A Grand Bargain for Education Reform A Grand Bargain for Education Reform The New Reward Structure: Educator Evaluation, Compensation and a PAR Process for Remediation-Dismissal 2011 Regional Conference on Strategic Compensation Awareness Akron OH May 6, 2011 Ted Hershberg & Claire Robertson-Kraft Operation Public Education University of Pennsylvania

Key elements of the OPE framework Central goal – all students achieving at high levels – is aligned with rewards and supports Evaluation system with multiple measures including student growth as a significant factor Data play a key role in evaluation, compensation and support Professional unionism – teachers as equal partners

THE NEW REWARD STRUCTURE Professional unionism Teacher evaluation Administrator evaluation Compensation PAR Process for remediation & dismissal

Professional Unionism Expands the industrial model as the classroom – rather than solely the bargaining table – becomes the venue where teachers determine their career trajectory Collective bargaining remains in place, but in compensation it sets the level of the starting salary, increases beyond minimums required at each rung of the career ladder, and the size or nature of a bonus and/or additional salary for hard- to-serve and hard-to-staff positions

Evaluation System with Multiple Measures A system that considers student learning results – outputs – along with multiple input measures through an improved observation process Empirical: Student Growth Percentiles (SGP) Observation: Colorado Professional Standards for Teachers (Danielson’s Framework for Teaching)

Danielson’s Framework for Teaching ASCD 1996 The craft of teaching is divided into four broad domains and 22 individual components Planning and preparation Classroom environment Instruction Professional responsibilities Vertical performance rubrics – unsatisfactory, basic, proficient and distinguished – are provided for each component for all teachers and specialists

Using growth in evaluation and compensation Never use it as the sole or principal component Part of a balanced system: inputs and outputs One among multiple measures With appropriate safeguards

Growth Model three categories of instructon Highly Effective: by providing their students with high growth, teachers earn higher salaries, move up the career ladder faster, and serve as coaches and mentors Effective: these teachers provide their students with a year’s worth of growth in a year Ineffective: by failing to provide their students with adequate growth, these teachers undergo mandatory remediation, which can result in improvement or dismissal Observation protocols should provide parallel ratings

Value-added instructional results: Attach 2 Standard Errors to those Below the District Avg. Teacher Effectiveness District Average or Growth Standard Ineffective Effective Highly Effective Attach 1.5 Standard Errors to those Above the District Avg. Standard Errors are a function of: Number of students taught Number of data points for each student

Determining Teacher Effectiveness: three instructional results* Teacher Effectiveness District Average or Growth Standard * Using 3-year running averages Ineffective Effective Highly Effective

Compared to What? People are concerned with false negatives (misclassifying teachers) All decision-making systems have classification error Framing the problem only in terms of false negatives focuses on the interests of the teacher rather than the students being served The current system fails to identify teachers who are ineffective (false positives) which can have a significant negative effect on children’s achievement levels Year-to-year correlation in growth measures are between.3 and.4 – similar to correlations used for high stakes decisions in other fields

Compared to What? The current system, on average, probably misidentifies at least 33% The incidence of misclassification can be reduced using standard error Error can be further reduced through corroborative observation A PAR panel examines the cases of those at the bottom New frameworks incorporating growth data provide more accurate evaluations and a fairer basis for pay as well as the long-term benefits of differentiated compensation

Percent of women in field who were: Architects and Engineers Lawyers Physicians Dentists Pharmacists Computer Programmers and System Analysts Accountants and Auditors Changing Career Options for Women Percent of all professional women whose occupation was teaching Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics

Goals for New Compensation System A Career Ladder Sufficient height to ensure high salaries at the top rungs Sufficient breadth within rungs to ensure significant differences between base and variable pay to maintain fairness re performance No teacher would earn less in the new system than at the top of the old Or without new funds, current teachers could be “grandfathered”

Teachers start here ACSD Distinguished & NBPTS Distinguished Proficient Value-Added Highly Effective Effective Career Ladder Rung Distinguished Advanced Career Apprentice Teacher Career Ladder Career Ladder Rung Distinguished Advanced Career Apprentice Growth Highly Effective Effective CO Professional Standards Distinguished & Leadership Roles Distinguished Proficient 35% 20% 15% *There are steps within levels of 3.5% Observations Student Outcomes

New Compensation System Career ladder for teachers and administrators On each rung: base pay, individual variable pay and group variable pay Steps within rungs tied to growth gains One-time bonus (not salary) for advanced degrees and no compensation for course work after the BA and MA Bonuses and/or higher pay for hard-to-staff and hard-to-serve subjects and settings

Collective bargaining continues To determine amount of starting salary To determine the percent increases on the rungs of the career ladder (the OPE model sets minimums)

Multiple Measures An issue worth considering Combined Percentages v. Conditions Met 35% value-added 15% other measures of student growth 35% observation 10% content knowledge 5% parent and student perception Value-added Observation Additional criteria that must be met

Skills and knowledge for the 21 st century classroom The Old Ability Bell-Shaped Curve Memorization* One-Size-Fits-All Anecdotal Teacher-Centered The New Effort Standards Problem Solving* Differentiated Instruction Data-Driven Decisions Student-Centered

Incentives Nashville study re impact of bonus pay on teacher performance Incentives have to be negative as well as positive Which is why we need a system for remediation and dismissal that is timely while ensuring due process

PAR Process for Struggling Teachers Not a “gotcha” system Provides help for struggling educators to improve Leads to fair and timely dismissal for those who, through lack of effort or ability, fail to improve A seven-person PAR panel: four teachers and three administrators with a 5-vote majority required for decisions Courts are unlikely to overturn the decision of a PAR panel (union-led or teacher-led appeal)

Remediation Process 1. General Teacher Pool 2. Teacher is Identified as Struggling for Two Consecutive Years 5a. Sufficient Improvement: Effective VA Scores and Effective Observation Scores 5b. Some Improvement: Teacher remains in remediation for 1 additional year 5c. No Improvement: Teacher is Dismissed 3a. False Positive 3. Review by Peer Assistance Panel 4. Remediation plan is devised with Teacher Coach and Instructional Leader Salary is frozen 5. Result of Remediation

Administrator Evaluation Parallel to teacher evaluation: –Half based on performance rubrics –Half based on value-added aggregate scores for their respective school(s) Performance rubrics adapted from Prince Georges County MD, ISLLC, Danielson (or) ValEd John Deasy PGC

Administrators start here ACSD Distinguished & NBPTS Distinguished Proficient Value-Added Highly Effective Effective Career Ladder Rung Distinguished Advanced Career Apprentice Administrator Career Ladder Career Ladder Rung Distinguished Career Associate Growth Proficient Advanced CO Professional Standards Advanced Proficient + + Observations Student Outcomes +

District employees for which growth can be used as one of the measures in evaluation x x

Educators Outside of Growth Equity vs. Equality

Quid-Pro-Quo In return for accountability, teachers secure an expanded role Peer review Key part in the remediation of their struggling colleagues Equal say in major issues that affect their classrooms: professional development, curriculum or assessments not mandated by the state

For additional information on our comprehensive school reform model, please contact: or (215) Or see our website at