To add to a previous post discussing how teacher evaluations in New York are going to affect school aid, the Natoinal Governors Association (NGA) has found a growing interest in new models of teacher compensation based on evaluation. As such the NGA hosted a policy academy focused on the issue designed to provide assistance, advice, experts, and networking opportunities with other states.
NGA selected six states, Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Rhode Island, and Tennessee, to participate in the policy academy. Collectively the states came up with several recommendations for state action including:
1) ensuring assessment and data systems are capable of measuring student learning growth, providing estimates of value added, and linking student assessment scores to individual teachers, 2) identifying tools and measures for gauging teacher effectiveness that go beyond student test scores (such as classroom observation, aggregate, schoolwide student learning gains, teacher portfolios, student artifacts, teacher value-added scores, and student growth measures), 3) providing high-level leadership and engaging key stakeholders to develop frameworks, guidelines, and details of new compensation structures, and 4) using reform efforts at the state level in ways that complement one another and maximize other opportunities.
Traditionally, teacher compensation was based on the levels of education being tougher and additional years of experience, and pay-for-performance initiatives are bonus based. However, recently research has shown that although experience matters in student achievement, the impact of experience declines after the first few years of teaching. Also, with a bonus based pay-for-performance compensation model, when budgets are constrained the bonuses are vulnerable to cuts.
Florida started the policy academy with a comprehensive assessment system including measures to determine how much of an impact a teacher has relative to student learning (“value-added” measures). Also, a Florida state statute already requires every teacher and administrator to be evaluated at least once a year, with a focus on performance of the educator’s students. Due to the enactment of the statute Florida has attempted numerous pay-for-performance initiatives, including; A-Plus Education Plan, E-Comp, STAR Program, and MAP Program. All of these programs have ultimately failed.
The policy academy helped Florida to determine why previous programs had failed, and to open a dialogue between lawmakers and educators in hopes of being able to satisfy everyone’s needs. Ultimately the legislature passed Senate Bill 6, which was then vetoed by then Governor Charlie Crist. Bill 6 would have, “eliminated tenure for newly hired teachers, eliminated pay scales based on experience and advanced degrees, and required school districts to establish performance pay for teachers and school leaders.” Despite the veto, many of the components of Bill 6 were included in the state’s Race to the Top grant application to the U.S. Department of Education. Those districts that receive part of the grant agreed to incorporate measures of student learning growth into teacher and principal evaluations.
In 2011, Governor Rick Scott signed Senate Bill 736, which was similar in its accomplishments to Bill 6. Bill 736 ended tenure and replaced the traditional salary schedule with performance pay based on performance evaluations.
Indiana is new to the comprehensive student assessment system, so the policy academy was being used to help the state get started. Indiana leaders wanted to develop a new teacher compensation plan, and to transition the use of a student growth model in the school accountability system. However, Indiana law prohibited principals from using student scores on the state assessments in teacher evaluations.
The policy academy helped Indiana learn more about the Teacher Advancement Program (TAP), and to discuss TAP with Tennessee and Louisiana, two states that have already implemented the program. The state also applied for a Teacher Incentive Fund grant, to support the implementation of the TAP model. State leaders also began to pursue legislative changes and ended up the Senate Bill 1, requiring new, annual teacher evaluations, and Senate Bill 575, which limits collective bargaining and specifies that districts cannot collectively bargain the procedures or criteria for evaluating teachers.
Kansas formed the Teaching in Kansas Commission in 2007, which was designed to focus on a teacher shortage. The commission recommended 59 different things that were grouped into three stages of implementation. The first phase involved teacher training, recruitment, and retention, and was implemented quickly. At the time of the policy academy the state had not yet implemented the second phase, which involved more significant changes related to compensation.
With the state first starting out on its new teacher compensation journey, much of the effect of the policy academy was to open up dialogue among educators, and to conducts surveys determining how individual districts handle performance-based compensation. The state also prepared its federal Race to the Top grant application. Kansas now wants to implement a pay-for-performance pilot, but due to economic condition cannot fund such an undertaking.
The state of Louisiana has developed a Blue Ribbon Commission for Education Excellence. This commission is used to study a problem, produce recommendations, and take policy action. In 2009-2010 the commission announced its area of focus as teacher compensation. The state already has in place a value-added assessment model, and was in the efforts of expanding these measures. Louisiana also has successfully piloted the TAP program in some schools.
Louisiana created the Louisiana Comprehensive Teacher Compensation Framework. The framework includes principles from the TAP model and is meant to guide districts in developing new compensation models. After recommendations by the commission legislative changes were made. Act 54, also known as the Value-Added Bill, changed the way schoolteachers are evaluated. The state department applied for grants to implement these legislative changes. Louisiana received a federal TIF grant.
Rhode Island had previously made efforts to develop a state-wide performance management system for teachers that would include new models of compensation. The goals of the new model include; 1) evaluation based on statewide professional standards for teachers and school leaders, 2) career advancement opportunities for teacher leaders other than moving into school administration, 3) ongoing, job-embedded professional development tied to evaluation, 4) meaningful awarding of tenure and advanced certification, and 5) performance-based compensation.
With help from the policy academy, Rhode Island accomplished many of its goals. The state began to build support from stakeholders and school leaders. The Rhode Island Federation of Teachers received a grant to support the development for a comprehensive teacher evaluation and support system.
Tennessee has a history of creating new models of teacher compensation. The Tennessee General Assembly adopted legislation that required all school districts to submit differentiated pay plans. However, due to budget constraints the schools could not initiate their pay plans. The state was also recognized for its Tennessee Value-Added Assessment System. This system produced estimates of teacher contribution to growth in student learning.
Tennessee received a Race to the Top grant and a statewide TIF grant. The state also initiated the Tennessee First to the Top Act of 2010. This act commits the state to implementing a new annual evaluation system for teachers. At least 50 percent of a teacher’s evaluation must be based on a student achievement.
From the experiences of each of the six states the NGA came up with recommendations for state action. Other states considering new models of teacher compensation should; “Ensure that assessment and data systems are capable of measuring student growth, providing estimates of value added, and linking student assessment scores to individual teachers.” As well as, “identify additional tools and measures for gauging teacher effectiveness that go beyond student test scores; develop teacher evaluations based on multiple measures; and use evaluation results to identify professional development and other supports for improving effectiveness.” State must also “leverage reform efforts at the state level to that they complement one another and maximize other opportunities.”
This post was prepared by Chelsea Keenan Albany Law School ’14