Teacher Incentive Performance Award (TIPA) Mr. Kris Pedersen Interim Associate Superintendent for Student Learning and Accountability December 2, 2009

2 Board Motion The School Board has directed the Superintendent to “make a recommendation to the Board as soon as practical of how to best implement a merit pay plan for instructional leaders and teachers based upon performance with the implementation of the pay plan to begin not later than the beginning of the FY2011 Budget cycle.”

3 Underlying Rationale “The Higher Cost of not Educating Students” 1.Costs to the individual 2.Economic consequence to society 3.Societal consequence …therefore, a target population!

4 Key Research and Findings … “poor and minority children, who have the greatest need for effective teachers, are least likely to get them.” (The Widget Effect, 2009) “The cumulative effects of good teachers are profound.”

5 Internal Transfer Data 16 Elementary Schools Economically Disadvantaged, LEP, and Special Education populations highest collective population Internal transfers of 26 staff/year – average leave Internal transfers of 13 staff/year – average come lowest collective population Internal transfers of 19 staff/year – average leave Internal transfers of 22 staff/year – average come

6 Internal Transfer Data 3 Middle Schools Economically Disadvantaged, LEP, and Special Education populations highest collective population Internal transfers of 12 staff/year – average leave Internal transfers of 3 staff/year – average come lowest collective population Internal transfers of 7 staff/year – average leave Internal transfers of 5 staff/year – average come

7 Broad Participation 274 professional staff of PWCS: more than 400 contact hours Core Team Principal Subject Area Supervisors Accountability Office Classified Staff Evening Stakeholders School Faculty Other staff – Special Education, Finance, Student Services, OSMAP

8 TIPA Framework Option A – Eligibility Criteria Performance Option (recommended) 1.Determine “pool” of eligible schools 2.Rank order schools on aggregated pass rate on SOL assessments (must extend) 3.Set criteria for determining number of schools that would receive award 4.+/Delta Review – Core Team 5.Costs - Tiers

9 TIPA Framework Option B – Challenge Index Performance Option 1.Rank order schools in terms of a Challenge Index 2.Establish performance criterion for SOL assessment content areas (must extend) 3.Identify/award school subgroups that meet exceed criteria 4.+/Delta Review – Core Team 5.Costs - Tiers

10 Where to next?… The Absolute Priorities Incorporate growth indicators Include multiple classroom observations Integrate additional responsibilities and leadership roles – collaborative environment Identify funding source …with periodic Board updates/review

11 Challenges Ahead: Long-term Align organization Provide instructional support Identify/develop policy decisions Make mid-course corrections … a multi-year process

12 Community Training and Assistance Center (CTAC) Concept, theory, and processes - organizational sustainability and buy-in of stakeholders Funding strategies/forecasting Critique possible eligibility requirements, outcome measures, and awards Examine mutually agreed upon ancillary issues Evaluation

13 Evaluation and Deployment Formative vs. Summative Evaluations –Basis for improvement Organizational Sustainability –“done with teachers, not to them” –Students are the primary beneficiaries… everybody gains! –not “merit pay” – “incentive performance award”

14 Conclusion: “The Higher Cost of not Educating Students” It is more than a noble goal to improve the education of at-risk youth. The relationship of income, health, crime and dependence on public assistance to educational attainment is irrefutable, and …therefore, there is a target population!