the student performance improvement program: an approach to alternative compensation a joint project...
TRANSCRIPT
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 elected
1993 – For first time in history of district, contract settlement reached prior to the beginning of the school year
1995 - 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 governor
2003 - 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 BABA -
Mentor MAMA -
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 Paths
Emerging Professional Teacher6 annual reviews at proficient level (minimum)
Professional Teacher
Mentor TeacherTeachers 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 Study
What Attracts New Teachers to St. Francis?*
33% - Teacher Support System
32% - Improved Salary Schedule
24% - Early hiring decision
11% - Other
*Survey given to new teachers hired in 2006 & 2007.
U of M CAREI Study
Is St. Francis attracting more applicants for teaching jobs?*
70% - Agree St. Francis is attracting more applicants
18% strongly agree
51% agree
*Survey given to administrators and teacher-leaders.
U of M CAREI Study
Is St. Francis attracting better applicants for teaching jobs?*
75% - Agree St. Francis is attracting better applicants
18% strongly agree
57% agree
*Survey given to administrators and teacher-leaders.
U of M CAREI Study
Are new teachers more interested in staying in St. Francis?*
88% - Agree new teachers more interested in staying in St. Francis
43% strongly agree
45% agree
*Survey given to administrators and teacher-leaders.
U of M CAREI Study
Support for the Q Comp system*
88.9% - Highly support system
79% - Believe salary advancement should be connected to student achievement gains
82% - 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
2005
2006
2007
2008
NATIONAL AVERAGE
By 2008, St. Francis students, grades 5-9, w
ere scoring
one full year (o
r 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
2005
2006
2007
2008
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.