E&R | Harrison School District Two E&R

Teacher effectiveness makes the most difference in student academic achievement. We can measure the quality of a teacher's instruction and assess over time if he is improving his students' academic proficiency.

While assessing teacher performance can be done fairly and accurately, it requires continual observation, feedback, coaching, and professional development. Improving teacher performance and classroom instruction requires administrators to be instructional leaders and for the school and the district to have an evaluation system that aligns instructional feedback with academic priorities, spot observations, the evaluation instrument, resources, and professional development.

Unfortunately, in our profession, most schools and districts find it difficult to keep instruction the "main thing." According to researchers such as Mike Schmoker, educators do not know what is being taught in the classroom and how well it is being taught.[1] Most principals, burdened with parent phone calls, emails, meetings, and managerial tasks, do not give priority to classroom visits and instructional feedback. As a result, teacher evaluations are too infrequent and often done perfunctorily.

A recent report about teacher effectiveness by the New Teacher Project revealed that less than one percent of all teachers are rated "unsatisfactory" on their evaluations.[2] Poor performing tenured teachers are almost always allowed to continue teaching poorly in the classroom. On the whole, the evaluation system does not accurately assess teacher effectiveness and does very little to improve the quality of instruction.

1] Mike Schmoker, Results Now (Alexandria, Virginia: ASCD, 2006), p. 13.

[2] Daniel Weisberg, Susan Sexton, Jennifer Mulhern, David Keeling, The Widget Effect, Our Nat ional Fai lure to Acknowledge and Act on Differences in Teacher Effectiveness (Brooklyn, N.Y.: The New Teacher Project, 2009), p. 6. The reader can find this report at The New Teacher Project website at www.tntp.org.

The salary schedule

The current teacher salary schedule, used universally in Colorado, adds to the dysfunction. Over time, our profession arrived at a promotion system based not on the evaluation system, but on two simple measures: years of service and hours of college coursework. While these two factors are objective and easy to measure, they are not the best measures of teacher effectiveness.

Because teachers are rewarded based on years of service, advancement with regard to compensation is automatic and made with little regard to teacher performance and student outcomes. In such a system, teacher evaluations have very little meaning apart from removing the one teacher out of a hundred who is the poorest performer. The teacher salary schedule at its core is not designed to promote teacher competency or to support student academic proficiency, but to provide for automatic salary increases and to reward longevity in the system.

We can choose to change this part of our system and really make the compensation system one that supports the goal of raising student proficiency and at the same time base promotion on both the quality of instruction and student outcomes.

Systemic reform

Any significant reform has to be systemic. Changing the teacher salary schedule will likewise need to be systemic. At least five other areas need to be addressed in order to have a teacher compensation system based on teacher effectiveness and student outcomes. Reformed systems would include the following:

1) instructional leaders who understand what good instruction looks like and who are held accountable for improving the quality of instruction,

2) a culture of instructional feedback in which classroom instruction is observed and effective feedback is given regularly and consistently,

3) evaluation instruments that focus on the quality of instruction, differentiates teacher effectiveness, and includes measurable and observable outputs/criteria of teacher effectiveness,

4) a system that collects and analyzes student achievement data and uses that data to improve instruction.

5) a system of support and professional development that helps both administrators and teachers improve instruction.[1]

Any attempt to implement a reformed compensation system without first laying the groundwork for the areas listed above will probably result in teachers feeling that the compensation system is arbitrary or biased. For example, if teachers are not observed regularly and given effective feedback often, they could justifiably argue that the one-time-in-a-year evaluation does not accurately assess their performance.

Also, if the reform is not systemic, school leaders will be unprepared to assess teacher effectiveness or will continue to assess them in a perfunctory way. This could result in a different compensation system that will lead to higher teacher compensation without concomitant increases in teacher effectiveness or student achievement.

1] We could also include systemic curriculum alignment. The school or district should ensure that teachers teach an aligned and guaranteed curriculum. Student achievement will not be attained if even effective teachers are teaching the wrong objectives.

Student outcomes

Educators have been slow to tie teacher effectiveness to measures of student academic achievement because of the difficulty of interpreting student data in a way that provides a level playing field for all teachers. An ineffective teacher who has a class full of students who are already proficient when the school year begins may nevertheless have proficient CSAP scores at the end of the year. At the same time, an effective teacher who teaches significant numbers of non-proficient students may have a harder time reaching similarly proficient scores.

Even longitudinal growth is problematic. In Colorado, it turns out that students who are already proficient "grow" academically more on average than non-proficient students.[1] Non-proficient students have more room to grow, but have more difficultly making academic growth.[2]

The challenges notwithstanding, we know that higher performing teachers get higher student gains. When student achievement scores are disaggregated and teachers with similar student populations are compared (especially those teachers with similar percentages of at-risk students), teachers who demonstrate stronger classroom instruction also demonstrate higher achievement gains. When it comes to student academic growth data in particular, three years of data for the Harrison students show that the quality of instruction greatly determines the amount of student academic growth.

Harrison District is prepared

No other school district in Colorado is as prepared as the Harrison School District to change the teacher compensation system and base teacher compensation on the quality of instruction and student outcomes. After three years of reform, we have demonstrated significant academic improvement and the overall quality of classroom instruction is strong. Harrison teachers' instruction is some of the best anywhere.

The foundation we have laid for improving instruction is the same one that will allow us to change the salary schedule should we choose to do so.

Our building leaders are instructional leaders and accept the challenge of being held accountable for improving the quality of instruction.
- A new principal evaluation instrument was adopted in 2007 and focuses on improving instruction and guiding staff development.
- Principals and assistant principals receive almost 10 days of professional development a year.
  -This includes the principal academies, leadership retreats, and bi-monthly leadership team meetings.
  -Principals in the Harrison School District are well-trained in curriculum alignment, walkthroughs and effective instructional feedback, engagement strategies, effective teacher evaluations, systems thinking, action planning, expanding leadership capacity, and other areas related to instruction or organizational effectiveness.

We have built a culture of instructional feedback, in which feedback is provided regularly to all teachers. Teachers overwhelmingly find that the instructional feedback they receive is helpful.
- Principals conduct spot observations (between 10 and 15 minutes each) of instruction 8 times each semester for probationary teachers and 4 times each semester for non-probationary teachers. Most of these observations are accompanied by conversations and dialogues about instruction.
- In the last district-wide survey taken in February 2009, 73% of classroom teachers said that the instructional feedback they receive "mostly" or "definitely" helps them to improve the quality of their instruction. Another 18% said that the feedback helped "somewhat."

We have revised our administrator and teacher evaluation instruments. They are based on rubrics that provide measurable and observable criteria of teacher and administrator effectiveness. They are also aligned with the District's academic priorities, researched-based practices, instructional feedback forms, and professional development plans.
- The Harrison Teacher Evaluation Instrument is fair and credible. Our teacher evaluations are real - that means that principals and assistant principals provide accurate and honest feedback on the evaluations. In the 2008-2009 school year, approximately 25% of the teachers evaluated did not receive a proficient evaluation.

We have implemented professional learning communities, increased professional development time, aligned building and district action planning, and conducted systemic reviews that have contributed to the process of continuous improvement.

Our teachers understand the importance of student achievement data and use both proficiency and growth data to inform instructional practices.
- Our District has been using a CSAP growth measurement (Real AYP) since 2006. Our Teacher Incentive Fund grant from the U.S. Department of Education rewards schools and individual teachers for Real AYP targets.
- The use of progress monitoring data to improve instruction is central to our PLC meetings and has been part of the District and school action plans since 2006.

While we will continue to see growth in our students' proficiency and achievement if we stay the course, we would increase our effectiveness even more if the teacher compensation system were aligned with the rest of the reform elements. In the long run, we will be able to maximize our effectiveness by tying compensation to teacher performance and student outcomes.

1] I am part of the Technical Advisory Panel that helped design Colorado's longitudinal growth model. Early on, the members of the panel wanted to know if it would be easier for non-proficient students to achieve higher longitudinal growth scores than proficient students thereby putting schools that were already doing well at a disadvantage. We went back to past CSAP scores and ran the proposed model. The data revealed that just the opposite was true: on average, schools with higher "status" or achievement levels on the CSAP also had higher longitudinal growth.

[2] We don't know why this is the case. Most likely, a greater distance to travel toward proficiency does not mean that the pace of growth will be greater. If the obstacles to proficiency - poor academic starting point, limited background knowledge, lack of good instruction, lack of parental support or involvement, etc. - are still extant, then it will be harder for the student to improve relative to the student who does not face these challenges.

The Harrison "E&R" - Effectiveness and Results -- Plan

On 22 October, the Harrison School Board approved moving forward with a plan to change the teacher salary schedule to a compensation system based on teacher performance and "outputs" and student academic outcomes. At the end of five years, the Superintendent, School Board, CDMT, and teacher committee will assess whether the E&R (effectiveness and results) initiative should be dropped or continued.

The E&R plan envisions nine levels or grades for teachers: E&R Scale

Teachers move to the next grade if they meet the criteria for performance and student achievement results. Each succeeding level requires a higher degree of mastery and demonstrated results. For example, a first year teacher need only receive a satisfactory evaluation to advance to the next grade (Progressing I). Advancement to all other grades requires the teacher's students to achieve at a certain level. These achievement results become more rigorous as the teacher attains proficiency and then mastery over the art of teaching. Teachers in non-core subjects must also achieve progress monitoring targets or other performance measurements.

Compensation is significantly higher at each succeeding grade. Years of service play no role in the E&R compensation system. College or continuing education credits play only a small role. They are considered as evidence of "life-long learning," which is part of the criteria for becoming a "Proficient II" or higher-grade teacher.

Tenure

The E&R plan does not change or affect tenure as defined by Colorado law. Teachers will still achieve "non-probationary" status once they begin their fourth year in the District. Probationary teachers who do not meet the District's standards will be non-renewed. Teachers who are not performing at the proficient level according to the District's evaluation rubric will still undergo remediation and, if necessary, removal from the District.

Determination of initial grade and salary[1] for current District employees

Teachers currently in the District will be placed at a grade by their current principal in consultation with district-level administrators. Grade placement will be based on performance (using the teacher evaluation rubric) and multiple measures of student performance, including any available student achievement results. All teachers who will be on the E&R plan in the 2010-2011 school year will receive a summative performance evaluation before 15 April 2010. Initial placements will be made prior to 15 April 2010.

Initial placement in April 2010:

New salary begins in September
Performance evaluation takes into account summative performance over two semesters or at least three academic quarters.
Assessment of student achievement results will take into account multiple measures of student performance and achievement. Student achievement data could include any available Harrison School District student achievement data over the last three years (07-08, 08-09, 09-10).
- The most recent data will be weighted the most heavily.
- Achievement data could include (but is not limited to):
  -CSAP results (if available for the subject area)
  -Common assessments and progress monitoring assessments
  -CBM data
  -Timed SCR data
  -Other student achievement data

Principals may place teachers at Novice, Progressing I, Progressing II, or Proficient I. For the initial placement to Proficient II or higher levels, principals will submit names of teachers who meet the initial performance and achievement criteria by 15 January 2010. The SSL Department will organize Distinguished Evaluation reviews and assess each of those teachers prior to 15 April 2010. Teachers with a current District Distinguished Certification will be placed at Proficient II or higher as determined by the District review.

Teachers will receive the salary listed for their grade beginning in September 2010 (except as noted in the rest of this section). If, however, they are currently making more money than the salary determined for that grade, they will receive the higher amount. Also, for this first time, as the District transitions to the new system, no teacher will be allowed a salary increase over $8,000. The District anticipates that there will be some veteran teachers who will be placed at the Progressing or Proficient I level. At the same time, there will be some teachers with only a few years of experience who will be placed at the Proficient or higher level.

With the exception noted below, all teachers will continue to receive the initial (2010-2011) salary until and unless they are advanced to the next grade. If a teacher is placed at a grade level for which the compensation is lower than what the teacher is currently making, that teacher will receive the higher current salary. A person currently employed in the District will not receive a salary lower than her current salary for as long as she remains in the District.

Determination of initial grade and salary for teachers hired after 1 Jan 2010

New, first-year teachers start at the "Novice" grade. New teachers who have teaching experience may be placed at Novice, Progressing I, Progressing IIa, Progressing IIb, or Proficient I. Placement will be made by HR in collaboration with the principal and with input from the Superintendent and the Department of School Supervision and Leadership (SSL). The Superintendent, with input from HR, may place a new teacher at a higher grade if there is evidence that the teacher has gotten exceptional student-achievement results and is an exemplary teacher. These exceptions will be made on a case-by-case basis.

No appeal of initial placement

Initial placements will be made after a summative evaluation conducted by the principal. As is currently the District practice, these summative evaluations may not be appealed. Staff members who feel that they have been mistreated, discriminated against, or have been adversely affected because of a violation of Board policy may file a grievance in accordance with Board Policy GBK. [See also page 11, which describes the appeal process for summative evaluations that take place after the summative evaluation conducted for initial placement.]

Movement to the next grade

Teacher performance with regard to student achievement data or progress monitoring measures will be recorded and assessed every year. Probationary teachers will be evaluated every year, non-probationary teachers every two years (all teachers still will receive a minimum of eight spot observations). However, in order to move from one level to the next, a teacher must have a current (same-year) summative evaluation and may request an evaluation if he is not scheduled for a summative evaluation that year.

Other criteria are outlined in the student achievement templates in an addendum to this document. These templates outline specific student achievement results needed to be moved to the next level of the E&R scale.

After initial placement, teachers will advance from one grade to the next without skipping a grade. However, there is no minimum number of years that a person must remain at a certain level. The District will make grade movement determinations twice a year. However, a teacher may receive only one summative evaluation each school year, and therefore only has one opportunity for advancement each school year.

Movement in April or May:

New salary begins in September
Performance evaluation takes into account summative performance over two semesters or at least three academic quarters. Teachers may only receive one summative evaluation in any school year.
Student achievement results will be compiled per the academic achievement templates for the subject area and grade level (See appendix A). These data include:
- Last school year's CSAP results (results that are released in July or August of the current school year),
- Common assessments and progress monitoring assessments from the 4^th quarter of the previous year,
- Student achievement data from August through March of the current school year.

Movement in November or December:

New salary begins in February
Performance evaluation takes into account summative performance over two semesters or at least three academic quarters. Teachers may only receive one summative evaluation in any school year.
Student achievement results will be compiled per the academic achievement templates for the subject area and grade level (See Appendix A). These data include:
- Last school year's CSAP results (results that are released in July or August of the current school year),
- Common assessments and progress monitoring assessments from the 2^nd, 3^rd and 4^th quarters of the previous year,
- Student achievement data from August through October of the current school year.

1] Salary is defined as base pay and does not include stipends, bonuses, or other remuneration.

Summary of achievement data considered

For initial placement in April 2010, principals will conduct a performance evaluation using the new teacher evaluation instrument. They will also consider achievement data available over the last three years (see page 7).
Beginning in the 2010-2011 school year, student achievement data for teachers on the E&R plan will be assessed using the achievement templates found in Appendix A of the Harrison E&R Plan.
Achievement data will be considered per the following table:

EvalinfoImage

Movement in exceptional or unique situations

In exceptional situations, the Superintendent after consultation with a review board may adjust upward a teacher's placement on the E&R scale. (The Superintendent will determine the make-up of the review board and convene the board as needed). Adjustment of a teacher's placement on the scale in this manner may be done only once in a teacher's career in the Harrison District.

Movement to a lower level

A teacher whose performance or achievement results falls to a lower level two years in a row will be evaluated the following year. In the following (third) year, if the teacher fails to meet the criteria associated with the level they had previously attained, the teacher will be placed at the next lowest level. The teacher will remain at that lower level for at least one year and will receive the salary commensurate with that level (except that the salary of a teacher currently employed by the District may not be lower than his 2009-2010 salary).

Appeal/Review of summative evaluation

There is no appeal of one's initial placement on the E&R Scale (see page 9). On future E&R evaluations, however, if the performance score and the achievement score differ by more than one level, the District's E&R Review Team will review the teacher's performance, student achievement data, and the principal's process for teacher placement. The District E&R Review Team will comprise members of the SSL Department and Curriculum Department as determined by the Superintendent. The E&R Review Team will make a recommendation of placement to the Superintendent. The Superintendent will make the final determination after considering the recommendation of the Review Team and input from HR.

Transition to the E&R Plan

The 2010-2011 school year shall be a transition year. As such, not all licensed personnel will be placed on the pay-for-performance salary scale in 2010-2011. Counselors, psychologist, social workers, and other itinerant staff will be placed on the pay-for-performance salary scale beginning in the 2011-2012 school year. The Superintendent will determine whether other positions and employees will be placed on the pay-for-performance salary scale in the 2010-2011 school year or the 2011-2012 school year.

Licensed staff members who are not placed on the pay-for-performance salary scale in the 2010-2011 school year will keep their current salary for the 2010-2011 school year, except that the Collaborative Decision Making Team (CDMT) may give these licensed staff members a raise per the 2010-2011 ATU.

E&R indicators of success

This initiative is part of a systemic transformation of the Harrison School District. It is therefore difficult to assess the success of the program in isolation of the other reform initiatives. Nevertheless, the initiative will be deemed successful, if, after five years:

The District's students score at or above the state average (for proficient and advanced scores) in at least half of the 27 CSAP exams.
The District surpasses the state's median longitudinal growth measure (50) on at least 16 of the 21 exams for which longitudinal growth is calculated.
The District improves retention of high quality staff as measured by a 20% decrease in the number of proficient teachers resigning from positions in the District.
The District improves teacher performance as measured by a 20% increase in the number of teachers receiving a proficient evaluation.

Progress on these indicators will be monitored every year.

Approval Process

Per Board Policy GBBA (the Collaborative Decision Making Team), which governs the development of the Agreement of Trust and Understanding, the 2010-2011 ATU will be a new one. The Superintendent and CDMT committee will draft the 2010-2011 ATU. If the School Board approves the new teacher compensation policy, the E&R plan will be included in the 2010-2011 ATU. The CDMT will then follow its normal process for reviewing and making recommendations to the draft ATU. Based on Board Policy GBBA, the ultimate approval of the ATU rests with the School Board.

The District will continue to get input for the E&R initiative throughout the remainder of the 2009-2010 school year. Input from the E&R focus group will continue to be valued and entertained. Other District-level and building-level committees will also help revise and refine the proposal.

Cost

We are in the process of running various scenarios of current teacher placement to be able to accurately gauge the cost of the initiative. 95% of the cost will be due to an initial increase in teacher salaries (since no teacher will lose money to begin, and some teachers will receive more than what they were earning). Over time, the poorer performing teachers may eventually be earning less than what they would have earned on the old salary schedule. It is likely, however, that even more teachers will gain expertise in the delivery of quality instruction and earn more than they would have on the old salary schedule. Our preliminary estimate is that this initiative will cost close to one million dollars a year over what we are currently spending on salaries.

The E&R plan represents a paradigm shift that has the potential to transform even further the operations of our system and help increase student academic proficiency. We need to continue to invest in innovation, and we will seek ways to cut costs and reorder priorities in order to support the E&R plan. The District will develop a budget to fund the E&R plan without additional financial support from the State or from grants. This will ensure that the plan will be able to be sustained over the long haul.

Still, we believe the E&R plan will receive grant funding. The E&R plan concepts fit well with the Department of Education's i3 (innovation in schools) grants and the Race to the Top grant.

Other details

After five years, should the District fail to meet the indicators and the School Board choose to revert back to a salary schedule, teachers still employed in the District will be compensated according to the 2009-2010 salary schedule adjusted for inflation. Teachers will receive years of service for the number of years they were employed in the district including the years they worked under the E&R program.

The salaries for each level may be adjusted for inflation for the start of the 2011-2012 school year. The next regular adjustment of the salary levels will be in 2014-2015. The School Board may choose to adjust salary levels earlier or choose to leave salary levels the same, but adjust the benefits package. Per the CDMT policy, the CDMT will assist in determining adjustments to salaries and benefits.

The District may adjust the criteria for each grade at the end of each school year to take into account changes to Colorado's assessments, standards, policies, laws, or financial situation.

Proficient II and higher teachers should expect to be transferred to schools that require more skilled teachers. The minority of these higher level teachers will be transferred, as the District will not want to penalize a school that has worked hard to develop a highly effective team of teachers. Still, some higher level teachers may be transferred to support a struggling school.

"Master" teachers must first receive national board certification or spend one or two semesters in a Harrison-designated exchange program with a rural district.

There is no "quota" for the percentage of teachers who can be at each level.

A teacher's overall rating is a combination of the "performance" rating and the "student achievement" rating.
It is calculated as follows:
- Unsat* and Unsat* = Unsat
- Unsat* and Prog. I = Prog. I
- Unsat* and Prog. II+ = Prog. I
- Prog. I and Prog. I = Prog. I
- Prog. I and Prog. II+ = Prog. II
- Prog. II and Prog. II = Prog. II
- Prog. II and Prof. I+ = Prog. IIb*
- Prof. I and Prof. I = Prof. I
- Prof. I and Prof. II+ = Prof. I
- Prof. II and Prof. II+ = Eligible for Dist. Eval.
Unsatisfactory on performance will result in an overall unsatisfactory evaluation.
A combined score that is greater than "Proficient I" makes the licensed professional eligible for Part III: Distinguished Evaluation.
Prog. IIb is compensated on the pay scale at $44,000.
Except as noted above (Prog. IIb*), Prog. II is compensated on the pay scale at the Prog. IIa level (i.e., $40,000).

If the employee is not eligible for a "Distinguished Evaluation," make the overall summative rating below. If the employee is eligible for a Distinguished Evaluation, move to Part III.

Addendum 2 - Draft Achievement Templates

Draft achievement templates will be available by the end of February 2010.