1. Pay for Performance Programs in Arizona CPRE Conference February 21, 2007 Arizona Performance Based Compensation SystemArizona Performance Based Compensation System Arizona Career Ladder ProgramsArizona Career Ladder Programs

2. February 21, 2007 2 Performance Based Compensation System (ARS §15-977)

3. February 21, 2007 3 Performance Based Compensation System History Arizona voters passed Proposition 301 in November, 2000 The purpose is to – increase education funding – Implement specific financial and academic accountability measures

4. February 21, 2007 4 Performance Based Compensation System Revenues.5¢ sales tax The 2000 estimate: – Generate $445 million each year for 20 years – About 55 percent of that—or $252 million—will go towards the Classroom Site Fund

5. February 21, 2007 5 Performance Based Compensation System Classroom Site Fund Monies 2003: $224 million 2004: $232 million Source: State Auditor General

6. February 21, 2007 6 Performance Based Compensation System Classroom Site 40 Percent: Performance pay for teachers 20 percent: Base compensation increases 40 percent: menu items (district needs)

7. February 21, 2007 7 Performance Based Compensation System Unresolved Issues The law did not define “teacher” It also did not define the term “performance” or contain any additional guidance

8. February 21, 2007 8 Performance Based Compensation System Performance Compensation Legislation SB 1074 passed in 2005 and became effective August 12, 2005 Requires School District Governing Boards to adopt a performance based compensation system Created the Arizona Performance Based Compensation System Task Force

9. February 21, 2007 9 Performance Based Compensation System Task Force Duties Evaluate one-fourth of programs annually Report on programs’ effectiveness Offer improvement recommendations

10. February 21, 2007 10 Performance Based Compensation System Task Force Recommendations The first set of recommendations were provided in July, 2006: – Performance Based Assessment must be reflective of comprehensive goal setting at the district, school and classroom level – Goals should be individually tailored to the situations and needs of each school/district – Promoting individual student performance should be the direct and primary focus of school/district goal setting

11. February 21, 2007 11 Performance Based Compensation System Task Force Recommendations – Districts/schools should select indicators that best reflect their unique operating environment – PBC plans should promote continuous improvement by encouraging the development of new skills and knowledge by teachers that are designed to achieve district/school goals – Rigorous professional development that is aligned to school/district goals is a vital component to continuous improvement

12. February 21, 2007 12 Performance Based Compensation System Task Force Recommendations – PBC goals should be objective, measurable and timely so that overall performance can be assessed in a transparent way by district, school and community stakeholders – Systemized data collection and analysis should be a key ingredient in successful PBC plans – PBC plans should reflect broad-based input in its design, implementation and evaluation as a matter of good practice and accountability – Each teacher’s performance based compensation should be substantially based on their individual efforts in support if the district/school goals

13. February 21, 2007 13 Career Ladder Programs (ARS §15-918)

14. February 21, 2007 14 Arizona Career Ladder Program Purpose Increased student academic achievement Teacher recognition and compensation for performance at increasingly higher skill levels Quality, sustained, job-embedded professional development

15. February 21, 2007 15 Arizona Career Ladder Program Components As defined by Arizona Revised Statute §15-918, district Career Ladder Programs must provide for: Increasingly higher levels of pupil academic progress as measured by objective criteria Increasingly higher levels of teaching skills Increasingly higher levels of teacher responsibility Professional growth Equal teacher pay for equal teacher performance

16. February 21, 2007 16 Arizona Career Ladder Program History 1984Competitive grant planning money available to design a performance based compensation program for teachers 1985The Arizona legislature created the Arizona Career Ladder Program as a five-year pilot 1990The Career Ladder Program received “permanent” legislative status 1993No further expansion is authorized—limiting Career Ladder to 28 districts

17. February 21, 2007 17 Arizona Career Ladder Program Funding 5.5% of District’s base funding = Career Ladder allocation for that district District assesses a 22¢ per $100/assessed valuation for local funding Difference between allocated amount and locally raised funds is paid by state appropriations

18. February 21, 2007 18 Arizona Career Ladder Program Research/Evaluation Mary Walton Braver (1989, ASU), (Career Ladder Pilot Project) Analysis of the impact of the Career Ladder on student academic achievement using a comparison of prior to and following implementation

19. February 21, 2007 19 Arizona Career Ladder Program Research/Evaluation Packard and Dereshiwsky (1990) Positive outcomes were noted for Career Ladder teachers related to: – student achievement – curriculum and instruction and – teacher skills development and leadership

20. February 21, 2007 20 Arizona Career Ladder Program Research/Evaluation Datasphere Inc. (1992-93) Results of a survey distributed to school board members Administrators career ladder teachers, and non-career ladder teachers concerning the impact of the Career Ladder Program on student progress and achievement

21. February 21, 2007 21 Arizona Career Ladder Program Research/Evaluation Sloat (1994) Comparing student achievement in Career Ladder districts and non-Career Ladder districts: Career Ladder districts out-performed non-Career Ladder districts in three areas: 1. Drop out rate 2. Graduation rate 3. Standardized and Norm Referenced Tests

22. February 21, 2007 22 Arizona Career Ladder Program Research/Evaluation Danzig (1999) All 28 participating Career Ladder districts are designed with multiple steps and levels, demonstrating a career cycle for teachers with expectations for contributions greater than just “years of experience” An essential aspect of every district’s plan is the focus on teaching and monitoring of student outcomes

23. February 21, 2007 23 Arizona Career Ladder Program Research/Evaluation Sloat (2002) Comparative study between the 28 Career Ladder districts and similar Non-Career Ladder districts on the Stanford 9 assessment, Grades 2 through 8, Reading, Language, and Mathematics: – Career Ladder districts out-performed non-Career Ladder districts at every grade level, 2-8, in Reading, Language, and Mathematics as indicated by the median scores. – Career Ladder districts out-performed non-Career Ladder districts at every grade level, 2nd through 8th, in Reading, Language, and Mathematics as indicated by the mean NCE scores. – The level of difference indicated was SIGNIFICANT, statistically speaking, at all grade levels and in all subject areas except for 6th grade Reading.

24. February 21, 2007 24 Arizona Career Ladder Program Research/Evaluation Dowling, et al (2007) The Effects of the Career Ladder Program on Student Achievement Students in Career Ladder schools are performing significantly better on AIMS measures than did students in non-career ladder schools, even after adjusting for differences in student and school characteristics The impact of the Career Ladder program seems to be greater in math and reading Although the statistical methods are different and the measures of student performance are different throughout the studies on Career Ladder, the results continue to be positive.

25. February 21, 2007 25 Arizona Career Ladder Program Reasons for Success Districts have the autonomy to design and implement plans aligned with the needs/initiatives of the district yet adhere to statutes Student achievement is the primary focus Programs are teacher driven as opposed to state mandated, top-down directives Over time, Arizona’s Career Ladder districts have maintained the integrity and the intent of the incentive-based programs All programs must undergo regular evaluation as part of the reapplication process

26. February 21, 2007 26 Resources/Contacts Jan Amator Deputy Associate Superintendent Highly Qualified Professionals Unit 602-364-2294 Jan.Amator@azed.gov Lisa Kelley Education Program Specialist for Career Ladder 602-364-2191 Lisa.Kelley@azed.gov Website: http://www.ade.az.gov/asd/CareerLadder/http://www.ade.az.gov/asd/CareerLadder/