1 / 16

New York City’s School Wide Bonus Program

New York City’s School Wide Bonus Program. Presented by New York City Department of Education & United Federation of Teachers March 2009. Getting to Yes. What is the rationale for differentiated pay over the traditional pay schedule? Department & Union views

hisano
Télécharger la présentation

New York City’s School Wide Bonus Program

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. New York City’s School Wide Bonus Program Presented by New York City Department of Education & United Federation of Teachers March 2009

  2. Getting to Yes • What is the rationale for differentiated pay over the traditional pay schedule? • Department & Union views • What characteristics make this plan more “do-able” than other alternative compensation systems? • Voluntary buy-in (staff and principal) • School-wide focus (collaboration, not competition) • School-wide focus (data issues) • High-need schools (recruitment) • Performance measure (progress reports) • Compensation committee (rules, composition and process) • Appeal process

  3. Performance Measure – Progress Reports • Test Scores • Performance • Progress • Learning Environment • Attendance • Targets

  4. Each school received a Progress Report score

  5. The Progress Report measures results of student learning Grade and Overall Score Out of 100 points School Environment 15 points Student Performance 25 points Student Progress 60 points Additional Credit Up to 15 points Elementary, Middle, and K-8 Schools • Exemplary progress on test scores with high need students • Student progress on ELA and Math test scores (avg. change and % making progress) • Student test scores in ELA and Math (median proficiency and % Level 3/4) • Learning Environment Survey results • Student Attendance High Schools • Graduation rates (4-year and 6-year graduation rates and weighted diploma weights) • Exemplary progress in credit gains with high need students • Credit accumulation • Regents completion and pass rates • Learning Environment Survey results • Student Attendance

  6. Research Characteristics • “Treatment” and “control” groups • Random selection of schools • Two-year pilot • Joint selection of evaluator of pilot program

  7. Chronology – Years One and TwoKey: red = Year 1; blue = Year 2; * = New for Year 2 • October 2007: Memorandum of Understanding Signed by UFT and DOE • Year 1 - November – December 2007: Schools invited to participate; orientation sessions held; schools vote to/not participate • Year 1 - January 2008: State ELA tests administered • Year 1 - March 2008: State math test administered • Year 1 - May 2008: On-line program to manage bonus program (“Galaxy”) at each school launched • Year 1 - May – June 2008: School Compensation Committees make decisions re bonus pool distribution and submit to UFT and DOE.

  8. Chronology – Years One and TwoKey: red = Year 1; blue = Year 2; * = New for Year 2 • Year 1 - September 2008: Progress Report grades and bonus program results for elementary, K-8 and middle schools announced • Year 2 - September 2008: Program modifications made and expansion deferred; all schools completing requirements for 07-08 SPBP invited to participate for 08-09; sessions to discuss scope and changes to program; schools vote to/not participate • Year 1 - October 2008: Bonus payments awarded to elementary, K – 8 and middle school educators • Year 1 - November 2008: Progress Report grades and bonus program results for high schools announced • Year 1 - November – December 2008: Bonus payments awarded to high school educators • Year 2 - January 2009: State ELA tests administered

  9. Chronology – Years One and TwoKey: red = Year 1; blue = Year 2; * = New for Year 2 • January 2009: RAND Corporation chosen to evaluate the two-year pilot; survey and analysis to be conducted throughout 2009; final report February 2010 • * Year 2 - January – February 2009: Citywide sessions to deepen understanding of Progress Reports and targets • * Year 2 - April 2009: On-line program to manage bonus program (“Galaxy”) at each school to be launched; training sessions for compensation committees • Year 2 - May 2009: Compensation Committees to make decisions re bonus distribution and submit to UFT and DOE • *Year 2 – Late-summer 2009: Interim report from RAND

  10. Chronology – Years One and TwoKey: red = Year 1; blue = Year 2;* = New for Year 2 • Year 2 - August – September 2009: Progress Report grades and bonus program results for elementary, K-8 and middle schools to be announced • Year 2 - September 2009: Bonus payments to be awarded to elementary, K – 8 and middle school educators • Year 2 - November 2009: Progress Report grades and bonus program results for high schools to be announced • Year 2 - November – December 2009: Bonus payments to be awarded to high school educators • * February 2010: RAND Final evaluation for pilot program (years 1 and 2) to be presented.

  11. SWBP Statistics Year-One • High-need schools initially randomized: 430 • Schools invited to participate: 242 • Schools voting to participate: 208 (86%) • Schools submitting a bonus distribution formula: 205 (two schools withdrew during the year; one could not agree on a distribution formula) • Elementary, K – 8 and middle schools in the program: 160 • Elementary, K – 8 and middle schools receiving some level of bonus: 89 (56%) • High schools in the program:35 • High schools receiving some level of bonus: 31 (89%) • Other schools in program (6-12, Transfer, K-2, D75): 10 • Other schools receiving some level of bonus: 7 (70%)

  12. SWBP Statistics Year-Two • Schools invited to participate: 202 (4 of the 205 schools that completed program in year one closed; one school not in year one was invited to participate) • Schools voting to participate: 198 (98%) • Percentage of UFT members voting to participate: 89%

  13. Year one bonus distribution • Total of all schools receiving some level of bonus: 127 (62%) • Approximate total number of UFT members receiving a bonus: 8,310 (approximately 80% teachers) • Total bonus payout for elementary, K – 8 and middle schools: $14.2 million • Total bonus payout for high schools: $6.5 million • Total bonus payout for all schools: $21.9 million • Bonus distribution methods • 33 schools awarded the same amount of money to everybody • 70 schools added individuals to bonus roster, thus reducing payments; usually the differentiation was by title • 24 schools eliminated staffers thus increasing payments

  14. Issues and Questions • Funding (cost and size) • The need for school performance data to determine bonus winners • “School-wide” versus individual awards. • Should the program be “voluntary” at schools? Is principal agreement needed? • How should bonuses be allocated? • Is the per member dollar amount in the pool “significant” enough? • What, if any, other criteria for awards should be used?

  15. New York City’s School Wide Bonus Program Presented by New York City Department of Education & United Federation of Teachers March 2009

More Related