pay for performance programs in arizona cpre conference february 21, 2007 arizona performance based...
TRANSCRIPT
Pay for Performance Programs in Arizona
CPRE Conference
February 21, 2007
• Arizona Performance Based Arizona Performance Based Compensation SystemCompensation System
• Arizona Career Ladder ProgramsArizona Career Ladder Programs
February 21, 2007 2
Performance Based Compensation System
(ARS §15-977)
February 21, 2007 3
Performance Based Compensation System History
Arizona voters passed Proposition 301 in November, 2000
The purpose is to – increase education funding– Implement specific financial and academic
accountability measures
February 21, 2007 4
Performance Based Compensation System Revenues
.5¢ sales tax
The 2000 estimate:
– Generate $445 million each year for 20 years
– About 55 percent of that—or $252 million—will go towards the Classroom Site Fund
February 21, 2007 5
Performance Based Compensation System Classroom Site Fund Monies
2003: $224 million
2004: $232 million
Source: State Auditor General
February 21, 2007 6
Performance Based Compensation System Classroom Site
40 Percent: Performance pay for teachers
20 percent: Base compensation increases
40 percent: menu items (district needs)
February 21, 2007 7
Performance Based Compensation System Unresolved Issues
The law did not define “teacher”
It also did not define the term “performance” or contain any additional guidance
February 21, 2007 8
Performance Based Compensation System Performance Compensation Legislation
SB 1074 passed in 2005 and became effective August 12, 2005
Requires School District Governing Boards to adopt a performance based compensation system
Created the Arizona Performance Based Compensation System Task Force
February 21, 2007 9
Performance Based Compensation System Task Force Duties
Evaluate one-fourth of programs annually
Report on programs’ effectiveness
Offer improvement recommendations
February 21, 2007 10
Performance Based Compensation System Task Force Recommendations
The first set of recommendations were provided in July, 2006:
– Performance Based Assessment must be reflective of comprehensive goal setting at the district, school and classroom level
– Goals should be individually tailored to the situations and needs of each school/district
– Promoting individual student performance should be the direct and primary focus of school/district goal setting
February 21, 2007 11
Performance Based Compensation System Task Force Recommendations
– Districts/schools should select indicators that best reflect
their unique operating environment
– PBC plans should promote continuous improvement by encouraging the development of new skills and knowledge by teachers that are designed to achieve district/school
goals
– Rigorous professional development that is aligned to school/district goals is a vital component to continuous
improvement
February 21, 2007 12
Performance Based Compensation System Task Force Recommendations
– PBC goals should be objective, measurable and timely so that overall performance can be assessed in a transparent way by district, school and community stakeholders
– Systemized data collection and analysis should be a key ingredient in successful PBC plans
– PBC plans should reflect broad-based input in its design, implementation and evaluation as a matter of good practice and accountability
– Each teacher’s performance based compensation should be substantially based on their individual efforts in support if the district/school goals
February 21, 2007 13
Career Ladder Programs(ARS §15-918)
February 21, 2007 14
Arizona Career Ladder Program Purpose
Increased student academic achievement
Teacher recognition and compensation for performance at increasingly higher skill levels
Quality, sustained, job-embedded professional development
February 21, 2007 15
Arizona Career Ladder Program Components
As defined by Arizona Revised Statute §15-918, district Career Ladder Programs must provide for:
Increasingly higher levels of pupil academic progress as measured by objective criteria
Increasingly higher levels of teaching skills
Increasingly higher levels of teacher responsibility
Professional growth
Equal teacher pay for equal teacher performance
February 21, 2007 16
Arizona Career Ladder Program History
1984 Competitive grant planning money available to design a performance based compensation program for teachers
1985 The Arizona legislature created the Arizona Career Ladder Program as a five-year pilot
1990 The Career Ladder Program received “permanent” legislative status
1993 No further expansion is authorized—limiting Career Ladder to 28 districts
February 21, 2007 17
Arizona Career Ladder Program Funding
5.5% of District’s base funding = Career Ladder allocation for that district
District assesses a 22¢ per $100/assessed valuation for local funding
Difference between allocated amount and locally raised funds is paid by state appropriations
February 21, 2007 18
Arizona Career Ladder Program Research/Evaluation
Mary Walton Braver (1989, ASU), (Career Ladder Pilot Project)
Analysis of the impact of the Career Ladder on student academic achievement using a comparison of prior to and following implementation
February 21, 2007 19
Arizona Career Ladder Program Research/Evaluation
Packard and Dereshiwsky (1990)
Positive outcomes were noted for Career Ladder teachers related to: – student achievement – curriculum and instruction and – teacher skills development and leadership
February 21, 2007 20
Arizona Career Ladder Program Research/Evaluation
Datasphere Inc. (1992-93)Results of a survey distributed to
school board members Administrators career ladder teachers, and non-career ladder teachers
concerning the impact of the Career Ladder Program on student progress and achievement
February 21, 2007 21
Arizona Career Ladder Program Research/Evaluation
Sloat (1994)
Comparing student achievement in Career Ladder districts and non-Career Ladder districts:
Career Ladder districts out-performed non-Career Ladder districts in three areas:
1. Drop out rate
2. Graduation rate
3. Standardized and Norm Referenced Tests
February 21, 2007 22
Arizona Career Ladder Program Research/Evaluation
Danzig (1999)
All 28 participating Career Ladder districts are designed with multiple steps and levels, demonstrating a career cycle for teachers with expectations for contributions greater than just “years of experience”
An essential aspect of every district’s plan is the focus on teaching and monitoring of student outcomes
February 21, 2007 23
Arizona Career Ladder Program Research/Evaluation
Sloat (2002)
Comparative study between the 28 Career Ladder districts and similar Non-Career Ladder districts on the Stanford 9 assessment, Grades 2 through 8, Reading, Language, and Mathematics:
– Career Ladder districts out-performed non-Career Ladder districts at every grade level, 2-8, in Reading, Language, and Mathematics as indicated by the median scores.
– Career Ladder districts out-performed non-Career Ladder districts at every grade level, 2nd through 8th, in Reading, Language, and Mathematics as indicated by the mean NCE scores.
– The level of difference indicated was SIGNIFICANT, statistically speaking, at all grade levels and in all subject areas except for 6th grade Reading.
February 21, 2007 24
Arizona Career Ladder Program Research/Evaluation
Dowling, et al (2007)
The Effects of the Career Ladder Program on Student Achievement
Students in Career Ladder schools are performing significantly better on AIMS
measures than did students in non-career ladder schools, even after adjusting for differences in student and school characteristics
The impact of the Career Ladder program seems to be greater in math and reading
Although the statistical methods are different and the measures of student performance are different throughout the studies on Career Ladder, the results continue to be positive.
February 21, 2007 25
Arizona Career Ladder Program Reasons for Success
Districts have the autonomy to design and implement plans aligned with the needs/initiatives of the district yet adhere to statutes
Student achievement is the primary focus
Programs are teacher driven as opposed to state mandated, top-down directives
Over time, Arizona’s Career Ladder districts have maintained the integrity and the intent of the incentive-based programs
All programs must undergo regular evaluation as part of the reapplication process
February 21, 2007 26
Resources/Contacts
Jan AmatorDeputy Associate SuperintendentHighly Qualified Professionals [email protected]
Lisa KelleyEducation Program Specialist for Career [email protected]
Website: http://www.ade.az.gov/asd/CareerLadder/