QUALITY COMPENSATION FOR TEACHERS OR “Q COMP” Minn. Stat. 122A.413-415 Proposed and Signed by Governor Tim Pawlenty Chas Anderson 651-582-8207 or firstname.lastname@example.org Minnesota Department of Education July 2006 www.education.state.mn.us
History of Alternative Teacher Compensation and Q Comp • Alternative teacher compensation grant program pilot passed in 2001 and started in 2002 --$3.6 million per year allocated --Local design --Focused on alternative salary schedule and career ladders for teachers -Five school districts participated in the program
History of Alternative Teacher Compensation and Q Comp • Teacher Advancement Program --Launched in 2004 in two school districts – Waseca and Minneapolis --State received a federal teacher quality enhancement grant --Q Comp was largely designed after TAP – one big difference is the requirement of the alternative salary schedule in Q Comp.
History of Alternative Teacher Compensation and Q Comp • Governor Pawlenty took office in 2003. • As a legislator and as House Majority Leader, he strongly supported alternative teacher compensation. • The state had a $4.5 billion deficit in 2003 – alternative compensation proposal was put into planning stage. • Governor directed the Department of Education to look at various models and take input from stakeholders. • Governor proposed “Q Comp” in 2005. • Most state education organizations eventually supported the proposal; there was significant support from local teachers and administrators working on or implementing performance pay. • Q Comp passed in July 2005 during a special session of the Minnesota Legislature.
What are steps for Q Comp? • Stages of Q Comp Application • Transition Planning Year (requires set aside money for staff development and letter of intent) • Pre Approval / Approval of Application – pre-approval availablefor districts who either have a settled contract without an alternative compensation plan or for districts without a final contract. • Implementation of Q Comp beginning October 1, 2005 or October 1, 2006. Districts or school sites must request to waive transition year requirement.
Application Process for Q Comp • School districts will be given a formal review with the status of their Q Comp Proposal within 30 days of the Department’s receipt of the application. • Districts will have 30 days to revise applications. Districts or school sites may send in an application for the Q Comp program. • State (Department of Education) has final approval of Q Comp application. • Districts may enter into a four-year contract (instead of two year contract) under Q Comp.
Letters of Intent – Transition Year How many school districts and charter schools stated their intent to submit a Q Comp plan for 2006-07 or 2007-08 school year? • 134 School Districts • 1 Intermediate District • 1 School Within a School • 40 Charter Schools
Approved and Pending Districts and Charter Schools for the 2005-06 and 2006-07 school years (as of June 28, 2006) 2005-06 school year: 9 school districts 3 charter schools 2006-07 school year: 14 school districts approved (total of 23 school districts) 1 charter schools approved (total of 4 charter schools) 14 school district applications pending 13 charter school applications pending Total if all are approved: 37 school districts, 17 charter schools or 159,908 students Note: 343 school districts and 124 charter schools or approximately 850,000 students in Minnesota
Funding Totals for 2005-06 school year • Metro Districts = $8,801,900 • Rural Districts = $4,575,220 • Charter Schools = $276,120 • Total (FY 2006) = $13,253,240
State Funds Available for 2006-07 School Year $30,626,260 allocated for the 2006-07 school year $42,009,740 remains to be allocated before October 1, 2006. Funding not allocated will revert back to the general fund for FY 2007 but will be available in the base budget for FY 2008.
Q Comp Funding – FY 2007 or 2006-07 School Year • $75.636 million in FY 2007 for basic state aid. Funding is permanent to base budget as long as district, school site, or charter school operating the Q Comp program. • Equal to approximately $260/student in aid the first year and $190/student aid and $70/student levy the second year. • Levy equalized to $5,913 Adjusted Net Tax Capacity (ANTC) • Board approved levy • Categorical aid program and part of general education • Districts must also use 2% staff development set aside (about $100/student).
Q COMP COMPONENTS • Component #1: Multiple Career Paths or Career Ladders • Component #2: Job-embedded Professional Development • Component #3: Performance Pay • Component #4: Teacher Evaluations and Observations • Component #5: Salary Schedule
Duties Team meetings Job-embedded professional development Demonstration of teaching Team teaching Mentoring new teachers Content coaching Teacher evaluations Peer or cognitive coaching Compensation Release time $3,000-$8,000 salary augmentation Important Issues/Tips: Competitive hiring and selection process Ratios of career ladder to classroom teachers Training Teacher evaluations Retaining role as teacher Rotation of teachers in career ladders Mentoring new teachers and career ladder positions Component #1: Compensation and Ratios for Multiple Career Paths - Examples
Component #2: Site-based Professional Development Activities How will professional/staff development work under Q Comp? • Aligned with district improvement plan, school improvement plan and staff development plan. • Site-based and determined by student data and teacher needs. • Developed by classroom practitioners who will field test research-based strategies.
Component #2: Example of Professional Development Activities Q Comp Schools • Name of PD activities vary – for example, some are called: cluster groups, professional learning communities, team meetings, etc. • Led by career ladder teachers • Meet between 45-90 minutes per week • Data driven • Can be grade level or interdisciplinary – configuration decided at local level • Specialists are included in each cluster or meet separately • Some clusters/learning communities, etc. meet before school and some during the day but all of them meet during the teacher regular workday.
Component #2: Professional Development Tips Tips: • Tightly align 2% staff development set aside • Drive staff development plans to the site – high schools will look different from elementary schools, etc. • Importance of hiring process with career ladder teachers • Remember the specialists!
Component #3: Performance Pay • Why performance pay? • Attract and retain quality teachers • Beginning salaries perceived as too low. • Experienced teachers have cap on salary increases later in their career.
Component #3: Performance Pay How does it work? • Individual evaluations • School and student achievement gains (local assessment and/or state assessment – local option) • Measures of student achievement
Component #3: Performance Pay Requirement for Q Comp Describe how at least 60 percent of teacher compensation increases within a performance pay system aligns of teacher performance measures with student academic achievement and progress as outlined in Section 122A.414, clause 4. Use table below and add narrative to describe how each of the checked items will be used as evidence and linked to performance pay.
Components #3: Example of Performance Pay • The 60 percent of teacher compensation as aligned with performance pay system will be divided equally as follows: (1) 50% based on professional growth or how much change in teacher practice and the effect on student achievement is documented by Professional Standards Rubric. (2) 50% based on student achievement measures that include local standardized tests and teacher assessments and school-wide student achievement as measured by MCAs.
Component #3: Performance Pay Tips • Focus on systemic compensation changes and not individual teacher based. • Try not to place too much performance pay compensation in one criteria or measurement. • Use multiple data points. • Embed as much of performance pay as possible. • Local review of compensation system is important.
Component #4: Purpose of Teacher Evaluation • Improve teacher quality • Identify areas of strength and have teacher share with colleagues • Identify areas of need to design individual support and professional development • Encourage collaboration and collegiality • Reward professional growth-individually, by team, and by school.
Component #4: Example of Teacher Evaluation • Aligned with Minnesota Standards of Effective Practice and recertification requirements. • Rubric with four domains: A-Planning, B-Climate, C-Instruction, and D-Professionalism. • Includes Lesson Plan and Curriculum Maps with integration of student standards (Domain A) • Includes 3-4 observations (Domains B & C) over course of year to measure professional growth. • Includes Individual Professional Growth Plan (Domain D).
Component #4: Teacher Evaluation Tips Tips: • Use multiple evaluations – at least three. Everyone has a bad day a work! • Watch and monitor for inter-rater reliability, including score inflation. • One person should not control a teacher’s compensation – this needs to be a team to ensure inter-rater reliability. • Evaluation rubric must be reasonable and focused on instruction. • Make sure you have an appeals process in place. • Remember the specialists! You may need to modify evaluation rubrics for specialists.
Component #5: Salary Schedule Historical Background Three phases of the development of teacher pay: • Phase I: Lasted until roughly the 20th century, teacher pay was negotiated between an individual teacher and school board. As districts grew and consolidated, this became a problematic process and unpopular with teachers due to favoritism. • Phase II: Salary schedule included some merit pay components, and the pay differed based on grade levels, with high school teachers being paid more than elementary teachers. This lasted until 1920’s/pre-WW II. • Phase III: The “single salary schedule” was accelerated around the WWII time period and pay was based on the level of experience and personal development through advanced education degrees and course credits, not by merit or grade level. The unification of the salary schedule was eventually embraced by NEA and AFT.
Component #5: Salary Schedule Types of Salary Schedules not based on “steps and lanes: • Knowledge and skill based pay: Base pay progression that rewards teachers for developing and using skills required for achieving high performance standards. • School-based Performance Award: Goal oriented incentive program that rewards teachers when goals regarding student performance are met or exceeded. • Pay Competitiveness: Salary levels that are adequate to recruit and retain top talent, including higher salaries for teachers in license shortage areas or hard-to-staff schools. Q Comp allows districts to take the “best” in each of the three above and incorporate it.
Component #5: Salary Schedule Under the Q comp program, a school district will need to negotiate a new salary schedule that is not based exclusively and “reforms” the lockstep steps and lanes system. A school district and exclusive representative will need to design a new salary schedule. It is expected that no teacher would receive a pay cut under a new salary schedule – they would start from where they left off on steps and lanes.
Component #5: Salary Schedule Examples Mounds View: Career I: BA degree Career II: MA degree, completion of Mounds View certification program, and/or career ladder position. After establishing a teacher as “Career I” or “Career II”, teachers move on the salary schedule based on performance – teacher evaluations and assessments. St. Francis: Teachers move on the salary schedule based on performance – teacher evaluations and assessments. Once the performance is met, the teacher moves up on the salary schedule. Beginning teachers earn more than state average and increases are greater than the steps and lanes salary schedule but all increases are based on performance.
Department of Education Contact Information Q Comp Program Linda Trevorrow 651-582-8871 or email@example.com Pat King, School Improvement Director 651-582-8655 or firstname.lastname@example.org Chas Anderson, Deputy Commissioner 651-582-8207 or email@example.com Q Comp Funding: Terri Yetter, Program Finance Specialist 651-582-8868 or firstname.lastname@example.org Tom Melcher, Program Finance Director 651-582-8828 or email@example.com