Julia Koppich speaks at the Alternative Teacher Compensation Seminar on September 22nd in Menlo Park. In Fall 2009, the U.S. Department of Education will begin accepting applications for the Teacher Incentive Fund (TIF), a $200 million grant program to fund school districts' performance-based teacher compensation systems. Even in the face of the unprecedented budget crises battering our state, the availability of TIF funds opens up a unique opportunity to think creatively about how teachers are paid in California schools. Therefore, Policy Analysis for California Education (PACE) and Full Circle Fund organized a follow up to the March 2009 Conferences, to support a conversation among school districts and local teachers unions about new models of teacher compensation.

1. Julia E. Koppich
J. Koppich & Associates
Seminar—
PACE/FCF Seminar—September 2009

2. New models of teacher pay
Some of the things to consider as you
prepare your proposals and implement your
plans

3. Federally funded program begun in 2006
Funded at $99m annually through 2009
In 2010 budget, could be funded as high as $446m
Competitive grant process for states and districts
Program goals: 1) improve student achievement by
improving principal and teacher effectiveness, and
2) increase the number of effective teachers in
hard-to-staff schools
RFP to be released soon

4. Nationwide program funded by participating
districts
Launched in 1999 by Milken Foundation; now part
of National Institute for Excellence in Education
Organized around 4 elements:
1. Multiple career paths (career teacher, master
and mentor teachers)
2. Ongoing professional growth
3. Accountability through evaluation
4. Performance-based compensation

5. State program begun in 2006
Funded as line item in state budget
Districts that choose to participate receive
$260/student
To be considered for funding, plan must include:
1. Teacher career ladder
2. Job-embedded professional development
3. Standards-based evaluation system
4. Performance pay
5. New alternative salary schedule

6. 3 state programs begun in 2006
All 3 programs target low-performing schools
Designed to create school capacity to improve
instruction and reward teachers who increase
student learning
Programs funded by the state
State also provides extensive technical assistance
for districts interested in participating

7. District level program begun in 2004
Cooperative effort of Denver Public Schools
and Denver Classroom Teachers Association
Designed to link teacher pay to district
mission and attract/retain high quality
teachers in DPS
Teachers paid on the basis of:1) knowledge
and skills; 2) teaching in hard-to-staff school
and subjects; 3) good evaluations;4)improved
student scores on Colorado’s standardized
test

8. Depending on option, payments range from
$400/year-$2,500/year
All ProComp payments pensionable
Teachers hired after 1/06 must be in
ProComp
Program funded by voter-approved local
property tax
Money set aside in trust jointly administered
by district and union

9. District level plan
Cooperative effort of Toledo Public Schools and
Toledo Federation of Teachers
Goals to align teacher compensation with with
more effective teaching, improved student
achievement, and increased retention of
teachers
3 tier plan: Tiers 1 and 2 funded by district;
Tier 3 by TIF:
1. TRACS A (Tier 1) based on teacher professional
development and improving student achievement;
worth 5% above base pay

10. 2. TRACS B (Tier 3) for groups of teachers who meet
or exceed pre-established achievement goals as
measured by scores on Ohio’s standardized test;
worth 10% above base pay
3. TRACS C (Tier 3) has built-in career ladder: a)
Career Teacher; b) Accomplished Teacher; c)
Distinguished Teacher (must agree to teach in low-
performing school for at least 3 years)
All TRACS C levels have different kinds of
responsibilities; TRACS C is worth 15% above base
pay

11. District level program begun in 2007
Cooperative agreement between the NYC DOE and
the United Federation of Teachers
Participating schools must be designated “high
need” and have approval of 55% of school faculty
$3,000 per teacher group performance awards to
schools that show growth on NY’s standardized
test
Money distributed by school-based Compensation
Committee: 2 teachers, the principal, 1 principal
designee

12. Began in 2002; now part of Q Comp
Cooperative effort between the Minneapolis Public
Schools and Minneapolis Federation of Teachers
Plan focuses heavily on professional development
Money earned for implementing professional
development plans linked to improving student
achievement; earning NBC; maintaining
professional portfolio for review; acquiring
specialization in area of district need; taking on
new professional responsibilities

13. District level program begun in 2007
Cooperative effort of MCPS and MCEA
Designed to provide “stages” in a teacher’s career:
1. Induction—novice teachers—in PAR program
2. Skillful Teaching—tenured teachers who
demonstrate effectiveness in classroom
3. Lead teachers—competitive process for new
responsibilities; receive bonuses
Paid for through district funds

14. District level program funded by parcel tax (2008)
Cooperative effort of the SFUSD and the UESF
Program will: 1) raise beginning teachers’ salaries
to nearly $50,000 per year; 2) raise all teachers
salaries by $4,000-$6,000; 3) provide teachers in
hard-to-staff schools ($2,000) and subjects
($1,000);4)give one-time bonus of $2,500 and
$3,000 after 4th and 8th years to stem attrition; 5)
add 50 master teachers for $2,500 a year; 6)
increase the number of PAR coaches; 7) give 20
schools that make the most progress a block grant
of $30,000

15. District K&S Hard-to- Responsi Student
Hard-to-
staff bility learning
Denver Yes Yes Yes
Minneap. Yes Yes
Minn. Yes Yes Yes Yes
MC Yes
NYC Yes
SF Yes Yes
TAP Yes Yes Yes
Texas Yes Yes Yes
Toledo Yes Yes Yes Yes

16. Any new teacher pay plan will be
controversial
There is no single or “right” way to structure
teacher compensation
Selecting appropriate salary incentives
depends on:
1. Determining what you want to accomplish
2. Deciding on the best means to accomplish your
aims

17. 1. Reward teaching practices that lead to increased
student learning—Knowledge and skills
2. Attract and retain teachers in high-need schools
and subjects or grades—Market incentives
3. Improve student achievement
4. Create new teacher career structures—
Responsibility pay

18. Assemble a representative compensation
committee
Who should be on it?
1. Superintendent
2. Teacher union/association representatives
3. Principal(s)
4. Central office personnel ???
5. School board member ???
6. Community/business representatives ???

19. Agree on what the plan should accomplish
Assess your (the district’s) organizational capacity
Decide if the plan is mandatory or voluntary
Design a communication plan
Determine a timeline for the work
Develop a working knowledge of other pay plans
and experiences with new forms of pay

20. Based on objective criteria
Understandable
Rewards are attainable
Feasible (capacity)
Affordable
Sustainable

21. Regularly “take the temperature” of teachers and
others (survey? focus groups?)
Develop a feedback loop so you can make mid-
course corrections
Develop an evaluation plan up front
1. Formative evaluation for first 2-3 years of
program
2. Summative evaluation after 3-5 years

22. Be clear about the purpose(s) of the new pay plan
Involve teachers at the outset
Include multiple options for teachers to earn
incentive pay
There’s no such thing as too much planning
Integrate the pay program with the district’s overall
education improvement plan
Communicate frequently, in multiple formats, and
to multiple audiences