New York City’s School Wide Bonus Program Presented by New York City Department of Education & United Federation of Teachers MAY 2009

Getting to Yes What is the rationale for differentiated pay over the traditional pay schedule? –Department & Union views What characteristics make this plan more “do-able” than other alternative compensation systems? Voluntary buy-in (staff and principal) School-wide focus (collaboration, not competition) School-wide focus (data issues) High-need schools (recruitment) Performance measure (progress reports) Compensation committee (rules, composition and process) Appeal process

Performance Measure – Progress Reports Test Scores –Performance –Progress Learning Environment Attendance Targets

Each school received a Progress Report score

Grade and Overall Score Out of 100 points School Environment 15 points Student Performance 25 points Student Progress 60 points Additional Credit Up to 15 points Learning Environment Survey results Student Attendance Student test scores in ELA and Math (median proficiency and % Level 3/4) Student progress on ELA and Math test scores (avg. change and % making progress) Graduation rates (4-year and 6-year graduation rates and weighted diploma weights) Exemplary progress on test scores with high need students Exemplary progress in credit gains with high need students Learning Environment Survey results Student Attendance Credit accumulation Regents completion and pass rates Elementary, Middle, and K-8 Schools High Schools The Progress Report measures results of student learning

Research Characteristics “Treatment” and “control” groups Random selection of schools Two-year pilot Joint selection of evaluator of pilot program

Chronology – Years One and Two Key: red = Year 1; blue = Year 2; * = New for Year 2 October 2007: Memorandum of Understanding Signed by UFT and DOE Year 1 - November – December 2007: Schools invited to participate; orientation sessions held; schools vote to/not participate Year 1 - January 2008: State ELA tests administered Year 1 - March 2008: State math test administered Year 1 - May 2008: On-line program to manage bonus program (“Galaxy”) at each school launched Year 1 - May – June 2008: School Compensation Committees make decisions re bonus pool distribution and submit to UFT and DOE.

Chronology – Years One and Two Key: red = Year 1; blue = Year 2; * = New for Year 2 Year 1 - September 2008: Progress Report grades and bonus program results for elementary, K-8 and middle schools announced Year 2 - September 2008: Program modifications made and expansion deferred; all schools completing requirements for SPBP invited to participate for 08-09; sessions to discuss scope and changes to program; schools vote to/not participate Year 1 - October 2008: Bonus payments awarded to elementary, K – 8 and middle school educators Year 1 - November 2008: Progress Report grades and bonus program results for high schools announced Year 1 - November – December 2008: Bonus payments awarded to high school educators Year 2 - January 2009: State ELA tests administered

Chronology – Years One and Two Key: red = Year 1; blue = Year 2; * = New for Year 2 January 2009: RAND Corporation chosen to evaluate the two-year pilot; survey and analysis to be conducted throughout 2009; final report February 2010 * Year 2 - January – February 2009: Citywide sessions to deepen understanding of Progress Reports and targets * Year 2 - April 2009: On-line program to manage bonus program (“Galaxy”) at each school to be launched; training sessions for compensation committees Year 2 - May 2009: Compensation Committees to make decisions re bonus distribution and submit to UFT and DOE *Year 2 – Late-summer 2009: Interim report from RAND

Chronology – Years One and Two Key: red = Year 1; blue = Year 2; * = New for Year 2 Year 2 - August – September 2009: Progress Report grades and bonus program results for elementary, K-8 and middle schools to be announced Year 2 - September 2009: Bonus payments to be awarded to elementary, K – 8 and middle school educators Year 2 - November 2009: Progress Report grades and bonus program results for high schools to be announced Year 2 - November – December 2009: Bonus payments to be awarded to high school educators * February 2010: RAND Final evaluation for pilot program (years 1 and 2) to be presented.

SWBP Statistics Year-One High-need schools initially randomized: 430 Schools invited to participate: 242 Schools voting to participate: 208 (86%) Schools submitting a bonus distribution formula: 205 (two schools withdrew during the year; one could not agree on a distribution formula) Elementary, K – 8 and middle schools in the program: 160 Elementary, K – 8 and middle schools receiving some level of bonus: 89 (56%) High schools in the program:35 High schools receiving some level of bonus: 31 (89%) Other schools in program (6-12, Transfer, K-2, D75): 10 Other schools receiving some level of bonus: 7 (70%)

SWBP Statistics Year-Two Schools invited to participate: 202 (4 of the 205 schools that completed program in year one closed; one school not in year one was invited to participate) Schools voting to participate: 198 (98%) Percentage of UFT members voting to participate: 89%

Year one bonus distribution Total of all schools receiving some level of bonus: 127 (62%) Approximate total number of UFT members receiving a bonus: 8,310 (approximately 80% teachers) Total bonus payout for elementary, K – 8 and middle schools: $14.2 million Total bonus payout for high schools: $6.5 million Total bonus payout for all schools: $21.9 million Bonus distribution methods –33 schools awarded the same amount of money to everybody –70 schools added individuals to bonus roster, thus reducing payments; usually the differentiation was by title –24 schools eliminated staffers thus increasing payments

Issues and Questions Funding (cost and size) The need for school performance data to determine bonus winners “School-wide” versus individual awards. Should the program be “voluntary” at schools? Is principal agreement needed? How should bonuses be allocated? Is the per member dollar amount in the pool “significant” enough? What, if any, other criteria for awards should be used?

New York City’s School Wide Bonus Program Presented by New York City Department of Education & United Federation of Teachers March 2009