The Student Performance Improvement Program:An Approach to Alternative

Compensation

A Joint Project of St. Francis Independent School District #15 and Education

Minnesota St. Francis

“It was the overnight success that took ten

years to build.”

Joe Fredrickson, St. Francis Middle School Science Teacher – quoted in

American Teacher magazine, February 2011

Timeline 1991 – 1995:

1991 – Members of the St. Francis Federation of Teachers vote to authorize a strike

1992 – Settlement reached without a strike but members are clearly unhappy with the outcome

1992 – New president and new negotiating team elected1993 – For first time in history of district, contract settlement

reached prior to the beginning of the school year1995 - Minnesota begins 2% set aside for professional

development

Timeline 1997 – 2003:

1997 - St. Francis negotiates teacher teams, leaders, 20 hours of individual professional time

2000 - Chief negotiator, union vice president attend ER&D training, write what becomes Teacher Academy policy

2001 - District starts Teacher Academy, Gov. Ventura provides $$ for five model alternative compensation programs

2002 - Tim Pawlenty elected governor2003 - Minnesota provides no increase in education funding for

two year period, state senate (controlled by Democrats) propose an increase all tied to performance-based pay

Timeline 2004 – 2005:2004 - St. Francis union executive council endorses a plan to

pursue performance-based pay as “most likely means to significantly increase teacher pay,” 54% of teacher leaders endorse the concept

2005 - (March) 70% of St. Francis teachers vote to take performance-based plan to board during negotiations

2005 - (July) State legislature approves Q Comp, Governor signs law

2005 - (September) 85% of St. Francis teachers vote “yes” for performance-based pay plan

2005 - (October) St. Francis Plan accepted by State, goes into effect

Timeline, 1997-2005

SuperintendentJim Smith Mike Wyatt Ed Saxton

Director of Human ResourcesNancy Rajanen Jay Reker

School Board ChairVickiCronin Kim Hirsch Sandy Grams

Teacher Negotiating TeamPaula JesbergSue Redfield

Director of Financial AffairsStanTikkanen Bob Dell Mae Hawkins

TroyFerguson

JoyceNewman

Jeff Fink, Randy Keillor, Carol Saba, Gary Sederstrom

Teacher Academy:Purpose

It is the purpose of the ISD #15 Teacher Academy to increase student learning in every classroom in the district by providing each teacher with the support and tools to maximize his or her effectiveness as a teacher and encourage professional growth throughout the teacher's career.

Academy Coordinators(Teachers on half-time special assignment

with extended contract)Coordinate all activities

One day = 1st sixhours of ER&DFoundations 1

class

Two days spent ontechnology, going over

district policies,contract, etc

Oneday withmentor, most time

spent at site

Orientation4 days prior

to year 1

Eligible teachers:1. New teachers2. Teachers reassignedin the district

Mentors assigned fromsame site, similar

teaching assignment

One-on-onementorship for up to 3 years

Year 3:Class chosen

with teacher's PRT

Year 2:Foundations 2

(Building AcademicSuccess)

Year 1:Foundations 1(Organizing the

Classroom)

1 Academyclass each

year for first3 years

New TeacherInduction

(includes both teachers new to the professionand teachers new to the district)

Foundations 1Prerequisite forall other classes

QualificationMust have successfully

achieved Teacher 3status

MentorshipTraining provided

each summer(30 hours)

Trainers selectedfrom applicants

Standards:1. Research-based2. Ongoing3.Train-the-trainer

ER&D classes(Our trainers trained

thru AFT)

Standards:1. Must be based onlevel 3 research2. Train-the-trainer

Other classesmeeting ER&D

standard

Academy Classes & Study GroupsEach teacher has 32 hours of professional

development time to be used to support his/her individual growth goal

Peer leader serves asmember of each

team member's PRT

All teacherson teams of

about 10 with team-selected peer leader

Site chair elected,becomes site

representative onAcademy Board

Site committee develops annual goals & plan,

sets limits on individualprof. dev. time

Selected leadersconstitute

sitecommittee

Held prior to thebeginning of school in

early August.

Includes all careerladder teachers &

school administrators

Annual LeadershipConference

Site StaffDevelopment

Teacher Academy(Supervised by

the Superintendent of Schools)

Academy Governing Board(Joint union-management, sets policies

and procedures, also acts as districtstaff development committee)

ISD #15 Teacher

Academy

ProgramOverview

St. Francis Student Achievement, Compared to the State Average...

Increased by an average of +12.81 point average gain in

mathematics +10.15 point average gain in reading

(Comparing the base years 1998-2000 to full implementation years 2002-2005)

Independent School District #15 BST Mathematics Results -

2005 Comparison

to Bordering Districts

Reported as percent passing test in 8th grade.

Independent School District #15 BST Reading Results - 2005

Comparisonto Bordering Districts

Reported as percent passing test in 8th grade.

Independent School District #15BST Writing Results - 2007 Comparison (10th Grade)

to Bordering Districts

Reported as percent passing test in 10th grade.

St. Francis Graduates Increasing College Access

Grad Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 TotalTotal Respondents 218 201 241 278 280 207 237 1662

Graduates 264 249 290 360 391 269 355 2178Technical/Career College 19.3% 15.9% 14.9% 14.4% 11.4% 11.6% 14.3% 14.4%

Community College 11.0% 10.4% 24.1% 19.1% 23.9% 21.3% 28.3% 20.1%4 year College/University 29.4% 35.3% 30.7% 31.7% 34.6% 38.2% 33.8% 33.3%

Total Continuing Education 59.6% 61.7% 69.7% 65.1% 70.0% 71.0% 76.4% 67.8%

No School/ No Work 0.5% 2.0% 0.8% 0.4% 2.1% 0.0% 2.1% 1.1%Military FT 2.8% 3.5% 4.6% 5.0% 2.9% 2.4% 2.5% 3.4%

Work Only FT/PT 37.2% 36.3% 24.9% 29.5% 25.0% 26.6% 19.0% 28.0%

Baseline (2000) - 59.6% of graduates go on to college.

Average of full implementation years (2002-2006) - 70.4% of graduates go on to college.

Minnesota’s Quality Compensation (Q Comp) Law

• Voluntary program - districts, schools, and charter schools must apply

• Provides $260 per pupil for designated purposes (for St. Francis about 7% increase in money available for teacher salaries)

• Provides for a four-year contract or MOU• Five components -

• Career ladder for teachers• Job embedded staff development• Teacher evaluation (observation) system• Performance pay (standardized test bonus)• Reformed steps & lanes

Key Understandings – St. Francis Q Comp (SPIP) Plan

1. Beginning teacher salary increased by 20%2. Teacher advancement based on attainment of positive annual

reviews3. Teacher reviews completed by a team that includes the

teacher, two peers, and an administrator (Performance Review Team)

4. Each annual review based on 4 observations Teacher-generated evidence of student growth

5. Salary increases: Annual cost-of-living increases as negotiated Performance increases come after each three years of positive annual

reviews Completion of mentor training & attaining a Master’s degree

6. Career ladder provides leadership roles for 20% of staff with stipends and expedited movement through schedule

PRT Reviews Work / Reports Results (PRT Meets)

(Spring)

Professional Growth

(Summer/school year)

Annual Review Processfor Individual Teachers

Annual Program Developed (PRT Meets)

(Summer/Fall)

Performance Review Team (PRT) Assigned

Spring/Summer

Formal Observations / Evidence of Student

Growth(November - May)

Salary Schedule (2009-11)Teacher

Level BA BA - Mentor MA MA -

Mentor

Accumulated Annual

Reviews Required

Teacher 1 $39,120 $40,750 Entry Level

Teacher 2 $45,641 $47,814 3 (all proficient or above)

Teacher 3 $52,160 $53,247 $55,420 $56,507 6 (all proficient or above)

Career 1 $59,767 $60,854 10 (7 established)

Career 2 $64,114 $65,201 13 (10 established)

Career 3 $71,542 $72,629 16 (13 established)

Teacher 4 $60,854 7 (4 established)

Teacher 5 $65,201 7 (4 established)

Teacher 6 $72,629 7 (4 established)

Extended Responsibility Stipends Range - $1,100 to $12,000

Teacher Career PathsEmerging Professional Teacher

6 annual reviews at proficient level (minimum)

Professional TeacherMentor Teacher

Teachers eligible after 7 annual reviews

Approved Master’s Degree ProgramCompleted

Career Classroom

PerformanceTeachers eligible with 10 annual

reviews, 7 of which are “established”

Career Ladder in TeacherLeadership

Teachers eligible with 7 annual reviews, 4 of which are

“established”

University of Minnesota Center for Applied Research

and Educational Improvement Study

August 2007 - June 2008,Presented to the School Board August 11, 2008

U of M CAREI StudyWhat Attracts New Teachers

to St. Francis?*

33% - Teacher Support System32% - Improved Salary Schedule24% - Early hiring decision11% - Other

*Survey given to new teachers hired in 2006 & 2007.

U of M CAREI StudyIs St. Francis attracting more applicants for teaching jobs?*

70% - Agree St. Francis is attracting more applicants

18% strongly agree51% agree

*Survey given to administrators and teacher-leaders.

U of M CAREI StudyIs St. Francis attracting better applicants for teaching jobs?*

75% - Agree St. Francis is attracting better applicants

18% strongly agree57% agree

*Survey given to administrators and teacher-leaders.

U of M CAREI StudyAre new teachers more interested

in staying in St. Francis?*

88% - Agree new teachers more interested in staying in St. Francis

43% strongly agree45% agree

*Survey given to administrators and teacher-leaders.

U of M CAREI StudySupport for the Q Comp system*

88.9% - Highly support system79% - Believe salary advancement should be

connected to student achievement gains82% - Believe system will result in greater

achievement gains for students

*Survey given to all teachers.

U of M CAREI Study Summary & Conclusions

•Substantial and positive effects on –Professional development–Culture of the district–Evaluation system

•Benefits from support at all levels including the School Board, superintendent, teachers’ union, school administrators, and teachers•Student Performance Improvement Program is and will remain the professional development model for the district.

U of M CAREI Study Summary & Conclusions

•Most significant change - explicit link between professional development and positive, observable changes in work settings

•Professional staff members challenged to set goals personal based in research on best practices

U of M CAREI Study Summary & Conclusions

•Teachers demonstrate proficiency in attaining goals through observations by peers and administrators during the four classroom visits

•Link between professional development and professional behavior provides catalyst for permanent and positive change

U of M CAREI Study Summary & Conclusions

Improved professional development - •Increased reflective practice•Teacher growth objectives observed & assessed •Increased understanding of various roles (teacher, social worker, educational assistant, administrator)•Process is clear, not overly rigid or prescriptive

U of M CAREI Study Summary & Conclusions

Transformed professional culture of the district•Common language for district staff•Increased opportunities for collaboration•Increased risk-taking with new instructional techniques & strategies•Increased value of observations for both observer and teacher observed•Important factor in attracting and retaining high quality staff

U of M CAREI Study Summary & Conclusions

Strengthened the evaluation process •Observation process provides for teachers to

–develop new skills–work on challenges–adjust behaviors in a timely manner

•Extended teacher duties increases leadership capacities of young teachers

–Become “catalysts for continued momentum and change”•Student performance in both reading & math improved

Growth of St. Francis Students Over Four Years Compared to the National Average

(NWEA Measures of Academic Progress) MATHEMATICS

0

2

4

6

8

10

Class of2015

Class of2014

Class of2013

Class of2012

Class of2011

2005200620072008

NATIONAL AVERAGE

By 2008, St. Francis students, grades 5-9, were scoring

one full year (or more) above the national average in math.

Page 18

Growth of St. Francis Students Over Four Years Compared to the National Average

(NWEA Measures of Academic Progress) READING

0

2

4

6

8

10

Class of2015

Class of2014

Class of2013

Class of2012

Class of2011

2005200620072008

NATIONAL AVERAGE

Pages 19

Take Away

A system that is indifferent to the performance of its employees and rewards them alike regardless of

effort or effectiveness is based on an assumption that what those

employees do really isn’t very important or difficult.