You are on page 1of 13

APPENDIX A: HOW SCHOOL DISTRICTS IN CO EVALUATE TEACHERS Eagle County School District  Implemented a pilot pay-for-performance

program in 2002. By 2004, it was district-wide.  Teachers' salaries are based on experience and skills, but they earn bonuses based on performance. The bonuses are allocated based on two criteria: (1) annual classroom evaluations (50%) o Rated on a 5-point scale (1-low, 5-high). As ratings increase, so do bonuses. o 60% principal evaluation, 35% master teacher evaluation, and 5% self-reflection. (2) student achievement growth (50%), including – o District's Index which discerns student achievement growth, based on district-wide ACT and CSAP scores, and building-wide CSAP scores. o NWEA (Northwest Evaluation Association) scores.  Teachers also receive bonuses for working in high-poverty schools.  Implemented a “Superstar Teacher” award. Teachers can earn $5,000 or $10,000 bonuses for portfolios based on National Board Certification guidelines.  Based on performance review, teachers are placed into Professional Development Clusters which meet for a minimum of 70 minutes per week. Both Mentor and Master Teachers lead these groups. Harrison School District  In 2009 approved Effectiveness & Results (E&R) Initiative; requires teachers' salaries to reflect two factors – (1) Teacher Performance and (2) Student Achievement Data. (1) Teacher Performance – o Components for determining performance  Professional Growth Plan with Goal Setting  Spot Observations – Brief informal observations.  Informal Observations – Longer unscheduled observations.  Formal Observations – at least 1/year for Non-Probationary Teachers (those who have taught for more than 3 years) and at least 2/year for Probationary Teachers (those who are still in their first 3 years of teaching).  The Written Summative Evaluation – summarizing the above components.  (2) Student Achievement Data – CSAP results, CMB data, timed SCR data, and students' grades. Each of these sources has a rubric.

 

The rubrics are aggregated out of 48 points. Years of service will not be a determinative factor except for teachers who have already

been in the district. No teachers will receive less than the amount they were making at the time of program implementation for the remainder of their tenures. Continuing education will still be a small factor.

Denver Public Schools Aligning DPS Teacher Performance Systems  A comprehensive teacher evaluation system that effectively articulates a teacher’s performance, beyond the current Satisfactory / Unsatisfactory ratings provided today. o Based upon an agreed upon definition of effective teaching and grounded in student achievement results. o Multiple measures of effectiveness  student achievement data  student perceptions  frequent observations of teacher performance by supervisors and by peers. o Revised evaluation scale to enable a more differentiated performance management system. o Measures within the evaluation will be at the core of ongoing conversations around student achievement and professional development.  Professional Development tied to the information captured within the teacher evaluation o PD driven by formative and summative student achievement data and skill gaps identified through observations and student feedback o Focus on improving performance of teachers against the effectiveness measures within the evaluation as measured by student growth o PD provided by Teacher Effectiveness Coaches and largely job embedded  The performance elements of teacher compensation linked more directly to student achievement. o Compensation for (Professional Development Units) PDUs tied to demonstration of improved effectiveness o Compensation for achieving a Satisfactory evaluation and for meeting Student Growth Objectives (SGOs) – classroom level goals each DPS teachers sets around student growth – reflects the ability of a teacher to drive student achievement.  Implemented ProComp, a multiple-indicator, incentive-based, pay program, in 2005. It was voluntary for already working teachers but mandatory for all new hires since January 2006. Indicator Professional Development Units Advanced Degrees and Licensures Tuition and Student Loan Reimbursement Probationary Teacher Evaluation Non-Probationary Teacher Evaluation Working in a Hard to Description Incentive for one completed unit per year. Additional units banked for future incentives Compensation for Graduate Degree or Advanced Licenses and Certificates Tuition reimbursement for approved line of coursework or for outstanding student loans Incentive for Satisfactory evaluation. Teachers are evaluated as “Satisfactory” or “Unsatisfactory.” Incentive for Satisfactory evaluation. Teachers are evaluated as “Satisfactory” or “Unsatisfactory.” Schools with high percentage of students on free- or Approximate Incentive $751 per year $3,380 per degree every 3 years $1,000 per year Max. $4,000. $376 per year $1,127 every 3 years $2,403 per year

Indicator Serve School Working in a Hard to Staff Assignment Student Growth Objectives Exceeding CSAP Expectations

Description reduced-lunch: 73 schools 09-10. Teaching roles with high vacancy rate and turnover: Math, ELA-S, SPED, MAST, Other Student Services Incentive for meeting student growth objectives Available only to 4th through 10th grade Math and Language Arts teachers. Teacher must see at least 50 percent of an eligible class attain the 55th percentile or higher for statewide student growth using Colorado's Student Growth Indicator. Schools receive designation based on School Performance Framework at district level Schools receive designation based on School Performance Framework at district level

Approximate Incentive $2,403 per year $376 per year $2,403 per year

Top Performing Schools High Growth Schools

$2,403 per year $2,403 per year

Effectiveness of ProComp 2005-2006 school year through June 2009: o Graduation – increased – 46.8% to 52%. o Reading Proficiency – increased – 43% to 47%. o Writing Proficiency – increased – 30% to 36%. o Math Proficiency – increased – 36% to 37%.

Douglas County School District  Differentiated and Weighted Tool o Student Learning Focus o Leadership Focus o Staff Focus o Stakeholder Focus o Process Management  21 Professional Indicators  Aligned to Curriculum and Instruction  Aligned to Robust Professional Development  Potential Career Ladder and develop teacher leaders  Inform Employment and Tenure decisions  Multiple measures of Teacher Effectiveness  Multiple measures of student growth and achievement

APPENDIX B: Measuring Student Growth in Untested Grades and Untested Subjects Harrison School District  Considers Student Grades and Teachers' Progress Reports for each student  Common Assessment and Progress Monitoring Assessments - Teachers in non-core subjects must also achieve progress monitoring targets or other performance measurements. Teachers must develop goals at the beginning of the year which are tied to district-approved assessments. These are graded according to a rubric.  Individual Student Achievement – Developed and monitored by individual teachers.  Assessments include: CSAP, common school- and district-assessments and progress monitoring, curriculum based measures (CBM), Timed SCR, other student achievement data  Teachers can decide what form of growth they want to count for student achievement. For example, a teacher can choose to have overall CSAP scores counted—what percentage were proficient/advanced—or growth scores as per the Colorado Growth model. These are chosen at the beginning of the year.  Each performance review has 8 sections for a total of 48 points. For example, one area looks at schoolwide results, rather than a single class, and other areas consider “academic peer groups,” where students in a class are compared to other students with similar academic progress. Eagle County  Because only 30% of teachers were eligible for individual payouts for student achievement gains, Eagle County adopted a “team approach” to bonuses. Bonuses are allocated on a schoolwide level based on analysis of all students’ scores in the building. Philosophy behind this is partially that all subject areas can impact math, reading, and writing performance, so all teachers should be rewarded for success of the school. Adams County District 14  Group bonuses for teachers, similar to Eagle County. Based on growth of all students in the school.  Matrix structured so that all teachers have opportunity to receive most bonuses; however, only 30% of teachers are eligible for specific CSAP-related bonuses—an acknowledged drawback to the current plan.  All participating teachers, no matter the subject area, set two growth objectives per year (with administrator approval) which are tied to curriculum and district-approved assessments. Performance pay is allocated based on meeting one or both objectives.

Weld County RE-8 (Ft. Lupton)  Bonuses allocated on a school-wide basis for improvement on CSAP in tested subjects grades 3-10. Schools whose growth percentiles meet or exceeded the 50th percentile, placing them in either of the Higher Growth categories on a CSAP test, will receive incremental bonuses based on their growth percentile score. The formula: add a zero to the school’s median percentile to calculate the bonus amount. If the school’s median

percentile is 50, the bonus would be $500 for each teacher in the school. A percentile of 51 would receive a $510 bonus, etc. For teachers in other content areas, can receive bonuses based on school-wide improvement OR by one of 3 “Voluntary Incentive Paths”: a. Performing action research related to student achievement--$250 for research, $750 more if research led to successful completion of a goal b. Teacher sets student assessment target in relation to a district-approved assessment—a prediction at beginning of year, made public, both prediction and results. If target is met, $1,000 bonus. c. Target related to school or district improvement plan—eg attendance. $1,000 if met. Has created task forces to address the following issues: Student Achievement Measures
(SAM), Non-core Teacher Incentives, Quarterly Progress Reviews, Other Activities for Compensation

Denver Public Schools  School Performance Framework – Developed at district level to monitor growth in student learning outcomes.

APPENDIX C: Impact of Effective Teachers Within the same schools, individual teachers generate profoundly different learning gains, even among students with similar prior test scores and demographic characteristics. Such research is often referred to as “value-added” analysis, since it attempts to measure differences in outcomes among students with similar baseline performance and characteristics. There is growing evidence that value-added scores better predict future student achievement than evaluations, qualifications, and experience. The observed range of teacher effectiveness is striking. In elementary and middle school, assigning a teacher in the top quartile rather than a teacher in the bottom quartile means that the average student in the class moves 6-10 percentile points further in a single year.1 This differential is 20-25 percent of the racial achievement gap. The magnitude of the difference has been similar in the studies based on random assignment. Although state governments have typically attempted to regulate teacher quality by setting minimum qualifications, researchers have typically found little or no link between teacher qualifications and teacher effectiveness.2 While four decades of research3 by scores of academics has failed to quell debate on optimal policy for reform of the American public school system, one aspect of the school-reform debate has remained remarkably consistent: the supreme importance of teacher performance as compared to all other controllable variables: “… We conclude that the most significant component is heterogeneity among teachers. Even if teachers were randomly distributed among schools … and all of the between school variation in achievement were to result from other school inputs … differences in teacher quality would swamp all other school inputs. The lower bound estimates suggest that differences in teacher quality explain at least 7.5 percent of the total variation in measured achievement gains, and probably much more.” 4P. 32 While factors like class size, heterogeneous vs. homogeneous class groupings, and curriculum are surely relevant to the discussion of school policy reform, data from the academic literature5 has over and over again shown that the single most important factor controlling a student’s performance in schools is the quality of their teacher: …The results show large differences among schools in their impact on student achievement. These differences are centered on the differential impact of teachers, rather than the overall school organization, leadership, or even financial conditio… All of this suggest that policy initiatives must

Gordon, Robert, Thomas J. Kane and Douglas O. Staiger, “Identifying Effective Teachers Using Performance on the Job.” Hamilton Project Discussion Paper, March 2006. 2 Ibid 3 The question of how significantly schools (and teachers) impact student performance was first analyzed by James Coleman with his provocative (and still controversial) paper, “Equality of Educational Opportunity,” better known as “The Coleman Report,” in 1966.

Hanushek, Rivkin, and Kain. 1998. “ Teachers, Schools, and Academic Achievement.” National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper no. 6691, p. 32.

reflect the substantial heterogeneity of teachers be it differences in effort or skill, if they are to have a significant purpose.6 Put succinctly, if we are to attempt to improve the quality of our school system in the state of Colorado, it is absolutely imperative that our reform efforts focuses above all else on the quality of teachers in our schools.


Ibid, p. 5

APPENDIX D: High-Performing Schools Serving Students from Low-Income Families George Hall Elementary School (Alabama)  Located in one of the poorest parts of Mobile, Alabama.  95% of students meeting grade-level standards in reading and math. North Goodwin Elementary School (Michigan)  Located in Grand Rapids, MI—severely affected by collapse of automobile industry.  Almost all students meet or exceed state standards.  “Teacher selection, induction, and evaluation are driving the school’s improvement. As former principal Arelis Díaz says, “We know we have to put the best people before our kids.” Today, Díaz is working at the district level to “scale up” the success she led at North Godwin.” Parks Middle School (Georgia)  Atlanta, Georgia  In 2006, only 44 percent of the school’s African-American sixth-graders met state math standards; this year 88 percent met them.  “We build the support,” Waller (principal) says of his approach.” Imperial High School (California)  Located a few miles from the Mexican border, 70 percent of Imperial High School’s students are Latino, many with parents who did not graduate from high school.  And yet it has built a college-going culture where almost all students graduate on time and enroll in postsecondary education.  About 20 to 25 percent of Imperial’s students go to a four-year college as soon as they graduate from Imperial, and another 70 percent go to a community college, most of them planning to transfer to a four-year college.  Although national statistics show that transfers from two-year to four-year colleges are not routine, Imperial students transfer with increasing frequency. Community College president said that 75 percent of Imperial High School students arrive at his school ready for college work and do not need any remedial classes—a far higher percentage than for any other high school in the valley.

APPENDIX E: TNTP Recommendations

APPENDIX F: Estimated Numbers of Teachers Directly Placed in School Districts District 2007-08 Jefferson Cnty 15 Denver 170 Douglas Cnty 7 Cherry Creek 1 Adams Five-Star 17 Aurora 2 Totals 212 *Source: Ed News Colorado 2008-09 19 100 43 4 5 9 180 2009-10 29 107 47 2 20 11 216 Totals 63 377 97 7 42 22 608

Denver Direct Placement - 3yr totals Non-probationary DPS teachers 2007-08 First-time direct placements 170 2-year - nonconsecutive 2-year - consecutive 3-year - consecutive Totals 170 *Source: Ed News Colorado

2008-09 77 23 100

2009-10 81 14 7 5 107

3-year totals 328 14 30 5 377

APPENDIX G: Direct Placement Statute Direct placement 1 - ILCS 5/34-8.1 – For Cities over 500,000 The principal shall submit recommendations to the general superintendent concerning the appointment, dismissal, retention, promotion, and assignment of all personnel assigned to the attendance center; provided, that from and after September 1, 1989: (i) if any vacancy occurs in a position at the attendance center or if an additional or new position is created at the attendance center, that position shall be filled by appointment made by the principal in accordance with procedures established and provided by the Board whenever the majority of the duties included in that position are to be performed at the attendance center which is under the principal's supervision, and each such appointment so made by the principal shall be made and based upon merit and ability to perform in that position without regard to seniority or length of service, provided, that such appointments shall be subject to the Board's desegregation obligations, including but not limited to the Consent Decree and Desegregation Plan in U.S. v. Chicago Board of Education; (ii) the principal shall submit recommendations based upon merit and ability to perform in the particular position, without regard to seniority or length of service, to the general superintendent concerning the appointment of any teacher, teacher aide, counselor, clerk, hall guard, security guard and any other personnel which is to be made by the general superintendent whenever less than a majority of the duties of that teacher, teacher aide, counselor, clerk, hall guard, and security guard and any other personnel are to be performed at the attendance center which is under the principal's supervision; Direct Placement 2 - 105 ILCS 5/34-84 – For cities over 500,000 Describes conditions for layoffs, and clarifies that principals retain authority for the school to make appointments. 31. To promulgate rules establishing procedures governing the layoff or reduction in force of employees and the recall of such employees, including, but not limited to, criteria for such layoffs, reductions in force or recall rights of such employees and the weight to be given to any particular criterion. Such criteria shall take into account factors including, but not be limited to, qualifications, certifications, experience, performance ratings or evaluations, and any other factors relating to an employee's job performance; Direct Placement 3 - 105 ILCS 5/34-18, subsection 31 – For cities over 500,000 Gives the board authority to determine when tenured teachers can be laid off, and authority to determine the process by which such layoffs happen. Note, however, that principals retain teacher appointment authority (Mutual Consent) under this scheme. The school principal shall make the decision in selecting teachers to fill new and vacant positions consistent with Section 34-8.1. The School Code does not exempt tenured teachers from layoff. Land v. Board of Educ. of City of Chicago, 2002, 269 Ill.Dec. 452, 202 Ill.2d 414, 781 N.E.2d 249. Schools 147.6 Genuine issues of material fact as to whether tenured public school teacher obtained a teaching position, as was required to avoid being laid off, precluded summary judgment in favor of board of education in action seeking a writ of mandamus ordering board to reinstate teacher, a permanent injunction restraining board from terminating his employment, and a declaratory judgment invalidating the board's layoff policy as violative of teacher's statutory tenure rights. Land v. Board of Educ. of City of Chicago, App. 1 Dist.2001, 259 Ill.Dec. 49, 325 Ill.App.3d 294,

757 N.E.2d 912, rehearing denied , appeal allowed 262 Ill.Dec. 620, 198 Ill.2d 593, 766 N.E.2d 240, affirmed in part , reversed in part 269 Ill.Dec. 452, 202 Ill.2d 414, 781 N.E.2d 249. Judgment 181(27)

The scheme is discussed in Land v. Bd. of Educ. of Chi., 757 N.E.2d 912 (Ill. App. Ct. 2001), rehearing denied, appeal allowed 262 Ill.Dec. 620, 198 Ill.2d 593, 766 N.E.2d 240, affirmed in part, reversed in part 269 Ill.Dec. 452, 202 Ill.2d 414, 781 N.E.2d 249 (where teacher's position was eliminated pursuant to reduction in force, teacher needed to find another teaching position to avoid being laid off).