1999 Teacher Compensation Research Conference
The 1999 Teacher Compensation Research Conference was held October 8-9, in Chicago. More than 40 people representing nine districts from California, Ohio, Minnesota, Colorado, Illinois, and Wisconsin attended. Additional participants were Jewell Gould, research director for the American Federation of Teachers, and Gretchen Lampe, presently a UniServ director with the Indianapolis Education Association and previously the research coordinator for the Kentucky Education Association. The conference addressed two topics; knowledge and skill-based teacher pay programs and how the career teaching standards outlined in Charlotte Danielson's Enhancing Profesional Practice: A Framework for Teaching can be used in teacher evaluation systems.In contrast to previous research conferences in which CPRE's role primarily was to disseminate information, this conference relied heavily on content presented both formally and informally by the school-based participants. On the first day, three districts [Douglas County, CO, Vaughn Next Century Learning Center (San Fernando, CA), and Manitowoc, WI] provided overviews of their knowledge and skill-based pay programs that have been or are about to be implemented. Three other districts (Cincinnati, OH, Denver, CO, and Minneapolis, MN) shared information about knowledge and skill-based pay programs that they presently are developing or considering.
A number of common elements were derived from these presentations. All places worked to link standards for teacher performance to standards for student performance. The plans came about through close collaboration between union and management. All groups identified the need for clear, specific, and detailed criteria for teacher review, evaluation, and assessment to standards, especially as these relate to assessment of practice to different teaching performance, along with training for both teachers and assessors. The plans place a strong emphasis on beginning teachers, with the goal of providing help for the first several years and removing them from the system if the standards are not met within that time frame.
The plans have a heightened focus on more complex teaching and teaching to higher student performance standards than has traditionally been the case. Specific attention was paid to important implementation issues, with all but one including a voluntary participation component for all but new staff, and all addressing transitional pay issues, such as ensuring no loss of pay upon initial placement into the new system.
Although precise cost information was not available, the programs generally were not associated with significantly increased administrative costs, with the longer-term costs of the new pay systems generally anticipated in future years as staff acquire more of the knowledge and skills compensated in the new system.
Developing the new systems required a great deal of time; a design process that included a design stage, pilot stage, and a full implementation stage could easily take at least three school years, yet no one suggested any short cuts. A key element of the new systems is the alignment of multiple pieces of the system, including teaching standards, student standards, professional development, teacher evaluation and compensation. Despite the differences in local context, such as state collective bargaining laws, the participants were able to develop new pay strategies that include professional judgements in setting salary levels. All the groups believe that the new systems will put active pressure on the higher education system to provide new types of courses and programs and for them to be more linked to teacher standards. Finally, the programs require looking to external professional networks such as ASCD, school designs, CPRE, etc., and cannot rely solely on local talent.
On the second day, three districts that have used the career teaching standards articulated in the ASCD publication A Framework for Teaching in new teacher evaluation systems shared their experiences in developing and operating the new systems. These districts were Anoka-Hennepin, MN, Downers Grove, IL, and Duluth, MN. The districts each took a different approach to designing a new evaluation system and in the scope of the teachers covered by the new system, yet all of them used the teaching framework as the foundation for their new systems. Generally the districts have found the new evaluation system based on the career teaching standards to be a more productive and rewarding individual experience than their previous evaluation systems.