Julia E. KoppichJulia E. KoppichJulia E. KoppichJulia E. KoppichJ. Koppich & AssociatesJ. Koppich & AssociatesJ. Koppich & AssociatesJ. Koppich & Associates

PACE/FCF SeminarPACE/FCF SeminarPACE/FCF SeminarPACE/FCF Seminar————September 2009September 2009September 2009September 2009

�New models of teacher pay

� Some of the things to consider as you prepare your proposals and implement your plansplans

� Federally funded program begun in 2006

� Funded at $99m annually through 2009

� In 2010 budget, could be funded as high as $446m

� Competitive grant process for states and districts

� Program goals: 1) improve student achievement by � Program goals: 1) improve student achievement by improving principal and teacher effectiveness, and 2) increase the number of effective teachers in hard-to-staff schools

� RFP to be released soon

� Nationwide program funded by participating districts

� Launched in 1999 by Milken Foundation; now part of National Institute for Excellence in Education

� Organized around 4 elements:

1. Multiple career paths (career teacher, master and mentor teachers)

2. Ongoing professional growth

3. Accountability through evaluation

4. Performance-based compensation

� State program begun in 2006

� Funded as line item in state budget

� Districts that choose to participate receive $260/student

� To be considered for funding, plan must include:� To be considered for funding, plan must include:

1. Teacher career ladder

2. Job-embedded professional development

3. Standards-based evaluation system

4. Performance pay

5. New alternative salary schedule

� 3 state programs begun in 2006

� All 3 programs target low-performing schools

� Designed to create school capacity to improve instruction and reward teachers who increase student learning

� Programs funded by the state

� State also provides extensive technical assistance for districts interested in participating

�District level program begun in 2004�Cooperative effort of Denver Public Schools and Denver Classroom Teachers Association

�Designed to link teacher pay to district mission and attract/retain high quality teachers in DPSmission and attract/retain high quality teachers in DPS

� Teachers paid on the basis of:1) knowledge and skills; 2) teaching in hard-to-staff school and subjects; 3) good evaluations;4)improved student scores on Colorado’s standardized test

�Depending on option, payments range from $400/year-$2,500/year

�All ProComp payments pensionable

� Teachers hired after 1/06 must be in ProCompProComp

� Program funded by voter-approved local property tax

�Money set aside in trust jointly administered by district and union

� District level plan� Cooperative effort of Toledo Public Schools and Toledo Federation of Teachers

� Goals to align teacher compensation with with more effective teaching, improved student achievement, and increased retention of achievement, and increased retention of teachers

� 3 tier plan: Tiers 1 and 2 funded by district; Tier 3 by TIF:1. TRACS A (Tier 1) based on teacher professional development and improving student achievement; worth 5% above base pay

2. TRACS B (Tier 3) for groups of teachers who meet or exceed pre-established achievement goals as measured by scores on Ohio’s standardized test; worth 10% above base pay

3. TRACS C (Tier 3) has built-in career ladder: a) Career Teacher; b) Accomplished Teacher; c) Career Teacher; b) Accomplished Teacher; c) Distinguished Teacher (must agree to teach in low-performing school for at least 3 years)

�All TRACS C levels have different kinds of responsibilities; TRACS C is worth 15% above base pay

� District level program begun in 2007

� Cooperative agreement between the NYC DOE and the United Federation of Teachers

� Participating schools must be designated “high need” and have approval of 55% of school faculty

� $3,000 per teacher group performance awards to schools that show growth on NY’s standardized test

� Money distributed by school-based Compensation Committee: 2 teachers, the principal, 1 principal designee

� Began in 2002; now part of Q Comp

� Cooperative effort between the Minneapolis Public Schools and Minneapolis Federation of Teachers

� Plan focuses heavily on professional development

� Money earned for implementing professional � Money earned for implementing professional development plans linked to improving student achievement; earning NBC; maintaining professional portfolio for review; acquiring specialization in area of district need; taking on new professional responsibilities

� District level program begun in 2007

� Cooperative effort of MCPS and MCEA

� Designed to provide “stages” in a teacher’s career:

1. Induction—novice teachers—in PAR program

2. Skillful Teaching—tenured teachers who 2. Skillful Teaching—tenured teachers who demonstrate effectiveness in classroom

3. Lead teachers—competitive process for new responsibilities; receive bonuses

� Paid for through district funds

� District level program funded by parcel tax (2008)

� Cooperative effort of the SFUSD and the UESF

� Program will: 1) raise beginning teachers’ salaries to nearly $50,000 per year; 2) raise all teachers salaries by $4,000-$6,000; 3) provide teachers in hard-to-staff schools ($2,000) and subjects hard-to-staff schools ($2,000) and subjects ($1,000);4)give one-time bonus of $2,500 and $3,000 after 4th and 8th years to stem attrition; 5) add 50 master teachers for $2,500 a year; 6) increase the number of PAR coaches; 7) give 20 schools that make the most progress a block grant of $30,000

DistrictDistrictDistrictDistrict K & SK & SK & SK & S HardHardHardHard----totototo----staffstaffstaffstaff

ResponsiResponsiResponsiResponsibilitybilitybilitybility

StudentStudentStudentStudentlearninglearninglearninglearning

Denver Yes Yes Yes

Minneap. Yes Yes

Minn. Yes Yes Yes Yes

MC YesMC Yes

NYC Yes

SF Yes Yes

TAP Yes Yes Yes

Texas Yes Yes Yes

Toledo Yes Yes Yes Yes

�Any new teacher pay plan will be controversial

�There is no single or “right” way to structure teacher compensation

� Selecting appropriate salary incentives � Selecting appropriate salary incentives depends on:1. Determining what you want to accomplish

2. Deciding on the best means to accomplish your aims

� 1. Reward teaching practices that lead to increased student learning—Knowledge and skills

� 2. Attract and retain teachers in high-need schools and subjects or grades—Market incentives

� 3. Improve student achievement

� 4. Create new teacher career structures—Responsibility pay

� Assemble a representative compensation committee

� Who should be on it?

1. Superintendent

2. Teacher union/association representatives2. Teacher union/association representatives

3. Principal(s)

4. Central office personnel ???

5. School board member ???

6. Community/business representatives ???

� Agree on what the plan should accomplish

� Assess your (the district’s) organizational capacity

� Decide if the plan is mandatory or voluntary

� Design a communication plan

� Determine a timeline for the work� Determine a timeline for the work

� Develop a working knowledge of other pay plans and experiences with new forms of pay

� Based on objective criteria

� Understandable

� Rewards are attainable

� Feasible (capacity)

� Affordable� Affordable

� Sustainable

� Regularly “take the temperature” of teachers and others (survey? focus groups?)

� Develop a feedback loop so you can make mid-course corrections

� Develop an evaluation plan up front

1. Formative evaluation for first 2-3 years of program

2. Summative evaluation after 3-5 years

� Be clear about the purpose(s) of the new pay plan

� Involve teachers at the outset

� Include multiple options for teachers to earn incentive pay

� There’s no such thing as too much planning� There’s no such thing as too much planning

� Integrate the pay program with the district’s overall education improvement plan

� Communicate frequently, in multiple formats, and to multiple audiences