Teacher Leadership and Compensation Julie A.

Heller EDAD 530

A paper presented in partial completion of course requirements for EDAD 530 Educational Research Fall, 2013

Abstract The educational demands placed on teachers today are complex and sophisticated. Within the confines of a system of high stakes testing and data-driven decision making many attempts at educational reform are currently being studied and implemented. One such reform measure is to create a career ladder for teacher leaders. This is a system in which teachers can advance and grow through the profession by taking on additional responsibilities and earn additional compensation. The intent of such systems is to attract and retain the best possible teachers and thus, strengthen the public education system resulting in higher student achievement. The following literature review looks at what components are necessary in developing an effective teacher leadership system.

Table of contents

Chapter 1 Introduction Chapter 2 Review of Literature Chapter 3 Summary, Conclusion and Implications References p. 17 p. 19 p. 7 p. 4

Chapter 1 Purpose of the study The purpose of this study is to identify what components are critical for developing an effective teacher leadership model. The current educational system allows little growth for teachers. Based on an industry model the teaching profession framework is sometimes compared to that of factory workers. In education there are two roles; a worker (teacher) or a manager (administrator). The worker bargains for pay and for benefits but aside from that there is no room for professional growth. Because of this, the profession has little leverage to attract the best and the brightest, no incentives or compensation for advancing in your field and creates an isolating environment in which there is little availability to collaborate, reflect or lead. Like an assembly line, for years, teachers have entered their classrooms, shut the door and did their jobs, either effectively or ineffectively, but with little support or collaboration. As the field of education continues to evolve it becomes apparent that the complexities of this profession require a more developed system of support and opportunity. According the National Board for professional teaching standards mission we need to elevate the status, voice and role of accomplished teachers in shaping a true profession. This includes 1) raising public awareness with respect to the cognitively complex collaborative and expertise-driven nature of teachers work; 2) setting higher standards for entry and advancement into the profession; and 3) recognizing accomplished teaching through a rigorous professional certification process comparable to those found in other premier professions, such as medicine, engineering and law (NBPTS, 2013). The purpose of this paper is to review the past and current literature in an attempt to answer the following research question. What conditions are necessary for implementing an effective teacher leadership model?

Assumptions For the purposes of this paper, some assumptions are made. 1. There is a need for educational reform in American public schools. 2. Attracting the best and the brightest teachers to the field of education will have a positive impact on student achievement. 3. Creating a teacher leadership and compensation system we will attract and retain high quality professionals to the field of education. 4. Creating leadership roles and career pathways for the teaching profession will create a system that will improve quality instruction, increase student achievement and strengthen our teaching profession. Definition of Terms Teacher leader Teacher leader encompasses a variety of roles for classroom teachers in staff development, management and school improvement (Clemson-Ingram & Fessler, 1997) Career ladders A teacher career ladder is a system for the promotion of exceptional teacher into positions of increasing responsibility and authority (Career Ladder Opportunities, 2013). Delimitations of the study While this literature review hopes to shed light are research supported components that have shown to be effective in the development of a teacher leadership model, it is important to note that the field of teacher leadership and career pathways is still in its infancy and the evidence to support such a reform act is limited in its scope and sustainability. This is supported by York-Barr and Dukes (2004) assessment of the research conducted in the area of teacher

leadership. They noted that the data was a small-scale case study that used methods of selfreporting such as interviews and surveys. However, current models have been piloted and are up and running. It is from examining these models in action that insight can be gained into what is deemed effective and how is that determination supported.

Chapter 2 Need for change The term educational reform has become common language in the field of public education in America. Starting with the 1983 report A Nation at Risk (1983) and most recently fueled by No Child Left behind (No child left, 2001), federal initiatives have sparked a need for reforming the current system of public education. The term educational reform is rather nebulous and umbrellas several different ideas that may or may not lead to improved student achievement. One particular idea that continues to resurface is the notion that there is a need to attract and retain the best candidates to the field of teaching. In order to do this it is necessary to develop a system where teachers can collaborate, grow professionally, lead and be properly compensated for doing so (CETT, 2011). The Commission on Effective Teachers and Teaching (2011) spoke to the need for a shift in the American public school. In the overview of their report they emphasized a need to address the overwhelming complexities involved in educating children in todays ever-changing global world. The CETT identified the current system as dysfunctional and in need of reform. We know that teaching is like rocket science: complicated, collaborative, and capable of taking our student to places yet to be explored (2011,p.iv) This is supported by the Albert Shanker Institute, when Richard Elmore (2002, p.3) wrote: The work of schools is becoming more complex and demanding while the organization of schools remains, for the most part, static and rigid. If you push hard enough on a rigid structure, eventually it will break and hurt the people in it. This is the perilous state of American public education.

Compensation as a motivational factor in professional improvement Operating under a single salary pay scale for over 80 years, it is necessary to look at the issue of whether or not money is a significant factor in reforming and improving the educational system, and if this is necessary for implementing a successful teacher leadership program. In order to do this, it is necessary to examine what motivates teachers and to what degree financial incentives make a difference. When looking at future earnings, potential teacher candidates are often turned off by what teachers make in comparison to other professional careers (Goldhaber and Player, 2005). While there are many factors that young adults consider when choosing a profession, compensation matters. Aside from attracting the best and the most talented teachers to the profession with a substantive base pay, there is also a separate and important issue of pay for performance. The notion of money as an incentive to motivate teachers to get different results regarding student achievement is not highly supported by the research. The 2007 Consortium for Policy research in Education (Heneman, Milanowski & Kimball, 2007) reviewed pay for performance systems and concluded that the evidence of significant impact on student achievement or teacher performance is lacking. The Consortium goes on to say that this could be due, in part, to poor design of the systems that they examined. Expecting different student achievement results from financial incentives without investing in the teachers skills is assuming that the teacher is holding back effective instruction for more money. Such a notion is not logical, nor supported by research. It has been suggested that incentive pay may have decreased student performance (Fryer, 2011). This notion was also supported in Daniel Pinks book, Drive (2009).

However, when financial incentives are not isolated from teacher improvement and are part of a larger systems approach that invests in teacher quality, the outcomes are notably more effective. Hamilton County school district in Tennessee reconstituted eight of their elementary schools in 2001 by creating a system to attract talented teachers. This system focused heavily on providing quality Professional Development for teachers, opportunities for leadership and collaboration. This system also included components of teacher pay incentives. Some of these incentives involved paying tuition and mortgage loans. This effort, known as the Benwood Initiative, dramatically improved student achievement (Silva, 2008). While it is difficult to isolate the relationship that money has regarding teacher performance and student achievement, research supports the notion that an isolated bonus for an increase in test scores is unlikely. Waving a carrot in front of the teacher nose with no other system improvement will not result in student achievement (Fryer 2011). Interestingly, Roland Fryer more recently did an experiment in Chicago Heights, Illinois that measured the impact of loss aversion. Teachers were paid in advance for student achievement and then required to pay back the money if the students did not reach the achievement goals necessary for the bonus. Fryer found that focusing on incentive programs that required teachers to pay back bonuses rather than earn bonuses led to improved student achievement (Fryer 2012). While this was an isolated study and does not address sustainability, it is interesting data regarding motivation factors and the profession of teaching. When the Consortium for Policy Research in Education looked at pay for performance plans their findings showed that there was limited, initial success (Heneaman, Milanowski, Kimba, 2007). The research supports that performance compensation for teachers is most effective when it is linked with a systematic approach that includes professional development,

collaboration, and evaluation. Bonuses in isolation have little effect on improving teacher or student performance (Eckert 2010). The need and benefit of teacher leaders The Center for Teaching Quality (2010) is a nonprofit organization that developed out of the National Commission on Teaching and Americas Future, which identifies the quality of the teacher as the most important factor in student success. CTQ works to improve the teaching profession through research, policy and cultivation of teacher leadership. They have reported on several factors known to have a positive effect on teacher leadership, teacher effectiveness and teacher retention. A sophisticated new study has found that schools staffed by credentialed and experienced teachers who work together over an extended time generate the largest student achievement gains (2010, p.2).The Center for Teacher Quality also noted that successful school models recognize the critical component of teacher leadership and by creating leadership opportunities we create a cost-effective strategy for retaining the most effective teachers. They further stated that the question is whether teachers have time to lead and learn from each other. Current tradition systems allow little time for teacher mentoring and collaborating. CTQ also found that there was a lack of support for teacher leaders which served as a road block to empowerment and effectiveness. Why is this important? As reported by the Centers survey, teachers who are empowered to lead within their schools are more likely to remain in the profession. Starting a Teacher Career Ladder The Center for Teaching Qualitys work through the Teachers Network strongly supports the benefits of teacher leaders. The question remains how does education identify and utilize the resource of this leadership? Many states and districts have worked with a teacher career ladder

framework for this very purpose. Career ladders can offer not only benefits of recruitment and retention but also can give teachers meaningful opportunities to grow professionally and advance in purposeful ways. When creating a career ladder for teachers, Catherine Jacques (2012) identifies three critical components for successful implementation. First, when starting a career ladder for teachers you need stakeholder involvement for buy-in and support. Second, is the need to design meaningful roles that align with the skills of the teacher and the needs of the district. Third, it is important to examine the implementation strategies so that the program can be carried out with fidelity. Johnson and Donaldson (2007) state that it is important for teacher leadership roles to be clearly defined and have specific job descriptions. The effectiveness of the system could be dependent upon how clearly defined the roles and responsibilities of the different leadership positions are outlined. Current Models in action: The System for Teacher and Student Advancement (TAP) The TAP system for Teacher and Student Advancement is part of the National Institute for Excellence in Teaching (NIET). The TAP model has been in an existence since 1999. TAP is a comprehensive school reform that restructures and revitalizes the teaching profession by giving teachers professional development, career advancement and a fair evaluation system. The TAP system offers leadership roles of Mentor and Master Teacher. These leadership roles require on-going training, coaching, professional development and continued instructional responsibilities. The contracts for these positions are for longer periods and the compensation is higher. Teacher leaders must be subject to peer evaluations and must be able to demonstrate effective strategies prior to teaching them to other teachers in professional development settings. This serves as a component of internal accountability for the teacher leaders. The TAP model is

made up of four critical components: 1) multiple career pathways 2) ongoing professional development 3) instructionally focused accountability 4) performance based competency. TAP model is supported by the following research: According to Hawley (1985).
o o

The economic rewards for high performance must be significant; Teachers should continuously demonstrate high performance in order to retain their advanced level of status and pay;

o o o o

The standards by which teachers are measured should be clear; Assessment must be viewed by the teachers as being fair; Evaluation and feedback should be frequent; Differences in compensation should lead to differences in roles and responsibilities; and

Teachers should be involved in the design and implementation of the plan.

The TAP program has been the foundations of several other teacher leadership career programs. Eagle County, Colorado developed their system based on the TAP model and most recently the Iowa Teacher Leadership and Compensation Taskforce created its recommendation with great influence from the TAP program (Iowa Taskforce on Teacher Leadership and Compensation, 2013). Current Models in Action: Arizona Arizona has had a Career Ladder Program since 1984. This is one of the oldest if not the oldest career ladder program. This program, as defined in the Arizona Revised statues (ARS) 15918, has the following components: 1) A multilevel system of teaching positions. 2) Provides opportunities to teachers for continued professional advancement 3) requires at least improved or

advanced teaching skills, higher level instructional responsibilities, and demonstration of pupil academic success 4) use a performance- based compensation system. The states goals for the Career Ladder Program are to improve student achievement; motivate educators to improve skills; attract, recruit, and reward exemplary educators; and promote collegiality (CECR 2010). The districts were given the option to participate and the autonomy to design the plan according to their specific needs. This plan was developed collaboratively by policymakers, union representatives, teachers and other stakeholders. The compensation piece of Arizonas plan involved basing salaries on effectiveness in the classroom, taking on more responsibilities and continued professional growth. The program also mandated that teacher evaluations must include evidence of; increased student growth, increase levels of teaching skills, increase teacher responsibility and professional growth and equal teacher pay for equal teacher performance. All districts must reapply for the program annually, and when they reapply must evaluate the effectiveness of their implementation of the program. The districts must identify the areas that are working well and those that are not. They then must address the weak areas with a plan for how they will address these areas in the future. The districts must also provide student achievement data to make sure that the program continues to increase student achievement. The staff is surveyed to help gauge teacher perceptions and incorporate feedback (CECR 2010). Current Models in Action: Iowa In July 2013, The Iowa Legislation passed House File 215, which provided funding for a Teacher Leadership and Compensation System. This legislation was pass greatly in part by recommendations made by the Teacher Leadership Taskforce which examined current international and nation models in an attempt to create a system that would attract and retain high

quality teachers. Districts in Iowa are currently applying for the one-time planning grant which will provide them funding to develop a local plan that meets state established criteria. During the planning phase of the TLCS, Districts can select one of three models. The first model is the recommendations put forth by the taskforce. This plan has three career pathways: model, mentor, and lead teacher. All of these positions come with a stipend, additional work days and increased responsibilities. The second model that the districts can choose from is the instructional coach model. This plan has model teachers, instructional coaches and curriculum and professional development leaders. The third model is a locally designed hybrid that meets the districts need and includes the five must-haves criteria that all plans must meet. These non-negotiables are as follows; 1) a minimum salary of $33,500 2) Improved Entry into the Profession 3) Differentiated, Multiple, Meaningful Teacher Leadership Roles 4) Rigorous Selection Process for leadership positions 5) Aligned Professional Development (Iowa Department of Education, 2012). The state intends to grade the plan with a rubric. The rubric measures ten different components of the plan and how well it aligns with the expectations of the State system. Districts serving a combine total of one-third of the students in the state will be chosen the first year for implementation. The next year another third will be funded, and the following year the final third will be funded. The rubric measures the plans in the following areas: utilization of time and resources, engagement of all stakeholders, vision and goals, supports, strengths, structures, processes, improved entry into the profession, multiple meaningful pathways, a cohesive approach which will strengthen instruction and achievement, a rigorous selection process, measurements of effectiveness and professional growth, teacher lead professional development, alignment with the Iowa Professional Development Model, sustainability, budgeting.

Plans that are approved receive $310.00 per pupil to implement the system. According to the financial officer in Davenport Community School District, a district of approximately 16,000 students, this is not enough money to cover all of the expenses of the first Model. (Tangan, 2013) She goes on to say that this amount of funds would cover the stipend for the leadership roles but does not account for the release time that these teacher leaders would need from their classrooms. Current Models in Action: Minnesota Q Comp In July of 2005, The Minnesota Legislature enacted a bipartisan agreement that allows schools districts and exclusive representative of the teachers to design and collectively bargain a plan that meets the 5 components of the law. These components are: 1) a career ladder/advancement opportunities 2) Job-embedded Professional Development 3) Teacher Evaluation, 4) Performance Pay and 5) an Alternative Salary Schedule. School districts that apply and are approved for the Q Comp system receive up to $260.00 per student for the program. Currently, 60 public school districts and 62 charter schools have either been approved to start the program or have already been implementing the program. The plan has been growing in interest and size over the past couple of years (Minnesota Department of Education, 2013). The program has been met with mixed reviews. The Office of Legislative Auditor did an evaluation of the Q Comp in February of 2009. The OLA found inconsistencies with the oversight and approval process. The OLA stated that there is not sufficient evidence to determine the impact of Q Comp on student achievement. The OLA also interviewed 1,046 teachers across the state about Q Comp. Based on these surveys, both administrator and teachers approve of the professional development component of Q Comp, which is ongoing teacher lead professional development that is given during the school day (OLA, 2009).

Summary Throughout this literature review certain conditions have been supported to implement an effective teacher leadership model. The first of which is a need for change. The literature has exposed that the field of teaching has remained stagnant, despite of the increasing complexities of what we expect our teachers to do. The second element that is necessary for implementing an effective teacher leadership model is one which offers compensation in conjunction with professional development. By providing teacher leadership roles, the profession becomes more collaborative and skilled in nature, which results in higher student achievement. When starting a teacher leadership model, it is important to have stakeholder involvement, clearly defined and meaningful roles that are aligned to meet the needs of our students. It is also critical to plan for implementation so that the plan can be implemented with fidelity. When looking at current active models in Iowa, Arizona, Minnesota and TAP supported districts across the United States, several patterns arise. All current models have different pathways for teachers that are aligned with specific leadership duties and supplemental pay associated with those duties. Teachers must demonstrate high standards in these roles in order to continue in the positions. All models support advanced professional development, teacher coaching, modeling, supporting, collaboration and reflection.

Chapter 3 Conclusions In reviewing the literature it is clear that there is a need for change regarding the current structure of American public education. The demands and complexities of the teachers role have increased but the structures that support the teacher have not. The public education system needs to be altered to meet the ever-increasing demands of the teachers job. Several educational foundations are looking at the possibilities that a teacher leadership system could provide. Non Profit organizations such as The Center for Teaching Quality and the National Institute of Excellence in Teaching have substantial evidence that creating teacher leaders helps to build a stronger system of support and growth. Research surrounding compensation as a motivational factor has mixed results. While money is a significant factor regarding who is attracted to the field of education, it does not make a difference when used as a reward or merit pay for improvement in test scores. When monetary incentives are used in conjunction with investing in teacher quality through professional development results are more favorable. Finally, when looking at current system in action, patterns of effective components emerge. All active teacher leadership models have the following components; multiple, meaningful pathways, a high emphasis on training, modeling and professional development, significant compensations aligned with extra duties, and constant evaluation of the systems effectiveness. Implications From this literature review it becomes evident that there is a need for change in our educational structure. We need to consider how to attract and support the best teachers to the

profession. In doing so we must examine what is missing in our current model and how to address that component. This literature review suggests that we reframe the profession by acknowledging its current complexities and support these concerns with teacher leadership and appropriate compensation. We cannot expect change to occur by just demanding it. As stated by Elmore (2002) if we do not make structural differences and address our areas of need, the educational system will break or continue to fall short of its potential. Suggestions for Future Research While this review of the literature provides insight into one possible method of improving public education, it leaves several questions unanswered. Because the idea of teacher leadership models is relatively new, there is little evidence as to the sustainability of such systems. Research also needs to be applied to look closely at the alignment between such models and student achievement. How do we measure the effectiveness of these models? Possible cost analysis should also be conducted to determine if the expense and investment of such a system produces significant changes.

References Case study: Arizona career ladder program. (2010) Center for Educator Compensation Reform, Retrieved from http://www.cecr.ed.gov/pdfs/summaries/CECR_CS_Arizona.pdf Career ladder opportunities. (2013, October). Retrieved from http://www.connectionsacademy.com/careers/teaching/career-ladder.aspx Clemson-Ingram, R., Fessler,R. (1997). Innovative programs for teacher leadership. Action in Teacher Education, 19(3), 95-106. Retrieved from http://www.tandfomline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01626620.1997.10462882#.UokbvO93v4g Commission on Effective Teachers and Teaching Transforming teaching: connecting professional responsibility with student learning, (2010) Washington DC. Retrieved from
http://www.nea.org/assets/docs/Transformingteaching2012.pdf

Eckert, J. (2010). Performance-based compensation: Design and Implementation at six teacher incentive fund sites. Retrieved from: http://www.tapsystem.org/publicaions/eck_tif.pdf Elmore, R. (2002). Bridging the gap between standards and achievement. Albert Shanker Institute, DOI: htpp://www.shankerinstitute.org/publications/bridging-the-gap/ Fryer, R. G.,& National Bureau of, E. R. (2011). Teacher incentives and student achievement: Evidence from New Your City Public Schools. NBER working paper no. 16850. National Bureau of Economic Research. Retrieved from htpp://www.nber.org/papers/w16850

Fryer, R.G., Levitt, S.d., List, J., & Sadoff, S. (2012). Enhancing the efficacy of teacher incentives through loss aversion: A field experiment NBER Working Paper No. 18237. Retrieved from http://www.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/fryer/files/enhancing_teacher_incentives.pdf

Goldhaber, D. DeArmond, M., & Player, D. (2005). What different benchmarks suggest about how financially attractive it is to teach in public schools. Journal of Education Finance,30(3), 211-230. Retrieved from http://www.cedr.us/publications_compensation.html Heneman III, H.G., Milanowski, A., Kimball, S., & Consortium for Policy Research, in Education. (2007). Teacher performance pay: Synthesis of plans, research, and guidelines for practice. Policy brief RB-46. Consortium for Policy research in Education. Retrieved from http://www.cecr.ed.gov/researchSyntheses/CECR-RS_PerfPayWhatFactors.pdf Hawley, W.D., & Zlotnik, M. (1985). Making a Difference in Educational Quality through Teacher education. Journal of teacher education, 2-12. Retrieved from http://www.uex.sagepub.com/content/29/1/89.refs Iowa Department of Education. (2012). Taskforce on teacher leadership and compensation: Final report. Retrieved from: http://educateiowa.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id+2738:teacherleadership-and-compensation&catid=666:highlights

Johnson, S., & Donaldson, M. (2007). Overcoming the obstacles to leadership. ASCD, 65(1), 8 13. Retrieved from http://www.ascd.org/publications/educationalleadership/sept07/num01/Overcoming-the-obsticals-to-Leadership Jacques, C. (2012). Using career ladders to recruit and retain effective educators. American Institutes for Research Retrieved from http://educatortalent.airprojects.org/inc/docs/UsingCareer-Ladders-to-Recruit-and-Retain-Effective-Educators.pdf

Minnesota Department of Education (2013). Q-Comp Retrieved from http//education.state.mn.us/MDE/SchSup/QComp/ National board professional teaching standards. (2013). Retrieved from http://www.NBT.org National Institute for Excellence in Teaching, tap: the system for teacher and student advancement. (2013). Retrieved from http//www.talentedteachers.org/about/about/taf Pink, D.H. (2009). Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us. New York, NY: Riverhead Books. Silva, E. (2008). The benwood plan: A lesson in comprehensive teacher reform. EducationSector reports, Retrieved from http://www.educationsector.org/publications/benwood-plan lesson-comprehensive-teacher-reform State of Minnesota, Office of Legislative Auditor. (2009). Q comp: quality compensation for

teachers. Retrieved from website: http://www.auditor.leg.state.mn.us/ped/pedrep/qcomp.pdf Tangen, M. (2013, October). Interview by Rob Scott. Davenport Teacher Leadership and Compensation Committee. Teacher leadership as a key to education innovation. (2010). National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality, Retrieved from http://www.gtlcenter.org/sites/default/files/docs/TQ_Policy-toPracticeBriefTeacherLeadership.pdf United States. National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform : a report to the Nation and the Secretary of Education, United States Department of Education. Washington, D.C.: The Commission. Retrieved from datacenter.spps.org/uploads/sotw_a_nation_at_risk_1983.pdf U.S. Department of Education, (2001). No child left behind, elementary and secondary education act. Retrieved from website: http://www2ed.gov/nclb/landing.jhtml York-Barr, J. & Duke, K. (2004). What do we know about teacher leadership? Review of Educational Leadership. 74(3), 255-316. Retrieved from http://www.rer.sagepub.com/content/74/3/255.short