2014–2015 Budget Citizens’ Budget Review Commission Meeting Monday, Jan. 27, 2014 n 5:00 p.m. CBRC Agenda: Focus on TEI Monday, January 27th Time: 5-7pm Intro Topic Presenters/ Facilitators Gilbert Prado Time 5:00 – 5:05 Duration 5 min TEI Overview & Context Milan Sevak 5:05 – 5:10 5 min Component #1: Defining Excellence (evaluation) Milan Sevak 5:10 – 5:35 25 min Component #2: Supporting Excellence (PD/supports) Milan Sevak 5:35 – 5:55 20 min Component #3: Rewarding Excellence (compensation) Carmen Darville 5:55 – 6:25 30 min Budget Implications & Sustainability Jim Terry 6:25 –6:55 30 min Closing/Future Agendas Gilbert Prado 6:55 – 7:00 5 min Teacher Excellence Initiative DRAFT Revised January 10, 2014 1 Board of Trustees Elizabeth Jones District 1: Northwest Dallas Eric Cowan President District 7: North Central Oak Cliff and portions of West Dallas Lew Blackburn, Ph.D. First Vice President District 5: Oak Lawn, West Dallas, Wilmer, Hutchins, and portions of East Oak Cliff Carla Ranger Second Vice President District 6: Southwest Dallas Dan Micciche Secretary District 3: Northeast Dallas Mike Morath District 2: North and Near East Dallas Nancy Bingham District 4: Southeast Dallas, Seagoville, Balch Springs Miguel Solis District 8: Love Field, Northwest Dallas, and Central Dallas Bernadette Nutall District 9: South Dallas and portions of Downtown Dallas, Pleasant Grove, Deep Ellum, Uptown, and East Dallas Mike Miles Superintendent of Schools The Dallas Independent School District, as an equal opportunity educational provider and employer, does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, genetic information, or any other basis prohibited by law in educational programs or activities that it operates or in employment decisions. The district is required by Title VI and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, as amended, as well as board policy not to discriminate in such a manner. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) If you suspect discrimination please contact: Mary McCants, Title VII or Title IX, at (972) 925-3250; Daphne LaMontagne, Section 504, at (972) 581-4238; Diedrae Bell-Hunter, Americans with Disabilities Act, at (972) 925-4287; or Employee Relations at (972) 925-4200. General questions about the district should be directed to Customer Service at (972) 925-5555. 3700 Ross Avenue • Dallas, TX 75204-5491 • (972) 925-3700 • www.dallasisd.org 12/16/13 2 Teacher Excellence Initiative Contents INTRODUCTION: ENSURING TEACHER EXCELLENCE REWARDING EXCELLENCE An Integrated Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Aligning Evaluation and Compensation . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Parents’ Views on Teacher Compensation . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Dallas ISD: Teacher Excellence Initiative . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Defining Excellence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Supporting Excellence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Rewarding Excellence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Principles and Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Staff and Community Engagement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 DEFINING EXCELLENCE Current State of Teacher Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Purpose of Teacher Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Components of Effective Teacher Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . 11 The Measures of Effective Teaching (MET) Project . . . . . . . 11 Classroom Observation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Student Achievement Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Student Surveys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 A Balanced Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Parents’ Views on Teacher Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 DEFINITIONS Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 DALLAS ISD’S PLAN FOR TEACHER EVALUATION Nine Effectiveness Levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Evaluation Rating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Performance: 50 points . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Performance Rubric . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Student Survey: 15 points . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Achievement: 35 points . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 The Achievement Template . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Why a Strategic Compensation System? . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Dallas ISD’s Strategic Compensation Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Adjustment for Inflation and Cost-of-Living . . . . . . . . . . 34 Significantly Differentiating Salaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Receiving a Significant Raise When Promoted, But Not Being Promoted Every Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Key Implementation Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 BUDGET IMPLICATIONS AND SUSTAINING TEI Sustaining TEI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Teacher Salaries, 2014-2015 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Teacher Compensation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Target Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Current Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Normal Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Target Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 APPENDICES Appendix A Draft Performance Rubric . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Appendix B Individual Student Achievement Goal Rubric . . . . . . . . . 56 Appendix C Distinguished Teacher Review (DTR) Process . . . . . . . . . 57 Appendix D Distinguished Teacher Review Rubric . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 The Weights: W1 through W7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Appendix E Principal Input for the DTR Review Process . . . . . . . . . . 61 Status versus Relative Growth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Relative Growth Measurements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Appendix F Teacher Compensation Calculations and Notes . . . . . . . . 63 Assessments and Cut-Points . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Target Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Appendix G Congruence Metric in Principal Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . 75 Overall Effectiveness Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Appendix H 2015-2016 TEI Cost Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 Evaluation of Distinguished Teachers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Working in Tier One Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Exemplary II and Master Teacher . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Appendix I 2016-2017 TEI Cost Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 SUPPORTING EXCELLENCE Research on Professional Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Dallas ISD Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Dallas ISD’s Plan for Supporting Excellence . . . . . . . . . . 28 Contents • 3 4 Teacher Excellence Initiative Introduction: Ensuring Teacher Excellence AN INTEGRATED APPROACH How to improve public education is a recurring topic in America. Recently, however, there seems to be a greater sense of urgency around changing public education in fundamental ways. The recently released report by the Equity and Excellence Commission called the situation dire and agenda urgent.1 The report notes that even top-performing students in the United States do not compare well to those in many other countries. Even more concerning is that low-income students and students of color are at a far higher risk of being unprepared for work and life in an increasingly global economy. It comes as no surprise that the same report identified effective teachers as a crucial ingredient to the solution, noting that districts “need to improve teachers’ capacity to teach all children well and, in particular, to ensure that there is a stable supply of excellent teachers and school leaders in our highest-need schools.”2 This report and other research support changing the way the school districts evaluate, support, and compensate teachers. As districts work to increase teacher effectiveness, many are discovering the inaccurate and unhelpful nature of their current teacher evaluation systems. Many teacher evaluation systems include neither a rigorous assessment of the quality of instruction nor student achievement results. In 2011, the National Council for Teacher Quality gave states an average “D+” grade in identifying effective teachers.3 Similarly, a 2009 report about teacher effectiveness by The New Teacher Project revealed that less than 1 percent of all teachers are rated unsatisfactory on their evaluations.4 Without the ability to distinguish differences in teacher performance, current systems are unable to either recognize effective teachers or help teachers who need support. While many states and districts have sought to reform their evaluation systems, particularly as a result of U.S. Department of Education initiatives, many have found that doing so in isolation does not yield intended results. The Aspen Institute noted: “School systems across the country are working hard to fix broken teacher evaluation systems….While this represents a significant advance, it is one part of a bigger picture: a teacher performance management system that links accountability, support, ongoing feedback, compensation, and career advancement.”5 The Equity and Excellence Commission also calls for a comprehensive approach to ensuring teacher excellence: “…states must re-examine and align their systems for recruiting, retaining, preparing, licensing, evaluating, developing and compensating effective teachers.”6 And the National Council for Teacher Quality recently highlighted the need for states and districts to “connect the dots” and use more accurate evaluation information to inform a variety of decisions including professional development, compensation, dismissal, and advancement.7 Thus, while an improved evaluation system is an essential component on the path U.S. Department of Education, For Each and Every Child—A Strategy for Education Equity and Excellence, Washington, D.C., 2013 Ibid, p. 21 2011 State Teacher Policy Yearbook, The National Council for Teacher Quality, p. 2 Daniel Weisberg, Susan Sexton, Jennifer Mulhern, David Keeling, The Widget Effect, Our National Failure to Acknowledge and Act on Differences in Teacher Effectiveness (Brooklyn, N.Y.: The New Teacher Project, 2009), p. 6. The reader can find this report at The New Teacher Project website at www.tntp.org 5From Building Teacher Evaluation Systems: Learning from Leading Efforts (Rachel Curtis, Aspen Institute, March 2011) 6 U.S. Department of Education, For Each and Every Child—A Strategy for Education Equity and Excellence, Washington, D.C., 2013, p. 21 7 National Council on Teacher Quality, Connect the Dots: Using Evaluations of Teacher Effectiveness to Inform Policy and Practice, October 2013. 1 2 3 4 Introduction: Ensuring Teacher Excellence • 5 Teacher Excellence Initiative to improve teacher quality, an integrated approach is necessary if the district is going to have the desired impact on student learning. DALLAS ISD: TEACHER EXCELLENCE INITIATIVE In Dallas ISD, our Destination 2020 plan focuses on improving the quality of instruction and placing an effective teacher in front of every child. Without a comprehensive teacher effectiveness system, the district will not be able to accomplish our goals and transform the district—and, ultimately, the lives of students. In this regard, the Teacher Excellence Initiative (TEI) was established with one primary objective: Improve student learning by improving teacher effectiveness. With TEI, the district is building on research and emerging models to establish a three-pronged approach to ensuring teacher excellence that requires us to answer three corollary questions: • Defining Excellence: What is our vision for effective teaching and how do we evaluate it? • Supporting Excellence: How do we most effectively support and differentiate teachers’ professional learning? • Rewarding Excellence: How do we reward teachers for their professional growth and impact on student learning? Defining Excellence Defining effective teaching is an obvious starting point as it is the information resulting from a robust evaluation system that will inform how the district differentially supports and rewards excellence. Evaluating teachers fairly, accurately, and rigorously is difficult and complex. Numerous systemic, philosophical, and logistical obstacles await any district thinking about changing the evaluation system that is currently in place. While the traditional approach has been to primarily use observation data, this approach has been found to be deeply flawed when used in isolation of other approaches to defining and evaluating effective teaching. Thus, a research-based perspective suggests defining and evaluating excellence through three lenses: teachers’ performance assessed using carefully designed and field-tested rubrics, student achievement assessed using multiple measures of student achievement and growth, and student perceptions assessed using well-researched student surveys. Pending approval by the Board of Trustees, the district will implement the new evaluation system described here beginning in the fall of the 2014-2015 school year. Supporting Excellence Defining a clear vision of teaching excellence must involve establishing a clear plan to support teachers as they strive for excellence. A fair, accurate, and rigorous evaluation system that uses data from classroom observations, student perceptions, and student achievement to assess teachers must also serve the purpose of pinpointing for teachers and those who support teachers the next steps for professional growth. In this way, an effective evaluation system creates the potential for providing teachers with support that is tailored to their unique professional learning needs. Such a system is essential for supporting the full spectrum: from our novice teachers, who require substantial support, to our “irreplaceables”—the top 20 percent of teachers who seek leadership and professional learning opportunities.8 School and district leaders must ensure a robust, systemic, and individualized support system is in place in order to provide the opportunity for teachers to reach their potential in enhancing student learning. 8 The Irreplaceables: Understanding the Real Retention Crisis in America’s Public Schools. TNTP, 2012. 6 • Introduction: Ensuring Teacher Excellence Teacher Excellence Initiative To build an effective support system for teachers, the district will provide supports across multiple professional learning contexts, leverage technology for professional learning and collaboration, and provide differentiated professional development options based on data and tailored to teachers’ needs. Dallas ISD will focus on enhancing job-embedded professional development while also identifying strategic professional development initiatives that leverage the district’s size and its diversity of school contexts. Rewarding Excellence A district could implement a rigorous teacher evaluation system without having a strategic compensation plan. However, it is unlikely to be able to implement an effective pay-for-performance plan without a fair, accurate, and rigorous evaluation system. An organization is similarly unlikely to maximize the effectiveness of its employees if the compensation system is disconnected from what the organization values most. During the summer of 2015, at the end of the first year of implementation of the TEI plan, the district proposes to eliminate the traditional teacher salary schedule for classroom teachers on the plan. Thus, these teachers will no longer be directly paid for years of experience or college degrees or credits.9 The TEI plan, pending board approval, replaces the traditional salary schedule with nine effectiveness levels. Teacher salaries would be associated with the relevant effectiveness level. PRINCIPLES AND PARAMETERS There are numerous ways to design a teacher evaluation system that is tied to strategic compensation. Still, the plan should be designed to help achieve the goals of the organization. Similar to the notion of form following function, the key elements of the system should also be tied to core principles and operational parameters. While the devil may be in the details, the real debate should center on the principles that will guide development of the plan and that will help decide conflicts during implementation. The Dallas ISD’s guiding principles and parameters were debated and established early in the development of the Teacher Excellence Initiative and include: Student academic achievement results will count for 35 to 50 percent of a teacher’s evaluation. • This principle was established based on the guidance of the MET study. After much discussion and ultimately staff voting, student achievement will count for 35 percent of a teacher’s evaluation for those with appropriate metrics, as the next section discusses in more depth. The Dallas ISD plan must focus on results. • There is a difference between “process” indicators and “results.” This principle applies even on the performance side of the equation. A process indicator is a teacher behavior that is observable and that generally can be assessed. However, it does not necessarily contribute directly to improved instruction or student achievement. For example, turning in lesson plans is a process indicator. While designing effective lesson plans is important and part of the teacher evaluation rubric, the ability to write lesson plans is not as important as the execution of the lesson plan and the delivery of effective instruction. Similarly, portfolios of student work (process indicator) hold less weight than on-demand demonstrations of student learning (outcome of effective teaching). 9 Degrees and coursework are considered under the “lifelong learning” portion of the Distinguished Teacher Review process. Introduction: Ensuring Teacher Excellence • 7 Teacher Excellence Initiative The plan must include individual accountability. • A district could derive a teacher’s student achievement score based on the achievement scores of students the teacher actually instructs (individual accountability), or based on the aggregate scores of a larger group of students, such as students in the same grade, discipline, school, or district (group accountability). • The predominant part of a teacher’s student achievement score should be tied to the achievement scores of students the teacher actually instructs (individual accountability). The plan must be fair, accurate, and rigorous; it may not always be equal. • While the district strives for equality in a number of areas—class size, availability of textbooks, amount of instructional time—it recognizes that schools have some degree of autonomy and that there will always be differences. The Dallas ISD plan does not attempt to take into account differences in class size, the number of English language learners in a class, the number of minutes devoted to teaching reading in a school, etc. The plan must include all classroom teachers and must be equally rigorous for all grades and disciplines. • In order for the plan to be fair, the chance of a high school math teacher achieving a distinguished evaluation must be similar to the chance of an elementary art teacher receiving a distinguished evaluation. • It is the acceptance of this principle that requires the district to assess what students have learned for all grades and disciplines. The Dallas ISD plan will differentiate professional learning supports based on data from the evaluation system. • One of the greatest opportunities of a more accurate evaluation system is the ability to more effectively identify professional development needs for those in need to support - as well as leverage the identified strengths of proficient teachers in mentoring others. The Dallas ISD plan will compensate teachers based on their overall effectiveness and that compensation should be markedly differentiated. • The plan should be a true pay-for-performance plan, not an incentive pay plan. Teachers who are more effective should earn significantly more money than a less effective teacher. The implementation of the plan must be standardized. • The development, administration, and scoring of assessments, for example, should be standardized across the district. Dallas ISD will start “version one,” knowing that there will have to be revisions. • Our plan will be comprehensive, and it will attempt to strike the right balance between complexity and fairness. Like a computer operating system, the plan is to continue improving the evaluation system every year. As Chip Heath and Dan Heath note in Switch, the key is to “look for a strong beginning and a strong ending and get moving.”10 STAFF & COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT Hundreds of teachers and principals have contributed to the development of the TEI plan. Since the start of this effort in the summer of 2011, engaging staff and community stakeholders has been critical to ensuring the district develops a strong plan that is based on the Dallas ISD context. Stakeholders have been engaged in 10 Chip Heath and Dan Heath, Switch (New York, New York: Broadway Books, 2010), p. 93. 8 • Introduction: Ensuring Teacher Excellence Teacher Excellence Initiative much of the design of the evaluation system, including the design of the performance rubric and the selection of student achievement measures. In recent months, each campus received a presentation by their assistant superintendent or executive director outlining the essentials of the plan. The presenters fielded questions and suggestions to inform system design and implementation planning. In addition, feeder pattern-based teacher focus groups that meet on a monthly basis have provided input on the plan and will continue to inform how the district moves forward. The district also relies on the TEI Implementation Committee for input and suggestions. This committee consists of teachers, principals, parents, community members, representatives of teacher organizations, and central office staff. More formally, a beta group of 25 principals from across the district are engaged in field-testing performance, achievement, and survey components of the evaluation framework. They also are providing input into the professional development vision and needs. Each principal engages a small group of teachers in the school to provide extensive feedback as they test the various components. Lastly, the district has also held meetings with more than 100 community, education, civic, and business organizations as well as held open community and staff meetings for anyone interested. Throughout the 20132014 school year, the district will continue to gather input from staff and community in order to refine and revise the plan. The subsequent sections of this document provide an in-depth review of each of these three components— defining excellence, supporting excellence, and rewarding excellence—and our preliminary answers to these key questions. Each section considers the relevant research, the district context, and a proposed plan for moving forward. As the district continues to obtain and incorporate feedback from a variety of stakeholders, this document may be updated in the coming months. Thus, this document serves to lay the foundation for deeper engagement as we collectively work to improve teacher effectiveness and student learning. Introduction: Ensuring Teacher Excellence • 9 Teacher Excellence Initiative Defining Excellence Aligning on a vision of great teaching reflected in a robust evaluation system Research has consistently identified the quality of a teacher as being the single most important schoolbased influence on a student’s academic achievement.11 Increasing teacher quality has a greater impact than any other educational investment, including reducing class size.12 Rivkin, Hanusheck, and Kain found that “Having a high-quality teacher throughout elementary school can substantially offset or even eliminate the disadvantage of low socio-economic background.”13 With the growing recognition of the direct impact of teachers, there has been an increased focus on understanding what constitutes effective teaching and how effective teaching can be measured. Just as the teacher plans a lesson with the end in mind and pre-identifies how students will demonstrate their learning at the end of a lesson or unit, districts must anchor definitions of excellence in meaningful evaluation systems. This section takes a deep look at the current state of teacher evaluation, reviews research that creates a path forward, and describes the proposed teacher evaluation plan for Dallas ISD. CURRENT STATE OF TEACHER EVALUATION Across the country, most teacher evaluations are often a single, scheduled observation conducted annually (though sometimes as infrequently as every five years).14 Observers, typically administrators with varying levels of training in effective evaluation, record a teacher’s compliance with preset standards that had limited influence on student achievement. Scoring is frequently binary (satisfactory/unsatisfactory), resulting in little variance between evaluations.15 In a review of districts using a binary system, 99 percent of teachers received the satisfactory rating.16 However, even in districts with more rating options, over 94 percent of teachers received the two highest ratings and less than 1 percent received an unsatisfactory rating, illustrating the failure of existing evaluation tools to accurately differentiate among educators. Teacher evaluations in Dallas ISD mirror the national trend. In the 2010–2011 school year, 98 percent of classroom teachers received a satisfactory (“meets expectations”) evaluation. In 2011–2012, 97 percent of classroom teachers received a satisfactory evaluation. The inadequacy of historical and current evaluation systems to differentiate among educators, especially between teachers teaching the same content to similar students, has prevented districts from being able to determine the development needs of their teachers and resulted in professional development that does not help teachers grow and develop. In a large scale study, 73 percent of teachers surveyed reported that there were no areas for development identified on their most recent evaluation.17 Because teacher evaluation systems do not distinguish between teachers’ effectiveness at raising student achievement, districts do not provide the meaningful development and support to help low and moderately performing teachers grow as well as fail to recognize exemplary educators.18 The inability to effectively evaluate educators has also meant that far too many low-performing teachers have been entrusted with students without anyone, students, parents, administrators, even the teachers themselves, knowing the quality of education those students are receiving. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Darling-Hammond (2000), Rockoff (2004), Rivkin, Hanushek, and Kane (2005), Sanders and Rivers (1996) Goldhaber, 2009 Rivkin, Hanushek, and Kane (2002) Rush to Judgment: Teacher Evaluation in Public Education. Education Sector Reports, 2008. ibid The Widget Effect: Our National Failure to Acknowledge and Act on Differences in Teacher Effectiveness. The New Teacher Project, 2009. ibid ibid 10 • Defining Excellence Teacher Excellence Initiative PURPOSE OF TEACHER EVALUATION The primary goal of teacher evaluations must be to improve the instructional practice of classroom teachers. As the New Teacher Project report, The Widget Effect, stated: “The core purpose of evaluation must be maximizing teacher growth and effectiveness, not just documenting poor performance as a prelude to dismissal.” The Equity and Excellence Commission echoes this purpose in asserting “an evaluation system must serve two central purposes: It must identify strengths and weaknesses so that all teachers can get the necessary supports to improve their practice, and it must meet the standards of practice that would allow them to remain in the classroom.”19 These reports suggest that a district’s teacher evaluation system must be tied to the professional development and human resource functions so that there is an integrated, data-based approach to the evaluation, development, retention, and compensation of educators. With this common understanding of the core purpose of a teacher evaluation system, what does the research suggest to achieve these purposes? RESEARCH Components of Effective Teacher Evaluation Given the diversity of students, courses, and school settings found in today’s public education system, developing a fair, accurate, and rigorous evaluation system is complex. Numerous systemic, philosophical, and logistical challenges exist that must be taken into account by districts as they develop a new system. However, studies conducted in the past two decades show that systems can be developed that consistently assess a teacher’s performance in the classroom, fairly determines the impact of the teacher on his or her students’ academic achievement, and accurately reflects a teacher’s effectiveness in relation to other teachers. Over the years, various systems have been developed, implemented, and evaluated, and from these efforts, a convergent understanding of what should be included in effective teacher evaluation systems has emerged. Evaluation systems must include multiple measures of teacher performance.20 A solitary focus on just teacher actions in the classroom (historical approach) or just student achievement scores (advocated by some in the education reform community), does not present an accurate picture of teacher performance, while ignoring either the actual impact of the teacher on student achievement (observation only) or failing to recognize the wide variance in student, district, and resource characteristics between classrooms (data only). By incorporating both quantitative measures of student achievement (test scores) along with observations of teacher performance, a much more accurate understanding of a teacher’s effectiveness can be determined.21 This mix of measurements also provides validation of results as research has shown that educators who perform well on an instrument that identifies and evaluates high-quality instructional practices, also receive high marks based on the achievement of their students on standardized tests.22 The measures of teacher performance must include clear standards, frequent feedback, and continual monitoring, as well a number of rating options (not just two or three).23 The Measures of Effective Teaching (MET) Project While much academic research has focused on various aspects of evaluating educators, The Measures of Effective Teaching (MET)24 study conducted by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is perhaps the most comprehensive and thorough investigation into which measures most accurately and consistently identify 19 U.S. Department of Education, For Each and Every Child—A Strategy for Education Equity and Excellence, Washington, D.C., 2013 20See: Teacher Evaluation 2.0. The New Teacher Project, 2010; Recommendations for the Next Generation of Teaching Policy in Texas. Texas Teaching Commission, 2012; and Rush to Judgment: Teacher Evaluation in Public Education. Education Sector Reports, 2008. 21 Rush to Judgment: Teacher Evaluation in Public Education. Education Sector Reports, 2008. 22 Ibid. 23 Ibid. 24 Ensuring Fair and Reliable Measures of Effective Teaching: Culminating Findings from the MET Project’s Three-Year Study. Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, 2013. Defining Excellence • 11 Teacher Excellence Initiative effective teachers. The MET study confirmed much of the findings of prior research as well as provided new insights. Conducted over three years, the MET study included more than 3,000 teachers teaching in six different districts across the country. During the study, researchers looked at a number of evaluative tools (classroom observation frameworks, student assessments, etc.) for determining teacher effectiveness and compared the results of these evaluations with the academic achievement of students. While many education professionals have recommended a combination of tools to evaluate teachers, the MET study provided clear evidence that an approach to teacher evaluation that incorporates multiple measures will consistently identify effective teachers. MET study researchers identified three specific measures that provided the clearest picture of teacher effectiveness: classroom observations, student achievement data, and student survey data. Classroom Observation Classroom observations have long been the primary means of evaluating teachers. MET researchers found that the use of observations alone do not provide an accurate picture of a teacher’s impact on student achievement. In the study, evaluators were trained and tested for accuracy in using several evaluation models and participating teachers were observed by multiple evaluators, a level of implementation that is not routinely seen in districts. While there was some correlation between the ratings given by observers and a teacher’s student achievement scores, the ratings themselves could not consistently predict a teacher’s impact on student learning in the future.25 Nonetheless, the research did find that having multiple, shorter observations is a powerful way to increase reliability of classroom observation ratings. In addition, the study noted that observation data can be helpful to teachers as a tool to providing useful feedback. Student Achievement Data The most accurate single measure for identifying teacher effectiveness is a value-added analysis of an educator’s students’ achievement.26 In doing so, it is critically important to account for differences among students and past performance levels. The state assessment scores of a teacher’s students can be used to identify strong teachers who have a lasting positive impact on students.27 However, as previously noted, no single measure alone is a better indicator of teacher effectiveness than a combination of three measures. After testing various weights for each measure, MET researchers found that including student achievement as 33 to 50 percent of a teacher’s overall evaluation, along with classroom observations and student surveys, resulted in a consistent (low year-to-year volatility) and strong predictors of the achievement of students in a particular teacher’s classroom.28 It is important to note that researchers found that teachers with higher value-added scores did not narrow their instructional practice in an effort to raise test scores; to the contrary, students of teachers with high value-added scores demonstrated an increase in higher-level thinking skills.29 Student Surveys The MET study found that student surveys of teacher performance had a higher correlation with a teacher’s success with students than classroom observations.30 The study used the Tripod survey system which differentiates questions for grade spans and structures questions to assess instructional practice and learning environment, not a teacher’s popularity. When conducted using this proven methodology and survey system, 25 Gathering Feedback for Teaching: Combining High Quality Observations with Student Surveys and Achievement Gains. Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, 2012. 26 Ibid. 27 Ensuring Fair and Reliable Measures of Effective Teaching: Culminating Findings from the MET Project’s Three-Year Study. Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, 2013. Also see: The Long Term Impacts of Teachers: Teacher Value Added and Student Outcomes in Adulthood. Chetty et. al. 2011. 28 Ibid. 29 Gathering Feedback for Teaching: Combining High Quality Observations with Student Surveys and Achievement Gains. Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, 2012. 30 Ibid. 12 • Defining Excellence Teacher Excellence Initiative student surveys not only provided an accurate picture of teacher performance that confirmed the results of observations and student assessment results, but also provided a source of helpful feedback that teachers can use to improve their instructional practice.31 A Balanced Approach While high-quality classroom observations, student achievement data, and student surveys have been shown to individually positively correlate with teacher effectiveness, the three measures combined provide the most accurate picture of a teacher’s impact on student achievement.32 Parents’ Views on Teacher Evaluation The importance of reliable, valid, and differentiating teacher evaluations goes beyond how school districts structure their professional development and compensation programs. Parents are keenly interested in the quality of teaching in their child’s classroom. In a parent survey about public education in America, 96 percent of respondents cited teacher quality as a very or extremely important factor in a child’s education.33 Additionally, in determining the quality and performance of a school, 73 percent of parents said knowing a teacher’s ability to improve student achievement would be very or extremely helpful.34 Parents agree that teacher evaluations must include multiple measures. The majority of parents surveyed across the country said they believed that teacher evaluations should be a combination of classroom observations and state achievement test scores.35 A little less than half also supported including parent and student surveys into teacher evaluations. 31 32 33 34 35 Learning about Teaching: Initial Findings From the Measures of Effective Teaching Project. Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, 2010. ‘MET’ Made Simple. The New Teacher Project, January 2012. Parents’ Attitudes on the Quality of Education in the United States. The Associate Press–NORC Center for Public Affairs Research, 2013. Ibid. Ibid. Defining Excellence • 13 Teacher Excellence Initiative Definitions The following definitions will be useful in understanding this document: TEI (Teacher Excellence Initiative): the district’s name for the evaluation system. Metrics: performance measurements or measurable outcomes used to assess teacher effectiveness. There are three types of evaluation metrics used in the TEI plan: • Performance metrics: those measureable indicators that describe how well a teacher does his or her job. They focus on instructional practice, planning and preparation, classroom management, and professionalism. For most teachers, 50 percent of a teacher’s annual evaluation is based on performance metrics; 35 percent is based on student achievement results; and 15 percent is tied to student survey results. • Student achievement metrics: measurements of student performance on district and state assessments. • Student survey metrics: survey results obtained from a teacher’s or school’s students regarding the learning environment. Progress-monitoring metrics: other performance measurements that are assessed during the year and that are aligned with the evaluation metrics. These metrics provide feedback to teachers and help them gauge their progress. Overall effectiveness level: the effectiveness level on the TEI scale to which a teacher will be assigned based on the average of two years’ annual evaluation ratings. The overall effectiveness level also determines the salary. There are nine effectiveness levels (see figure on page 16). For Dallas ISD’s TEI plan, the levels denote varying degrees of effectiveness. The goal for “progressing” teachers is to reach proficiency. The overall effectiveness level is unlikely to change annually. Annual evaluation rating: the overall assessment of a teacher’s effectiveness based on the teacher’s performance, achievement, and student survey metrics during one year. A teacher receives an evaluation rating annually. It is possible for an evaluation rating to be lower than the overall effectiveness level. Teacher performance rubric: the evaluation instrument that outlines teacher performance standards. Teacher performance evaluation score: the overall performance rating on the evaluation rubric. Student achievement data score: the overall rating derived from the student achievement template. Achievement template: a chart of the various student achievement metrics that are used to calculate a teacher’s achievement score. Student survey score: the average score of a teacher’s students on a research-based survey selected for the TEI. Distinguished teacher: a teacher who attains an effectiveness level of Proficient II or higher. 14 • Definitions Teacher Excellence Initiative Dallas ISD’s Plan for Teacher Evaluation The research suggests a new paradigm for defining excellence and teacher evaluation. Thus, the Dallas ISD plan proposes to define and evaluate excellence through three lenses: teachers’ performance assessed using carefully designed and field-tested rubrics, student achievement assessed using multiple measures of student achievement and growth, and student perceptions assessed using well-researched student surveys. The district plans to use the information with one goal: improve teacher effectiveness. To accomplish this, the district needs a new evaluation system to: • Assess teachers fairly, accurately, and rigorously • Assess a teacher’s ability to deliver high-quality instruction and raise student achievement • Equitably distribute highly-effective and well-qualified teachers across the District, and identify the most effective teachers and encourage them to serve the students who are most at-risk • Target support and professional development in order to improve the overall capacity of our teachers to provide high-quality instruction • Raise expectations for teaching and increase accountability for effective teaching • Recruit, recognize, and reward effective teachers; remove teachers who are not effective after support has been provided • Support career pathways for teachers NINE EFFECTIVENESS LEVELS The TEI plan eliminates the traditional teacher salary schedule and replaces that schedule with nine levels of effectiveness. The levels range from “Unsatisfactory” to “Master” teacher. [First-year teachers who are new to teaching are “novice” teachers and do not have an effectiveness rating until the beginning of their second year.] All teachers move to the next level if they meet the criteria for performance, student surveys, and student achievement results. Each succeeding level requires a higher degree of performance, student survey, and demonstrated student achievement results. For example, a first year, “novice” teacher need only receive a satisfactory evaluation and progressing levels of achievement to advance to the next level (Progressing I). Advancement to all other levels requires the teacher to be stronger in a combination of performance, student survey, and student achievement. Expectations become more rigorous as the teacher attains proficiency and then mastery of effective teaching. Compensation is significantly higher at each succeeding level. Years of service play no role in the TEI compensation system. Graduate degrees and/or continuing education credits may be considered as evidence of “life-long learning,” which are part of the criteria for becoming a distinguished teacher (“Proficient II” or higher-level teacher). Dallas ISD’s Plan for Teacher Evaluation • 15 Teacher Excellence Initiative DISTRICT REVIEW PRINCIPAL REVIEW Unsat $45K Progressing Proficient Exemplary Master I II I II III I II $49K $51K $54K $59K $65K $74K $82K $90K Novice ($47K) EVALUATION RATING: PERFORMANCE + STUDENT SURVEY + ACHIEVEMENT Teachers are placed at an effectiveness level based on their annual evaluation rating or, for teachers new to the district, on a review of their past achievement data and an estimation of their entering proficiency. [Teachers new to the profession and who are first-year teachers are placed at the “novice” level.] The proposed annual evaluation comprises teacher performance, multiple measures of student achievement, and the results of a researched-based student survey. Given the research-based parameters from the MET Project and after much input from teachers and principals, the district finalized the various weights of each of the evaluation metrics. For most teachers, 50 percent of the evaluation is based on performance, 35 percent on student achievement results, and 15 percent on student survey results. However, for those teachers for whom student survey results are not available (e.g., prekindergarten students) and/or who will not have enough measures for the full 35 percent for student achievement, proportions will be different. The evaluation is based on a 100-point scale. The following table describes the different TEI categories: TEI Category Teacher Performance Student Achievement Student Survey Category A. All three components available (most teachers) 50% 35% 15% Category B. Reduced availability of achievement measures (e.g., CATE teachers) 65% 20% 15% Category C. Reduced availability of achievement measures and no student surveys (e.g., pre-K teachers) 80% 20% 0% The following section outlines how the three components of the TEI work using a “Category A” teacher example. For Categories B and C teachers, the points would be adjusted according to the table above. 16 • Dallas ISD’s Plan for Teacher Evaluation Teacher Excellence Initiative PERFORMANCE: 50 POINTS Teachers receive up to 50 points on the evaluation of their performance, especially as it relates to the delivery of high-quality instruction. Performance Rubric The performance score is determined by the evaluators (principal and assistant principal) using the teacher evaluation rubric. The current draft teacher evaluation rubric was developed by the Teacher Evaluation Task Force, with the help of the district’s consultants, the District Management Council (DMC). The goal has been to develop a robust descriptive rubric that describes in detail the teacher and student behaviors of excellent teachers as well as the performance levels along the continuum for each indicator in the rubric. The rubric is currently being field-tested by a group of 25 schools and will be updated in the coming months based on feedback (see Appendix A for the current draft performance rubric). The instrument includes four overarching performance areas: • Domain 1: Instructional practice (e.g., establishes clear and rigorous lesson objectives, encourages higher-order thinking skills) • Domain 2: Planning and preparation (e.g., demonstrates content knowledge, develops objective-based lesson plans) • Domain 3: Classroom management (e.g., maximizes instructional time, maintains a welcoming environment) • Domain 4: Professionalism and commitment (e.g., engages in professional community, establishes relationships with families) School leaders conduct at least one formal observation and a written summative on every teacher each year. In order to build a culture of instructional feedback, school leaders also conduct six spot observations (or walkthroughs) per semester for each teacher, resulting in 12 spot observations per year. These 10- to 15-minute observations result in a written spot observation form, through which the principal or assistant principal provides effective instructional feedback to the teacher. Information from the spot observations contributes to the summative performance evaluation. While for practical considerations summative evaluations may be finalized prior to all 12 spot observations being completed, each teacher will receive at least eight spot observations for the year prior to receiving a summative evaluation.36 Teachers who qualify for and undergo the distinguished teacher review process (discussed later in this section) will receive a minimum of five spot observations (plus the formal observation) that will inform the summative evaluation.37 STUDENT SURVEY: 15 POINTS In alignment with the research, the district will procure a research-based student survey that will provide feedback to teachers and input for the teacher’s evaluation. The survey will be administered to students in kindergarten through 12th grade and be available in English and Spanish. 36 Teachers with special circumstances, such as being hired and starting the school year later than usual, may receive less spot observations on a pro-rated basis. 37 While these teachers will still receive at least 12 spot observations for the year, a slightly lower amount provides for practical constraints in scheduling and allowing for teachers to undergo the DTR process. Per law, principals can evaluate these or any such teachers again later in the year if needed. Dallas ISD’s Plan for Teacher Evaluation • 17 Teacher Excellence Initiative ACHIEVEMENT: 35 POINTS Similar to the performance part of the equation, the achievement part reflects the principles discussed earlier. The teacher’s student achievement data score includes individual accountability and is focused on results. The score makes up 35 percent of the total evaluation and is equally rigorous across grades, disciplines, and student populations. A teacher’s achievement score comprises multiple measures of student achievement. In order to keep the assessment of achievement comparable across disciplines, every teacher’s achievement score consists of seven parts or “weights.” Dallas ISD uses W1 through W7 to identify these parts. Each part is worth five points for a subtotal of 35 points. Using a simple proportion, the district then calculates the number of points the teacher receives under a 35-point plan. The following sample pie charts provide a quick overview of the multiple measures of student achievement included in the achievement scores of teachers in different disciplines or grades: ELEMENTARY ART GRADE 5 RLA Student Achievement 35% Student Achievement 35% Performance Tasks School G5 STAAR R/M/SC 10% 10% ACP Semester 2 5% ACP Semester 2 5% STAAR 5 5% ACP Semester 1 10% ACP Semester 1 5% Performance 50% Individual Goal 5% School STAAR Performance 50% Individual Goal 5% 5% School STAAR 5% Student Survey 15% Student Survey 15% HIGH SCHOOL ALGEBRA I Student Achievement 35% School STAAR EOC Algebra I 5% STAAR EOC 10% ACP Semester 1 10% Performance 50% Individual Goal 5% School STAAR 5% Student Survey 15% 18 • Dallas ISD’s Plan for Teacher Evaluation Teacher Excellence Initiative THE ACHIEVEMENT TEMPLATE The central feature of the achievement part of the evaluation is the student achievement data template (achievement template) for each teacher. The achievement template describes in detail the multiple measures that are used to assess the teacher’s effectiveness in improving student academic proficiency. The template also outlines the cut-points that are used to determine a teacher’s score for each part or weight. Every teacher will have an achievement template. Some teachers might have a partial achievement template at implementation for lack of appropriate assessments but will have the achievement section reduced in weight - resulting in the performance section being weighted more. The district expects to develop achievement templates at the elementary, middle, and high school levels. There will likely be more achievement templates at the secondary level because of the number of different subjects taught. To understand one’s achievement template, a teacher must first understand the various measurements and weights for which he or she will be held accountable. Then, teachers must become familiar with the methods the district uses to measure student academic performance. Finally, the teacher should understand the various cut-points and how the district establishes cut-points. THE WEIGHTS: W1 THROUGH W7 Each achievement template has seven parts or weights. The weights differ depending on the grade, discipline, or specialty. For example, measurements for a fourth-grade teacher include the state assessment (STAAR) results for the students in the teacher’s class, results of the two district semester exams (ACPs) for the teacher’s students, and results of the school’s STAAR exams in reading and math. The measurements for an elementary art teacher include the students’ performance on the spring art project and the results of the teacher’s students on the two district art exams. There are two weights that are the same for all teachers. First, every teacher has one part (W6) that is tied to the school’s state assessment, or STAAR, results. In this way, every teacher is partly accountable for his school’s high-stakes test and state accountability rating. This measurement also supports collaboration among grade levels and among core and non-core teachers. Second, every achievement template also includes one part (W7) that is based on the teacher’s accomplishment of his individual student achievement goal. The purpose of this measure is to capture data on student learning growth on assessments that are important and meaningful but not a standardized measure that is already another weight in the achievement template. In this way, the intent is to focus professional conversation on student learning in order to support teachers in reaching the learning targets. This goal is established at the beginning of the year with the approval of the principal and is assessed at the end of the year using a rubric (see Appendix B for a draft). This is one of the components that is being field-tested this year by principals and teachers. During the development of the TEI plan, template summaries provide a starting point for discussion about which achievement data should be included in a teacher’s evaluation. Focus groups met to discuss the proposed parts and to make revisions. The following sample template summaries describe the achievement measurements for a fourth grade teacher and an elementary art teacher: Dallas ISD’s Plan for Teacher Evaluation • 19 Teacher Excellence Initiative Student Achievement Measures for a 4th Grade Teacher Student Achievement Measures for an Elementary Art Teacher Weight Type Tested subjects Weight Type Tested subjects W1, W2 Classroom performance on STAAR Reading, writing, math W1 District art project (performance task) Art W3, W4 Classroom performance on district semester exams (first sem.) Reading, writing, math, science W2, W3 Classroom performance on district semester exams (first sem.) Art W5 Classroom performance on district semester exams (second sem.) Reading, writing, math W4, W5 Classroom performance on district semester exams (second sem.) Art W6 Schoolwide performance on STAAR Reading, writing, math, science W6 Schoolwide performance on STAAR Reading, writing, math, science W7 Teacher’s goal for student achievement W7 Teacher’s goal for student achievement STATUS VERSUS RELATIVE GROWTH The various measures of student achievement in the achievement templates include (where possible) two types of metrics: “status” and “relative growth.” The percentage of students who were proficient on an exam is an example of a status measure. No allowance is made for students’ academic achievement levels at the start of the school year. This measurement is traditional and easy to compute, but for students who are not yet at the proficient level, it does not provide evidence that students are improving toward proficiency. A second type of metric is one that measures “relative growth.” These measures compare students’ scores to scores of other students who were at the same academic level in the prior year. When a teacher has high values for “relative growth” metrics, the teacher’s students have generally higher scores than other district students who started the school year at about the same academic level. For some measures, such as the STAAR and ACP results, the achievement template includes a status measurement and two relative-growth measurements, and the teacher is awarded points based on the highest of the three outcomes. In this way, the TEI plan is designed to reward significant academic improvement even if a teacher’s students are not yet proficient. Relative Growth Measurements CEI & SEI—The district has used one relative growth metric, Classroom or School Effectiveness Indices for some years, and it will be used in TEI as one method of quantifying students’ academic improvement. Classroom Effectiveness Indices, or CEIs, evaluate a student’s performance on select summative tests by comparing his performance to that of all other similar students in the district. The value-added model used to compute CEIs addresses outside influences over which the teacher has no control by evaluating a student’s progress only in relation to similar students. The characteristics that determine similarity include prior-year test scores, gender, English language proficiency level, socio-economic status, special education (SPED) status, talented and gifted (TAG) status, and neighborhood variables such as educational level and poverty index. A high value for the CEI indicates that the teacher’s students generally outperformed students in the district who 20 • Dallas ISD’s Plan for Teacher Evaluation Teacher Excellence Initiative have similar backgrounds and who started the school year at the same academic level, even if the students are not yet achieving proficient, or “passing,” scores. SEIs are calculated similarly but at the school level.38 Academic Peer Groups—A second method for measuring improvement will be added to the TEI. In this metric, students are placed in an “academic peer group” based on their scores from a STAAR, ITBS/Logramos, or ACP taken in the previous year. (The test scores available depend on the student’s grade-level and the subject of interest.) Students in grades one and above are placed in one of four peer groups, which are determined for each test so that each peer group has approximately the same number of students. For every assessment for which peer groups can be constructed, the average score achieved in the current year by the students in a peer group is calculated. Each student can then be labeled as having scored “at or above” or “below” his or her group’s average. The final metric value of the teacher is the percentage of his or her students who scored at or above their peer group averages. As with the CEI, a student can outperform similar students (in this case, the students in the academic peer group) even if the student has yet to reach a level of proficiency, and this “relative growth” is rewarded by the metric. As a result, teachers of students who begin the school year at far below proficiency can be credited with moving the students toward proficiency. ASSESSMENTS AND CUT-POINTS In order for the district to evaluate teachers based on student achievement results and to hold teachers individually accountable for higher proficiency levels in each grade and discipline, the district has developed and will continue to develop end-of-semester exams in both the core and non-core areas. Students in every grade and discipline will take district-developed semester exams each year, which amounts to approximately one exam each semester for each subject. Dallas ISD will develop more than 250 different semester exams, and these assessments will impact a teacher’s student achievement data score. With more than 250 different assessments and dozens of different subjects and disciplines, one can imagine the difficulty of designing a plan that would be equally rigorous for all teachers. Put another way, the evaluation system must assess a student’s proficiency in art class and then it must ensure that the assessment of art proficiency would be no harder or easier than the assessment of the student’s math proficiency. The evaluation system has to give very similar chances of success for all teachers regardless of grade or discipline. The system would not be fair if only elementary specials teachers could become distinguished or if very few math teachers could ever hope to reach that designation. The method of linking cut-points to a “target distribution” is an elegant solution to this problem of ensuring equal rigor across the system. The first step is to establish a target distribution of teacher effectiveness with regard to improving student achievement. Dallas ISD’s premise is that a high percentage of proficient or distinguished teachers should be correlated to significant improvements in student achievement. While district leaders hope to have more than 80 percent of the staff at the proficient level or higher someday, current student achievement data suggest that the percentage of proficient and distinguished teachers is much lower. A target distribution was created to reflect where leaders hope staff proficiency levels will be by the end of the 2015–2016 school year with regard to getting student achievement results. The TEI plan envisions the following target distribution of teacher proficiency: 38 For more information on the CEI and SEI, please visit: http://mydata.dallasisd.org/SL/SLindex.jsp Dallas ISD’s Plan for Teacher Evaluation • 21 Teacher Excellence Initiative Target Distribution 50 Note that the target distribution is skewed positively, with the bulk of the values lying to the left of the mean. The bar chart and distribution curve show that with regard to student achievement the district expects 60 percent of the teachers to be proficient or higher by the end of the third year of implementation; 40 percent are expected to be less than proficient. 40 30 20 After establishing the target distribution, the district may then set the cut-points on achievement templates so that the actual distribution of teacher scores 0 will approximate the target distribution.39 Note the Unsat Prog I Prog II Prof I Prof II Prof III chart below left, which represents one measurement of a typical achievement template. The cut-points are outlined in the left-hand column. In this case, with the district semester exam, if 65 percent of a teacher’s students scored above the average score of their academic peers, the teacher would achieve the Proficient I level for this weight and receive three out of six points. 10 But are these the “right” cut-points? Are they too hard? Too easy? Will anyone be able meet the “Proficient III” criteria? Equally important: how do you set cut-points for courses with new assessments when there are little (if any) prior year data to use? The district will establish the initial cut-points after an assessment is administered the first time. Cut points will be adjusted after the second administration of an assessment. Cut-point adjustment is necessary in order to ensure that not only are the assessments across grades and disciplines similarly rigorous but they are also correlated with the state assessments and cut-points move with the increasing rigor of the state assessments. It will ensure that no assessment is “too easy” or “too hard” relative to other exams or to the state exam. This process is key to making the assessments and the entire plan more fair, accurate, and valid. 50 50 40 40 30 30 20 ACTUAL 20 10 TARGET 10 0 Unsat Prog I Prog II Prof I Prof II Prof III 0 TARGET WITH NEW CUT-POINTS Unsat Prog I Prog II Prof I Prof II Prof III The graph on the left depicts what could happen if cut-points are not adjusted to a target distribution. As an example, the red line in the graph represents the actual distribution of teacher proficiency based on a 39 After the first two years of the TEI plan, the cut-points will remain the same (and the number of teachers at any given effectiveness level will be allowed to float) until reviewed by the TEI task force convened for this purpose. 22 • Dallas ISD’s Plan for Teacher Evaluation Teacher Excellence Initiative district’s best estimate of where the cut-points should be on a particular assessment. The graph shows that the cut-points were set too high at the lower end of the scale as too many teachers (35 percent) scored at the Unsatisfactory or Progressing I level. The cut-points at the higher levels were too generous as too many teachers (31 percent) achieved the Proficient II or Proficient III level. The district should adjust the cut-points to achieve a fairer distribution. When the cut-points are adjusted, the distribution of scores for this one measurement will approximate the green line in the graph to the right, which is very close to the target distribution. The distribution of all of the measurements used in the achievement templates is thus compared with the target distribution. The cut-points are adjusted so that the actual distribution approximates the target distribution. In this way, all assessments and measurements are made equally rigorous and all teachers have a similar chance of reaching a particular proficiency level regardless of grade or discipline.40 OVERALL EFFECTIVENESS LEVEL A teacher receives up to 50 points for performance, up to 15 points for the student survey, and up to 35 points for student achievement data. The scores from these three areas are added to get the teacher evaluation rating or annual summative. Draft scores equate to the following proposed effectiveness levels: Unsat 10–18 Progressing Proficient Exemplary I II I II III I 19–29 30–42 43–57 58–71 72–85 86–100 Master II (Exemplary II and Master teachers are discussed in the next section) The teacher evaluation rating and overall effectiveness level are synonymous for most teachers; however, they are not entirely the same. Teachers are placed at an effectiveness level based on their annual evaluation rating or, for teachers new to the district, on a review of their past achievement data and an estimation of their entering proficiency. The evaluation rating could change every year. First-year teachers who are new to teaching are novice teachers and do not have an effectiveness rating until the end of their first year. The overall effectiveness level, which is tied to compensation (as discussed in the next section), is based on the average of the teacher’s last two evaluation ratings. For the first year of the TEI plan, as there will only be one evaluation rating under the new system, a teacher’s overall effectiveness level will be based on just one year. When the average of two evaluation ratings equates to a higher level of proficiency, the teacher will be moved to the next level on the overall effectiveness scale. For example, if a teacher finished the 2014-2015 school year with an evaluation rating of 52 points (Proficient I), his or her effectiveness level would also be Proficient I. If the teacher then received an evaluation rating of 68 points (Proficient II) in the 2015-2016 school year, he or she would have an average of 60 points and the effectiveness level (and compensation) would be raised to Proficient II.41 While the district will use an average of two years to move a teacher to the next higher level, it will use an average of three years before it moves a person down to the next lower level.42 40 The distribution of teachers in each category described on Page 22 will approximate the target distribution. 41 Attaining Proficient II or higher is dependent upon the distinguished teacher review process; points referenced here are illustrative examples. 42 The district reserves the right to non-renew a teacher for poor performance per district policy and Texas law. Dallas ISD’s Plan for Teacher Evaluation • 23 Teacher Excellence Initiative EVALUATION OF DISTINGUISHED TEACHERS Distinguished teachers are those whose overall effectiveness level is Proficient II or higher. A distinguished teacher has to be distinguished in performance and distinguished in overall effectiveness (performance plus student achievement plus student survey). The equation for attaining the distinguished levels is still based on performance, student surveys, and achievement results. Just as with other teachers, achievement counts for 35 percent and is calculated using the same achievement templates. However, on the performance side of the equation, distinguished teachers have to meet additional criteria. First, a principal follows the same performance procedures as with all of the other teachers. In other words, the principal uses the spot observations and the teacher evaluation rubric to assess and rate the teacher’s performance. The scores from the student surveys and achievement template are added. If the teacher scores at least 40 points on the performance evaluation and at least 25 points from a combination of the student survey score and the achievement template score, the teacher is eligible for a Distinguished Teacher Review (DTR). The district conducts the DTR. If a teacher is eligible for a Distinguished Teacher Review, the teacher must then apply to become a distinguished teacher, or, if already at the distinguished level, he or she must apply to advance to the next higher effectiveness level. Teachers do not have to apply, but may not attain distinguished status or advance to the next higher distinguished level unless they undergo a DTR. The DTR is conducted by the School Leadership Department, assisted by Human Capital Management, principals, and other instructional leaders.43 A team of administrators and instructional coordinators observe the teacher’s classroom instruction and assess his or her leadership, lifelong learning, and contributions to the profession.44 Performance + Student Surveys + Achievement + DTR • Quality of instruction (district review) •Leadership • Lifelong learning • Contribution to the profession • Service in Tier 1 school 43 See Appendix C: Distinguished Teacher Review Process. 44 See Appendix D for draft DTR rubric. 24 • Dallas ISD’s Plan for Teacher Evaluation •Measures of student achievement (STAAR, district semester exams, constructed responses, etc.) •School performances on STAAR •Teacher’s individual student achievement goal = Highly Effective Teacher Excellence Initiative Teachers can earn up to 20 additional performance points through the DTR. Those who undergo a DTR have their original performance score capped at 40 points in order to protect against any inflation. Based on the distinguished teacher review rubric, the team assigns more weight to “actual instruction” and “leadership” and then calculates a score up to 20 points. This DTR score is added to the principal-based performance score of 40 points, the achievement template score, and the student survey score to get the evaluation rating and overall effectiveness level. WORKING IN TIER ONE SCHOOLS A school will be designated a Tier 1 school if it receives an “improvement required” rating on the state accountability system, designation as a federal “priority” or “focus” school, or if it is among the five lowest performing high schools, eight lowest performing middle schools, or 20 lowest performing elementary schools in the district with regard to the school effectiveness index (SEI). The district will use the average SEI for the last three years in order to identify the lowest performing schools.45 Tier 1 schools have the lowest proficiency levels and are most in need of effective teachers and administrators. In order to encourage our most effective teachers to teach at Tier 1 schools, the district will award points in the DTR process for service in Tier 1 schools. Teachers applying for distinguished effectiveness levels, and who will therefore undergo a district review, will receive three points for the first year they served in a Tier One school starting in the 2014-2015 school year. They will receive an additional point for the second year and one for the third year for a total of five points. These points are awarded only to the teachers who are undergoing a DTR. A teacher must work in a Tier One school in order to earn these points. EXEMPLARY II AND MASTER TEACHER A teacher who receives an Exemplary II rating from the DTR review team and whose achievement template results in an Exemplary rating (at least 30 points out of 35 on the achievement scale) is placed at the Exemplary II effectiveness level. A teacher must have served as an Exemplary I teacher for at least one year before being placed at the Exemplary II level. A teacher will be considered a “Master” teacher if he or she has been rated at the Exemplary II level for at least two years in a row and has taught in a Tier One School as a distinguished teacher for a minimum of four years.46 45 Teachers at a Tier One school that no longer meets the criteria for Tier One schools will still be eligible to get points for two more years when they undergo DTR. 46 The year of the DTR may count as one of those four years. Dallas ISD’s Plan for Teacher Evaluation • 25 Teacher Excellence Initiative Supporting Excellence Differentiating teachers’ professional learning Defining a clear vision of teaching excellence must involve establishing a clear plan to support teachers as they strive for excellence. A fair, accurate, and rigorous evaluation system that uses data from classroom observations, student perceptions, and student achievement to assess teachers must also serve the purpose of pinpointing for teachers and those who support teachers the next steps for professional growth. In this way, an effective evaluation system creates the potential for providing teachers with support that is tailored to their unique professional learning needs. Such a system is essential for supporting the full spectrum: from our novice teachers, who require substantial support, to our “irreplaceables”—the roughly top 20 percent of teachers who also seek to continue to grow through leadership and professional learning opportunities.47 School and district leaders must ensure a robust, systemic, and individualized support system is in place in order to provide the opportunity for teachers to reach their potential in enhancing student learning. RESEARCH ON PROFESSIONAL LEARNING Research on the subject of supporting teachers in their professional growth has identified several key features that have impact on teaching practice and student achievement. In a comprehensive review of the literature, the National Staff Development Council (now Learning Forward) identified four principles to guide effective professional learning for teachers. Professional learning should: • Be intensive, ongoing, and connected to practice; • Focus on student learning and address the teaching of specific curriculum content; • Align with school improvement priorities and goals; and • Build strong working relationships among teachers.48 Professional learning is most effective when it requires teachers to apply new knowledge to their planning and instruction. The research found that intensive professional development efforts that average approximately 49 hours in a year—in the form of ongoing one-on-one coaching as well as working collaboratively with colleagues—boosted student achievement by 21 percentile points. According to research on teaching specific curriculum content, an effective approach was for teams of teachers to analyze student performance data and student work samples in order to identify common student misunderstandings, build a common understanding of what mastery of a skill means in a concrete way, and assess the impact of different teaching strategies attempted. Aligning teacher professional learning with a school’s priorities has also proved to be an effective strategy in supporting teachers’ growth. When a school has an intentional action plan and aligns professional learning to that plan, professional learning is supported and reinforced from the perspective of teachers. This method has proven to be more effective than teachers participating in series of isolated professional development activities. 47 The Irreplaceables: Understanding the Real Retention Crisis in America’s Public Schools. TNTP, 2012. 48 Darling-Hammond et al (2009). Professional Learning in the Profession: A Status Report on Teacher Development in the United States and Abroad. National Staff Development Council. 26 • Supporting Excellence Teacher Excellence Initiative The NSDC study also highlighted the value of supporting strong working relationships among teachers. Research has demonstrated that schools with strong teacher working relationships are associated with increased student achievement, narrowing of achievement gaps, deepening of teachers’ knowledge, and improvements in instruction. Some key levers to promote these kinds of relationships include structuring teacher teams, providing space and time for teachers to collaborate, and promoting peer observation (live or through video). Other research has also defined many of the above practices as “job-embedded professional development.” Job-embedded professional learning refers to “teacher learning that is grounded in day-to-day teaching practice and is designed to enhance teachers’ content-specific instructional practices with the intent of improving student learning.”49 Thus, the research suggests district and school leaders are tasked with providing teachers with multiple opportunities to learn throughout the year in ongoing ways. In order to establish professional learning cultures and supports, the research also highlights the key role of the principal. In a landmark study of the impact of principals as instructional leaders, the Wallace Foundation found that instructional leadership practices have significant effects on student achievement. In exploring the source of this effect, the authors note that this impact is “largely because leadership strengthens professional community; teachers’ engagement in professional community, in turn, fosters the use of instructional practices that are associated with student achievement.”50 Principals are critical in fostering the kind of supportive environments in which teachers can achieve instructional excellence, and in turn, increase student learning. DALLAS ISD CONTEXT Any significant reform has to be systemic. Since the summer of 2012, Dallas ISD began an intentional effort to strengthen the foundation of support for teachers’ professional learning by working to establish an environment with the following elements: 1. school leaders who understand what good instruction looks like and who are held accountable for improving the quality of instruction, 2. a culture of instructional feedback in which classroom instruction is observed and effective feedback is given regularly and consistently, 3. processes to collect and analyze student achievement data and teachers who use those data to improve instruction, 4. significant support and professional development that helps both administrators and teachers improve instruction, 5. an aligned curriculum and a pervasive understanding of how to implement a standards-based curriculum. This work has led to an increase in instructional leadership by principals as they have built new habits and routines for coaching teachers through 12 spot observations for every teacher each year. They continue to engage in coaching conversations with their executive directors, role-play exercises with principal-colleagues, and participate in deeper professional development sessions to improve the quality and impact of their feedback. In addition, a new instructional coaching model has been put in place to increase the number of instructional coaches on campuses and their effectiveness. These coaches receive ongoing training from central office academic facilitators in order to enhance their one-on-one coaching of teachers, support for teacher teams, and leading of whole group professional development. Lastly, schools have been working on building their data- 49 Croft et al (2010). Job-Embedded Professional Development: What it is, who is responsible, and how to get it done well. National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality, Mid-Atlantic Comprehensive Center, and NSDC. 50 Wahlstrom et al (2010). Investigating the Links to Improved Student Learning: Executive Summary of Research Findings. Wallace Foundation. Supporting Excellence • 27 Teacher Excellence Initiative driven instruction systems using locally-developed assessments to ensure curriculum alignment and effective instruction. All of this recent work has served as a foundation that will be leveraged with the implementation of a new evaluation system and will allow us to continue to expand and deepen professional learning supports. Dallas ISD has also implemented a new principal evaluation system that is specifically designed to hold principals accountable for teachers’ growth in multiple ways. First, the principal evaluation rubric provides specific expectations for the quality of principals’ instructional leadership - including their coaching of teachers, developing teacher leadership, and providing high-quality professional development. Second, principals have a measure in their evaluation that provides them with more points for teachers’ growth in the evaluation. In order to guard against inflation, there’s a corollary measure in their evaluation that focuses on congruence - the degree to which principals’ ratings are correlated with student achievement results. Thus, through the principal evaluation system, the district has aligned incentives for principals to focus on teachers’ professional growth. DALLAS ISD’S PLAN FOR SUPPORTING EXCELLENCE To build an effective support system for teachers, the district will provide supports across multiple professional learning contexts, leverage technology to support professional learning and collaboration, and provide differentiated professional development options based on data and tailored to teachers’ needs. Dallas ISD will focus on enhancing job-embedded professional development while also identifying strategic professional development initiatives that leverage the district’s size and its diversity of school contexts. Research has shown that teachers reflect on and improve their practice on four primary contexts—selfreflection, one-on-one coaching, learning in teams, and large group professional development sessions. The Dallas ISD’s plan over the next three years includes a focus on these four contexts as well as other integrated and strategic supports: Fostering Self-Facilitated Learning Opportunities • Create short exemplar videos of Dallas ISD teachers representing each indicator of the new performance rubric in various content areas • Customize a user-friendly technology platform that facilitates data analysis and reflection as well as tools to incorporate insights into planning • Develop district training modules for effective use of digital video cameras; invest in digital video cameras for teacher use Enhancing One-on-One Coaching Supports • Develop extensive calibration modules for school leaders and instructional coaches to ensure a common vision of excellence • Create an online resource bank with videos and modules for school leaders and instructional coaches on developing effective coaching relationships and providing effective feedback • Develop a more structured mentoring program for novice teachers that leverages campus expertise Empowering Teacher Teams • Provide tools and resources for teacher teams (e.g., toolkits, videos of effective team practices) • Create virtual PLC modules that facilitate collaboration among role-alike teachers within and across campuses • Develop live and online modules for team leaders • Support school leaders and coaches in effectively supporting teams (e.g., scheduling logistics, coaching teams) 28 • Supporting Excellence Teacher Excellence Initiative Increasing Whole-Group Training Offerings • Develop a series of 1-hour model PD modules with facilitator guides aligned to rubric indicators to support campus leaders in facilitating whole-group PD sessions (e.g., when introducing a topic) • Create modules to support principals in developing a comprehensive framework for job-embedded PD on campus, including work on deepening content knowledge Developing Summer School Learning Labs • Pair proficient and above teachers with progressing teachers in teaching summer school in order to build instructional capacity Building Robust District Content Workshops • Build and provide a set of workshops (e.g., Tuesdays and Saturdays) that are designed to build campus and content expertise in areas of need Creating Differentiated PD Academies (year-long) • Develop a set of academies for select teachers that targets: m Progressing II teachers in order to support them in becoming proficient teachers m Proficient I teachers in order to support them in becoming distinguished teachers m Distinguished teachers in order to continue to grow their teacher leadership capacities • Academies would include a summer session with ongoing PD during the year in order to support jobembedded professional learning Supporting Excellence • 29 Teacher Excellence Initiative Rewarding Excellence Developing a sustainable strategic compensation system A reliable and accurate evaluation system provides the opportunity to align teacher compensation with student learning and growth. In doing so, districts improve their ability to attract, develop, and retain effective teachers. RESEARCH Aligning Evaluation and Compensation Teacher compensation has long been a subject of both public and academic discussion. As early as the 1950s, education leaders and policymakers were calling for changes in the way that educators are compensated, aligning pay more closely with the actual impact of a teacher on student learning. However, today across the country, teacher compensation systems operate in isolation, independent of teacher evaluations or student achievement. Most teachers are compensated based on their years of experience and the number of degrees that they hold. While this approach to compensation was an appropriate response to the unfair and inequitable system that it replaced after the turn of the last century, it is disconnected from the primary purpose of educators (student achievement) and has had unintended consequences on the profession, including wage-compression. The factors that are considered in teacher compensation have been shown to have no influence on student achievement. Over the last 20 years, studies have consistently found that teachers with master’s degrees are no more effective (and in some cases less effective) than teachers who hold only bachelor’s degrees. Additionally, research has shown that most increases in a teacher’s effectiveness occur in the first three years of teaching. Most compensation systems give substantially larger year to year raises for teachers with more experience (where the least year to year growth in effectiveness is occurring) than are given to less experienced teachers who are showing the greatest increases in effectiveness. This results in a system that emphasizes endurance over improvement and effectiveness. Districts have recognized the need to improve their teacher compensation systems as a means to improving their recruitment and retention of high-performing educators and have begun designing and implementing new systems. Several systems, including the ASPIRE program in Houston, DATE programs in several districts in Texas, the POINT system in Nashville, and the IMPACT system in Washington, D.C., provide incentives (bonuses) for teachers whose students show significant growth and achievement. Studies of these systems have found mixed results on their effectiveness. While there seems to be some improvement in the recruitment and retention of teachers linked to the systems, there has not been a measurable impact on increasing student achievement. Another problem with these incentive systems is that because they are in addition to a teacher’s regular salary, they pose a significant cost to the district. These systems require additional sources of revenue (special tax, government grant, private donations) which are unavailable and/or unsustainable over time. Denver Public Schools has taken an even bigger step in transforming the way it compensates teachers. DPS’s ProComp system includes a number of different incentives that compensate staff members for work and performance in a number of areas, including student achievement on state tests, attainment of personal goals, and completion of personal areas of study related to instructional practice. A study on the first four years of implementation of ProComp showed mixed results. It was found that the new system was motivating to staff members, but there was limited, if any, impact, on student achievement, student growth, and staff motivation, 30 • Rewarding Excellence Teacher Excellence Initiative retention, and recruitment. However, like other incentive programs, ProComp was implemented only after voters approved a tax increase to fund the system. Based on reviews of historical and current compensation systems, as well as efforts to improve compensation systems, several recommendations have been made. The Texas Teaching Commission recommends that with the exception of cost of living adjustments, all raises should be tied to a teacher’s effectiveness.TNTP, in their report on the retention of high-quality educators, recommends that phasing out “quality-blind pay structures in favor of more flexible compensation systems that offer greater earnings potential for high-performing teachers early in their careers.” Parents’ Views on Teacher Compensation Parents showed similar attitudes toward factors that should be considered when determining a teachers pay. Half of respondents said they would base teacher pay on a mix of tests and classroom observations; 28 percent would base teacher pay only on classroom observations while 15 percent would base teacher pay solely on standardized test results. WHY A STRATEGIC COMPENSATION SYSTEM? One could have a rigorous teacher evaluation system without attaching compensation to the results of the evaluation. However, it is doubtful that any organization could maximize the effectiveness of its employees if the compensation system is disconnected from what the organization values most. In order for any system to maximize its effectiveness, the major parts of the system must be aligned. In the case of school systems, how employees are compensated is one such area that should be aligned with the rest of the district’s human capital management processes. The traditional teacher salary schedule, used almost exclusively in most states, aggravates the problems with evaluation. Over time, our profession settled on an advancement and reward system based not on rigorous assessments of performance, but on two simple measures: years of service and hours of college coursework. While these two factors are objective and easy to measure, they are not the best measures of teacher effectiveness. In a system in which teachers are rewarded based on years of service, advancement with regard to compensation is automatic and made with little regard to teacher performance and student outcomes. In such a system, teacher evaluations have very little meaning apart from removing the one teacher out of a hundred who is the poorest performer.51 The teacher salary schedule at its core is not designed to promote teacher competency or to support student academic proficiency, but to provide for automatic salary increases and to reward longevity in the system. A well-designed strategic compensation system would clearly outline for the employees what the organization values and incentivize behaviors that would help the organization accomplish its primary goals. Inextricably linked to the evaluation system, an effective compensation system would support the evaluation system’s focus on effective teacher performance. It would also tie compensation to student achievement results. If our primary job is to prepare college- and career-ready students, then a key measure of success has to be student achievement. An effective system would place a premium on results and reward teachers accordingly. Additionally, strategic compensation would: 51 Daniel Weisberg, Susan Sexton, Jennifer Mulhern, David Keeling, The Widget Effect: Our National Failure to Acknowledge and Act on Differences in Teacher Effectiveness (Brooklyn, N.Y.: The New Teacher Project, 2009). Rewarding Excellence • 31 Teacher Excellence Initiative • Support the recruitment and retention of highly motivated and effective teachers • Differentiate salaries to reward teachers who perform well and raise student achievement results • Enable the organization to shift compensation from factors that have not helped to raise student achievement or the quality of instruction to those that do • Reward professionalism and leadership DALLAS ISD’S STRATEGIC COMPENSATION PLAN Dallas ISD also has an opportunity to significantly increase teacher salaries overall and especially for effective teachers. Under a strategic compensation plan, the district would eliminate the traditional teacher salary schedule for classroom teachers. The traditional salary schedule would be replaced with nine effectiveness levels. DISTRICT REVIEW PRINCIPAL REVIEW Unsat $45K Progressing Proficient Exemplary Master I II I II III I II $49K $51K $54K $59K $65K $74K $82K $90K Novice ($47K) The salaries under the proposed new system are significantly higher than career-path-equivalent ones in other local districts. Moreover, the main benefit of the new plan with regard to compensation is the earning potential over several years. For example, currently it takes a new teacher (on the bachelor’s degree salary schedule) 10 years to earn a salary of $51,307. Under the new evaluation and compensation system, a new teacher can begin earning that amount after only two years. Additionally, a teacher under the new evaluation system would earn considerably more over their career than a teacher under the current evaluation system and salary schedule. The chart on the following page illustrates the difference in earning potential between the current system and the proposed compensation plan. The columns under the current salary schedule heading show the annual salary and total earnings for a teacher who works in the district for 15 years.52 The salaries used in this example are from the 2013-2014 salary schedule for a teacher with a master’s degree. The columns on the right show one possible and probable progression of an average teacher under the proposed new system. 52 This example does not take into account any possible increases to the salary schedule or wage freezes. It also assumes no adjustment to the compensation associated with the proposed effectiveness levels. 32 • Rewarding Excellence Teacher Excellence Initiative CYS53 CURRENT SALARY SCHEDULE POTENTIAL STRATEGIC COMPENSATION Salary Effectiveness Level Salary 0 47,022 Novice 47,000 1 47,022 Progressing I 49,000 2 47,022 Progressing II 51,000 3 47,277 Progressing II 51,000 4 47,992 Proficient I 54,000 5 48,859 Proficient I 54,000 6 48,859 Proficient I 54,000 7 49,726 Proficient I 54,000 8 50,593 Proficient II 59,000 9 51,460 Proficient II 59,000 10 52,327 Proficient II 59,000 11 53,194 Proficient II 59,000 12 54,061 Proficient II 59,000 13 54,061 Proficient III 65,000 14 56,265 Proficient III 65,000 $755,740 $839,000 Under the current salary schedule, a teacher would earn approximately $755,740 over 15 years. With the new, proposed compensation plan, the average teacher would earn approximately $839,000 over 15 years. This amounts to a difference of $83,260, or approximately $5,550 each year. More effective teachers would earn much more; less effective teachers would earn less. With strategic compensation, the salary is tied to teacher performance, student achievement results and student survey results. Teachers will no longer be paid for years of experience or college degrees or credits.54 And while there may be some additional stipends for certain hard-to-fill areas (which still needs to be determined) and certain other additional duties, teachers, generally, will receive very little other compensation.55 The basic concept of the proposed Dallas ISD system is to pay an effective teacher a significantly higher salary (than that of peers in other districts) and set high expectations for professional behavior and practice. In a professional organization, leaders and team members mentor the new person in order to improve the organization’s chances of meeting its goals. In a professional organization, people take the initiative to lead and move the organization forward. This notion of professionalism will add to a positive culture-shift in Dallas ISD. 53 Creditable Years of Service 54 Graduate degrees and/or continuing education credits may be considered as evidence of life-long learning, which are part of the criteria for becoming a distinguished teacher (Proficient II or higher-level teacher) 55 Stipends for department chairs, team leaders, and mentors will continue through 2015-16 and will be phased-out in subsequent years. Rewarding Excellence • 33 Teacher Excellence Initiative ADJUSTMENT FOR INFLATION OR COST-OF-LIVING The compensation tied to the effectiveness levels is not adjusted every year to account for inflation. However, the compensation scale will be reviewed at least once every three years by the Human Capital Management compensation team to determine if the scale is competitive and to make a recommendation to adjust it if necessary. The next regular review and possible adjustment of the salary levels will be in the 2016-2017 school year. SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENTIATING SALARIES With an effective evaluation system, not all teachers are going to be equally effective. Evaluations will be differentiated as will compensation. Indeed, a strategic compensation system cannot be sustainable if the plan is designed simply to provide teachers with more money. Teachers in the education profession are used to getting the same raises as everyone else in the school. It takes a shift in culture to move to a system in which, in a given year, some teachers will receive a significant raise and others will receive no additional money. RECEIVING A SIGNIFICANT RAISE WHEN PROMOTED, BUT NOT BEING PROMOTED EVERY YEAR While this is common in other professions, not getting a raise or a step every year (except in particularly bad economic times) is a foreign concept to most teachers. Through the TEI, the district has decided to truly differentiate salaries and to design a system that rewards people handsomely (relative to their peers in education), but not every year. Under the TEI plan, in any given year, the district can give a significant increase (up to $8,000) to a teacher who advances one effectiveness level because teachers are not getting an annual increase and, in a given year, the majority of teachers will not be advanced to the next level. The plan is designed for teachers to move almost yearly until they reach the Proficient I level and then to be much harder to advance yearly through the other levels. Under the TEI plan, and not counting the novice teachers (who are automatically moved to the next level if they are asked to return to the district), approximately 20 percent of the staff are expected to meet the criteria to move to the next effectiveness level annually. The Dallas TEI plan was designed with these three concepts in mind. As long as the plan stays rigorous, with no more than 20 to 25 percent of teachers promoted each year, the plan will be sustainable. Currently, prior to the implementation of the pay-for-performance plan, the district spends approximately 48 percent of the general fund on classroom teacher salaries. The plan is designed to use approximately the same percentage of the general fund. The stability of the percentage of the general fund being used for classroom teacher salaries will be an indication of the sustainability of the plan. Still, over time, the district plans for the teaching staff ’s ability to get higher achievement results to improve significantly. This will mean that more teachers will attain the higher levels of effectiveness, and the district will be paying out more in salaries. Of course, paying out more in salaries can only happen when student achievement results significantly improve—a nice tradeoff to have to face. With moderate academic progress, using conservative predictions for the various funding variables that might impact strategic compensation, Dallas ISD estimates that it will be able to sustain the strategic compensation plan for at least the next six years (until the 2020-2021 school year) without a significant increase in revenue. Beyond the 2020-2021 school year, and conservatively assuming the district will receive very little extra revenue from the state, the district could take steps to sustain strategic compensation well into the future. For example, it could increase the proportion of the maintenance and operation budget being used for teacher 34 • Rewarding Excellence Teacher Excellence Initiative salaries (currently at about 48 percent). It could also pass a tax ratification election to support higher teacher salaries. Keep in mind that significantly raising teacher salaries in any system would require the district to take similar steps. KEY IMPLEMENTATION PARAMETERS The following implementation parameters are critical to the success and sustainability of the plan during the transition. Based on SY14-15 ratings, all classroom teachers would be assigned an overall effectiveness level. The new salary would start in SY15-16. All classroom teachers would receive salaries based on the new compensation system beginning in the fall of 2015. Teacher salaries will not go below 2014-2015 level. Changing compensation systems requires careful consideration of the employees’ context. For this reason, even though some teachers initial placement on the new system would suggest a lower salary based on their overall levels of effectiveness, the District will allow these teachers to maintain their 2014-15 salary for as long as they are continuously employed by Dallas ISD as a teacher. For first two years of TEI implementation, maximum salary increase in a single year will be capped at $5,000 for an individual teacher. In order to ensure sustainability of the system during the transition from one compensation system to another, salary increases will be capped at $5,000 for teachers. Proficient I teachers have a minimum of three years of teaching experience. While this parameter is inevitably the case by the structure of the plan for novice teachers that start on the new plan and progress through successive effectiveness levels, it requires mentioning during a transition to the new plan since current teachers will not have had to move through Novice, Progressing I, and Progressing II levels in order to reach Proficient I status. Rewarding Excellence • 35 Teacher Excellence Initiative Budget Implications and Sustaining TEI One often hears that implementing a rigorous teacher evaluation system or a strategic compensation plan is too costly. While it certainly can be costly, the costs depend on how the plan is developed and implemented. For detailed information on the budget implications and information related to sustaining TEI, see Appendix F. SUSTAINING TEI One of the largest concerns for any strategic compensation plan is its sustainability. In order to successfully pay teachers for performance and achievement while keeping the Dallas ISD financially secure, the district will take a fundamentally different approach to teacher compensation. The changed paradigm involves two central financial concepts: (1) the plan is designed to consume approximately the same amount of the budget (M&O) as the current, traditional salary schedule, and (2) the plan is based on a “target distribution” of effectiveness levels. Adherence to these two concepts gives TEI its viability. TEI is not an incentive plan in which the District would have to fund over and above the amount it pays in salaries. TEI takes approximately the same amount of money spent in classroom teacher salaries and distributes it based on effectiveness rather than years of experience and college credits. Currently Dallas ISD spends $539,345,000 or 46.6 percent of its M&O budget on classroom teacher salaries. Essentially, the district takes $539,345,000 and divides up that amount among approximately 10,052 teachers. The district uses years of service and college credits earned to determine who should be paid more. But dividing up the total amount of money by years of service and college credit is only one way to differentiate the individual payments. What if the district took the same amount of money ($539,345,000) and divided it up among the same 10,052 teachers. However, this time imagine the District using teacher effectiveness to determine who should be paid more. Instead of the graph on the left, the new plan is based on the graph on the right. Teacher Salaries, 2014–2015 Teacher Compensation 70000 80000 60000 70000 60000 Salary Salaries 50000 40000 30000 50000 40000 30000 $539,500,000 20000 20000 10000 10000 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 Years of Service 30 36 • Budget Implications and Sustaining TEI 35 40 0 Unsat Prog I Prog II Prof I Prof II Effectiveness Prof III Exemp + Teacher Excellence Initiative Essentially, TEI uses the same amount of money as the district would spend under the traditional salary schedule. Because it is not an incentive pay plan, it does not start with the traditional salary schedule and then add more dollars to the budget. The key to having a sustainable strategic compensation plan is to take the same amount of money used to pay for classroom teacher salaries, but to use performance and achievement criteria to differentiate salaries. More precisely, the TEI plan first identifies the percentage of the M&O that the district uses to pay for classroom teacher salaries. It then allows for some growth of that percentage over the next several years (for example, in Dallas ISD’s case the total amount for classroom teacher salaries could reach 51 percent of the M&O budget in order for the district to continue to maintain a strong financial position and a healthy fund balance). In order to be sustainable, the total amount for classroom teacher salaries should remain below the ceiling described by the district (in the example provided, 47 percent). TARGET DISTRIBUTION The other essential concept needed for a sustainable strategic compensation plan is a target distribution. First, some background. The amount of money the district spends annually on classroom teacher salaries depends on the distribution of teachers with regard to years of service and college degrees. For example, the less experienced the staff, the less the district spends on salaries overall. Because on average, teachers leave before their fifth year in the profession and mobility hovers between 15 and 20 percent in an average year, the district has traditionally been able to use a lower percentage of the M&O budget for classroom teacher salaries than it would with a more experienced and more stable staff. [The instructional quality has probably suffered as a result of these savings.] 3000 The graph to the left shows the current distribution of teachers with regard to salaries. It reflects the low experience levels and low salaries for a large part of the staff. 2,588 No. of Teachers 2500 2000 1500 1,573 1,583 1,536 Current Distribution This type of compensation arrangement ensures 1000 829 725 720 that teachers with little experience receive the lowest salaries regardless of their effectiveness or their abil500 125 ity to get student achievement results or perform well 0 instructionally. While a compensation plan based < 47 47-49 49-51 51-54 54-59 59-65 65-74 > 74 Salary Range on a teacher’s years of experience and college degree, instead of being based on teacher effectiveness, may not seem fair to many, it does have the advantage of being objective, meaning that there is very little subjectivity to determining years of experience and college degree. There are two other huge advantages to the traditional salary schedule: the salary expenditures from year to year are highly predictable and the total amount can be easily controlled (with salary freezes or step increases). Since the salaries are not tied to evaluations, the inflation of evaluations makes virtually no difference with regard to total expenditures. Thus, across the country and in Dallas ISD, 98 percent of all teachers have satisfactory or higher evaluations. There is a different way. By using a target distribution, the district’s salary expenditures would be fairly predictable and the total amount of the M&O can still be controlled (however, not as easily as with a salary schedule). The target distribution would approximate a normal distribution, allowing for significantly more teachers to receive higher salaries earlier in their careers—but only if they demonstrate effectiveness. Budget Implications and Sustaining TEI • 37 Teacher Excellence Initiative In effect, the district would create a distribution of teacher salaries based on overall effectiveness. Currently, the district places teachers into the skewed and uneven distribution portrayed on the chart on page 37. Under the new compensation plan, teachers would be placed into a target distribution. The question then becomes: what should the target distribution be and what distribution is sustainable? The graph below shows one example of a fairly normal distribution. 45 Percentage of Teachers 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 Normal Distribution In this example, approximately 30 percent of the teachers would be placed in Proficient I category. Nineteen percent would be Progressing II and 19 percent would be Proficient II. The district could tie each level of effectiveness with a salary such that the combined salaries equaled the total amount of the budget currently set aside for classroom teacher salaries. Indeed, for any distribution, the district simply has to assign to each level of effectiveness a salary Unsat Prog I Prog II Prof I Prof II Prof III Exemp amount that, when added together, equals the total Effectiveness budgeted amount. Thus there are hundreds of reasonable combinations of distributions and salary amounts associated with each level of effectiveness. The ultimate choice has more to do with philosophy than finances. 5 0 What distribution makes the most sense? What sort of system would we design if we were starting from scratch? What makes sense is a compensation system that is extremely competitive and that rewards effectiveness rather than years of service. It also makes sense to have a salary distribution that approaches a normal distribution, in which the majority of teachers are Proficient or just below or above Proficient and in which there are fewer teachers at either extreme. It also makes sense to have a distribution that allows the district to grow into normal or average (at present the district is significantly below the state average on most state exams). Given the above considerations, the following target distribution makes sense for Dallas ISD at this time. Notice that it approximates a normal distribution, but is skewed positively in order to allow the staff to progress and in order to maintain our financial stability well into the future. Target Distribution Using this distribution and the salaries tied to the effectiveness levels, the total amount of money the district would pay out in classroom salaries for the first year of compensation under the TEI plan (2015-2016) would be approximately $553,000,000. This amount is less than the $568,000,000 the district would expect to pay under the traditional salary schedule in 2015-2016. The district can lower (or increase) the total amount by changing the compensation associated with each effectiveness rating. The problem with inflation is mostly mitigated by the use of the target distribution. COSTS While the TEI plan is designed to be sustainable over the long term, there are several important start-up and ongoing projected costs. 38 • Budget Implications and Sustaining TEI Teacher Excellence Initiative 1. Data management system. The system to manage all of the data for students and teachers has to be comprehensive and designed to support the Dallas TEI plan. A comprehensive data management system will cost the District approximately $1,000,000 each year. 2. Assessment development, scoring, and data analysis. This component of TEI will require $1.86 million and an addition of 13 staff. Specifically: a. The creation of over 250 assessments over the course of three years will require an initial investment. The district estimates the costs for the creation and scoring of assessments to be approximately $1.5 million annually. This amount includes consultation services in order to outsource the creation of some of the more specialized assessments and the salaries of additional nine staff members, who will join the assessment department. b. A tremendous amount of data will be processed and must have many quality control processes in place. Also an explanation of the results will need to be communicated. The district estimates the cost for additional four staff members to be approximately $360,000. 3. Student surveys. Student surveys account for 15% of the teacher’s overall effectiveness. The survey will be conducted by an independent company that has experience in this area. The district estimates the cost of administering research-based, student surveys to be approximately $1,250,000 each year. 4. TEI implementation team and Distinguished Teacher Reviews. Carrying out the TEI plan will entail considerable data collection and management, cross-department coordination, integration of various processes, internal and external communications, and the implementation of new practices and paradigms. During the first year of the TEI plan, the District will have to conduct close to 2500 distinguished reviews. This number will decrease considerably in the second year of the plan and thereafter. The Human Capital Management department will work with School Leadership to coordinate and conduct the reviews. The district estimates an additional ten positions would be needed to effectively guide the implementation of the plan and manage the distinguished reviews. The cost of this team will be approximately $800,000. 5. Initial, and on-going training for appraisers and teachers. Every appraiser will need to be trained and pass a calibration assessment on the performance rubric prior to appraising teachers in the new system. In addition, all teachers will need a formal orientation to the system, how it works, and what their rights and responsibilities are under the new system. Staff will either need to develop or outsource the development of the training and provide for delivery to all principals, assistant principals, academic facilitators, and teachers. Delivery will be both in person and web-based and there will not be a stipend for personnel to attend the training. Estimated cost for development and delivery of initial training is approximately $250,000. 6. Teacher professional development. In order to implement the vision of supporting excellence, the District will need to invest in designing and implementing each of the components outlined earlier. The combined personnel and contracted costs will be approximately $3,000,000. Budget Implications and Sustaining TEI • 39 Teacher Excellence Initiative Costs 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 Data management system $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 Assessment development, scoring, and data analysis $1,860,000 $1,860,000 $1,860,000 Student surveys $1,250,000 $1,250,000 $1,250,000 TEI implementation team & Distinguished reviews $ 800,000 $ 725,000 $ 650,000 Training for appraisers and teachers $ 250,000 $ 50,000 $ 50,000 $3,000,000 $3,000,000 $3,000,000 $8,160,000 $7,885,000 $7,810,000 Professional Development Total Overall, the projected costs average about $800 per teacher per year, the largest portion dedicated to providing professional development supports for teachers. As a result, the District believes TEI to be a highleverage and efficient investment in our goals for improving the quality of teachers and, ultimately, student achievement and growth. 40 • Budget Implications and Sustaining TEI Little to no evidence of a lesson objective. Indicator 1: Establishes clear and rigorous lesson objective(s) But, the teacher does not effectively convey the objective so half of the students cannot articulate: • Why it is important or • What mastery looks like Focuses students at the beginning and throughout the lesson, so most of the students can articulate: • What they are learning Posts lesson objectives, but some are not aligned to district curriculum maps & assessments or may not be 2 outcomes-based . PROGRESSING Without exception, effectively 6 establishes clear, rigorous , and 7 outcomes-based objectives aligned to district curriculum maps & assessments. Focuses students at the beginning and throughout the lesson so that all or nearly all students can clearly explain: • What they are learning beyond simply repeating back the stated or posted objective • Why it is important beyond simply repeating the teacher’s explanation • What mastery looks like • How to connect it to prior knowledge and their own lives • How the objective fits into the 8 broader unit and course goals Focuses students at the beginning and throughout the lesson, by clearly stating and explaining to students: • What they are learning • Why it is important 4 • What mastery looks like • How to connect it to prior knowledge and their own 5 lives Most students can demonstrate through their actions or comments that they understand each of the above. EXEMPLARY Consistently and effectively establishes clear and rigorous, and 3 outcomes-based lesson objectives, aligned to district curriculum maps & assessments. PROFICIENT 2 Revised: 9/27/2013 1 This may be indicated by students retelling the objective nearly verbatim or by copying. Objectives at the progressing level often appear as a description of the activities for the lesson (e.g. students will complete a graphic organizer) rather than a description of the learning that is expected as a result of the activities (e.g. students will be able to articulate the differences and similarities between__________ and ___________using a graphic organizer). 3 Objectives at the proficient level describe what students will be able to know and do on their path towards standards mastery. Objectives are not a description of the lesson activities. 4 Examples of this might include using a referencing a scale or rubric, sharing exemplars of high quality work when engaging students in the lesson, modeling effective strategies/thinking required to master the objective, asking students to state what they think mastery would look like and clarifying expectations through Q & A, and teaching students to use peer review or backward checking. 5 The teacher actively and effectively engages students in the process of connecting the lesson to their prior knowledge. For example, the teacher might ask students to connect concepts to their own experiences or to what they have learned in other courses. 6 Rigor is defined by level of cognition required by learning goal(s). This can be quantified using Bloom’s Taxonomy. 7 In all classes, objectives should be written in a student-friendly manner, using developmentally appropriate language. In early childhood classes, posting a written objective is not necessary. In some lessons (for example, center time in an early childhood or elementary class), different groups of students might be working toward a variety of different objectives. In these cases, it is not always necessary to have distinct objectives posted for each center or different activity. However, observers should assess whether each center or activity is designed intentionally to move students toward mastery of an objective. Similarly, in lessons like these, different groups of students might be working on a variety of activities that do not clearly build on each other or on what happened previously in the lesson. In these cases, observers should assess the extent to which these activities are themselves well-organized. 8 For example, this might be shown through an effective teacher explanation of how the lesson connects to the unit’s essential questions or structure, or reflected in students demonstrating through their comments that they understand how the lesson fits into the broader goals of the unit. 1 Less than half of the students can articulate: 1 • What they are learning • Why it is important, or • What mastery looks like UNSATISFACTORY INDICATOR Domain 1: Instructional Practice Performance Rubric - DRAFT Teacher Excellence Initiative Appendix A DRAFT PERFORMANCE RUBRIC Appendix A • 41 42 • Appendix A Teacher does not use the data to 10 guide instructional decisions . Less than half of the students demonstrate mastery. DOL can be completed independently by few students. If a DOL is evident, it is not aligned with the posted objective or DOL does not rigorously measure mastery. Teacher sometimes uses the data to guide instructional decisions. Half of the students demonstrate proficiency on the DOL. DOL can be completed independently by half of the students. Does not quickly assess student growth or evidence of mastery (over 10 minutes). Sometimes develops a DOL to measure student mastery of the posted objective. PROGRESSING Without exception, effectively develops a clear, understandable, and rigorous DOL to measure student mastery or growth in knowledge and skill relative to standards of the posted objective. DOL can quickly identify mastery in 510 minutes. DOL can be completed independently by all or nearly all students. All or nearly all students demonstrate a high level of mastery. Teacher consistently and effectively uses data to guide instructional decisions. DOL can quickly identify mastery in 5-10 minutes. DOL can be completed independently by most students. Most students demonstrate a high level of mastery on the DOL. Teacher consistently uses data to guide instructional decisions. EXEMPLARY Consistently and effectively develops a clear, understandable, and rigorous DOL to measure student mastery or growth in knowledge and skill relative to standards of the posted objective. PROFICIENT Performance Rubric - DRAFT Revised: 9/27/2013 2 9 Examples might include describing how lesson objectives connect to overall unit (e.g. how the daily objectives will help students accomplish overall unit goals) at the beginning of the lesson, asking students to describe the relevant objective(s) they are working on during the lesson and how their task/strategy will help them accomplish the objectives, asking students to evaluate whether or not they met each objective at the end of the lesson, asking students what questions they still have related to each objective during or at the end of the lesson. 10 Instructional decisions may include using student performance data on the DOL as a bell-ringer, referencing DOL to re-teach or address instructional misinformation, using DOL to form interventions or instructional groups, or further advance learning or increase the pace of learning if students shown mastery. Little to no evidence of a 9 DOL . Indicator 2: Measures student mastery through a demonstration of learning (DOL) OR UNSATISFACTORY INDICATOR Domain 1: Instructional Practice Teacher Excellence Initiative Instructions and procedures for participating in activities are clear to most students. Most students demonstrate that they understand the content at an 13 appropriate level of rigor . Uses multiple strategies and academic language to emphasize key concepts with little to no irrelevant information. Consistently presents the content and purpose: • Correctly in a logical, coherent fashion • To support the learning of the posted objective(s) PROFICIENT Instructions and procedures for participating in activities are clear to all or nearly all students. All or nearly all students demonstrate that they understand the content, and most understand it at a high level of 16 rigor . 15 Uses multiple, effective strategies and academic language to emphasize key concepts with no irrelevant information. Consistently and effectively presents the content and purpose: • Correctly in a logical, coherent fashion • To support the learning of the posted objective(s) • Building on content 14 previously mastered EXEMPLARY Performance Rubric - DRAFT 13 12 Revised: 9/27/2013 3 Examples might include students do worksheets or read textbooks. If the teacher presents information with any mistake that would leave students with a significant misunderstanding at the end of the lesson, the teacher should be scored unsatisfactory for this indicator. Students ask relatively few clarifying questions because they understand the explanations. However, they may ask a number of extension questions because they are engaged in the content and eager to learn more about it. 14 Teacher engages students in activities that help them link what they already know to the new content about to be addressed and facilitates these linkages. Examples might include using a preview question before reading, asking or reminding students what they already know about the topic, provide an advanced organizer (e.g. outline or graphic organizer), having students brainstorm, using motivational hook/launching activity (e.g. anecdote, short selection from video), using word splash activity to connect vocabulary to upcoming content. 15 Strategies to emphasize key concepts may include using verbal or nonverbal techniques such as changing the tone of voice, body position, level of excitement, pacing, saying “this is important” or “write this down”, and effectively using PowerPoint and other technology. 16 When appropriate, the teacher explains concepts in a way that actively involves students in the learning process, such as by facilitating opportunities for students to explain concepts to each other. Students ask higher-order questions and make connections independently, demonstrating that they understand the content at a higher level. 11 Instructions and procedures for participating in activities are clear to less than half of the students. Instructions and procedures for participating in activities are clear to half of the students. Most of the students may demonstrate that they understand the content, but at a low level of rigor. Uses limited verbal and nonverbal techniques to convey concepts with some irrelevant information or with some non-academic language. Uses limited verbal and nonverbal techniques to convey concepts with some irrelevant or 12 inaccurate information and with non-academic language. Fewer than half of the students demonstrate that they understand the content, and/or most understand it at a low level of rigor. Presents content and purpose generally in a coherent fashion, but: • Some parts are unclear or developmentally inappropriate • May not effectively support the learning of the posted objective(s) Presents content and purpose: • In a confusing way, using unclear or incoherent language • With little to no evidence of instruction in support of the posted 11 objective(s) Indicator 3: Clearly presents instructional content PROGRESSING UNSATISFACTORY INDICATOR Domain 1: Instructional Practice Teacher Excellence Initiative Appendix A • 43 44 • Appendix A Adjustments that are made do not meet student needs, and misses many opportunities to make adjustments. Makes some necessary adjustments using information gathered from checks, but misses some opportunities for needed adjustments to reach other students. Gets an accurate reading of the class’s understanding from most checks. Sometimes checks for academic understanding, but misses several key moments and/or mostly checks for understanding of directions. PROGRESSING Consistently and effectively makes adjustments using information gathered from checks to meet student needs, without taking away from the flow of the lesson or losing engagement. Effectively makes adjustments using information gathered from checks, but may miss a few opportunities for needed adjustments to reach other students. 19 Gets an accurate reading of the class’s understanding from every 21 check . Gets an accurate reading of the class’s understanding from almost every check. 18 Checks for academic understanding are seamlessly embedded in the 20 lesson to determine pace and whether or not key steps or concepts need to be discussed further before moving on. EXEMPLARY Consistently checks for academic understanding at almost all key moments to determine pace of the lesson and whether or not key steps or concepts need to be discussed further before moving on. PROFICIENT Performance Rubric - DRAFT 18 Revised: 9/27/2013 4 For example, teacher might neglect some students or ask very general questions that do not effectively assess student academic understanding. In order to be credited as an effective check for understanding, the technique must be appropriate to the objective and yield information that can inform instruction and thus succeed in getting an accurate reading of the class’s understanding. 19 Examples include, but are not limited to: scaffolding, adjusting time allotments, using new examples of information, explaining concepts in a different way, regrouping students, using “think-alouds”, providing models or manipulatives, connecting to prior knowledge, and providing auditory or visual clues. 20 Examples include, but are not limited to: asking clarifying questions, asking students to rephrase material, having students respond on white boards, using “exit slips”, using “think-pair-share”, having students vote on answer choices, response cards, response chaining, thumbs-up-thumbs-down, do-now’s, scanning progress of students working independently, drawing upon peer conversations/explanations, conferencing with individual students, using role-playing, using constructed responses, observing student work in a structured manner. For some lessons, checking for understanding of the class may not be an appropriate standard. For example, if students are spending the majority of the period working on individual essays and the teacher is conferencing with a few students, it may not be necessary for the teacher to check the understanding of the entire class. In these cases, the teacher should be judged based on how deeply and effectively s/he checks for the understanding of the students with whom s/he is working. 21 A teacher does not necessarily have to check with every student in order to gauge the understanding of the class. As long as the teacher calls both on students who raise their hands and on those who do not, a series of questions posed to the entire class can enable a teacher to get a reading of the class. Or, if the teacher checks the understanding of a number of students, finds that most of them did not understand some part of the lesson, and immediately re-teaches that part to the entire class, this should count as effectively getting a reading of the class because the teacher gained enough information to be able to adjust subsequent instruction. 17 Little to no evidence of checks for academic understanding, missing nearly all key moments, and/or only checks for understanding of directions. Indicator 4: Checks for academic understanding Does not get an accurate reading of the class’s understanding from most checks17. UNSATISFACTORY INDICATOR Domain 1: Instructional Practice Teacher Excellence Initiative Uses a limited repertoire of response strategies and instructional strategies that: • Engage only half of the 22 students in the content, but may not be tightly linked to the lesson objective(s) • Sometimes promotes student mastery of the objective(s) Little to no evidence of using response strategies and instructional strategies: • Less than half of the students are engaged with the content, but may not support the lesson objective(s) • Seldom promotes student mastery of the objective(s) Consistently uses more than one response strategy and instructional strategy that: • Engages most students in the content to support the lesson objective(s) • Promotes student mastery of the objective(s) Consistently adapts the content and process of instruction based on general performance levels, interests, learning styles, and diverse cultures so that most students can access the content at an appropriate level of rigor. PROFICIENT Purposefully and effectively uses multiple response strategies and 24 instructional strategies that: • Engage all or nearly all students in the content to support the lesson objective(s), • Promote student mastery of the objective(s), and • Promote positive and active involvement in the work. Consistently and effectively adapts the content and process of 23 instruction based on specific performance levels, interests, learning styles, and diverse cultures to ensure that most students can access the content at a high level of rigor. EXEMPLARY Performance Rubric - DRAFT 23 Revised: 9/27/2013 5 For example, a teacher should not receive credit for providing a way of engaging with content if the teacher shows a visual illustration but most students are not paying attention, or if the teacher asks students to model parallel and perpendicular lines with their arms but most students do not participate. This does not mean that 25 different lesson plans should be developed for 25 different learners in a class. Rather, individual student data is used to inform decisions such as, but not limited to, grouping decisions, choices of texts provided for students, and options for solving problems. The difference between Exemplary and Proficient for this indicator is that individualized data is being used in Exemplary whereas more general, aggregated data is being used in Proficient. 24 An exemplary teacher may give students multiple ways of engaging with content even when all of the ways target the same modality or intelligence. For example, a teacher may show a short video clip, and then use a graphic organizer. Though both of these target the visual learning modality, they provide students with different ways of engaging with the same content. An exemplary teacher provides students with multiple ways of engaging with content that include, but are not limited to, targeting different learning modalities (auditory, visual, kinesthetic/tactile) or multiple intelligences (spatial, linguistic, logical-mathematical, kinesthetic, musical, interpersonal, intrapersonal, naturalistic). 22 Adapts the content and process of instruction based on assumptions rather than data so half of the students can access with the content at an appropriate level of rigor. Little to no evidence of differentiation, providing less than half of the students with access to the content at an appropriate level of rigor. Indicator 5: Differentiates to meet the needs of all students PROGRESSING UNSATISFACTORY INDICATOR Domain 1: Instructional Practice Teacher Excellence Initiative Appendix A • 45 46 • Appendix A Uses primarily low-level questions, which are not used 25 appropriately and/or do not push students beyond initial 26 thinking or help them to understand the content at all. Indicator 6: Encourages higher-order thinking skills Sometimes provides helpful or positive suggestions to encourage students to use appropriate responses, but misses many opportunities. Half of the students are asking themselves and others appropriate questions while others ask questions on recall or comprehension. Appropriately uses a variety of questions that help push student understanding of the content, but not beyond initial thinking. PROGRESSING Generally provides helpful and positive suggestions that encourage students to use 30 appropriate responses . Most students are asking themselves and others appropriate questions, and synthesizing the content. Appropriately , consistently, 28 and equitably uses a variety of high quality questions that pushes 29 students beyond initial thinking . 27 PROFICIENT Frequently provides helpful and positive suggestions to encourage appropriate responses. All or nearly all students are asking themselves and others appropriate questions, and evaluating diverse perspectives. Appropriately, consistently, and equitably uses a variety of high quality questions that pushes students well beyond initial thinking, and consistently provides multiple opportunities to extend learning. EXEMPLARY Performance Rubric - DRAFT Revised: 9/27/2013 6 25 Examples of inappropriate use of questions includes, but is not limited to: questions asked randomly, sporadically, or as an afterthought, asking “gotcha” type questions more for management than developing knowledge, or singling students out based on lack of participation. 26 Low-level questions include knowledge, recall, and comprehension level questions. 27 Appropriate questions are aligned to level of rigor required by lesson objective and/or scaffold to and beyond lesson objectives. 28 Note that the same students are not always called upon to answer questions. 29 Questioning to promote higher-level understanding should be present in every lesson. The frequency with which a teacher should use questions to develop higher-level understanding will vary depending on the topic and type of lesson. Higher quality questions often require students to apply a new skill or content in a new context. Examples of types of questions that can develop higher-order thinking skills: • Activating higher levels of inquiry on Bloom’s taxonomy (using words such as “analyze,” “classify,” “compare,” “decide,” “evaluate,”, “explain,” or “represent”) • Asking students to explain their reasoning, • Asking students to explain why they are learning something or to summarize the main idea • Asking students to apply a new skill or concept in a different context • Asking students higher-level questions in response to students’ correct answers • Posing a question that increases the rigor of the lesson content • Prompting students to make connections to previous material or prior knowledge • Setting up a more challenging task (even if this is not necessarily phrased as questions) 30 Examples of appropriate responses include, but are not limited to, students using complete sentences to fully answer questions at the level of rigor in which they are asked, students asking for clarification of the questions posed to them and then answering the question, students stating that they do not know the answer and thinking out loud about what they may need to do to discover the answer. Does not provide helpful or positive suggestions to encourage students to use appropriate responses. More than half of the students are not asking themselves and others appropriate questions. Questions primarily focus on recall or comprehension. UNSATISFACTORY INDICATOR Domain 1: Instructional Practice Teacher Excellence Initiative Obtains this knowledge through passive means, on an as needed basis. Unit objectives and lesson plans indicate the importance of respecting student’s skills, language, backgrounds, cultures, interests, learning styles, and special needs, and attains this knowledge for the class as a whole. Unit objectives and lesson plans seamlessly reflect knowledge of each individual student’s skills, language proficiency, backgrounds, cultures, interests, learning styles, and special needs. Actively seeks and obtains this knowledge from a variety of sources, including parents, students, and colleagues. Seeks and obtains this knowledge from a variety of sources, including parents, students, and colleagues, on an as needed basis. Consistently and effectively uses content-specific language and tools to convey critical information at a high level of rigor. Unit objectives and lesson plans show respect for and seeks knowledge of student’s skills, language proficiency, backgrounds, cultures, interests, learning styles, and special needs, and attains this knowledge for groups of students. Consistently uses content-specific language and tools to convey critical information at an appropriate level of rigor. Most of the time, uses contentspecific language and tools to convey critical information, but sometimes at a low level of rigor. Demonstrates extensive content expertise by effectively and accurately identifying and explaining prerequisite knowledge, key concepts, 32 skills , and intra- and interdisciplinary content relationships to students. EXEMPLARY If the teacher presents information with any mistake that would leave students with a significant misunderstanding at the end of the lesson, the teacher should be scored unsatisfactory for this indicator. Obtains this knowledge through passive means and/or only at the beginning of the year. Unit objectives and lesson plans do not appropriately show respect and understanding for individual student’s skills, language, backgrounds, cultures, interests, learning styles, and special needs. Demonstrates solid content expertise by accurately identifying and explaining prerequisite knowledge, key concepts, skills, and intra-disciplinary content relationships to students. PROFICIENT Demonstrates familiarity with the content. Is aware of prerequisite knowledge, key concepts, and skills, and can accurately convey information to students. PROGRESSING Revised: 9/27/2013 Teacher proactively builds on prerequisite knowledge, concepts, and skills and/or uncovers and addresses causes of student misunderstanding/misconceptions before proceeding. To uncover prerequisite knowledge, the teacher may begin the lesson with a brief review of content or use specific strategies to review information, including summarizing a problem that must be solved using prerequisite knowledge, questions requiring a review of previous content, a demonstration, or a brief practice test or exercise. 32 31 Indicator 2: Demonstrates knowledge of students Demonstrates limited knowledge of content. Displays little to no understanding of prerequisite knowledge, key concepts, and skills. Sometimes conveys inaccurate information or fails to correct errors made by students31. Indicator 1: Demonstrates knowledge of content, concepts, and skills Limited use of content-specific language and tools to convey information, usually at a lowlevel of rigor. UNSATISFACTORY INDICATOR Domain 2: Planning and Preparation 7 Performance Rubric - DRAFT Teacher Excellence Initiative Appendix A • 47 48 • Appendix A 35 34 33 Develops more than 1 type of assessment to measure student learning. Develops multiple types of assessments to measure student learning. Almost always, formative assessments are generally aligned to lesson objectives and scaffold toward summative assessments. Almost always, summative assessments are generally aligned to unit goals and developed prior to formative assessments. Nearly all assessments and corresponding standard(s) are tightly aligned in rigor, and the assessment 34 method is at an appropriate level of rigor. Nearly all assessments are planned or selected prior to designing instructional activities. PROFICIENT Revised: 9/27/2013 Rigor is defined by level of cognition required by learning goal(s). This can be quantified using Bloom’s Taxonomy. Assessment methods include, among others, selected response, short answer, extended response, performance assessment, and personal communication. Assessments include common assessments created by teacher teams as well as other assessments used by individual teachers in their classrooms. Often relies on the same assessment type to measure student learning. Summative assessments are somewhat aligned to unit goals and developed prior to formative assessments. Little to no evidence that summative assessments are aligned to unit goals. They are sometimes not developed before formative assessments. Little to no evidence that formative assessments are aligned to lesson objectives. It is generally unclear how they align to summative assessments. Most assessments and corresponding standard(s) are aligned in rigor, and/or the assessment method is sometimes at a low level of rigor. Minimal evidence of alignment of rigor between assessments and corresponding standard(s), and/or the assessment method is 33 often at a low level of rigor . Formative assessments are somewhat aligned to lesson objectives and to summative assessments. Most assessments are planned or selected prior to designing instructional activities. Some assessments are planned or selected prior to designing instructional activities. Indicator 3: Plans or selects aligned formative and summative assessments PROGRESSING UNSATISFACTORY INDICATOR Domain 2: Planning and Preparation Develops multiple types of assessments to measure student learning. Students actively participate in the development of assessments when appropriate. Without exception, formative assessments are tightly aligned to lesson objectives and clearly scaffold toward summative assessments. Without exception, summative assessments are tightly aligned to unit goals and designed prior to formative assessments. All assessments and the corresponding standard(s) are tightly aligned in rigor, and the assessment method demonstrates a high level of rigor. All assessments are planned or selected prior to designing instructional activities. 35 EXEMPLARY Performance Rubric - DRAFT 8 Teacher Excellence Initiative Can describe and provide evidence for half of the students relative to interim and annual goals. Less than half of the students know their progress toward mastery. Can describe and provide evidence for most of the students relative to interim and annual goals. Half of the students know their progress toward mastery. Passively analyzes and reflects on quantitative and qualitative data as a member of a team. Can describe and provide evidence for where most students are relative to interim and annual goals. Most students know their progress toward mastery. Can describe and provide evidence for where all or nearly all students are relative to interim and annual goals. All or nearly all students know their progress toward mastery. Revised: 9/27/2013 9 36 “Data” is about information, which can be gleaned from many sources. Teachers and teacher teams utilize all types of assessments – such as common quizzes/tests, essays, lab reports, and student projects – that can inform changes in practice. Examples of activities include: (1) teacher analyzes timely and relevant student performance data and concretely identifies and tracks continuing student misconceptions or gaps in knowledge and skills relevant to identified learning goals, (2) teacher uses analysis of student data to identify student habits and actions that contribute to student performance (e.g. lack of engagement during lesson, performs with scaffolding but not independently, misconduct, incomplete homework), (3) teacher reflects on practice to identify teacher actions that contributed to student performance (e.g. class work not at same level of rigor as assessment, limited opportunities for structured academic talk, ineffective procedures for group work, and classroom management), and (4) teacher collaborates with colleagues in teacher teams in order to increase student achievement and teacher effectiveness in doing the above. These activities can occur in a variety of team formats/names, including teacher teams, data teams, PLCs, and lesson study. 37 For example, gradebooks, spreadsheets, charts Leads and models for others how to effectively analyze and reflect on quantitative and qualitative data as part of a team and independently. Actively analyzes and reflects on quantitative and qualitative data as a member of a team and independently. As required, participates in team analysis and reflection on data, but may not contribute. Frequently and routinely, records student progress gathered from Indicator 2 and 3, using a system that allows for meaningful and useful analyses of student progress towards mastery. At least monthly, records student progress gathered from Indicator 2 and 3, using a system37 that allows for useful analyses of student progress towards proficiency. At least quarterly, records student progress gathered from Indicator 2 and 3. Analyses of student progress are somewhat useful. Once or twice a year, records student progress gathered from Indicator 2 and 3. Analyses of student progress are limited and not useful. Consistently and effectively identifies student deficiencies and acts on data through re-teaching and adjusting lesson design and learning goals until students reach mastery and beyond. Consistently able to identify student deficiencies and act on data through reteaching and adjusting lesson design and learning goals until students reach proficiency. Sometimes able to identify student deficiencies and but struggles to act on data through reteaching and adjusting lesson design and learning goals. EXEMPLARY Limited ability to both identify student deficiencies and act on 36 data through re-teaching and adjusting lesson design and learning goals. PROFICIENT Indicator 4: Integrates monitoring of student data into instruction PROGRESSING UNSATISFACTORY Performance Rubric - DRAFT INDICATOR Domain 2: Planning and Preparation Teacher Excellence Initiative Appendix A • 49 50 • Appendix A Unit objectives are rarely (less than half of the time), if at all, grounded in end of year expectations, and summative assessments do not match level of rigor required by end of year expectations. Lesson plans rarely (less than half of the time), if at all, include daily objectives and/or do not provide students multiple opportunities to engage in appropriate level of rigor required by objectives. Indicator 5: Develops standards-based unit objectives Indicator 6: Develops objective-based lesson plans Lesson plans demonstrate all the indicators under “Proficient” half of the time. Unit objectives demonstrate all the indicators under “Proficient” half of the time. PROGRESSING Lesson plans usually: • Identify lesson objectives that are measureable and scaffold toward formative assessments • Include instructional strategies that give students multiple opportunities to engage in 41 appropriate level of rigor required by objectives and formative assessments • Align learning experiences with instructional outcomes and differentiate where appropriate to ensure appropriateness for all learners Unit objectives most of the time: • Align to end of year expectations and interim goals that will be mastered in each unit 39 • Align summative assessments to 40 end of unit expectations • Allocate appropriate amount of instructional time based on knowledge of student performance levels and goals • Align to prior and next grade level and/or same subject area taught by different teacher to ensure appropriate progression of rigor and concepts across grades and subjects 38 PROFICIENT 40 39 Revised: 9/27/2013 Refer to the Bookends model for unit planning. Alignment is achieved by matching level of cognition required by end of unit goals/standards to an assessment type that can effectively assess this level. Standards to be mastered by end of unit. 41 Rigor is defined by level of cognition required by learning goal(s). This can be quantified using Bloom’s Taxonomy. 38 UNSATISFACTORY INDICATOR Domain 2: Planning and Preparation Lesson plans demonstrate all the indicators under “Proficient” all or nearly all the time. Unit objectives demonstrate all the indicators under “Proficient” all or nearly all the time. EXEMPLARY 10 Performance Rubric - DRAFT Teacher Excellence Initiative Little to no evidence of implementation and/or enforcement of rules and procedures, so inappropriate or off-task student behavior constantly interrupts or 42 delays the lesson . Indicator 1: Establishes and maintains rules and procedures Focuses on correcting off-task behavior, but response to misbehavior has minimal results. Considerable time on task is lost for groups and/or the whole class. UNSATISFACTORY INDICATOR Consistently implements classroom rules and procedures so inappropriate or off-task student behavior rarely interrupts or delays 43 the lesson . Praises positive behavior and, if necessary, corrects off-task behavior in a manner that is timely, specific, and sensitive to individual student needs. Praises positive behavior and, if necessary, corrects off-task behavior, but sometimes does not respond appropriately, resulting in some loss of individual, group, and/or whole class time on task. PROFICIENT Develops some rules and procedures but they are leniently enforced, so inappropriate or offtask student behavior sometimes interrupts or delays the lesson. PROGRESSING Praises positive behavior and, if necessary, corrects off-task behavior in a manner that is always timely, specific, and sensitive to individual student needs. Students take an active role in monitoring 44 their own and peers’ behavior . Consistently and effectively implements classroom rules and procedures, so the flow of the lesson is not impeded by inappropriate or off-task student behavior because either no such behavior occurs or the teacher efficiently addresses it. EXEMPLARY 43 Revised: 9/27/2013 11 Unsatisfactory implementation of rules and procedures may include frequently kicking students out of a classroom or making discipline referrals without following the discipline management plan. Teacher evidence of implementing rules and procedures may include but are not limited to: physically occupying all quadrants of a room, scanning entire room making eye contact, and proactively addressing sources of disruption of inflammatory situations. Teacher provides verbal and non-verbal signals when student behavior is not appropriate (e.g. eye contact, proximity, tap on the desk, shaking head no) that do not disrupt the flow of the lesson. Students cease inappropriate behavior when signaled, accept consequences, and describe the teacher as fair and appreciative of their good behavior. Teacher acknowledges adherence to the routines, rules, and procedures though verbal (e.g. thanks students, praises student behavior) and non-verbal signals (e.g. smile, nod of head, high five) or tangible recognition. Teacher follows the discipline management plan before making a discipline referral. 44 Students monitoring their own and peers’ behavior means that students show evidence of holding themselves and their peers accountable for the teacher’s behavioral expectations. Examples may include, but are not limited to: students keeping their own behavior logs (individually or as a class), and students quietly and discretely correcting classmates’ behavior. 42 Domain 3: Classroom Management Performance Rubric - DRAFT Teacher Excellence Initiative Appendix A • 51 52 • Appendix A Students sit idly waiting for directions for significant periods of time. Students are frequently disengaged or left with nothing meaningful to do. Much loss of instructional time leading to lack of clarity and disruption of learning. • Non-existent or inefficient 46 routines leading the teacher to direct every activity • Disorderly and long transitions, fully directed by the teacher Little loss of instructional time. • Routines that run smoothly with some prompting from the teacher • Transitions that run smoothly with some teacher direction Students are rarely idle while 47 waiting for the teacher . Students who finish assigned work early usually have something meaningful to do. Students are idle for short periods of time while waiting for the teacher. Students who finish assigned work early are sometimes left with nothing meaningful to do. Most students are highly motivated, on-task with little to no prompting, with an understanding of the relevance of their tasks. Keeps most students engaged by consistently using a variety of engagement strategies. PROFICIENT Some loss of instructional time. • Routines that are in place but require significant teacher prompting and direction • Less than orderly transitions, primarily directed by the teacher More than half of the students are on-task with some prompting and/or have an understanding of the relevance of their tasks. Keeps half of the students engaged by using a limited range of engagement strategies, and misses several opportunities to use a strategy. PROGRESSING Students are never idle waiting for the teacher. Students who finish assigned work early always have something else meaningful to do. No loss of instructional time . • Efficient routines that run smoothly with minimal prompting from the teacher • Orderly, efficient, and seamless transitions between activities with little teacher direction to get the most out of every minute • Students share responsibility for the management classroom and routines 48 Students are highly motivated, take ownership of their learning, and understand the relevance of their tasks. Keeps all or nearly all students engaged by actively and effectively using a variety of 45 engagement strategies . EXEMPLARY Performance Rubric - DRAFT Revised: 9/27/2013 12 Engagement strategies may include but are not limited to: scanning the room making note of when students are not engaged and taking overt action, using academic games and friendly competition, using response rate techniques (e.g. wait time, response cards, hand signals, responding as a group), using physical movement (e.g. physically move to respond, model content to increase energy), maintaining a lively pace, modeling enthusiasm for the content (e.g. physical gestures, voice time, dramatization), using friendly controversy, providing opportunities for students to talk about themselves, and presenting unusual or intriguing information. 46 Routines may include, but are not limited to: managing student groups, handling of supplies, and performance of non-instructional duties. 47 Overall, little to no instructional time is lost due to non-instructional duties including taking attendance, handing in papers, etc. 48 In exemplary classrooms, students learn skills to work purposefully and cooperatively in groups, with little supervision from the teacher, and execute seamless transitions between activities (e.g. large group, small group, independent work). Exemplary teachers have all necessary materials and have taught students to implement routines to distribute, collect, and clean up materials with minimum disruption to the flow of instruction. 45 Indicator 3: Maximizes instructional time Uses little to no engagement strategies resulting in less than half of the students engaged in the lesson Indicator 2: Maintains high student motivation Half of the students are on-task with frequent prompting and/or have an understanding of the relevance of their tasks. UNSATISFACTORY INDICATOR Domain 3: Classroom Management Teacher Excellence Initiative Does not establish a welcoming or safe classroom environment. 49 Classroom environment does not : • Support learning • Positive interactions • Respect the unique needs of most learners Indicator 4: Maintains a welcoming environment that promotes learning and positive interactions Generally maintains a welcoming and safe classroom environment 50 that supports : • Learning, with some exceptions • Positive interactions with some exceptions • Respects the unique needs of most learners PROGRESSING Almost always maintains a welcoming and safe classroom environment that: • Supports learning • Promotes positive interactions • Respects the unique needs of nearly all of learners PROFICIENT Students embrace opportunities to adjust the physical space or use available classroom resources to 52 advance learning . Without exception, maintains a welcoming and safe classroom 51 environment : • Drives learning • Promotes positive interactions • Respects the unique needs of all learners EXEMPLARY Performance Rubric - DRAFT Revised: 9/27/2013 13 49 Students may demonstrate disinterest or lack of investment in their work. For example, students might be unfocused, frequently off-task, refuse to attempt assignments, unwilling to take on challenges and risk failure, reluctant to answer questions, hesitant to ask the teacher for help even when they need it, or discourage or interfere with the work of their peers. Students may frequently be disrespectful to the teacher or their peers; for example, they might interrupt or be clearly inattentive when the teacher or their peers are speaking. There may be little or no evidence of a positive rapport between the teacher and the students, or there may be evidence that the teacher has a negative rapport with students. 50 Students are generally engaged in their work but are not highly invested in it. For example, students might spend significant time off-task or require frequent reminders, students might give up easily, sometimes hesitant to ask the teacher for help when they need it, or the teacher might communicate messages about the importance of the work, but there is little evidence that students have internalized them. Some students are willing to take academic risks, but others may not be. The teacher may rarely reinforce positive behavior and good academic work, may do so for some students but not for others, or may not do so in a meaningful way. The teacher may have a positive rapport with some students but not others, or may demonstrate little rapport with students. 51 In an elementary classroom, centers and reading corners may structure class activities, while for older students, the position of chairs and desk can facilitate or inhibit rich discussion. Classrooms should be safe (no dangling wires or dangerous traffic patterns), and all students must be able to see and hear the teacher and each other so they can actively participate. Student comments and actions demonstrate that students are excited about their work and understand why it is important. Students are invested in the success of their peers. For example, they can be seen collaborating with and helping each other without prompting from the teacher, giving unsolicited praise or encouragement to their peers for good work, when appropriate, or showing interest in other students’ answers or work. There is evidence that the teacher has strong, individualized relationships with students in the class. For example, the teacher might demonstrate personal knowledge of students’ lives, interests, and preferences. 52 Students take initiative to adjust the physical environment to promote learning (e.g. closing a door to shut out hallway noise, lowering blinds to block out glare, shifting furniture to better suit group work or discussion). Teachers and students make extensive and creative use of available technology. UNSATISFACTORY INDICATOR Domain 3: Classroom Management Teacher Excellence Initiative Appendix A • 53 54 • Appendix A Engages in required professional development activities, and reluctantly accepts feedback on instruction. Sometimes implements the feedback in the classroom. Contributes to the profession in a limited fashion. Makes little to no effort to contribute to the profession. Makes substantial contribution to the field by sharing new learning and assuming positions of teacher leadership. Proactively seeks out and participates in job-embedded professional development, and effectively implements the feedback in the classroom. System for maintaining accurate records is efficient, and students contribute to its maintenance. 54 Revised: 9/27/2013 14 Unexcused absences are those that are in violation of procedures set forth by local school policy and by the teacher contract. Such records document critical interactions with students and families/caregivers, enabling the teacher to anticipate and respond to individual learning needs. The teacher records evidence of student learning and develops a system for monitoring student progress must align with the teacher’s approach to instruction and the needs of students. Records of student progress enable the teacher to provide accurate information to students themselves and to their families/caregivers. Records must be maintained on non-instructional activities such as returned permission slips for a field trip. The teacher is also required to complete other paperwork, including inventories and supply orders in an accurate and timely manner. 53 Actively participates in assisting other educators. Consistently engages in jobembedded professional development activities, and consistently implements the feedback in the classroom. System for maintaining accurate records is effective and up to date. Proactively initiates the development of school-wide operating procedures. Consistently implements schoolwide operating procedures. Attends meetings on school-wide operating procedures, and implements them as required. System for maintaining accurate academic and non-instructional records is used inconsistently. Without exception, complies with DISD and local school policies and procedures. Always leaves clear directions and lessons for substitutes. Almost always leaves directions and lessons for substitutes. With rare exception, complies with DISD and local school policies and procedures. Clearly has excellent attendance (95-100%). Has no unexcused absences. EXEMPLARY Has very good attendance (9095%). Has no unexcused absences. PROFICIENT Most of the time, complies with DISD and local school policies and procedures. Most of the time leaves directions and lessons for substitutes Has fair attendance (80-89%). Has 1 unexcused absence. PROGRESSING Engages in little to no professional development activities and resists feedback on instruction. Rarely implements the feedback in the classroom. System for maintaining academic and 54 non-instructional records is haphazard or non-existent, resulting in errors or confusion. Sometimes does not comply with DISD and local school policies and procedures, where the needs of the students or the school/district’s effective operations were compromised. Indicator 3: Engages in professional development Indicator 2: Follows policies and procedures, and maintains accurate student records Has poor attendance (less than 80%). Has more than 1 unexcused 53 absence . Indicator 1: Models good attendance for students Sometimes does not leave directions and lessons for substitutes. UNSATISFACTORY INDICATOR Domain 4: Professionalism and Commitment Performance Rubric - DRAFT Teacher Excellence Initiative Avoids interaction with colleagues. Indicator 4: Engages in professional community Engages families and community in the instructional program at key points in the school year, such as in the beginning of the year or at the end of each quarter. Makes modest, often unsuccessful attempts to engage families and community in the instructional program. Regularly and proactively engages families and community in the instructional program throughout the school year. Uses consistent, timely, and multiple 56 forms of communication with all parents regarding student expectations, progress and/or concerns every month during the school year. Has a good understanding of the campus improvement plan: consistently participates in implementing aspects of the plan to achieve performance goals. Establishes collaborative 57 partnerships with families and community to enhance the instructional program in a manner that demonstrates integrity, confidentiality, respect, flexibility, fairness and trust. Uses effective, timely, and multiple forms of communication with all parents regarding student expectations, progress and/or concerns every week during the school year. Has an in-depth understanding of the campus improvement plan: actively and consistently participates in planning sessions and models for others to meet designated performance goals and overcome performance gaps. Establishes working relationships with all colleagues that demonstrate leadership, integrity, respect, flexibility, fairness, and trust. Communicates at least weekly with school administrators on student progress and status of instruction. Collaborates at least weekly with colleagues to plan units, share teaching ideas, review student work and progress, and seek feedback on instructional practices. EXEMPLARY Performance Rubric - DRAFT Revised: 9/27/2013 15 Other collaboration materials may include, but are not limited to: lesson plans, student profiles, or regularly updated electronic grade books. Communication materials may include, but are not limited to: student progress reports, weekly newsletters with information on homework, current class activities, community or school projects, and field trips. Communication should take into account different languages spoken at home and the accessibility of the information (e.g. paper versus email). 57 Teachers can go beyond one-way teacher-family communication to form a partnership with the family and community to foster learning. For example, students could maintain accurate records about their individual learning to share daily with their families, and students participate in regular, on-going projects designed to engage families and the community in the learning process (e.g. interviewing a family member or friend about growing up in a certain era). 56 55 Participates in school’s required activities and procedures for communication to parents, and responses to parent concerns are occasionally sporadic, slow, or inappropriate. Participates in school’s required activities and procedures for communication to parents, and responses to parent concerns are often sporadic, non-existent, or inappropriate. Indicator 6: Establishes relationships with families and community Has a limited understanding of the campus improvement plan: participates in implementing the plan as required. Has little to no understanding of the campus improvement plan: does not participate in the implementation. Establishes working relationships with nearly all colleagues that demonstrate integrity, respect, flexibility, fairness, and trust. Communicates biweekly with school administrators on student progress and status of instruction. Communicates with school administrators on student progress and status of instruction only when asked. Maintains cordial relationships with most colleagues to fulfill the duties that the school requires. Collaborates on a weekly basis with colleagues to plan units, share teaching ideas, review student work 55 and progress . PROFICIENT Collaborates with colleagues weekly or biweekly but interactions rarely focus on instruction or student performance. PROGRESSING Indicator 5: Actively participates in implementing the campus improvement plan Does not communicate with school administrators on student progress and status of instruction. UNSATISFACTORY INDICATOR Domain 4: Professionalism and Commitment Teacher Excellence Initiative Appendix A • 55 Teacher Excellence Initiative Appendix B INDIVIDUAL STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT GOAL RUBRIC (DRAFT) Salaries Goal Setting • Goal is tied to student achieve70000ment or performance 60000 •Proficiently written as a 50000 SMART goal 40000 30000 Progresssing I Progresssing II • Goal is tied to student achievement or performance •Proficiently written as a SMART goal •Challenging and attainable • Goal is tied to student achievement or performance •Proficiently written as a SMART goal •Challenging and attainable $539,500,000 20000 10000 Goal Accomplishment 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 Years of Service 30 35 Proficient I Proficient II Proficient III Exemplary • Goal is tied • Goal is tied • Goal is tied • Goal is tied to student to student to student to student achieveachieveachieveachieve. or ment or 80000 ment or ment or performance performance performance performance •Proficiently 70000 •Proficiently •Proficiently •Proficiently written as a written as60000 a written as a written as a SMART goal SMART goal SMART goal SMART goal •Goal 50000 •Goal •Goal •Goal stretches the stretches 40000 the stretches the stretches the employee, employee, employee, employee, requiring 30000 requiring requiring requiring new learnnew learnnew learning, skill, or 20000 new learning, skill, or ing, skill, or ing, skill, or collaboration 10000 collaboration collaboration collaboration • Goal is tied to the success 0 • Goal supports • Goal is tied to 40 Unsat Prog I Prog II Prof I Prof II Prof III Exemp + the work of the success of the team, Effectiveness others or the of the team, department, school department, school, or school, or district district Salary Unsat and and and and and and and •Employee accomplishes part of the goal (on a scale from 1 to 10, goal accomplishment would rate above 3) •Employee accomplishes part of the goal (on a scale from 1 to 10, goal accomplishment would rate above 3) •Employee accomplishes part of the goal (on a scale from 1 to 10, goal accomplishment would rate above 4) •Employee accomplishes the goal (on a scale from 1 to 10, goal accomplishment would rate above 6) •Employee accomplishes the goal (on a scale from 1 to 10, goal accomplishment would rate above 6) •Employee accomplishes the goal (on a scale from 1 to 10, goal accomplishment would rate above 7) •Employee accomplishes the goal (on a scale from 1 to 10, goal accomplishment would rate above 8) and and •Accomplishment has positively impacted the success of the team, department, school, or district •Accomplishment has positively impacted the success of the team, department, school, or district This is a minimum criteria rubric. Start at the lowest level of performance (at the left). The employee must meet each criterion at the lower level before being considered for the next higher level. Assign the rating associated with the last level at which the employee met all the criteria at that level. 56 • Appendix B Teacher Excellence Initiative Appendix C DISTINGUISHED TEACHER REVIEW (DTR) PROCESS A distinguished teacher is one who earns a rating of Proficient II or higher. A distinguished teacher has to be distinguished in performance and distinguished in overall effectiveness (performance plus student achievement plus student survey). Based on the target distribution, the district expects approximately 20 percent of all teachers to hold distinguished ratings. 1.Eligibility The first step in DTR process is for a teacher to become eligible for a district-level review. Except in the very first year of the TEI system, eligibility is based on a current TEI performance evaluation and the prior year’s student achievement and survey data. Teachers new to the District are not eligible for a DTR in their first year. The teacher must score a minimum of 40 points on the performance evaluation and a combined score of 25 points on the student survey data and student achievement data from the year before in order to be eligible for a DTR. Eligibility for the 2014-2015 school year For DTRs in the 2014-2015 school year, a teacher must still receive a minimum of 40 points on the TEI performance evaluation. CEIs from the previous year (2013-2014) will be used to determine eligibility. If a teacher has a CEI, that teacher must be in the top 25 percent. If a teacher has no CEI, only the performance evaluation will be used to determine eligibility for distinguished review. For the 2014-2015 school year and all future years, the past achievement and student survey results only help to determine eligibility. The current year’s achievement results and student survey results will ultimately be used to determine the teacher’s rating and overall effectiveness. 2.Application The top page of the application packet includes a signature line for the teacher’s principal. The application packet also includes a form for the principal’s input (Appendix E) and space for the teacher to provide evidence of her leadership, contributions to the profession, and lifelong learning. All applications are due by Jan. 15, 2015. 3. Review of instruction and performance A three-person team will review the instruction and performance of each applicant sometime between Jan. 19 and May 15. The review team will comprise of a principal or assistant principal, an instructional coach or academic facilitator, and a subject-area specialist or teacher.56 The 2014-2015 school year will be the first year for DTRs, and the district expects the reviews to be logistically challenging. As many as 2,500 reviews will have to be conducted the first year. In the future, there will be significantly fewer reviews needed because the achievement data and student survey data required for eligibility will be available and will be more rigorous at each higher effectiveness level. 56 Distinguished teachers will be invited to be part of the process in future years after these individuals have been identified at the end of the first year of implementation. Appendix C • 57 Teacher Excellence Initiative For the first year, the district will convene approximately 125 review teams. Each team will conduct up to 20 evaluations of instruction and performance from Jan. 19 to May 15. Executive directors will nominate principals and assistant principals to be on the review teams. Approximately 50 principals and 75 assistant principals will serve on the review teams. School Leadership will select academic facilitators to serve. Almost all of the academic facilitators (approximately 50) will be on the review teams. Teaching & Learning content specialists as well as select campus instructional coaches will also serve on review teams. Approximately 125 teams will be selected by Oct. 15, 2015. All members of the DTR review teams will be required to attend a minimum of four hours of calibration training and pass a DTR review assessment by Jan. 15, 2015. Each applicant will be given a three week window during which the actual review of her instruction or performance will be conducted. Teachers will not know ahead of time the specific day of the review. The review team will observe the applicant on the job for at least 40 minutes. At the end of the day of the review, the team will meet with the teacher for 30 minutes to ask clarifying questions and to allow the teacher to comment on the techniques and strategies she used during the observation. The review team will not provide specific feedback to the teacher at this stage of the review process. Each team member will then individually evaluate the instruction based on rubrics developed by School Leadership. An applicant may receive up to 6 points. After this initial scoring, each team will discuss among themselves the individual scores and offer commentary and rationale. Individual members have a chance to change their assessment after this group discussion. The final score is the average of the three final scores from the team members. 4. Review of leadership, lifelong learning, and contributions to the profession. The remainder of the application—evidence of leadership, lifelong learning, and contributions to the profession—will be assessed by the DTR implementation section of Human Capital Management. Each application will be scored by three different people. The applicant’s score is an average of the scores given by the three reviewers. An applicant may receive up to six points for leadership, four points for lifelong learning, and four points for contributions to the profession. 5. Sign-off by principal Once the DTR scores are compiled on a DTR scorecard, the scorecard is sent to the principal of the applicant. The principal will conduct a final review of the application and the teacher’s scores for the DTR review process. Barring any severe discrepancy or objection, the principal will approve the evaluation of the DTR review team. Should the principal object to the evaluation of the DTR review team, the principal’s original score will stand. Standard appeals process for teachers will apply. 6. Calculation of total points and performance level The DTR implementation section will calculate an applicant’s total performance points by adding the points from the DTR instruction and performance review, the points from the review of leadership, lifelong learning, and contributions to the profession, and a possible additional three points for service in a Tier 1 school. Once all the points for all of the applicants are calculated, the DTR implementation team will establish cut points for the performance levels based on the target distribution. 58 • Appendix C Teacher Excellence Initiative The total DTR performance score is then added to the current year’s achievement score, student survey score (if available), and the 40 points from the principal-based performance score to obtain the overall effectiveness score. Once all of the effectiveness scores are calculated (for both teachers who underwent a DTR and those who did not), the DTR implementation team will establish cut points for the overall effectiveness levels based on the target distribution. Teachers will be placed at the effectiveness level corresponding to the teacher’s points. However, since distinguished teachers have to be distinguished (above proficient) in performance and overall, teachers who underwent a DTR and received a “Proficient” on their DTR performance score, will be placed at the “Proficient” level overall. DTR performance score Criteria Weight Rubric Pts. Total Actual Instruction 1.5x /6 Leadership 1.5x /6 Lifelong learning 1x /4 Contributions to the profession 1x /4 Service in a Tier 1 School 1x 3 Performance Evaluation Score Appendix C • 59 Teacher Excellence Initiative Appendix D DISTINGUISHED TEACHER REVIEW RUBRIC (DRAFT) Name_________________________________________________ Site__________________________________________________ Review Team Members___________________________________________________________________________________________ ProficientExemplary Contributions to the Profession Lifelong Learner Leadership Quality of Instruction 1 2 3 4 A classroom observation rubric will be completed based on two observations and the final interview/discussion with the teacher. • Helps to make sense of information and contributes to professional dialogue and problem solving. • Assumes a leadership position with adults in some aspect of school life. • Works to overcome challenges when encountered in role or position. • Demonstrates commitment to the goals of the school or district. • Recognize and demonstrates an understanding that they are part of a larger organization and their actions impact other segments of the school. • Helps to effect change through sense-making that secures staff cooperation and advances the goals of the school or district. • Helps expand the leadership density in the school or district. • Challenges the status quo, seeking more effective ways to accomplish goals and improve the organization. • Helps the leadership team attain the vision of the school or district. • Demonstrates high standards of professionalism and a commitment to a cause or an idea and through their actions, advances the entire organization. • Takes advantage of multiple learning opportunities, including workshops or conferences, to grow personally and professionally. • Acts upon feedback on instruction and professional behavior to improve performance. • Reads books, educational articles, or publications to keep informed on current practice, policy and/or legislation. • Attains the knowledge of technology and how to use it in the classroom. • Successfully completes relevant coursework at institutions of higher learning or completes other professional programs. • Completes multiple professional development programs in more than one discipline that demonstrates a commitment to growth and mastery of the educational craft. • Actively seeks and acts on feedback that challenges self to continue to grow professionally. • Remains current in the field through demonstration and application of knowledge gained through relevant literature. • Embeds and utilizes technology to enhance instructional practice. • Earns a Master’s or higher degree. • Shares work and ideas with other teachers in my school or district. • Contributes to the development and growth of others through mentoring, coaching, or providing non-evaluative feedback. • Serves on committees or boards at school or district level. • Formally teaches other professionals in the district (i.e., presents at workshops, teaches at a community college, provides professional development at another school, etc.). • Collaborates with a team to improve the educational practices in the school or district. • Shares ideas or work in ways that advance the profession and through media that reach a larger educational community (i.e., through journals, books, websites, articles, etc.). • Based on feedback provided to others, materials are developed, shared, or modeled that result in implementation to improve instruction and performance. • Serves on a state or national committee or board. • Formally teaches other professionals inside and outside of the district (i.e., presents at conferences, teachers a university class, conducts a workshop for another district, etc.). • Collaborates with others to improve or influence educational practices or policies that have an impact beyond the school and district. 60 • Appendix D Teacher Excellence Initiative Appendix E PRINCIPAL INPUT FOR THE DTR PROCESS Teacher Name__________________________________________ Principal______________________________________________ LEADERSHIP RarelyFrequently Contributes to staff meetings in a way that positively affects the attitudes and abilities of others. Mentors or coaches others. Assumes a leadership position or role in at least some aspect of school life. Works to ensure the success of students and the organization by contributing time and resources outside of operational school hours. Knows the goals and supports the philosophy and vision of the school and district and takes action to accomplish those goals. Has taken time to learn and understand the interests of different groups or parts of the organization. Helps to effect change in ways that secure staff cooperation. Challenges the status quo, seeking more effective ways to accomplish goals and improve the organization. Contributes to the leadership density within the district by actively participating on committees and focus groups. Inspires or gives hope to others. Demonstrates high standards of personal integrity and a commitment to a cause or an idea. LIFELONG LEARNING Actively seeks feedback in order to assess instructional strengths and areas for growth. RarelyFrequently Takes advantage of multiple learning opportunities over a number of years, demonstrating a commitment to growth and mastery of the educational craft. Successfully completes relevant coursework at institutions of higher learning or completes other professional programs. Earns a Master’s degree or higher degree. Reads educational articles or publications. Stays informed of major education legislation and policies. Acquires knowledge in more than one discipline. Positively influences the attitude of students and colleagues toward lifelong learning. Reflects on personal behavior, abilities, and instruction in order to be challenged and to continue to grow professionally. Has learned to incorporate technology into instruction in motivating, effective and meaningful ways. (continued on next page) Appendix E • 61 Teacher Excellence Initiative PRINCIPAL INPUT FOR THE DTR PROCESS (Continued) CONTRIBUTES TO THE PROFESSION RarelyFrequently Develops and shares materials and resources with other teachers as well as contributes ideas and offers suggestions in order to improve instructional practices and expand capacity. Offers ideas and exhibits constructive efforts toward advancing the goals of the team, department, or school. Conducts non-evaluative spot observations for peers and offers feedback. Participates in and contributes to the professional development and growth of others in the school or district (i.e. presents at workshops, teaches on weekends at a community college, provides professional development at another school, etc.). Collaborates on multiple teams in order to improve student achievement and instructional practices within the school or district. Collaborates and exhibits active effort, in conjunction with school, district and community members, to improve or influence educational practices or policies that have an impact beyond the school or district. Shares ideas or works in ways that advance the profession through media that reach the larger educational community (i.e. through journals, books, websites, articles, etc.). Formally teaches other professionals outside of the district (i.e. presents at conferences, teaches a university class, conducts a workshop for another district, etc.). Serves as a contributing member, by presenting research, data, or other pertinent information toward the mission of committees or boards at the school or district level. Serves as a contributing member on a state or national committee or board. Initiates important efforts, activities or programs to solve significant problems or to improve professional practice among teachers. COMMENTS: 62 • Appendix E Teacher Excellence Initiative Appendix F Appendix F – Teacher Compensation Calculations and Notes General information The following data will help provide context for the financial discussions related to the Teacher Excellence Initiative. • On Oct. 15, 2013, the district employed 9,915 teachers. These included 491 grant funded teachers (9,424 from general operating revenue). On Nov. 21, as a result of completing the leveling process, the district employed 10,052 teachers, including 487 grant funded teachers.1 • The District had approximately 325 teacher vacancies on Oct. 30. This number decreased to approximately 200 by the end of November. • The average teacher salary for the 2013-2014 school year is $53,655. • The following charts provide information about teacher salaries and the budget: 2013-‐2014 Budget No. of teachers Salary Benefits Stipends M&O 9,903 517,858,045 61,111,007 3,567,206 Grant funded 624 32,494,291 4,453,622 575,400 TOTAL 10,527 550,352,336 65,564,629 4,142,606 • In the 2013-2014 school year, classroom teacher salaries (with benefits and stipends) will consume 46.6 percent of the Maintenance and Operations (M&O) budget. • One can approximate benefits by taking the salary and multiplying it by 12 percent. • The current salary schedule ranges: 1 Approximately 550 teachers work part time. In order to be conservative in our financial estimate, we count them as full-‐time equivalents in our analysis. Appendix F • 63 Teacher Excellence Initiative 2013-‐2014 Salary Schedule Bachelor's Master's Doctorate • Range 10th year $46,002 -‐ $65,541 $47,022 -‐ $71,600 $49,062 -‐ $73,711 $51,307 $52,327 $54,367 The current distribution of Dallas ISD’s teachers with regard to salaries: Distribution of Teachers by Salary 30 Oct 2013 3000 2826 2500 2000 1715 1500 847 1000 500 0 1492 706 796 51 < $47 $47 -‐ $49 $49 -‐ $51 $51 -‐ $54 $54 -‐ $59 $59 -‐ $65 $65 -‐ $74 > $74 64 • Appendix F 1480 Teacher Excellence Initiative Distribu9on of Teachers by Salary -‐-‐ % 30 Oct 2013 30.0% 28.5% 25.0% 20.0% 17.3% 15.0% 14.9% 15.0% 8.5% 10.0% 7.1% 8.0% 5.0% 0.5% 0.0% < $47 $47 -‐ $49 $49 -‐ $51 $51 -‐ $54 $54 -‐ $59 $59 -‐ $65 $65 -‐ $74 > $74 * Totals may not add to 100 percent due to rounding • The current distribution of teachers with regard to years in the profession: Distribution of Teachers by Years in the Profession 30 Oct 2013 3500 2969 3000 2500 2000 1500 1168 1664 1443 981 1000 529 500 0 < 1 1-‐3 4-‐10 491 348 200 11-‐15 16-‐20 21-‐25 26-‐30 31-‐35 36-‐40 121 >40 * General Fund teachers only as of Oct. 30, 2013 Appendix F • 65 Teacher Excellence Initiative • In the 2013-2014 school year, Dallas ISD had approximately 1,900 new teachers. Of those, approximately 1,156 were novice teachers. • The teachers who departed earned varying salaries, but most were earning less than $50,000. Departing Teachers -‐-‐ 2013 No. of Teachers 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 642 2184 243 1472 142 705 261 185 1219 1307 127 579 191 605 4 47 < $47 $47 -‐ $49 $49 -‐ $51 $51 -‐ $54 $54 -‐ $59 $59 -‐ $65 $65 -‐ $74 > $74 Salary Ranges Analysis assumptions and parameters • • • • • In order to be conservative in our estimates of the financial impact of TEI, the district will start with a calculation of the financial impact of full employment (no vacancies). At full capacity, the district would employ 9,903 classroom teachers and an additional 624 grant-funded teachers for a total of 10,527 in the 2014-2015 school year. Grant funded teachers will be paid like other full-time classroom teachers. The district will then take into account other factors such as the vacancy rate and the number of part-time. Dallas ISD plans on cutting its vacancy rate considerably. The district will have fewer than 100 teacher vacancies on Oct. 30, 2014. Approximately 10.1 percent of the classroom teachers will be novice teachers. Another 8 percent will be teachers new to the district, but who have taught elsewhere. This allows for an 18percent teacher turnover. Teachers new to Dallas ISD, but not new to teaching, will be placed at the Progressing II level ($51,000) on average. The district uses the average salary distribution of teachers that left the district at the end of the 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 school years to estimate the salary distribution of the teachers who will be departing at the end of the 2013-2014 school year. 66 • Appendix F Teacher Excellence Initiative • • The target distribution will impact veteran teachers and those with little experience in similar ways. The current distribution of salaries will bear little resemblance to the distribution of teacher effectiveness. Unsatisfactory teachers will be counseled out or removed. Two key concepts As noted in the concept paper, two key concepts make the TEI plan financially viable: 1. Same percentage of the general operating revenue. The plan is designed to use approximately the same percentage of the M&O (general operating revenue) that is currently used to pay for classroom teacher salaries. The TEI plan was designed to keep the percentage of the M&O used for classroom teacher salaries between 46 percent and 50 percent.2 TEI is not an incentive plan in which the District would have to fund over and above the amount it pays in salaries. TEI takes approximately the same amount of money spent in classroom teacher salaries and distributes it based on effectiveness rather than years of experience and college credits. 2. Target distribution. Adopting a target distribution keeps the entire financial part of the system predictable and sustainable. Statistically, the distribution of the effectiveness of 10,000 teachers would most likely approximate a normal distribution. Thus, it would make sense to select a target distribution that would be similar to a normal distribution. Since the district is below the state average in student achievement, it would also make sense if the target distribution were skewed positively, with slightly more teachers in the “Progressing” area of the curve than one might find in a normal distribution.3 2 Note the percentage of M&O consumed by classroom teacher salaries under the traditional compensation plan as outlined on Page 52. 3 In a positively skewed graph, the mass of the distribution is concentrated on the left of the graph. Appendix F • 67 Teacher Excellence Initiative Adherence to these two concepts gives TEI its viability. Once a district establishes its target distribution and knows both the total amount it plans to spend on classroom teacher salaries and approximately how many teachers it will employ, it then has to select the compensation levels that will yield that total salary amount. 2015-2016 budget for TEI Without a new evaluation system, the district would spend approximately $560 million on classroom teacher salaries for all funds (assuming full employment) if it gave all teachers a step increase at the end of the 2013-2014 school year. The chart below outlines the amount of funds the district would spend on classroom teachers for the next four years. The calculations include a step increase every year and do not include any possible increases to revenue or increases in the number of teachers. [Note that without increases in revenue, salary increases generally increase the percentage of the M&O devoted to classroom teacher salaries.] Year 14-‐15 15-‐16 16-‐17 17-‐18 No. of teachers 10,527 10,527 10,527 10,527 Salary Benefits Stipends Total $559,567,540 $567,891,175 $576,346,399 $584,935,293 $66,143,480 $67,117,546 $68,107,012 $69,112,120 $4,142,606 $4,142,606 $4,142,606 $4,142,606 $629,853,626 $639,151,327 $648,596,017 $658,190,019 % of M&O 47.8 48.5 49.3 50.1 Thus in order to be sustainable over the long run, the amount of money spent on TEI must be approximately the same as the money spent on classroom teacher salaries in the current system. Taking $568 million as the target, the district established compensation levels.4 The following chart shows the proposed compensation levels, the target distribution, and the approximate number of teachers that will be at each effectiveness level (based on the target distribution). The combination of these three factors yield a total salary of $568,879,080. 4 At full employment, the district would spend $567,891,175 on classroom teacher salaries in the 2015-‐2016 school year (if it gave teachers a step increase). Teachers will be placed on the new, TEI compensation scale at the start of the 2015-‐2016 school year. Therefore, the 2015-‐2016 budget for classroom teacher salaries should approximate $568 million. The benefits and stipends will be based on this number and will not differ greatly than the amount outlined in the chart on Page 52. 68 • Appendix F Teacher Excellence Initiative Rating Compensation Unsat Prog I Prog II Prof I Prof II Prof III Exem.+ 45,000 49,000 51,000 54,000 59,000 65,000 74,000 Target Distribution No. of Teachers Financial impact 3% 12% 25% 40% 12% 6% 2% 316 1,263 2,632 4,211 1,263 632 211 $14,211,450 $61,898,760 $134,219,250 $227,383,200 $74,531,160 $41,055,300 $15,579,960 10,527 $568,879,080 Note that the total salary of $568 million is the same as the amount estimated for the 2015-2016 school year if the district were to stay with the current, traditional salary schedule. Designing the system in this way ensures that the plan can be sustainable in the long run. Other parameters While $568 million is a good, rough estimate, the actual (versus “target”) distribution and other parameters will impact the total amount the district spends on classroom teacher salaries. • Over time the district will arrive at the target distribution for teacher effectiveness. However, for the first several years of this plan, because the district has a large percentage of new and inexperienced teachers, there will be significantly more “Novice” and “Progressing I” than the target distribution might suggest. The chart also does not take into account other parameters, which make the system both instructionally and financially more sound. • • • No teacher may be placed at the Proficient I effectiveness level unless he/she has had at least three years of classroom experience in a school accredited by a state department of education. For the first two years of implementation, no teacher may have his/her salary increased by more than $5,000 a year regardless of effectiveness level. A teacher cannot be placed at the “Exemplary II” effectiveness level unless he/she has demonstrated “Exemplary I” effectiveness for at least one year. A staff member will be considered a “Master” teacher if he or she has been rated at the Exemplary II level for at least two years in a row and has taught in a Tier One School as a distinguished teacher for a minimum of three years. Appendix F • 69 Teacher Excellence Initiative The cost of the salary floor The adherence to the two concepts outlined above will ensure the financial viability of the plan. Still, there is a significant up-front cost because of the promise that “no teacher will earn below his/her 2014-2015 salary regardless of his/her evaluation and effectiveness level.”5 In other words, if the district were starting from scratch with 10,527 new teachers and approximately $568 million to pay them, it could compensate people strictly according to the target distribution and the amounts outlined in the calculations chart. Those performing well would be compensated at higher amounts than those performing poorly. However, because of the desire to keep some teachers from a decrease in salary, the district has to make up the difference between a teacher’s current salary and the salary they would receive under TEI if the TEI salary turns out lower than the person’s current salary. Over time, as less effective teachers leave, there will be fewer teachers at the salary floor and the District will have to spend less in order to compensate them. In order to calculate the total salary differential, the district determined the distribution of teachers based on the current salaries and divided into salary ranges tied to the TEI effectiveness levels. The district assumed that the distribution of salaries in the 20142015 school year would be similar to the distribution of salaries in the 2013-2014 school year. Approximately 10 percent of the teachers would be new to the profession and another 8 percent would be new to Dallas ISD. The district also made the assumption that the effectiveness levels of the teachers at each range would mirror the target distribution. The district then multiplied the number of teachers at each salary level and effectiveness level by the compensation associated with that effectiveness level, adjusting the amount when necessary because of a salary cap or salary floor. The charts in the next section outline the calculations for each salary range. This methodology yields several results: • The “cost” to the district to fund the promise to provide a salary floor is approximately $23 million. To calculate this, the district took the difference in the average salary of the teachers and the compensation associated with each effectiveness level.6 The difference multiplied by the number of people at that salary level equals the amount the district will have to spend in order to maintain the salaries of the teachers at that salary and effectiveness level. 5 Teachers also have to continue to be employed by the District and work as many or more hours than they did in the 2014-‐2015 school year. 6 See pink area of the calculations chart. 70 • Appendix F Teacher Excellence Initiative • • However, the cost of the salary floor is offset by the money the district “saves” as a result of the salary cap ($5,000 each year for the first two years of the plan). The salary cap will save the district approximately $14.6 million in the 2015-2016 school year. In the 2015-2016 school year, approximately 2,850 teachers will have to take advantage of the salary floor in order to maintain their salaries at 2014-2015 levels. Approximately 2,860 teachers will have their salaries capped at an increase of $5,000. Total 2015-2016 compensation (estimate) The salary amount (accounting for salary caps and the salary floor) for the first year of the TEI plan will be approximately $568 million. This is the combined total of the amount for each effectiveness level.7 Sixty-six percent of teachers who are not new and who are not rated “Unsatisfactory” will see an increase in their salary beginning in the 2015-2016 school year.8 Thirty-four percent of teachers will earn the same salary (no increase). The average increase for those teachers receiving an increase will be approximately $4,000. If one adds new teachers to the category of teachers who will see a salary increase (because starting salaries are higher than in the past), then 69 percent of teachers will see a salary increase as a result of the TEI plan.9 Total 2016-2017 compensation (estimate) The total amount of money the district will pay out in salaries in the 2016-2017 school year is a function of the numbers of teachers who will be promoted at each level and the number of teachers at each level who decide to leave the district. The target distribution and other safeguards built into the TEI plan make the amount fairly predictable (see section below on financial safeguards). In particular, only the most effective teachers will reach the highest effectiveness levels. One has to continue to improve student achievement and performance in order to advance to the next level. Therefore, it will be easier to advance at the lower levels of effectiveness than at the higher levels of effectiveness, and the district can expect higher percentages of teachers to be “promoted” at the lower levels than at the higher levels. The district estimates that 75 percent of the teachers rated “Progressing I” will advance to the next level; 60 percent of the teachers rated “Progressing II” will advance to the next level; and 25 percent of the teachers rated “Proficient I” will advance to the next level. 7 This amount is less than the previously budgeted amount because the district has a considerable number of new and novice teachers. 8 Almost all “unsatisfactory” teachers will be non-‐renewed or have their contracts terminated. 9 This is an initial implementation year phenomenon. In future years, between 20 and 25 percent of teachers will earn placement at a higher effectiveness level in a given year. Appendix F • 71 Teacher Excellence Initiative For distinguished levels of performance, the advancement rate will vary between 15 and 25 percent. With regard to the number of teachers departing the district, we suspect that teachers who are currently earning more than the average amount and who also are rated at the lower effectiveness levels will depart in greater numbers than they have in the past. Teachers at the higher end of the effectiveness scale will tend to remain in the district longer than they have in the past.10 Based on our estimates of the number of teachers who will be advanced to the next level and the percentage of teachers at each level departing the district, we calculate the total amount the district will spend for classroom teacher salaries in the 2016-2017 school year to be $575,479,000.11 Note that this amount is slightly less than the amount the district would have spent on classroom teacher salaries under the current, traditional salary schedule ($576,346,000). 10 See our estimates in the “% not returning” column. 11 See charts 72 • Appendix F Teacher Excellence Initiative Financial safeguards If the TEI plan is to remain financially viable, the district will also have to ensure evaluations do not become inflated. While the plan allows for teacher performance and student achievement to improve, the plan cannot sustain significant numbers of teachers being advanced either because the standards are too low or because evaluators inflate actual performance. The TEI plan has several safeguards against lowering the standards or inflating evaluations: 1. Congruence metric in the principal evaluation. One way to assess true capacitybuilding versus evaluation inflation is to compare evaluation ratings with achievement results, which tend to be more stable. Our premise is that these two metrics are positively correlated (in a fair, accurate, and rigorous – FAR – evaluation system). Thus a teacher who has an exemplary performance evaluation would obtain higher student achievement results than a teacher who has a progressing performance rating. High performance evaluations that are not accompanied by increasing student achievement means that the two parts of the evaluation are not congruent. Similarly, incongruity results when a principal gives teachers low performance evaluations when student achievement is increasing. Tying a “congruence metric” to a principal’s evaluation helps prevent the inflation of evaluations. Evaluations will be more aligned with achievement results, and performance ratings will grow over time, but only if actual student achievement increases. The congruence metric is worth a total of 5 points on the principal evaluation. 2. Distinguished review conducted by the district. In a system that differentiates evaluations based on student achievement results and classroom performance, it is important to maintain quality control. With the TEI plan, principals (and other campus-level evaluators) can bestow an evaluation rating no higher than “Proficient I.” Teachers seeking a higher evaluation rating must undergo a distinguished review conducted by the District. The standards with regard to instructional ability, leadership, contributions to the profession, and life-long learning (the key components of the district review) are high and are controlled by the District. Having the distinguished review conducted by the District also allows the District to control the numbers of teachers at the distinguished effectiveness levels. 3. The target distribution. The most important element with regard to maintaining standards and ensuring financial stability is the application of a target distribution (see pages 5-6). Cut-points on the student achievement metrics will be established after the data are gathered. The cut-points will be established in order to achieve the target Appendix F • 73 Teacher Excellence Initiative distribution for each metric. Applying the target distribution to each student achievement metric ensures that the evaluation ratings will be differentiated. 4. Control of the distribution of the effectiveness levels. A teacher may earn up to 100 points. The score from the performance rubric is added to the score from the student survey and the achievement template to get the teacher evaluation rating or annual summative. At present, the effectiveness levels have been assigned the following range of scores. Unsat 10-18 Prog. I 19-29 Prog. II 30-42 Prof. I 43-57 Prof. II 58-71 Prof. III 72-85 Exem 86-100 However, these ranges will be adjusted in order to achieve the target distribution. The range of scores will be adjusted after the evaluations of the teachers in the 2014-2015 school year and after the evaluations of the teachers in the 2015-2016 school year. After the 2015-2016 school year, the District will determine whether to continue to adjust the cut-points or to keep them stable. There are also other key safeguards that will ensure financial stability even should the district have its revenue cut substantially. 5. Freezing effectiveness levels. Just as under traditional compensation plans, when the district’s revenue is cut substantially, the district may freeze teacher compensation and/or effectiveness levels. 6. The salary cap. The salary cap offsets the salary differential received by teachers who remain at the salary floor. The district plans to keep a cap on the increase of a teacher’s salary ($5,000 a year) for the first two years of the plan. Should the district find itself in financial need, it could elect to extend the salary cap for another year. 7. Steady advancement. While teachers can get to higher effectiveness levels fairly quickly, the TEI plan is designed for steady improvement. Once assigned to an effectiveness level, a teacher may only advance one level at a time. Additionally, teachers must have a minimum of three years of classroom experience in order to be rated “Proficient I.”12 12 A “year” in this case is a full year of teaching. 74 • Appendix F Teacher Excellence Initiative Appendix G Appendix G: Congruence Metric in Principal Evaluation If a system is not careful, over time, teacher performance evaluations will become inflated, making it harder to accurately assess staff effectiveness and the principal’s ability to build capacity. One way to assess true capacity-building versus evaluation inflation is to compare evaluation ratings with achievement results, which tend to be more stable. Our premise is that these two metrics are positively correlated (in a fair, accurate, and rigorous – FAR – evaluation system). Thus a teacher who has an exemplary performance evaluation would obtain higher student achievement results than a teacher who has a progressing rating. Tying a “congruence metric” to a principal’s evaluation helps prevent the inflation of evaluations. Evaluations will be more aligned with achievement results, and performance ratings will grow over time, but only if actual student achievement increases. The congruence metric is worth a total of 5 points on the principal evaluation. Congruence metric Unsat Prog. I Prog. II -‐ 1 Unsat Prog. I Prog. II Prof. I Prof. II 0 Prof. I Prof. III Exemplary Prof. III Exemplary 2 Prof. II Congruence = Sum of absolute values/ no. of teachers = The congruence metric is derived by taking the absolute value of the difference between each teacher’s performance rating (from the teacher evaluation rubric) and their achievement score. The diagram above shows performance ratings and achievement scores for three different teachers. The absolute values of the three congruence measurements are 1, 0, and 2. The sum of the absolute values is then divided by the number of teachers, providing the average congruence between performance and achievement. A principal’s congruence score is based on this average. The goal would be to get as close to “0” as possible. • Appendix G 56 75 Teacher Excellence Initiative Congruence between performance ratings and achievement results .5 ≥ Cong. .75 ≥ Cong. > .5 1.0 ≥ Cong. > .75 1.25 ≥ Cong. > 1.0 1.5 ≥ Cong. > 1.25 76 Score 5 4 3 2 1 57 Appendix G • • Appendix H NEW HIRES Current Dist % Prog I 12% Total Empl Amt. Novice (47,000) # Empl $49,971,669 $5,996,600 $55,968,269 22 $49 ‐ $51 7.10% *Teacher totals may be off due to rounding Salaries Benefits Total Cost 51 642 $65 ‐ $74 6.10% 0.48% 18 615 $59 ‐ $65 5.84% > $74 42 56.5k 2 76k 19 69.5k 62k 39 52.5k $54 ‐ $59 13.20% 1390 50k 48k 46k FY16 Salary $13,585,000 $1,630,200 $15,215,200 $152,000 $1,320,500 $1,116,000 $2,373,000 $2,047,500 $1,100,000 $2,256,000 $3,220,000 FY16 Actual Cost (Savings)/ Cost over TEI 62,000 465,500 306,000 483,000 292,500 110,000 141,000 70,000 Unsatisfactory ($45,000) $51 ‐ $54 12.30% 1295 747 47 $47 ‐ $49 14.80% 1558 842 70 8.00% # Empl Prof III Exemp+ 6.0% 2.0% 22.08% 2324 < $47 New Novice 10.10% 1063 1063 $49,971,669 Unsatisf 3% Prepared by: Budget Services 01/08/2014 CURRENT SALARY DISTRIBUTION Performance Distribution Prog II Prof I Prof II 12% 25% 40% 50k 62k 6 76k 77 69.5k 74 167 56.5k 155 52.5k 90 187 49k $55,302,500 $6,636,300 $61,938,800 $456,000 $5,351,500 $4,588,000 $9,435,500 $8,137,500 $4,500,000 $9,163,000 $13,671,000 FY16 Actual Cost Prog I ($49,000) FY16 Salary 279 49k # Empl 162,000 1,578,500 962,000 1,252,500 542,500 90,000 0 0 (Savings)/ Cost over TEI 51k $42,950,160 51k $9,537,000 51k $19,839,000 51k $29,631,000 486,000 0 0 0 518 54k 299 54k 623 53k 930 51k (Savings)/ # FY16 Cost over TEI Empl Salary 62k $9,548,000 1,694,000 246 62k 13 76k $160,298,160 $19,235,779 $179,533,939 $988,000 325,000 20 76k 161 69.5k $11,189,500 2,978,500 257 69.5k 154 347 56.5k $19,605,500 1,908,500 556 56.5k 324 52.5k $17,010,000 187 389 581 842 FY16 Actual Cost Prog II ($51,000) # FY16 Empl Salary $190,614,500 $22,873,740 $213,488,240 $1,520,000 $17,861,500 $15,252,000 $31,414,000 $27,972,000 $16,146,000 $33,019,000 $47,430,000 FY16 Actual Cost # FY16 Empl Salary 440,000 3,983,500 1,968,000 1,390,000 0 0 (623,000) 55k 62k 6 76k 77 69.5k 74 167 59k 155 57.5k 90 187 53k (2,790,000) 279 51k (Savings)/ Cost over TEI Prof I ($54,000) 2015‐2016 TEI Cost Model $58,251,000 $6,990,120 $65,241,120 $456,000 $5,351,500 $4,588,000 $9,853,000 $8,912,500 $4,950,000 $9,911,000 $14,229,000 FY16 Actual Cost 102,000 808,500 222,000 0 (232,500) (360,000) (1,122,000) (2,232,000) (Savings)/ Cost over TEI Prof II ($59,000) 55k 53k 65k 3 76k 39 69.5k 37 83 61.5k $29,426,000 $3,531,120 $32,957,120 $228,000 $2,710,500 $2,405,000 $5,104,500 $4,485,000 $2,475,000 $4,929,000 $7,089,000 FY16 Actual Cost 51k (651,000) 2,860 $567,321,829 $68,078,619 Total Ceiling Count: Total Salaries Cost: Total Benefits Cost: 3,106 ($14,604,000) Total Ceiling Savings: $23,034,000 2,000 0 (84,000) (350,000) (429,000) (285,000) Total Floor Count: $9,873,000 $1,184,760 $11,057,760 $76,000 $962,000 $804,000 $1,722,000 $1,495,000 $825,000 $1,643,000 $2,346,000 (1,058,000) (Savings)/ Cost over TEI $635,400,448 76k 74k 67k 61.5k 57.5k 55k 53k FY16 Actual Cost Exemp+ ($74,000) FY16 Salary Total Cost: 1 13 12 28 26 15 31 46 # Empl 10,527 Total Floor Cost: 33,000 175,500 0 (290,500) (585,000) (450,000) (1,116,000) (1,946,000) (Savings)/ Cost over TEI Prof III ($65,000) 78 57.5k 45 93 139 51k # FY16 Empl Salary Teachers: bh Teacher Excellence Initiative Appendix H 77 Teacher Excellence Initiative Appendix I 2016 -‐ 2017 TEI Cost Model Unsatisf 3% 45k Prog I 12% 49k Performance Distribution Prog II Prof I Prof II 25% 40% 12% 51k 54k 59k Teachers: Prof III 6.0% 65k NON-‐PROGRESSING EMPLOYEE COSTS Novice in 15-‐16 New in 15-‐16 Novice in 14-‐15 New in 14-‐15 2014-‐15 SALARY DISTRIBUTION NEW HIRES 14-‐15 Dist. <$47 26.95% $47 -‐ $49 18.07% $49 -‐ $51 8.67% $51 -‐ $54 15.02% $54 -‐ $59 16.12% $59 -‐ $65 7.13% $65 -‐ $74 7.45% > $74 0.59% 2014-‐15 Eval. No. of Rating Teachers Novice Prog II Unsatisf Prog I Prog II Prof I Prof II Prof III Exemp+ Unsatisf Prog I Prog II Prof I Prof II Prof III Exemp+ Unsatisf Prog I Prog II Prof I Prof II Prof III Exemp+ Unsatisf Prog I Prog II Prof I Prof II Prof III Exemp+ Unsatisf Prog I Prog II Prof I Prof II Prof III Exemp+ Unsatisf Prog I Prog II Prof I Prof II Prof III Exemp+ Unsatisf Prog I Prog II Prof I Prof II Prof III Exemp+ Unsatisf Prog I Prog II Prof I Prof II Prof III Exemp+ 1063 842 70 279 581 929 279 139 46 47 187 389 623 187 93 31 22 90 187 299 90 45 15 39 155 324 518 155 78 26 42 167 347 556 167 83 28 18 74 154 246 74 37 12 19 77 161 257 77 39 13 2 6 13 20 6 3 1 % not returning 15% 15% 100% 15% 15% 10% 5% 5% 5% 100% 15% 15% 10% 5% 5% 5% 100% 20% 15% 10% 5% 5% 5% 100% 25% 25% 10% 5% 5% 5% 100% 25% 25% 10% 5% 5% 5% 100% 25% 25% 10% 5% 5% 5% 100% 25% 25% 10% 5% 5% 5% 100% 25% 25% 10% 5% 5% 5% No. not returning 159 126 70 42 87 93 14 7 2 47 28 58 62 9 5 2 22 18 28 30 5 2 1 39 39 81 52 8 4 1 42 42 87 56 8 4 1 18 19 39 25 4 2 1 19 19 40 26 4 2 1 2 2 3 2 0 0 0 % returning 85% 85% 0% 85% 85% 90% 95% 95% 95% 0% 85% 85% 90% 95% 95% 95% 0% 80% 85% 90% 95% 95% 95% 0% 75% 75% 90% 95% 95% 95% 0% 75% 75% 90% 95% 95% 95% 0% 75% 75% 90% 95% 95% 95% 0% 75% 75% 90% 95% 95% 95% 0% 75% 75% 90% 95% 95% 95% Number % at same No. at same Returning rating rating FY17 1,000 100% 1,000 605 100% 605 904 0% 0 716 40% 286 0 25% 0 237 25% 59 494 40% 198 836 75% 627 265 75% 199 132 75% 99 44 75% 33 0 25% 0 159 25% 40 331 40% 132 561 75% 421 178 75% 134 88 75% 66 29 75% 22 0 25% 0 72 25% 18 159 40% 64 269 75% 202 86 80% 69 43 80% 34 14 80% 11 0 25% 0 116 25% 29 243 40% 97 466 75% 350 147 85% 125 74 85% 63 25 85% 21 0 25% 0 125 25% 31 260 40% 104 500 75% 375 159 85% 135 79 85% 67 27 85% 23 0 25% 0 56 25% 14 116 40% 46 221 75% 166 70 85% 60 35 85% 30 11 85% 9 0 25% 0 58 25% 15 121 40% 48 231 75% 173 73 85% 62 37 85% 31 12 85% 10 0 25% 0 5 25% 1 10 40% 4 18 75% 14 6 85% 5 3 85% 3 1 85% 1 PROGRESSING EMPLOYEE COSTS 2016-‐17 Salary FY17 Actual Cost $47,000 $51,000 $47,000 $51,000 $46,000 $49,000 $51,000 $54,000 $56,000 $56,000 $56,000 $48,000 $49,000 $51,000 $54,000 $58,000 $58,000 $58,000 $50,000 $50,000 $51,000 $54,000 $59,000 $60,000 $60,000 $52,500 $52,500 $52,500 $54,000 $59,000 $62,500 $62,500 $56,500 $56,500 $56,500 $56,500 $59,000 $65,000 $66,500 $62,000 $62,000 $62,000 $62,000 $62,000 $65,000 $72,000 $69,500 $69,500 $69,500 $69,500 $69,500 $69,500 $74,000 $76,000 $76,000 $76,000 $76,000 $76,000 $76,000 $76,000 $47,000,000 $30,855,000 $0 $14,586,000 $0 $2,891,000 $10,098,000 $33,858,000 $11,144,000 $5,544,000 $1,848,000 $0 $1,960,000 $6,732,000 $22,734,000 $7,772,000 $3,828,000 $1,276,000 $0 $900,000 $3,264,000 $10,908,000 $4,071,000 $2,040,000 $660,000 $0 $1,522,500 $5,092,500 $18,900,000 $7,375,000 $3,937,500 $1,312,500 $0 $1,751,500 $5,876,000 $21,187,500 $7,965,000 $4,355,000 $1,529,500 $0 $868,000 $2,852,000 $10,292,000 $3,720,000 $1,950,000 $648,000 $0 $1,042,500 $3,336,000 $12,023,500 $4,309,000 $2,154,500 $740,000 $0 $76,000 $304,000 $1,064,000 $380,000 $228,000 $76,000 Floor/ (Ceiling) $0 $0 $0 $0 ($597,000) ($891,000) ($594,000) $0 $0 $0 $0 ($134,000) ($462,000) ($352,000) $0 $18,000 $0 $0 $0 ($170,000) ($154,000) $0 $101,500 $145,500 $0 $0 ($157,500) ($241,500) $0 $232,500 $572,000 $937,500 $0 $0 ($172,500) $0 $182,000 $506,000 $1,328,000 $180,000 $0 ($18,000) $0 $307,500 $888,000 $2,681,500 $651,000 $139,500 $0 $0 $27,000 $100,000 $308,000 $85,000 $33,000 $2,000 % advanced 100% 60% 75% 75% 60% 25% 25% 25% 25% 75% 75% 60% 25% 25% 25% 25% 75% 75% 60% 25% 20% 20% 20% 75% 75% 60% 25% 15% 15% 15% 75% 75% 60% 25% 15% 15% 15% 75% 75% 60% 25% 15% 15% 15% 75% 75% 60% 25% 15% 15% 15% 75% 75% 60% 25% 15% 15% 15% # advanced 904 430 0 178 296 209 66 33 11 0 119 199 140 45 22 7 0 54 95 67 17 9 3 0 87 146 117 22 11 4 0 94 156 125 24 12 4 0 42 70 55 11 5 2 0 44 73 58 11 6 2 0 4 6 5 1 0 0 2015-‐2016 Eval. Rating Prog I Prof I Prog I Prog II Prof I Prof II Prof III Exemp+ Exemp+ Prog I Prog II Prof I Prof II Prof III Exemp+ Exemp+ Prog I Prog II Prof I Prof II Prof III Exemp+ Exemp+ Prog I Prog II Prof I Prof II Prof III Exemp+ Exemp+ Prog I Prog II Prof I Prof II Prof III Exemp+ Exemp+ Prog I Prog II Prof I Prof II Prof III Exemp+ Exemp+ Prog I Prog II Prof I Prof II Prof III Exemp+ Exemp+ Prog I Prog II Prof I Prof II Prof III Exemp+ Exemp+ 2016-‐17 Salary $49,000 $54,000 $49,000 $51,000 $54,000 $56,000 $56,000 $56,000 $56,000 $49,000 $51,000 $54,000 $58,000 $58,000 $58,000 $58,000 $50,000 $51,000 $54,000 $59,000 $60,000 $60,000 $60,000 $52,500 $52,500 $54,000 $59,000 $62,500 $62,500 $62,500 $56,500 $56,500 $56,500 $59,000 $64,000 $66,500 $66,500 $62,000 $62,000 $62,000 $62,000 $65,000 $72,000 $72,000 $69,500 $69,500 $69,500 $69,500 $69,500 $69,500 $69,500 $76,000 $76,000 $76,000 $76,000 $76,000 $76,000 $76,000 FY17 Actual Cost $44,296,000 $23,220,000 $0 $9,078,000 $15,984,000 $11,704,000 $3,696,000 $1,848,000 $616,000 $0 $6,069,000 $10,746,000 $8,120,000 $2,610,000 $1,276,000 $406,000 $0 $2,754,000 $5,130,000 $3,953,000 $1,020,000 $540,000 $180,000 $0 $4,567,500 $7,884,000 $6,903,000 $1,375,000 $687,500 $250,000 $0 $5,311,000 $8,814,000 $7,375,000 $1,536,000 $798,000 $266,000 $0 $2,604,000 $4,340,000 $3,410,000 $715,000 $360,000 $144,000 $0 $3,058,000 $5,073,500 $4,031,000 $764,500 $417,000 $139,000 $0 $304,000 $456,000 $380,000 $76,000 $0 $0 Total $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 ($627,000) ($594,000) ($594,000) ($198,000) $0 $0 $0 ($140,000) ($315,000) ($352,000) ($112,000) $0 $0 $0 $0 ($85,000) ($126,000) ($42,000) $0 $130,500 $0 $0 ($55,000) ($126,500) ($46,000) $0 $517,000 $390,000 $0 ($24,000) ($90,000) ($30,000) $0 $462,000 $560,000 $165,000 $0 ($10,000) ($4,000) $0 $814,000 $1,131,500 $609,000 $49,500 ($27,000) ($9,000) $0 $100,000 $132,000 $85,000 $11,000 $0 $0 $47,000,000 $30,855,000 $44,296,000 $37,806,000 $0 $11,969,000 $26,082,000 $45,562,000 $14,840,000 $7,392,000 $2,464,000 $0 $8,029,000 $17,478,000 $30,854,000 $10,382,000 $5,104,000 $1,682,000 $0 $3,654,000 $8,394,000 $14,861,000 $5,091,000 $2,580,000 $840,000 $0 $6,090,000 $12,976,500 $25,803,000 $8,750,000 $4,625,000 $1,562,500 $0 $7,062,500 $14,690,000 $28,562,500 $9,501,000 $5,153,000 $1,795,500 $0 $3,472,000 $7,192,000 $13,702,000 $4,435,000 $2,310,000 $792,000 $0 $4,100,500 $8,409,500 $16,054,500 $5,073,500 $2,571,500 $879,000 $0 $380,000 $760,000 $1,444,000 $456,000 $228,000 $76,000 Total Cost: $645,256,640 $14,582,000 Total Ceiling Savings: 78 Floor/ (Ceiling) Total Floor Cost: Total Floor Count: Prepared by: Budget Services 01/09/2014 10,527 Exemp+ 2.0% 74k 2,003 ($7,550,000) Total Ceiling Count: 1,368 Total Salaries Cost: $576,122,000 Total Benefits Cost: $69,134,640 bh Appendix I • 1/24/2014 1 Citizens Budget Review Commission January 27, 2014 2 Agenda Overview Brief context Intended outcomes 1 1/24/2014 3 TEI’s Objective: Improve student learning by improving teacher effectiveness Defining Excellence • What is our vision for effective teaching and how do we evaluate it? Supporting Excellence • How do we most effectively support and differentiate teachers’ professional learning? Rewarding Excellence • How do we reward teachers for their professional growth and impact on student learning? 4 TEI Goals Assess teachers fairly, accurately, and rigorously Assesses a teacher’s ability to deliver high‐quality instruction and to raise student achievement Equitably distribute highly‐effective and well‐qualified teachers across the District, and encourage them to serve students who are most at‐risk Targets support and professional development to improve the overall capacity of our teachers to provide high‐quality instruction 2 1/24/2014 5 TEI Goals Raise expectations for teaching and increase accountability for effective teaching Recruit, recognize, and reward effective teachers; support teachers who are not excelling, and, if necessary, remove teachers who remain ineffective Support career pathways for teachers 6 Defining Excellence Performance Achievement Student Surveys 3 1/24/2014 7 Performance Instructional practice Planning and preparation Classroom management Professionalism and commitment 8 Achievement All templates will include the school’s STAAR results and the individual teacher goal Best of three measures for an assessment will be used when possible More than 1,000 surveys received from teacher focus groups Refining templates for teacher input in the spring 4 1/24/2014 9 Achievement 10 Student surveys Kindergarten – 12th grade Research‐based MET study found correlation between student surveys and teacher effectiveness Student perceptions, not a popularity contest 5 1/24/2014 11 Student surveys Examples of types of descriptive statements My teacher encourages me to do my best. My teacher encourages us to think. We don’t just memorize. If I am confused or have questions, my teacher knows how to help me understand what we are learning. My teacher makes the time to give us a summary of what we learn every day. This class keeps me interested, so I don’t get bored. My teacher gives us the opportunity to explain our thoughts and ideas. We work during class and we don’t waste time. 12 Overall Effectiveness Levels District Review (DTR) Principal Review Unsat $45K Progressing I $49K II $51K Proficient I $54K II $59K Exemplary III $65K I $74K II $82K Master $90K Novice ($47K) Nine levels of overall effectiveness Additional Novice level for teachers new to the profession Experienced teachers new to the district can be placed at Progressing I or II and Proficient I levels. 6 1/24/2014 13 Distinguished Teachers Teachers that are rated at Proficient II or higher Excel in all three components – teachers performance, student surveys, and student achievement. Undergo an additional performance review by a three‐member team of instructional leaders and are reviewed for their: Quality of Instruction Leadership Lifelong learning Contributions to the profession Teachers who serve in Tier One schools (the highest‐need schools in DISD) are provided additional points in the process 14 Supporting Excellence Support is a crucial component of evaluation system TEI provides richer and more useful feedback to teachers Opportunities for more differentiated and targeted professional development 7 1/24/2014 15 Supporting Excellence: The Research Guiding principles to support teacher professional learning Professional learning should: Connect to practice and be intensive and ongoing Focus on student learning and address the teaching of specific curriculum content Align with school improvement priorities and goals Build strong working relationships among teachers Source: Darling‐Hammond et al (2009). Professional Learning in the Profession: A Status Report on Teacher Development in the United States and Abroad. 16 Supporting Excellence The Plan: Supporting Job‐Embedded Professional Learning Learning Context High‐Leverage Supports Fostering Self‐ Facilitated Learning Opportunities Create short exemplar videos of Dallas ISD teachers representing each indicator of the new performance rubric in various content areas Customize a user‐friendly technology platform that facilitates data analysis and reflection as well as tools to incorporate insights into planning Develop district training modules for effective use of digital video cameras; invest in digital video cameras for teacher use Enhancing One‐on‐One Coaching Supports Develop extensive calibration modules for school leaders and instructional coaches to ensure a common vision of excellence Create an online resource bank with videos and modules for school leaders and instructional coaches on developing effective coaching relationships and providing effective feedback Develop a more structured mentoring program for novice teachers that leverages campus expertise 8 1/24/2014 17 Supporting Excellence The Plan: Supporting Job‐Embedded Professional Learning Learning Context High‐Leverage Supports Empowering Teacher Teams Provide tools and resources for teacher teams (e.g., toolkits, videos of effective team practices) Create virtual PLC modules that facilitate role‐alike teachers within and across campuses Develop live and online modules for team leaders Support school leaders and coaches in effectively supporting teams (e.g., scheduling logistics, coaching teams) Increasing Whole‐Group Training Offerings Develop a series of 1‐hour model PD modules with facilitator guides aligned to rubric indicators to support campus leaders in facilitating whole‐group PD sessions (e.g., when introducing a topic) Create modules to support principals in developing a comprehensive framework for job‐embedded PD on campus, including work on deepening content knowledge 18 Supporting Excellence The Plan: Identifying strategic professional development initiatives Initiative High‐Leverage Supports Developing Summer Learning Labs Pair proficient and above teachers with progressing teachers in teaching summer school in order to build instructional capacity Building Robust Build and provide a set of workshops (e.g., Tuesdays and District Content Saturdays) that are designed to build campus and content Workshops expertise in areas of need 9 1/24/2014 19 Supporting Excellence The Plan: Identifying strategic professional development initiatives Initiative High‐Leverage Supports Differentiated PD Academies (Year‐long) Develop a set of academies for select teachers that targets: Progressing II teachers in order to support them in becoming proficient teachers Proficient I teachers in order to support them in becoming distinguished teachers Distinguished teachers in order to continue to grow their teacher leadership capacities Academies would include a summer session with ongoing PD during the year in order to support job‐embedded professional learning 20 Rewarding Excellence “Raises – outside of cost‐of‐living adjustments or allowances – should be based on teacher effectiveness.” ‐‐ Texas Teaching Commission, 2012 “Pay Irreplaceables [roughly, top 20 percent of teachers] what they’re worth, and create career pathways that extend their reach.” ‐‐ TNTP, 2012 10 1/24/2014 21 Rewarding Excellence Bases compensation on teacher performance, student achievement, and student survey results Rewards effective teachers Effective teachers can earn more in a shorter span System is sustainable 22 Rewarding Excellence District Review (DTR) Principal Review Unsat $45K Progressing I $49K II $51K Proficient I $54K II $59K Exemplary III $65K I $74K II $82K Master $90K Novice ($47K) Novice level for teachers new to the profession Experienced teachers new to the district can be placed at Progressing I or II and Proficient I levels 11 1/24/2014 23 Average teacher with master’s CYS 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Current Salary Schedule Salary 47,022 47,022 47,022 47,277 47,992 48,859 48,859 49,726 50,593 51,460 52,327 53,194 54,061 54,061 56,265 Potential Strategic Compensation Effectiveness Level Salary Novice 47,000 Progressing I 49,000 Progressing II 51,000 Progressing II 51,000 Proficient I 54,000 Proficient I 54,000 Proficient I 54,000 Proficient I 54,000 Proficient II 59,000 Proficient II 59,000 Proficient II 59,000 Proficient II 59,000 Proficient II 59,000 Proficient III 65,000 Proficient III 65,000 $755,740 $839,000 This teacher would earn $83,260 more over the course of 15 years. Teachers that improve at a faster rate would earn more; less effective teachers would earn less. 24 Rewarding Excellence Key Implementation Parameters Based on SY14‐15 ratings, all classroom teachers would be assigned an overall effectiveness level. The new salary would start in SY15‐16. Teacher salaries will not go below 2014‐2015 level For first two years of TEI implementation, maximum salary increase in a single year will be capped at $5,000 for an individual teacher Proficient I teachers must have a minimum of three years of teaching experience 12 1/24/2014 25 Rewarding Excellence Other Considerations Stipends Stipends for hard‐to‐fill areas (e.g., bilingual teachers) will continue Stipends for department chairs, team leaders, and mentors will continue through 2015‐16 and will be phased‐out in subsequent years. Adjustment for Inflation or Cost‐of‐Living The compensation tied to the effectiveness levels is not adjusted every year to account for inflation. However, the compensation scale will be reviewed at least once every three years by the HCM Compensation Team to determine if the scale is competitive and to make a recommendation to adjust it if necessary. 26 Budget and Sustainability Two concepts to ensure sustainability Base the budget for the new system on the same percentage of the M&O (general operating revenue) that is currently used to pay teacher salaries on the traditional schedule Utilize a “target distribution” of effectiveness levels 13 1/24/2014 27 2013‐14 Teacher Salaries & Budget M&O Grant funded TOTAL 2013‐2014 Actual (estimate) No. of Salary Benefits teachers 9,565 $507,500,884 $59,888,787 487 $25,360,128 $3,475,824 10,052 $532,861,012 $63,364,611 Stipends $3,495,862 $449,070 $3,944,932 28 2015‐2016 Budget for TEI 14 1/24/2014 29 2013‐14 Distribution of Teachers by Salary 30 Oct 2013 30% 28.5% 25% 20% 17.3% 14.9% 15% 15.0% 8.5% 10% 7.1% 8.0% 5% 0.5% 0% < $47 $47 ‐ $49 $49 ‐ $51 $51 ‐ $54 $54 ‐ $59 $59 ‐ $65 $65 ‐ $74 > $74 * Totals may not add to 100% due to rounding 30 2013‐14 Distribution of Teachers by Creditable Years of Service 3500 2969 3000 2500 2000 1664 1443 1500 1168 981 1000 529 500 491 348 200 121 0 < 1 1‐3 4‐10 11‐15 16‐20 21‐25 26‐30 31‐35 36‐40 >40 *General Fund Teachers only as of October 30, 2013 15 1/24/2014 31 2015‐16 Target Distribution • The majority of teachers (about 58%) would be considered Proficient, with 37% at Progressing, and 3% Unsatisfactory, and 2% Exemplary 32 2015‐16 Target Distribution Rating Compensation Unsat Prog I Prog II Prof I Prof II Prof III Exem.+ 45,000 49,000 51,000 54,000 59,000 65,000 74,000 Target Distribution 3% 12% 25% 40% 12% 6% 2% No. of Teachers 316 1,263 2,632 4,210 1,263 632 211 10,527 Financial Impact $14,220,000 $61,887,000 $134,232,000 $227,340,000 $74,517,000 $41,080,000 $15,614,000 $568,890,000 • NOTE: Table excludes cost of maintaining 2014‐15 salary floor and $5K salary increase cap needed to transition over to new system 16 1/24/2014 33 2015‐16 Impact for Teachers 66% of teachers who are not new and who are not rated “Unsatisfactory” are likely to see an increase in their salary beginning in the 2015‐2016 school year. Approximately 2,860 teachers will have their salaries capped at an increase of $5,000. The average increase for those teachers receiving an increase will be approximately $4,000. 34% of teachers are likely to earn the same salary (from 2014‐15) 34 Parameters & Financial Safeguards 1. Congruence metric in the principal evaluation 2. Distinguished teacher review conducted by the District 3. Use of target distribution 4. Control of the distribution of effectiveness levels 5. Salary increase cap of $5,000 (first two years of plan) 6. Steady advancement: Teachers move one level at a time 7. Freezing effectiveness levels (if District revenue is cut substantially) 17 1/24/2014 35 Non‐Teacher Salary Budget Implications Costs Data management system 2014‐15 $1,000,000 2015‐16 $1,000,000 2016‐17 $1,000,000 Assessment development, scoring, and data analysis $1,860,000 $1,860,000 $1,860,000 Student surveys $1,250,000 $1,250,000 $1,250,000 TEI implementation team & Distinguished reviews $ 800,000 $ 725,000 $ 650,000 Training for appraisers and teachers $ 250,000 $ 50,000 $ 50,000 Professional Development TOTAL $3,000,000 $8,160,000 $3,000,000 $7,885,000 $3,000,000 $7,810,000 • A High‐Yield, Efficient Investment: The projected costs average about $800 per teacher per year, the largest portion dedicated to providing professional development supports for teachers. 36 Defining Excellence Supporting Excellence Rewarding Excellence 18 1/24/2014 37 Appendix 38 Communications and Engagement Internal Presentations by Assistant Superintendents to all school staff TEI Implementation Committee Teacher Focus Groups by Feeder Pattern Regular principal & teacher Information distributed through The Same Page employee newsletter Information through E‐News Created a teacher‐specific site on intranet Will continue to meet with teachers engagement through beta 19 1/24/2014 39 Communications and Engagement Community Web site with information Meetings with more than 100 community, education, civic and business organizations 16,215 page views Meetings with teacher organization leadership and membership Open Mike Meetings Will continue to meet with Answered questions and community and parents received input 40 Project timeline 2011‐12 2012‐13 Design Design (last year) June 2011 board approved contract to develop a new evaluation system Engaged thousands of stakeholders Researched best practice teacher evaluation design elements Tested an initial rubric and design elements in 18 schools 2013‐14 2014‐15 2015‐16 Beta Full roll‐ out Goes into effect Alig Alignment nme nt Engaged thousands of stakeholders Refined preliminary performance measures and conducted spring beta Defined and built achievement measures Content area/ grade focus groups Beta test in different schools across district: Performance measures Achievement measures Student surveys Launch Web site Outreach to teachers and community Present to Board of Trustees for approval Training Performance measures Achievement measures for most teachers Continue training teachers and principals Effectiveness ratings determine compensation for 2015‐16 school year Second year of ratings Continue to refine evaluation instrument 20
* Your assessment is very important for improving the work of artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
advertisement
© 2021