1. What Works? What Doesn’t? Overview of Teacher Compensation: What Works? What Doesn’t? James H. Stronge College of William and Mary Williamsburg, Virginia

2. Teacher Pay and Teacher Quality: What’s the Connection? Attract Develop Retain Student Achievement Quality Teachers

3. Qualities of Effective Teachers EFFECTIVE TEACHERS Prerequisites Organizing for Instruction Classroom Management & Instruction Implementing Instruction Monitoring Student Progress & Potential The Person Job Responsibilities and Practices Used with the Permission of Linda Hutchinson, Doctoral Student, The College of William and Mary Background

4. Performance-Based Pay Teachers are awarded bonuses, either individually or collectively, based on student progress Teachers receive bonus based on specified district, school, or teacher- based goals Models use student growth or value- added approach, focusing on student growth rather than criterion-based performance

5. Performance-based Pay: Does it work? Focuses on an outcome of education – increased student achievement –Research supports that highly effective teachers impact student achievement (See for example, Wright, Horn, & Sanders, 1997) –School-based pay for performance can be effective (See for example, Cooper & Cohn, 1999; Dee & Keys, 2004; Ladd, 1999)

6. Performance-Based Pay Advantages/Disadvantages Advantages Focuses on outcomes of education Promotes monitoring student progress Allows recognition of outstanding teachers Focuses on student growth Disadvantages Determining valid and reliable assessments Too much testing Teachers focus on tested material and activities only Using quotas promotes competition rather than collaboration

7. Support for Performance-Based Pay Houston Independent Schools –Student achievement increased during implementation of performance-based pay –When teachers received bonuses there was a positive impact on future students’ growth –Teachers who had a less positive influence on student growth and did not receive awards were more likely to leave the district –Teachers who had more of a positive influence on student growth and received awards were likely to stay White and Lendro (2010)

8. Support for Performance-Based Pay Evaluation of Achievement Challenge Pilot Project in Little Rock, AR –Students whose teachers were eligible for the bonuses outperformed other students in math by nearly seven percentile points, in language by nearly nine percentile points, and in reading by nearly six percentile points –Teachers in the performance pay schools reported being more satisfied with their salaries than teachers in non-participating schools Ritter et al. (2008)

9. Mixed Results for Performance-Based Pay Dallas Incentive Program –Collective incentive program in which all faculty and staff in top performing schools received a bonus –Positive and relatively large gains for Hispanic and White seventh grade students compared to other cities –Similar effect not noted for African-American students Ladd, H. (1999)

10. Teacher Effects and Student Achievement Chicago Public Schools –Biggest impact of a higher quality teacher, relative to the mean gain of that group, was among African American students –A one standard deviation, one semester increase in teacher quality raises ninth- grade test score performance by 0.20 grade equivalents (23% of the average annual gain) for African American students and 0.13 grade equivalents (11% of the average annual gain) for Hispanic students –Aaronson, Barrow, & Sander (2007)

11. Teacher Effects and Student Achievement Los Angeles Study “…if all black students were assigned to four highly effective teachers in a row, this would be sufficient to close the average black-white achievement gap” - Haycock & Crawford (2008), pg. 15

12. Non-Supportive Results for Performance-Based Pay Nashville Tennessee Financial Incentives –Incentives had no effect on the test scores overall –Teachers who participated in the study generally favored increased pay for better teachers in principle –Researchers did not believe that the teachers of students who qualified for the bonuses were actually better teachers Springer et al. (2010)

13. Pay and Student Achievement: Research Results Higher pay increases student achievement A relationship exists between student achievement and teacher pay (See for example, Cooper & Cohn, 1999; Dee & Keys, 2004; Harris & Sass, 2007; Ladd, 1999 ; Loeb & Page, 2000) Higher pay does not result in increased student achievement A relationship between student achievement and teacher pay does not exist or is minimal (See for example, Hanushek & Rivkin, 2007; Ladd, 1999)

15. Date here VIRGINIA Performance Pay Pilot 2011 – 12

16. Date here History of Performance-Pay Pilot SIG Schools SIG schools invited to participate in pilot SIG schools awards funded through School Improvement Grant Federal Funds Up to $3,000 bonus Hard-to-Staff Schools Gov. McDonnell invited hard-to-staff schools to participate in Performance Pay Pilot The Virginia General Assembly approved $3 million in incentives for Hard-to-Staff Schools Up to $5,000 bonus for qualifying teachers

17. Date here Requirements of the Pilot Implementation of the 2011 Guidelines for Uniform Performance Standards and Evaluation Criteria for Teachers Forty percent of total teacher evaluation based on student progress Implementation of the 2011 Guidelines for Uniform Performance Standards and Evaluation Criteria for Teachers Forty percent of total teacher evaluation based on student progress

18. Date here What are the Methods to Use for Connecting Teacher Performance to Academic Progress? Student learning, as determined by multiple measures of student academic progress, accounts for a total of 40 percent of the evaluation. Student learning, as determined by multiple measures of student academic progress, accounts for a total of 40 percent of the evaluation. Teachers% of Evaluation Based on Student Growth Percentiles (SGPs) % of Evaluation Based on Other Student Academic Progress Measures Reading and Math for whom SGPs are available 20 Support reading and math for whom SGPs are available No more than 2020 to 40 No direct or indirect role in teaching reading or mathematics in grades where SGPs are available N/A40

19. Date here SGP High growth > 50% Moderate growth > 40% Low growth < 10% High and/or moderate growth > 80% Low growth < 20% High and/or moderate growth < 50% Low growth = 21% to 49% High and/or moderate growth < 50% Low growth > 50% Student Achievement Goal Setting Exceed Goal > 50% Meet Goal > 40% Did Not Meet Goal < 10% Exceed and/or Meet Goal > 80% Did not meet goal < 20% Exceed and/or Meet Goal < 50% Did Not Meet Goal = 21% to 49% Exceed and/or Meet Goal < 50% Did Not Meet Goal > 50% Other Measures Other indicators of student achievement/ progress indicates exemplary student performance Other indicators of student achievement/ progress indicates on- target student performance Other indicators of student achievement/ progress indicates inconsistent student performance Other indicators of student achievement/ progress indicates overall low student performance Rating on Standard 7 – Student Academic Progress Exemplary Proficient Developing/ Needs Improvement Unacceptable Decision Rules for Rating on Standard 7

20. Date here “Other” Measures Acceptable Student performance on other standardized measures that assess growth and are not part of SGPs or goal setting Expert ratings of student performance (e.g., band performance ratings) Unacceptable Class grades

21. Date here Decision Rules for Performance Pay A teacher must be rated as overall “Exemplary” in order to qualify for a performance pay bonus. To be rated as overall “Exemplary,” a teacher must have a total of 35 or better out of a maximum of 40 on the cumulative summative rating. A teacher with a rating of “Unacceptable” on any teacher standard will not be eligible for a performance pay bonus, regardless of the total points earned. A teacher must be rated as overall “Exemplary” in order to qualify for a performance pay bonus. To be rated as overall “Exemplary,” a teacher must have a total of 35 or better out of a maximum of 40 on the cumulative summative rating. A teacher with a rating of “Unacceptable” on any teacher standard will not be eligible for a performance pay bonus, regardless of the total points earned.

22. Date here Decision Rules for Performance Pay Weighting Exemplary (4) Proficient (3) Developing/ Needs Improvement (2) Unacceptable (1) Standard 1: Professional Knowledge 14321 Standard 2: Instructional Planning 14321 Standard 3: Instructional Delivery 14321 Standard 4: Assessment of and for Learning 14321 Standard 5: Learning Environment 14321 Standard 6: Professionalism 14321 Standard 7: Student Academic Progress 4161284 Cumulative Summative Rating 40302010

23. Date here Teacher A: Meets Criteria for Performance-Pay StandardRatingPointsWeight Weighted Total (Points X Weight) Standard 1: Professional Knowledge Exemplary414 Standard 2: Instructional Planning Exemplary414 Standard 3: Instructional Delivery Exemplary414 Standard 4: Assessment of and for Learning Exemplary414 Standard 5: Learning Environment Exemplary414 Standard 6: Professionalism Exemplary414 Standard 7: Student Academic Progress Proficient3412 Cumulative Summative Rating 36

24. Date here Teacher B: Meets Criteria for Performance-Pay StandardRatingPointsWeight Weighted Total (Points X Weight) Standard 1: Professional Knowledge Proficient313 Standard 2: Instructional Planning Exemplary414 Standard 3: Instructional Delivery Proficient313 Standard 4: Assessment of and for Learning Proficient313 Standard 5: Learning Environment Proficient313 Standard 6: Professionalism Proficient313 Standard 7: Student Academic Progress Exemplary4416 Cumulative Summative Rating 35

25. Date here Teacher C: Does Not Meet Criteria for Performance-Pay StandardRatingPointsWeight Weighted Total (Points X Weight) Standard 1: Professional Knowledge Proficient313 Standard 2: Instructional Planning Proficient313 Standard 3: Instructional Delivery Proficient313 Standard 4: Assessment of and for Learning Proficient313 Standard 5: Learning Environment Proficient313 Standard 6: Professionalism Proficient313 Standard 7: Student Academic Progress Proficient3412 Cumulative Summative Rating 30

26. Date here Teacher D: Does Not Meet Criteria for Performance-Pay StandardRatingPointsWeight Weighted Total (Points X Weight) Standard 1: Professional Knowledge Proficient313 Standard 2: Instructional Planning Proficient313 Standard 3: Instructional Delivery Proficient313 Standard 4: Assessment of and for Learning Proficient313 Standard 5: Learning Environment Proficient313 Standard 6: Professionalism Developing/ Needs Improvement 212 Standard 7: Student Academic Progress Proficient3412 Cumulative Summative Rating 29

27. Date here Teacher E: Does Not Meets Criteria for Performance-Pay StandardRatingPointsWeight Weighted Total (Points X Weight) Standard 1: Professional Knowledge Exemplary414 Standard 2: Instructional Planning Exemplary414 Standard 3: Instructional Delivery Exemplary414 Standard 4: Assessment of and for Learning Exemplary414 Standard 5: Learning Environment Proficient313 Standard 6: Professionalism Unacceptable111 Standard 7: Student Academic Progress Exemplary4416 Cumulative Summative Rating 36