1. Understanding the Teacher Union Contract and How Business Can Support the Superintendent in Making Improvements ICW Business LEADs Institute | September 2010 Dan Weisberg The New Teacher Project

2. 2 © The New Teacher Project 2009 A significant achievement gap separates white and minority students. By high school, minority students are four years behind white students. Notes: *Accommodations for students with disabilities and English language learners not permitted; Trends similar for Math. Source: Original analysis of the Education Trust based on Long-Term Trends NAEP ; National Center for Education Statistics, NAEP Data Explorer, http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/nde, NAEP 2004 Trends in Academic Progresshttp://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/nde NAEP Grade 4 Reading NAEP Reading Average Scale Score At age 17, African American and Latino students read at the same levels as 13 year- old white students. Percent of Students

3. 3 © The New Teacher Project 2009 Research has shown that effective teachers are the solution. Dallas students who start 2 nd grade at about the same level of math achievement… After 3 EFFECTIVE Teachers After 3 INEFFECTIVE Teachers …finish 5 th grade math at dramatically different levels depending on the quality of their teachers. Original analysis by the Education Trust. Source: Heather Jordan, Robert Mendro, and Dash Weerasinghe, The Effects of Teachers on Longitudinal Student Achievement, 1997. 50

4. 4 © The New Teacher Project 2009 Certification Has a One-Point Impact on Achievement Source: Gordon, Kane, Staiger, Identifying Effective Teachers Using Performance on the Job, The Hamilton Project, Brookings Institution, April 2006.

5. 5 © The New Teacher Project 2009 Two Years of Experience Has a Four-Point Impact

6. 6 © The New Teacher Project 2009 Impact of Effective Teachers is Ten Points

7. 7 © The New Teacher Project 2009 New York, Math, Grades 4 - 6 Source: Thomas Kame, Jonah Rockoff, and Douglas Staiger, “What Does Certification Tell Us About Teacher Effectiveness: Evidence from New York City (2006) Change in Percentile Rank Original: Uncert.1 st YearBottom 25% Replaced With: Cert.3 rd YearAverage Replacing Low Performers Can Drive Up Student Achievement Replacing the typical bottom-quartile teacher with the median teacher would have a larger impact on student achievement than replacing the typical uncertified teacher with the typical certified teacher or replacing the typical novice teacher with the typical third-year teacher

8. 8 © The New Teacher Project 2009 Teacher Effectiveness in Improving Student Achievement Boost effectiveness of all teachers through effective evaluation and targeted professional development. Improve or exit persistently less effective teachers and replace with more effective teachers. Retain and leverage most effective teachers. 5 2 4 1 Optimize new teacher supply by hiring from preparation programs whose teachers consistently achieve better student outcomes. Prioritize effective teachers for high-need students. 3 Current teacher performance Potential teacher performance Dramatic improvements in student achievement cannot occur without a sustained and strategic focus on maximizing teacher effectiveness. 5 Goals for Optimizing Teacher Effectiveness

9. 9 © The New Teacher Project 2009 Years of Growth What would it take to get breakthrough performance improvement? 0.75 Hypothetical Situation A district uses “years of growth” as its primary measure of student learning. Currently, the district’s teachers average 0.75 years of growth. o75 th percentile: 0.9 years o25 th percentile: 0.6 years The district wants to boost average effectiveness so that at least 4 out of 5 teacher get 1.0 years of growth. 1.0

10. 10 © The New Teacher Project 2009 Achieving breakthrough results requires movement in all three levers (performance improvement, retention of more effective teachers, and improvement or replacement of less effective teachers). Scenario 1 Incentives to boost retention of top-quartile and performance of lower-quartiles Tailored and effective PD for lower quartiles Performance management policies to drive outplacement of teachers who do not improve Tenure for those who repeatedly generate 1 year growth 1 85%10% 1.1 years 2 80%25% 3 33%50% 4 20%60% Teachers’ Starting Quartile Retention Rate Improvement of Those Who are Retained Average Performance of New Hires 1 85%5% 1.1 years 2 80%15% 3 66%30% 4 66%40% 30% Improvement 1.0 years 40% Improvement 1.1 years 20%tile=1.0 years Scenario 2 All the above, plus: More attractive incentives More ambitious performance management policies

11. 11 © The New Teacher Project 2009 To realize sustainable improvement, effective teaching must be the guiding concern behind all elements of a district’s human capital system. Talent Pipeline Create supply of effective teachers to fill all vacancies. CORE METRIC Number and percentage of new teachers who demonstrate effectiveness above a target threshold Effectiveness Management Optimize effectiveness of teacher workforce. CORE METRICS Retention rate of top-quartile teachers : Retention rate of bottom- quartile teachers Average improvement in retained teachers’ effectiveness over time Recruitment Selection Training / Certification Hiring / Placement On- Boarding Evaluation / Prof. Dev. Compensation Retention / Dismissal Working Conditions School- Level Human Cap. Mgmnt. An effective teacher in every classroom Measures of student learning

12. 12 © The New Teacher Project 2009 When is teacher effectiveness taken into account?

13. 13 © The New Teacher Project 2009 Teacher Evaluation/Tenure/Due Process

14. 14 © The New Teacher Project 2009 The Widget Effect “When it comes to measuring instructional performance, current policies and systems overlook significant differences between teachers. There is little or no differentiation of excellent teaching from good, good from fair, or fair from poor. This is the Widget Effect: a tendency to treat all teachers as roughly interchangeable, even when their teaching is quite variable. Consequently, teachers are not developed as professionals with individual strengths and capabilities, and poor performance is rarely identified or addressed.” The New Teacher Project, 2009

15. 15 © The New Teacher Project 2009 The Widget Effect in Teacher Evaluation: Summary of Findings Treating teachers as interchangeable parts All teachers are rated “good” or “great.” Although teachers and principals report that poor performance is common, less than 1 percent of teachers are identified as “unsatisfactory” on performance evaluations. Excellence goes unrecognized. When excellent ratings are the norm, truly exceptional teachers cannot be formally identified. Nor can they be compensated, promoted or retained. Professional development is inadequate. Almost 3 in 4 teachers did not receive any specific feedback on improving their performance in their last evaluation. Novice teachers are neglected. Low expectations for beginning teachers translate into benign neglect in the classroom and a toothless tenure process. Poor performance goes unaddressed. Half of the 12 districts studied have not dismissed a single non- probationary teacher for poor performance in the past five years. None dismisses more than a few each year.

16. 16 © The New Teacher Project 2009 When multiple ratings are available, teachers tend to be assigned the highest ratings and are very rarely assigned poor ratings.

17. 17 © The New Teacher Project 2009 In districts that use binary “Satisfactory/Unsatisfactory” rating systems, the “Unsatisfactory” rating is almost never used. Evaluation Ratings for Tenured Teachers in Districts with Binary Rating Systems

18. 18 © The New Teacher Project 2009 Teacher Evaluation – Teacher/Principal Views Teachers and principals agree that poor instruction is pervasive. Source: TNTP survey of 7,318 teachers across 4 sites conducted February to April 2009 “Are there tenured/non-probationary teachers in your school who deliver poor instruction?” (Percent responding “Yes”) 0%0.4%n/a0% Percent of All Ratings that Indicated “Unsatisfactory” Performance

19. 19 © The New Teacher Project 2009 Teacher Evaluation – Dismissal Data Dismissal for poor instructional performance virtually never occurs. Frequency of Teacher Dismissals for Performance (Non-Probationary Teachers)

20. 20 © The New Teacher Project 2009 Teachers report not enough is being done to recognize and retain top performers as measured by their impact on student learning. 59% of teachers report their district is not doing enough to identify, recognize, compensate, promote and retain the most effective teachers as measured by their impact on student learning. “All the good quality teachers leave the district after just a few years. They need more incentive to stay.” “Some sort of recognition or praise would be nice. Those doing a good or great job are never told so.” “If you pay the shining stars the same as the slackers, you will dim the shining stars and reinforce the sloth of the slackers.” “I, and others, work hard because we have a conscience, but I don't think [the district] sees us as any different than the lower performing teachers. Teachers who work hard receive very little praise or notice.” TNTP survey of 7,318 teachers across four sites conducted May 2008 to April 2009

21. 21 © The New Teacher Project 2009 Percent of teachers who had development areas identified on their most recent evaluation. Tenured/non- probationary teachers Probationary teachers Most likely (Denver) 32%55% Average 22%37% Least likely (Springdale) 2%4% Source 1 : TNTP survey of 15,176 teachers across 12 sites conducted May 2008 to April 2009 Source 2 : TNTP survey of 1,863 Denver Public School teachers conducted November to December 2008 Weak evaluation practices and systems mean that many teachers receive little meaningful feedback. of Denver teachers who had a development area identified on their most recent evaluation “do not know” which performance standard they failed to meet. 39%

22. 22 © The New Teacher Project 2009 RECOMMENDATIONS Our recommendations are a call to action for school districts to move beyond treating teachers like widgets. ADOPT a comprehensive performance evaluation system that fairly, accurately and credibly differentiates teachers based on their effectiveness in promoting student achievement and provides targeted professional development to help them improve. TRAIN administrators and other evaluators in the teacher performance evaluation system and hold them accountable for using it effectively. INTEGRATE the performance evaluation system with critical human capital policies and functions such as teacher assignment, professional development, compensation, retention and dismissal. ADDRESS consistently ineffective teaching through dismissal policies that provide lower-stakes options for ineffective teachers to exit the district and a system of due process that is fair but efficient. 1 2 3 4 “Education reform will go nowhere until the states are forced to revamp corrupt teacher evaluation systems that rate a vast majority of teachers as ‘excellent,’ even in schools where children learn nothing.” Editorial (6.10.09)

23. 23 © The New Teacher Project 2009 Teacher Excessing/Layoff

24. 24 © The New Teacher Project 2009 DRAFT Teacher Excessing and Layoff: Teacher/Principal Views Though excessing and layoff are nearly always done based on seniority, teachers and principals support additional factors being used. “In [District Name], length of service teaching (seniority) in the district determines who should be laid off during a Reduction in Force (RIF). Should additional factors be considered?” Teachers Principals Yes 74%98% *Answer choices: Yes or No Source: TNTP survey conducted in February 2009 of 1,673 teachers and 61 principals.

25. 25 © The New Teacher Project 2009 Roles for Business Community in Contract Reform Funding Research in Advance of Negotiations oTeacher Impact on Student Achievement oDifferential Retention Rates oAlignment of District Investments with Teacher Effectiveness Spotlighting Key Issues in Advance of Negotiations Lobbying for State Statutory/Regulatory Reform to Promote Contract Reform Goals oImpact on Student Achievement as Preponderant Criterion in Teacher Evaluation Public Accountability During and After Negotiations oProviding Alternative Views to Parents oStrategic Support for School Funding

26. 26 © The New Teacher Project 2009 The Obama administration and Secretary Duncan have made teacher evaluation and support top priorities. “These policies were created over the past century to protect the rights of teachers but they have produced an industrial factory model of education that treats all teachers like interchangeable widgets. “A recent report from The New Teacher Project found that almost all teachers are rated the same. Who in their right mind really believes that? We need to work together to change this …. “It’s time we all admit that just as our testing system is deeply flawed – so is our teacher evaluation system – and the losers are not just the children. When great teachers are unrecognized and unrewarded – when struggling teachers are unsupported -- and when failing teachers are unaddressed – the teaching profession is damaged.” - Secretary of Education Arne Duncan, address to the National Education Association, July 2009

27. 27 © The New Teacher Project 2009 “W “We will integrate Race to the Top (R2T) resources and requirements with our efforts to raise standards and assessments, refine and enhance the use of data and tools, revamp human capital practices, and expand our robust turnaround approach to ensure that an effective teacher is in every classroom and an effective principal leads every school..” Louisiana Phase II Application “The RIDE Strategic Plan is based on the following theory of action: All students will achieve at high levels when we have an effective teacher in every classroom and an effective leader in every school; and Our teachers and school leaders will be most effective when they receive consistent and effective support, and work within a system of policies and resources that is based on student needs.” Rhode Island Phase II Application Race to the Top applications reflect a focus on teacher effectiveness Race to the Top

28. 28 © The New Teacher Project 2009 Secretary Duncan personally advances the cause of reform of teacher evaluation systems and states begin to take action. “Many existing district performance evaluation systems fail to adequately distinguish between effective and ineffective teachers and principals. A recent study of evaluation systems in 3 of the largest Illinois districts found that … 92.6% of teachers were rated ‘superior’ or ‘excellent.’ Performance evaluation systems must assess professional competencies as well as student growth. [They must] contribute to the development of staff and improved student achievement outcomes.” Illinois General Assembly Performance Evaluation Reform Act (SB 315) Passed January 2010 “No area of the teaching profession is more plainly broken today than that of teacher evaluation and professional development... In district after district, more than 95% of teachers are rated as good or superior, even in schools that are chronically under-performing… Worse yet, evaluations typically fail to take any account of a teacher's impact on student learning. As a result, great teachers don't get recognized, don't get rewarded, and don't help their peers grow.” Sec. Arne Duncan NEA Today Action & AFT's American Educator December 2009

29. 29 © The New Teacher Project 2009 So far, 12 states have responded to Race to the Top by passing legislation to improve teacher evaluations and reverse the widget effect. 1 in 4 U.S. students stand to benefit from the changes. DE States passing legislation substantially improving their teacher evaluation systems: CT

30. 30 © The New Teacher Project 2009 In August 2009, just four states required that a teacher’s evaluation be based primarily on student achievement—the most important indicator of a teacher’s impact. Source: NCTQ 2009 State Policy Yearbook. States requiring student achievement to be the “preponderant criteria” in a teacher’s evaluation (2009):

31. 31 © The New Teacher Project 2009 Today, 11 states require that student achievement count for at least 50 percent of teachers’ evaluations. D.C. States submitting R2T applications requiring student growth to make up 50% of a teacher’s evaluation:

32. 32 © The New Teacher Project 2009 In 2009, five states had data firewalls – CA, IN, NV, NY, WI – making it illegal to link student achievement data and teacher evaluations. 1 in 5 teachers could not legally be evaluated on their ability to advance the core mission of our public schools: helping students learn. States prohibiting the use of student data in teacher evolutions (2009):

33. 33 © The New Teacher Project 2009 Today, all firewalls have been eliminated or allowed to expire. 14.3 million students stand to benefit from the changes. States prohibiting the use of student data in teacher evolutions:

34. 34 © The New Teacher Project 2009 Today, 13 states and most of the largest school districts still use outdated, quality-blind rules to make decisions about teacher layoffs. 75% of the 100 largest districts use seniority to determine whether a teacher should be laid off. Source: Teacher Layoffs: Rethinking “Last-Hired, First-Fired” Policies, NCTQ, 2010

35. 35 © The New Teacher Project 2009 But as more and more teacher layoffs become necessary, states and districts are starting to change their rules to make teacher effectiveness a factor. D.C. Indianapolis Rules changed Action pending