weighting Exemplary (4)

Proficient (3)

Developing/ Needs

Improvement (2)

Unacceptable (1)

Standard 1: Professional Knowledge

1 4 3 2 1

Standard 2:Instructional Planning

1 4 3 2 1

Standard 3: Instructional Delivery

1 4 3 2 1

Standard 4: Assessment of and for Learning

1 4 3 2 1

Standard 5: Learning Environment

1 4 3 2 1

Standard 6: Professionalism 1 4 3 2 1

Standard 7: Student Academic Progress

4 16 12 8 4

Cumulative Summative Rating

40 30 20 10

Date here

Teacher A:Teacher A:Meets Criteria for Performance-PayMeets Criteria for Performance-Pay

Teacher A:Teacher A:Meets Criteria for Performance-PayMeets Criteria for Performance-Pay

Standard Rating Points Weight Weighted Total (Points X Weight)


Exemplary 4 1 4


Exemplary 4 1 4


Exemplary 4 1 4


Exemplary 4 1 4


Exemplary 4 1 4

Standard 6: Professionalism Exemplary 4 1 4


Proficient 3 4 12


36

Date here

Teacher B:Teacher B:Meets Criteria for Performance-PayMeets Criteria for Performance-Pay

Teacher B:Teacher B:Meets Criteria for Performance-PayMeets Criteria for Performance-Pay

Standard Rating Points Weight Weighted Total (Points X Weight)


Proficient 3 1 3


Exemplary 4 1 4


Proficient 3 1 3


Proficient 3 1 3


Proficient 3 1 3

Standard 6: Professionalism Proficient 3 1 3


Exemplary 4 4 16


35

Date here

Teacher C:Teacher C:Does Not Meet Criteria for Does Not Meet Criteria for

Performance-PayPerformance-Pay

Teacher C:Teacher C:Does Not Meet Criteria for Does Not Meet Criteria for

Performance-PayPerformance-PayStandard Rating Points Weight Weighted Total

(Points X Weight)


Proficient 3 1 3


Proficient 3 1 3


Proficient 3 1 3


Proficient 3 1 3


Proficient 3 1 3

Standard 6: Professionalism Proficient 3 1 3Standard 7: Student Academic Progress

Proficient 3 4 12

Cumulative Summative Rating 30

Date here

Teacher D:Teacher D:Does Not Meet Criteria for Does Not Meet Criteria for


Teacher D:Teacher D:Does Not Meet Criteria for Does Not Meet Criteria for


(Points X Weight)


Proficient 3 1 3


Proficient 3 1 3


Proficient 3 1 3


Proficient 3 1 3


Proficient 3 1 3

Standard 6: Professionalism Developing/ Needs

Improvement

2 1 2


Proficient 3 4 12

Cumulative Summative Rating 29

Date here

Teacher E:Teacher E:Does Not Meets Criteria for Does Not Meets Criteria for


Teacher E:Teacher E:Does Not Meets Criteria for Does Not Meets Criteria for


(Points X Weight)


Exemplary 4 1 4


Exemplary 4 1 4


Exemplary 4 1 4


Exemplary 4 1 4


Proficient 3 1 3

Standard 6: Professionalism Unacceptable 1 1 1


Exemplary 4 4 16


36

What Works? What Doesn’t? Overview of Teacher Compensation: What Works? What Doesn’t? James H....

Documents

Transcript of What Works? What Doesn’t? Overview of Teacher Compensation: What Works? What Doesn’t? James H....