home

=Teacher Quality=

[[image:http://s3.media.squarespace.com/production/421651/6007000/blog/images/simpsons/1grading.jpg width="220" height="129" align="right" caption="Ms. Krabapple grades papers"]]
What makes a great teacher? What makes a poor teacher? While it may be easy to pick out a "bad teacher" like Ms. Krabapple in //The// //Simpsons//, the real-life issue of teacher quality is a far more complex issue. This wiki delves into that issue. First, we introduce case studies from the countries of Finland, Ireland, and Singapore to examine how other countries have made major strides in this issue. We then turn our attention back to the States and examine four main concepts involved in teacher quality.


 * International Teacher Quality
 * ======Teacher Qualifications - a look at alternative certification programs in the US and review of three countries teacher qualifications======
 * ======Professional Development - effective policies on teacher induction and retention of quality teachers======
 * ======Effective Assessment======
 * ======Performance and Incentive Based Pay======
 * Resources and Works Cited

//A brief look at Finland, Ireland, and Singapore and how they relate to the United States//
//Quality is never an accident, it is always the result of high intention, sincere effort, intelligent direct and skillful execution; it represents the wise choice of many alternatives." William A. Foster 1945//

Each of these countries has made dramatic improvements in the quality of education in the last 2 decades form lagging the United States to consistently outperforming the US in math and reading (1). One of the cornerstones of the policy developed by these three countries was to increase the quality of students entering the teaching profession. In England and the United States the teachers entering the profession in the 1990s are of lower quality than in the 1960s (Leigh & Mead 2005) at about the same time that student outcomes began to deteriorate. According to to research (Wright,Horn & Sanders1997), teacher quality is a dominant characteristic that affected student outcomes.


 * Starting in the 1970's each of these countries instituted a series of reforms to improve the quality of candidates entering the teaching professions. **


 * Singapore started with limiting applicants to education universities to the top 1/3 of students. Each teacher is given a stipend of up to 60% to cover tuition, strong teaching internships were established and a process to enter the teaching profession mid career was developed to attract uniquely qualified people. Also, teachers were entitled to 100 hours of professional development per year. To increase retention and quality all teachers are appraised every year on multiple measures by administrators, the community and other teachers. In addition, the structure of the profession was altered to develop career paths: master teacher, specialist in curriculum and school leader. (2)
 * Finland's focus was develop teaching as a research based profession. In 1960s Finland eliminated the two tier education system that identified a student's track at the age of 10 and developed a comprehensive education system. 1968 Education Act it was decreed that all pupils have equal opportunities to receive a publicly financed high quality education. In 1979 all teachers were required to obtain masters level degree. Significant resources were used in developing instructional technologies, teaching methods and improving teacher's knowledge and skills. Teacher quality was addressed by establishing appropriate conditions to attract high level professionals through good working conditions, clear purpose, status, autonomy and reward. Only 11% of applicants to teaching universities are accepted. All principals were required to come from the teaching profession and schools were give the autonomy for self evaluation. "Finnish teachers are drawn to profession because of the regard in which it is held." (3)
 * Ireland has been an all-graduate profession since the 1970s and has become increasingly research based. All teachers have complete a bachelors degree that is followed by a one year teacher education program. Competition for teaching positions is high and 85% of candidates have a degree with honors in their bachelor program. Up to 50% of the education is assessed teaching practice and school experience. Graduates are then required to complete a probationary year after graduation in a recognized school. Teaching candidates are assessed after one year before certification is given. In 2004 Ireland developed a well-structured and resourced induction program for newly qualified teachers. (4)


 * Compare and Contrast with United States**

In each case the government set general policy, but expected teachers, administration and the community to develop long term plans to improve the quality of teaching candidates and through local policies the ability to provide good working conditions to retain teachers. The US approach has been very political driven and this leads to a very short attention span for education reformers. Educators must regain control of the debate. As shown by these case studies real improvement must start with improving the quality of people entering the teaching profession.


 * Implications**

In all three countries the teaching profession is able to attract and retain high quality. The education systems in these countries have elevated teaching to a research based profession. A profession that is given the autonomy within guidelines to develop curriculum, develop teacher paths and to assess their achievement. At this time in the US, there are many well educated people available to enter the teaching profession. Working with teaching organizations and schools of education, every school should look to attract the highest quality teachers and be creative in methods to recruit teaching candidates. Further discussion follows on alternative accreditation programs, retention of quality teachers, teacher assessment and pay structure all factors used by Singapore, Finland and Ireland to improve student outcomes.

**Teacher Qualifications **

No Child Left Behind legislates that in order for student achievement to improve, one of the things that must happen is that instructors must be highly qualified individuals. Each state has a different way of recognizing a teacher candidate as highly qualified, but there are some commonalities in the way they categorize them: (as taken from [|MI.gov], if link appears corrupt refresh page) “HIGHLY QUALIFIED” MEANS: The teacher holds a least a bachelor’s degree and is certified, endorsed, or authorized to teach the subject, and has one of the following: · Major in the content/subject (or equivalent of 30 semester credit hours) · Passed a rigorous state test in the content/subject · Completed a state approved High Objective Uniform State Standards of Evaluation (HOUSSE) · Holds National Board Certification in the content/subject.
 * General Qualifications **

Preliminary teacher qualification requirements are set by the government at the State level, meaning each state has slightly different requirements around what is listed above and that legislation differs around the country. Several states have preliminary certifications, which must be updated every so often to demonstrate that the teacher is still highly qualified.
 * Preliminary Certifications: State Legislation Dictates Requirements **

If we examine Michigan in particular for requirements for teachers we see the following: (taken from [|MI.gov], if link appears corrupt refresh page) PROVISIONAL CERTIFICATE – (Michigan’s initial teaching certificate) · Issued following the successful completion of an approved elementary or secondary teacher preparation program, including student teaching. · Issued based on the recommendation of a state-approved higher education institution or demonstration of the completion of an approved teacher preparation program at an out-of-state institution of higher education. · Issued based on valid CPR training certificate from an approved provider (child and adult CPR with First Aid training). · Issued after passing all components of the [|Michigan Test for Teacher Certification] (MTTC), including the Basic Skills test (reading, writing, and math) and appropriate subject area examinations prior to recommendation for certification. Out-of-state applicants should only register for the MTTC based on MDE written advice. <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 90%;">This provisional certification can be renewed every three years up to three times while the instructor is working on obtaining all of the criteria for the Professional Education Certificate. (taken from [|MI.gov], if link appears corrupt refresh page) <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 90%;">PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION CERTIFICATE – (Michigan’s advanced teaching certificate) <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 90%;">· Requires completion of 18 semester hours in a planned course of study after the issuance of an approved initial teaching certificate (or an approved master’s degree earned at any time), and 3 years of successful teaching experience <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 90%;">· Must also meet the reading requirement (6 semester hours of teaching of reading or reading methods for elementary and 3 semester hours for secondary) <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 90%;">· To advance to the Professional certificate after July 1, 2009, applicants must have completed an additional reading course with appropriate field experiences in diagnosis, remediation of reading disabilities, and differentiated instruction <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 90%;">· Valid for up to 5 years <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 90%;">This certification must be renewed every five years through some form of continuing education. What this means, is that teachers are required by the state to continue their own education in order to stay certified to teach in Michigan. The Office of Professional Preparation Services with the Michigan Department of Education’s reference manual can be found with this information and more [|here].

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 90%;">Other states have similar requirements, though the standardized testing differs. There are at several different teacher certification exams that different states place importance on. For example, the [|Massachusetts Tests for Educator Licensure] carries the most importance in Massachusetts while the [|Washington Educator Skills Test] is used in Washington. [|Praxis I] is frequently used in the admissions to education programs whether or not the test is required by the state, but [|Praxis II] and [|III] are both used as certification requirements in many states around the country. The following states/territories all require teachers to take the Praxis set of tests: <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 90%;">The links on each of the states lead to a Praxis generated list of their requirements for certification.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 90%;">[|Alabama] || <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 90%;">[|Maine] || <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 90%;">[|Pennsylvania] ||
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 90%;">[|Alaska] || <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 90%;">[|Maryland] || <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 90%;">[|Rhode Island] ||
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 90%;">[|Arkansas] || <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 90%;">[|Minnesota] || <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 90%;">[|South Carolina] ||
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 90%;">[|California] || <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 90%;">[|Mississippi] || <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 90%;">[|South Dakota] ||
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 90%;">[|Colorado] || <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 90%;">[|Missouri] || <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 90%;">[|Tennessee] ||
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 90%;">[|Connecticut] || <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 90%;">[|Montana] || <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 90%;">[|Texas] ||
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 90%;">[|Delaware] || <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 90%;">[|Nebraska] || <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 90%;">[|US Virgin Islands] ||
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 90%;">[|District of Columbia] || <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 90%;">[|Nevada] || <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 90%;">[|Utah] ||
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 90%;">[|Georgia] || <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 90%;">[|New Hampshire] || <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 90%;">[|Vermont] ||
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 90%;">[|Guam] || <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 90%;">[|New Jersey] || <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 90%;">[|Virginia] ||
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 90%;">[|Hawaii] || <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 90%;">[|New Mexico] || <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 90%;">[|Washington] ||
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 90%;">[|Idaho] || <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 90%;">[|New York] || <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 90%;">[|West Virginia] ||
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 90%;">[|Indiana] || <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 90%;">[|North Carolina] || <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 90%;">[|Wisconsin] ||
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 90%;">[|Iowa] || <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 90%;">[|North Dakota] || <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 90%;">[|Wyoming] ||
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 90%;">[|Kansas] || <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 90%;">[|Ohio] ||  ||
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 90%;">[|Kentucky] || <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 90%;">[|Oklahoma] ||  ||
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 90%;">[|Louisiana] || <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 90%;">[|Oregon] ||  ||

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 90%;">Traditionally, teaching programs are run out of four-year college or university programs including a period of student teaching with the end result being a Bachelor’s degree in Education, specializing in one or more fields for content placement. These types of programs are the most widely recognized and it has only been in recent years that research has begun assessing their outcomes in comparison with alternative forms. With the innovation of fast-track teacher certification programs, such as the Stanford Teacher Education Program, a 12-month Master’s and Certification program out in California, and controversial programs such as Teach for America, traditional undergraduate degree programs are beginning to participate in comparative research in order to help determine the most effective training methods for future teachers.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 90%;">Research on comparing existing programs: **

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 90%;">One thing that any accredited university teaching program (or otherwise) includes is a period of fieldwork or student teaching. The importance of fieldwork for preservice teachers has been a widely held belief for a long time. Even the alternative certification program Teach for America has a segment in their five-week course for their members to work directly with students in order to build up their skills before they enter the classroom. The differences in fieldwork tend to be the lengths of time and type of fieldwork. The effectiveness of different types of fieldwork are under investigation to help teacher preparation programs get their candidates ready for the classroom by tailoring their fieldwork experiences to be the best instructive fit.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 90%;">Where they agree, Consensus in Research on Fieldwork **

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 90%;">[|Teach for America] began in the late 1980’s with the goal of placing highly qualified individuals into low-income poorly performing school districts, specifically in urban and rural environments. In the just over two decades that it has existed, TFA has effectively glamorized teaching in urban schools as a domestic Peace Corps, one in which candidates are highly scrutinized and must pass through rigorous selection processes before they are even allowed to participate. “The average 2008 corps member had a GPA of 3.6 and an SAT score of 1320, and 95% held leadership positions in college” (taken from the TFA Corps Profile 2009 at www.teachforamerica.org). According to TFA founder Wendy Kopp, as quoted in USA Today in 2010, “2/3 of TFA alumni are working full time in education, including 450 principles and school superintendents." <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 90%;">So one method for getting a teacher who has been alternatively trained and might have valuable skills in leadership ability is to contact Teach for America.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 90%;">Teach For America, one Alternative Model of Teacher Certification **

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 90%;">[|Council of Chief State School Officers] – Created the [|Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium], a consortium of state education agencies and national educational organizations dedicated to the reform of the preparation, licensing, and on-going professional development of teachers. Their principles can be found [|here].
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 90%;">Related Organizations **

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 90%;">The National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education has a [|rubric] for program accreditation available to help professionals and students looking to become teachers compare and contrast programs across the nation.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 90%;">The [|2009 modification] of the 2008 reauthorization of the Higher Education Act clarified definitions of what qualified a "highly qualified teacher" and how this makes them eligible for federal [|grants]. The section of the act as it applies to teachers is intended to be incentive for teacher education programs to turn out more "highly qualified teachers" in accordance with No Child Left Behind.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 90%;">Policy **

Professional Development
Studies show that 14% of teacher will leave the profession after the first year of teaching, 33% will leave within 3 years and close to 50% will leave after five years in the classroom (Ingersoll 2003). This is an alarming statistic. Attrition is not simply a concern because one in two teachers leave the profession but also because of the staggering costs associated with the mass exodus. Conservative estimates put the costs to replace these teachers around $2.6 billion (Wong 2003). Research says that teachers need three to seven years to reach the point where their students are achieving academically on a consistent level and this is exactly the point where a teacher leaves (Berlinger 2000). This means that student achievement is directly linked to teachers transforming into high quality teachers. Studies have shown that when all other factors are corrected for, students achieve the most and make the greatest strides when they have effective teachers. The question becomes how to retain teachers in the profession so that they have the opportunity to become high quality teachers and students are able to reap the benefits.

The research shows teachers who were provided with mentors in their subject area and participated in collective induction activities like planning and collaborating with other teachers were less likely to leave the school and the profession. Good induction programs increase job satisfaction, efficiency and retention (Alliance 2004). Turn over is expected in all organizations but high turn over means ineffective and low performance organization. High attrition reduced development of a learning community which leads to lack of community in schools creating a cycle (Gellinas 2004).
 * Connection to Research**

There are no national policies in place.
 * Connection to Policy**

Some states have started to require that teachers undergo some type of induction training. These states include: Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Ohio, South Carolina, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin (Source: Education Weekly, Quality Counts at 10: A Decade of Standards-Based Education, 2006)

However, states with policies may not have the funding to effectively implement them. Also, because no national standards exist, states and even districts significantly vary in regard to the level of support that new teachers are offered.


 * Relevant Legislation**
 * In 1993, the Michigan Legislature, in Section 1526 of PA 335, mandated the New Teacher Induction/Teacher Mentoring Program. Section 1526 states:
 * //For the first 3 years of his or her employment in classroom teaching, a teacher shall be assigned by the school in which he or she teaches to 1 or more master teachers, or college professors or retired master teachers, who shall act as a mentor or mentors to the teacher. During the 3-year period, the teacher shall also receive intensive professional development induction into teaching, based on a professional development plan that is consistent with the requirements of Section 3a of article II of Act No. 4 of the Public Acts of the Extra Session of 1937, being Section 38.83a of the Michigan Compiled Laws, including classroom management and instructional delivery. During the 3-year period, the intensive professional development induction into teaching shall consist of at least 15 days of professional development, the experiencing of effective practices in university-linked professional development schools, and regional seminars conducted by master teachers and other mentors.// (Michigan State Board of Education)

__NATIONAL:__
 * Relevant Organizations**
 * [|American Federation of Teachers]
 * [|National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future] (NCTAF).

__MICHIGAN__:
 * [|Michigan Education Support Professional]
 * [|Michigan Association of Teacher Educators]
 * [|Michigan Federation of Teachers and School Related Personnel]

Teacher induction focuses on teachers in their first few years of teaching. Induction can mean a host of things including workshops, collaborations, support systems, orientation seminars, and especially, mentoring. Induction does not have to include all of the aforementioned items. Several states and districts have implemented various forms of teacher induction. These models include:
 * Relevant Models**


 * Option A: Formal Training and Support (A) seminars or classes for beginning teachers; (B) common planning time with other teachers in their subject area or regularly scheduled collaboration with other teachers on issues of instruction; (C) participation in a network of teachers (e.g., one organized by an outside agency or on the Internet); and (D) regular or supportive communication with the school's principal, other administrators, or department chair.
 * Option B: Mentoring new teachers. This option includes training for mentors to develop effective practices to guide another teacher. This also addresses issues such as how much attention they devote to the match between mentor and mentee; the degree to which mentor are compensated for their efforts, either with a salary supplement or a reduction in other duties; and whether an effort is made to provide mentors who have experience in teaching the same subjects as their mentees.
 * Option C: Provide Additional Assistance. Give new teachers a dditional assistance to help ease the transition, including (a) a reduced teaching schedule (encourages leaving), (b) a reduced number of preparations, or (c)-extra classroom assistance (e.g., teacher aides). Does not help.
 * Option D: Collaboration. New teachers work with (a) Other new teachers (b) Mentor Teachers (c) Experienced Teachers and (d) Teacher in other school to make lesson planning, review student work, network.

Certain school districts have develop plans that are in use and have been reviewed in the literature (Gellinas 2004). These include:
 * [|Texas Beginning Educator Support System]
 * [|Montana Beginning Teacher Support Program]
 * [|Toronto Teacher Peer Support Program]
 * [|New York City Retired-Teachers-as-Mentors Program]
 * [|California Mentor Teacher Induction Project]

The best practice are those induction plans which are comprehensive and sustained. Comprehensive plans include<span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"> basic induction (regular workshops/seminars and professional development), collaboration (mentors from field, communication with administration, common planning period with teachers in the same content area), and teacher network (consisting of other new teachers, teacher from other schools and online forums).
 * Best Practices**

However, in order for these programs to work effectively, they must be fully funded. The return on investment has been shown to be for every $1 spent on teacher induction $1.34 is gained in return (Gellinas 2004).

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">[|Michigan Department of Education]
 * Relevant Resources**

[]
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Funding **

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">**Advocacy** []

Any considerations of analyzing or rewarding teacher performance must be prefaced with a methodology on how to consider what makes a "good teacher." For example, how can we consider performance-based pay if we have no way to quantify performance? This is where effective assessment of teaching quality plays a crucial role.

Historically, the six basic characteristics of teacher equality are: We can then use these categories to begin to determine exactly which teachers are performing at a high level and which teachers are performing at an unsatisfactory level. Some of these levels have straight forward measurements, such as experience and certification status, whereas others are more difficult to assess.
 * Historical Context**
 * Teacher behaviors, practices, beliefs
 * Subject knowledge
 * Pedagogical knowledge
 * Experience
 * Certification Status
 * General Ability

In 2001, the No Child Left Behind Act moved away from a broader view of assessment and instead focused on two specific characteristics of teacher assessment - subject knowledge and certification status. NCLB increased the subject knowledge requirements for certification and as a result teachers and districts were forced to focus effort and time on subject knowledge, all while other factors, such as pedagogical knowledge, were ignored. (6) The result was teachers that were forced to "teach to the test" since student performance on standardized tests became the dominant measure of successful schools.
 * Policy and Legislation**

The 2009 [|Re-Authorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act] addresses teacher assessment, but still in a general matter:

//District-level evaluation systems that (i) meaningfully differentiate teachers and principals by effectiveness across at least three performance levels; (ii) are consistent with their state’s definitions of “effective” and “highly effective” teacher and principal; (iii) provide meaningful feedback to teachers and principals to improve their practice and inform professional development; and (iv) are developed in collaboration with teachers, principals, and other education stakeholders.//

While the re-authorization of ESEA demands districts evaluate teachers and administrators and determine their effectiveness, it does not specify how. While subject knowledge can be assessed through certification tests and experience is a straightforward measurable, pedagogical knowledge, teacher behavior and practices, and general ability are the basic characteristics that are more subjective and left to districts to determine. Below are some of the contemporary methods in which these subjects can be examined.

With a new emphasis on getting the best and brightest teachers in the classrooms, new reforms are being put into effect revolving around how to assess performance. Below are some examples of contemporary reform involving teacher assessment.
 * New Models and Practices**

//New Haven, Connecticut//

<span class="wiki_link"><span class="wiki_link_ext">In 2009, the teachers in New Haven, CT agreed to a contract compromise that included two major teacher evaluation reforms. (7) First, the teachers agreed to the allowance of test scores as a method of evaluating teachers. In the past, teachers had balked at the idea of using test scores to evaluate instruction, and for good measure. There are simply too many uncontrollable outside circumstances, from a teacher's perspective, for test scores to accurately reflect the value of the instruction. The agreement to utilize test scores was a stepping stone - parties still need to iron out how, exactly, they will be used. However, since test scores are being used to evaluate schools and standardized testing is not going to end any time soon, teachers need to embrace that and figure out a way to bring test scores into the discussion.

The second major evaluation reform involved the notion of peer evaluation - that is, using an "expert" teacher to evaluate and work with struggling teachers. What is critical here is that the peer evaluation is run by the teachers' union. This both gives protection to teachers and a way for them to improve on their practice, while at the same time bringing accountability. If teachers fail to make progress towards improvement, the union can suggest to the teacher they move on (the article implies in this situation that the union would not back the teacher if they choose to legally fight termination).

//E-Portfolios//

Another idea that is gaining popularity is the notion of an e-portfolio for teachers. An e-portfolio would be an electronic portfolio of a teacher's work that can be verified by mentor teachers, peers, and administrators. It would be a way for a teacher to carry with them a overview of their capabilities as a teacher and to what extent they have been successful.

Originally, e-portfolios were developed for higher education, but they are now becoming a force in K-12 education (Waters, 24). The amount of resources that make e-portfolios a possibility are greatly increasing and teachers can now take the development of an e-portfolio into their own hands by utilizing services such as Google Apps.

E-Portfolios provide a great way to assess teacher quality. It puts the weight on the teacher to prove that they are accomplishing their goals by presenting evidence. While this may mean more work for teachers, it allows them flexibility in showing their effectiveness. Instead of relying on only test scores, teachers can embed artifacts, such as student's writing and video clips, into their e-portfolio. This is not to say that teachers cannot use test scores! The beauty of the e-portfolio is that it is accommodating to many levels of assessment so long as the teacher can provide evidence of that quality.

Performance and Incentive Based Pay
Merit pay in the broadest sense is “is a generic term for any device that adjusts salaries or provides compensation to reward higher levels of performance. It comes in many different forms, including merit-based salary schedules, bonuses, incentive pay, and differential staffing or "master teacher" plans" (Ellis, 1984). Merit pay can be linked to a district's regular single-salary schedule (teachers with high ratings advance up the scale more quickly), or it can be administered as a separate "merit pay schedule" (supplementing the regular salary). Participation by teachers can be either mandatory or voluntary. salary)” (Ellis, 1984).

During Ronald Regan’s presidency, the idea of paying employees on an incentive-based system took hold, with the belief this would bolster employee performance. This idea spread to other occupations including teaching, as the logic reasoned “if private-sector employees could be induced to perform at higher levels by rewarding that performance, why not school teachers?” (Domenech, 2010). Soon after, a district in Virginia adopted a pilot program of the performance-based system. The teachers of the school district opposed the plan from the onset.
 * Historical Context**

Twenty-five years later, the impact of Regan’s policy is more prominent than ever before. In fact, “the federal push for pay for performance is the strongest it has ever been. The Teacher Incentive Fund was established under the Bush administration in 2006.” It argues that traditional teacher compensation systems are based on a teacher’s years of experience and continuing development beyond the bachelor’s degree and that neither factor has a significant influence on student performance. In simpler terms, compensation frameworks like tenure do not reflect how effective a teacher is since tenure is not based on student performance. (Domenech, 2010).

In the past, “higher pay for teaching effectiveness can be awarded on the basis of input criteria (teacher performance) or output criteria (student performance)” (Ellis, 1984). Input in the sense of lesson preparation, classroom management skills, and continuing professional growth and development. As of right now, many performance-based compensation systems are based on the effectiveness of output. In other words, “the degree of progress in achieving specified goals determines the amount of benefits that the teacher receives” (Ellis, 1984). One of the main assessors in determining the achievement of goals is using standardized test scores to determine a teacher’s effectiveness.

Unfortunately there is not a great deal of research that supports or refutes the notion that performance based pay is an effective means of improving teacher quality. There is much debate about the effectiveness of performance based pay programs. In summary, the reasons that some are in favor of these programs is the belief that:
 * Connection to Research**
 * There is a link between teacher effectiveness and well designed pay for performance programs
 * Effective teachers should be rewarded
 * Rewards attract more qualified applicants in hard to staff schools and subjects
 * Encourages less effective teachers to improve
 * Reduces teacher turnover.

Those who resist the implementation of pay for performance believe that:
 * Monitoring teacher performance is dubious due to inconsistent data
 * There is potential for a negative effect on collaboration among teachers when award structure includes competition for bonuses.
 * It is difficult to capture and evaluate all of the important (multidimensional) roles involved in teaching.

Although there is little quantitative research, there is an emerging consensus on what can be learned from research on existing programs. These elements are:
 * PFP programs must be nested within larger reform agenda and nested with reform priorities.
 * Ongoing communication is key to successful programs
 * All stakeholders (teacher associations, school districts, local community must be involvement from the beginning discussions to implement these programs.
 * Stable funding streams and meaningful awards
 * Multiple well defined performance measured connected to district goals and priorities
 * Sophisticated well managed and well maintained data systems

Burns, S.F. & Gardner, C.D. (2010). Reforming teacher pay. //The School Administrator, 67//(3), 15-20.[| Reforming Teacher Pay]

For information on the interest among school districts in teacher pay incentive programs see: [|AASA Snapshot Study]

The research has examined the thorny issue if pay for performance models are used, how are the various pay scales determined. The preliminary research suggests that both the current method of setting pay scales and some proposed methods are not supported in evidence. Teacher effectiveness is not easily measured. It does not appear to be correlated to teacher certification, teacher education (such as having an M.A.), licensing exam scores or experience (beyond 2 years). So there is little support for any performance based pay schemes based on these characteristics. The most effective and promising approach is to rely on old fashioned principle performance evaluation of teachers. Principles effectively identify the top effective teachers and the least effective teachers. These principle identifications are consistent with student achievement as well. Polices that reward teacher performance based on principle evaluations will over time encourage and increase strongly effective teachers to continue in the classroom and discourage lower performing teachers. (Podgursky M., & Springer, M.G. (2007) Credentials versus performance: review of the teacher performance pay research, //Peabody Journal of Education, 82(4), 551-573.//

The Obama administration’s education department has embraced merit pay; the federal Teacher Incentive Fund, which finances experimental merit-pay programs across the country, rose from $97 million to $400 million this year. And states interested in competing for a piece of the $4.3 billion discretionary fund called the Race to the Top were required to change their laws to give principals and superintendents the right to judge teachers based on their students’ academic performance. (Green, 2010)
 * Connection to Policy**

For information on the above mentioned Teacher Incentive Fund see the Department of Education site:[|http://www2.ed.gov/programs/teacherincentive/index.html]

The National Education Association made this response to the proposed Teacher Incentive Fund : [|# # NEA - Letter to the Senate HELP Committee on the Teacher Incentive ...]

//No Child Left Behind.// This program supports efforts to develop and implement performance-based teacher and principal compensation systems in high-need schools. Goals include: Improving student achievement by increasing teacher and principal effectiveness;
 * Relevant Legislation**
 * Reforming teacher and principal compensation systems so that teachers and principals are rewarded for increases in student achievement;
 * Increasing the number of effective teachers teaching poor, minority, and disadvantaged students in hard-to-staff subjects; and
 * Creating sustainable performance-based compensation systems.

The National Center on Performance Incentives (NCPI), a national research and development center based at Vanderbilt University, is examining the impact of alternative compensation programs. A 2008 NCPI report found teacher incentive pay in Texas led to positive gains on student achievement scores in the elementary grades; however, most effects dropped off in later years.
 * Relevant Organizations**

Another NCPI report in 2008, examining a teacher bonus initiative in North Carolina, found a correlation between incentive pay and a small positive impact on student scores on high-stakes tests, mostly in mathematics. The most recent entry, a 2009 NCPI report on the Texas Governor’s Educator Excellence Grant Program, indicated incentive pay did not have a significant effect on student achievement scores. However, in comparing teacher turnover rates, the researchers did find fewer teachers left the targeted schools.

Because the research evidence is still emerging, additional experimentation should build on the practical lessons learned to date. As in most education reform efforts, pinpointing the specific effects of a well-designed compensation program is difficult, especially because most of the well-designed programs are not stand-alone — they are folded into a larger system of teacher quality reforms. (Excerpted from:[|Compensation Reform in Schools]

Consortium for Policy Research in Education--http://cpre.wceruw.org/tcomp/research/index.php The National High School Center at the American Institutes for Research--http://www.betterhighschools.org/topics/TeacherQuality.asp The Center on Reinventing Public Education (CRPE)--http://www.crpe.org/cs/crpe/view/projects/4
 * Relevant Resources**

Teacher Incentive Fund--http://www2.ed.gov/programs/teacherincentive/index.html
 * Funding Sources**

NEA has suggesting for taking action on teacher incentive pay and other education policies. [|NEA actions]
 * Action Opportunities**

**Works Cited**
Berliner, D. (2000). A Personal Response to Those Who Bash Teacher Education. //Journal of Teacher Education, 51//, 358-371. Gellinas, R & Ayers, J. (2004). Tapping the potential: Retaining and developing high-quality new teachers. //The Alliance for Excellent Education.// Harry Wong, (2003, November) “Save millions—Train and support new teachers, //School Business Affairs//. Ingersoll, Richard. (2003). Is There Really a Teacher Shortage//?// Seattle: Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy. Leigh, A. & Mead S.(2005). Lifting teacher performance. Progressive Policy Institute. April 2005, 1-15. Waters, J.K. (2009). E-Portfolios Come of Age. //Technological Horizons in Education. 36.// 23-29. Wright, S. P., Horn, S.P., & Sanders, W.L. (1997). Teacher and classroom context effects on student achievement: Implications for teacher evaluation, Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 11, 57-67.