pay for performance programs in arizona cpre conference february 21, 2007 arizona performance based...

Pay for Performance Programs in Arizona

CPRE Conference

February 21, 2007

• Arizona Performance Based Arizona Performance Based Compensation SystemCompensation System

• Arizona Career Ladder ProgramsArizona Career Ladder Programs

February 21, 2007 2

Performance Based Compensation System

(ARS §15-977)

February 21, 2007 3

Performance Based Compensation System History

Arizona voters passed Proposition 301 in November, 2000

The purpose is to – increase education funding– Implement specific financial and academic

accountability measures

February 21, 2007 4

Performance Based Compensation System Revenues

.5¢ sales tax

The 2000 estimate:

– Generate $445 million each year for 20 years

– About 55 percent of that—or $252 million—will go towards the Classroom Site Fund

February 21, 2007 5

Performance Based Compensation System Classroom Site Fund Monies

2003: $224 million

2004: $232 million

Source: State Auditor General

February 21, 2007 6

Performance Based Compensation System Classroom Site

40 Percent: Performance pay for teachers

20 percent: Base compensation increases

40 percent: menu items (district needs)

February 21, 2007 7

Performance Based Compensation System Unresolved Issues

The law did not define “teacher”

It also did not define the term “performance” or contain any additional guidance

February 21, 2007 8

Performance Based Compensation System Performance Compensation Legislation

SB 1074 passed in 2005 and became effective August 12, 2005

Requires School District Governing Boards to adopt a performance based compensation system

Created the Arizona Performance Based Compensation System Task Force

February 21, 2007 9

Performance Based Compensation System Task Force Duties

Evaluate one-fourth of programs annually

Report on programs’ effectiveness

Offer improvement recommendations

February 21, 2007 10

Performance Based Compensation System Task Force Recommendations

The first set of recommendations were provided in July, 2006:

– Performance Based Assessment must be reflective of comprehensive goal setting at the district, school and classroom level

– Goals should be individually tailored to the situations and needs of each school/district

– Promoting individual student performance should be the direct and primary focus of school/district goal setting

February 21, 2007 11

Performance Based Compensation System Task Force Recommendations

– Districts/schools should select indicators that best reflect

their unique operating environment

– PBC plans should promote continuous improvement by encouraging the development of new skills and knowledge by teachers that are designed to achieve district/school

goals

– Rigorous professional development that is aligned to school/district goals is a vital component to continuous

improvement

February 21, 2007 12

Performance Based Compensation System Task Force Recommendations

– PBC goals should be objective, measurable and timely so that overall performance can be assessed in a transparent way by district, school and community stakeholders

– Systemized data collection and analysis should be a key ingredient in successful PBC plans

– PBC plans should reflect broad-based input in its design, implementation and evaluation as a matter of good practice and accountability

– Each teacher’s performance based compensation should be substantially based on their individual efforts in support if the district/school goals

February 21, 2007 13

Career Ladder Programs(ARS §15-918)

February 21, 2007 14

Arizona Career Ladder Program Purpose

Increased student academic achievement

Teacher recognition and compensation for performance at increasingly higher skill levels

Quality, sustained, job-embedded professional development

February 21, 2007 15

Arizona Career Ladder Program Components

As defined by Arizona Revised Statute §15-918, district Career Ladder Programs must provide for:

Increasingly higher levels of pupil academic progress as measured by objective criteria

Increasingly higher levels of teaching skills

Increasingly higher levels of teacher responsibility

Professional growth

Equal teacher pay for equal teacher performance

February 21, 2007 16

Arizona Career Ladder Program History

1984 Competitive grant planning money available to design a performance based compensation program for teachers

1985 The Arizona legislature created the Arizona Career Ladder Program as a five-year pilot

1990 The Career Ladder Program received “permanent” legislative status

1993 No further expansion is authorized—limiting Career Ladder to 28 districts

February 21, 2007 17

Arizona Career Ladder Program Funding

5.5% of District’s base funding = Career Ladder allocation for that district

District assesses a 22¢ per $100/assessed valuation for local funding

Difference between allocated amount and locally raised funds is paid by state appropriations

February 21, 2007 18

Arizona Career Ladder Program Research/Evaluation

Mary Walton Braver (1989, ASU), (Career Ladder Pilot Project)

Analysis of the impact of the Career Ladder on student academic achievement using a comparison of prior to and following implementation

February 21, 2007 19

Arizona Career Ladder Program Research/Evaluation

Packard and Dereshiwsky (1990)

Positive outcomes were noted for Career Ladder teachers related to: – student achievement – curriculum and instruction and – teacher skills development and leadership

February 21, 2007 20

Arizona Career Ladder Program Research/Evaluation

Datasphere Inc. (1992-93)Results of a survey distributed to

school board members Administrators career ladder teachers, and non-career ladder teachers

concerning the impact of the Career Ladder Program on student progress and achievement

February 21, 2007 21

Arizona Career Ladder Program Research/Evaluation

Sloat (1994)

Comparing student achievement in Career Ladder districts and non-Career Ladder districts:

Career Ladder districts out-performed non-Career Ladder districts in three areas:

1. Drop out rate

2. Graduation rate

3. Standardized and Norm Referenced Tests

February 21, 2007 22

Arizona Career Ladder Program Research/Evaluation

Danzig (1999)

All 28 participating Career Ladder districts are designed with multiple steps and levels, demonstrating a career cycle for teachers with expectations for contributions greater than just “years of experience”

An essential aspect of every district’s plan is the focus on teaching and monitoring of student outcomes

February 21, 2007 23

Arizona Career Ladder Program Research/Evaluation

Sloat (2002)

Comparative study between the 28 Career Ladder districts and similar Non-Career Ladder districts on the Stanford 9 assessment, Grades 2 through 8, Reading, Language, and Mathematics:

– Career Ladder districts out-performed non-Career Ladder districts at every grade level, 2-8, in Reading, Language, and Mathematics as indicated by the median scores.

– Career Ladder districts out-performed non-Career Ladder districts at every grade level, 2nd through 8th, in Reading, Language, and Mathematics as indicated by the mean NCE scores.

– The level of difference indicated was SIGNIFICANT, statistically speaking, at all grade levels and in all subject areas except for 6th grade Reading.

February 21, 2007 24

Arizona Career Ladder Program Research/Evaluation

Dowling, et al (2007)

The Effects of the Career Ladder Program on Student Achievement

Students in Career Ladder schools are performing significantly better on AIMS

measures than did students in non-career ladder schools, even after adjusting for differences in student and school characteristics

The impact of the Career Ladder program seems to be greater in math and reading

Although the statistical methods are different and the measures of student performance are different throughout the studies on Career Ladder, the results continue to be positive.

February 21, 2007 25

Arizona Career Ladder Program Reasons for Success

Districts have the autonomy to design and implement plans aligned with the needs/initiatives of the district yet adhere to statutes

Student achievement is the primary focus

Programs are teacher driven as opposed to state mandated, top-down directives

Over time, Arizona’s Career Ladder districts have maintained the integrity and the intent of the incentive-based programs

All programs must undergo regular evaluation as part of the reapplication process

February 21, 2007 26

Resources/Contacts

Jan AmatorDeputy Associate SuperintendentHighly Qualified Professionals Unit602-364-2294Jan.Amator@azed.gov

Lisa KelleyEducation Program Specialist for Career Ladder602-364-2191Lisa.Kelley@azed.gov

Website: http://www.ade.az.gov/asd/CareerLadder/