Colorado district dumps teacher salary schedule for performance pay

School board members in Harrison School District Two in Colorado Springs, Colorado, were looking for change when they hired Superintendent Mike Miles. At that time, the district’s overall performance was abysmal. It was on academic watch, the lowest possible rating before the Colorado Department of Education takes over. On one measure of achievement, student scores ranked 160th out of 178 Colorado school districts.

Faced with the same challenges that many Texas districts face—a large minority student population (75 percent) with a significant achievement gap, and 79 percent of students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch—school board members knew they had their work cut out for them.

Enter Miles, who had no qualms about the need to fundamentally change the way the 11,000-student district operated. Starting next year, the district will no longer pay teachers based on education credentials and years of experience. With the district’s new Effectiveness and Results (E&R) Teacher Pay-for-Performance Plan  set to begin with the 2010–11 school year, teachers will be paid based on the quality of their instruction and the results they get with students.

But the way the district changed its pay practices is just part of the story. Before the national media attention, district leaders were doing some equally important work to build the foundation for a new pay system.

Providing meaningful feedback

Miles got the ball rolling three years ago with the district’s principals. His primary goal was to ensure that all campuses had strong instructional leaders, educators committed to promoting growth in student learning. A related goal was building leadership at all levels of the district (leadership density).

Principals also had to develop their ability to provide teachers with regular, meaningful instructional feedback. That change in focus was a challenge for many. “It has been the biggest growth experience of my life,” said Cheri L. Martinez, Harrison High School principal. “I had to become a student of instruction. I had to spend more hours of my day in the classroom. And it was the best thing for me and the building.”

The E&R plan requires that principals conduct frequent spot observations of teachers (eight times a semester for probationary teachers and four times a semester for nonprobationary teachers). Principals and teachers discuss instruction following most visits.

The vast majority of teachers (73 percent) say that the feedback they receive “mostly” or “definitely” helps them to improve. Another 19 percent said that the feedback helps “somewhat.”

The district provides professional development in a variety of forms to help teachers shore up weak performance areas. Also, the district had to find a way to collect and analyze student achievement data to help teachers and principals use the data to improve instruction.

Another important piece of the puzzle was rethinking teacher evaluations in favor of a system that would provide the district with an authentic picture of the quality of a teacher’s instruction. Gone are the days of perfunctory reviews when a couple of the district’s teachers received “unsatisfactory” ratings and all other teachers met or exceeded expectations. Harrison’s new teacher evaluation instrument is rigorous and principals and assistant principals provide accurate and honest feedback. “If 90 percent of your teachers are rated effective, your evaluation system is probably not differentiated or effective,” Miles said.

Setting the stage for change

The district completed summative evaluations of its teachers last school year and combined them with multiple student progress measures to determine their proficiency levels for placement within the E&R plan for next year. Approximately 77 percent (522) of 680 teachers plan to return. The returning teachers were given one of the following placements: Unsatisfactory (2); Novice (3); Progressing I (56); Progressing IIa (120); Progressing IIb (42); Proficient I (232); Proficient II (42); Proficient III (16); and Exemplary (9).

That means that 43 percent of the district’s returning teachers were rated as less than proficient on their evaluations. Fifty-seven percent were proficient or distinguished. Of the 112 distinguished teachers (any teacher with a rating of proficient or above), 105 will return to the district next year.

Of the 158 teachers who aren’t returning to the district, 46 have been recommended for nonrenewal, 95 are resigning, 12 are retiring, and five are leaving because of their own unique situation. One hundred and nineteen of the exiting teachers (75 percent) were rated less than proficient.

Miles notes that the new evaluation system appears to be having the desired effect in terms of teacher retention. “We believe that retaining proficient teachers is hugely important. If we wanted to retain everybody, we’d just pay everybody more and not make any serious changes,” Miles said.

The district’s focus on improved instruction has helped to raise student achievement. But for Harrison School District Two, that’s not the final piece of the puzzle.

Giving the salary schedule the boot

There’s a fundamental difference between Harrison’s performance pay system and incentive pay. “I hear about research on pay for performance that’s really incentive pay…Denver’s ProComp system is really an incentive pay plan because if you teach in a high-needs school you get more money but the salary schedule is still there,” Miles said.

No need to look for the salary schedule underlying Harrison’s pay plan. There isn’t one. Teachers won’t earn more based on their longevity or academic degrees. Teachers are paid based on the quality of their instruction. “Under our performance pay system, there is a clear differentiation between effective teachers’ pay and ineffective teachers’ pay,” Miles said.

The district’s average teacher salary next year will be $46,151. For returning teachers, the average pay increase is $4,330, and for distinguished teachers, the news is even better, with an average pay increase of $7,365. Teacher pay raises during the transition year were capped at $8,000. Twenty-five percent of teachers (129) will not receive a pay increase next year but will not make less than they did in 2009–10.

Teacher pay rises significantly as teachers move from one grade to the next. For a first-year teacher, a satisfactory evaluation is all that’s needed to advance to the next grade (“Progressing I”). Advancement to all other grades requires a satisfactory evaluation combined with improved student achievement.

The big difference from the traditional teacher salary schedule is that the best teachers can earn much higher pay much earlier in their careers. “We have some people who’ve been teaching for four years that will make $70,000,” Miles said “In the Colorado Springs area it generally takes a person with a bachelor’s degree and 30 college credit hours 12 years to reach $48,000.”

Building support

Teachers collaborated with the district on the development of the pay plan through focus groups and had other chances to voice their opinions throughout the development process. When teachers had a strong opinion about some element of the plan, the district was willing to compromise. For example, only core teachers were going to be put on the E&R scale initially. Another scale was going to be developed for those who teach noncore subjects. Teachers were strongly opposed to the idea so the district dropped it.

Not every teacher has bought in to the new system, but most are willing to give it a try. Seventy-six percent of teachers voted to support the plan by accepting the district’s Agreement of Trust and Understanding—the benefit and salary document for the coming year. That’s pretty strong support given the changes in store.

While the staff support is relatively strong, there’s certainly anxiety about what’s to come. And there are some teachers who fundamentally disagree with the idea of performance pay. For example, one art teacher was visibly upset about the change in a focus group meeting. She told the group, “I just don’t believe kids should be tested in art.”

Miles said that 85 percent of the district’s educators—art teachers included—have been placed on the E&R scale for the coming year, and the district will measure student achievement results for all of them using the state’s standards. “We can design a simple assessment to see if a child understands the art concepts he or she should at that level,” Miles said. That means teachers of noncore subjects may have to get up to speed on what concepts students of different grade levels need to know. “We think it’s about time, and honestly, the more effective teachers already do it,” Miles said.

Principals and a smattering of other educators are not on the plan next year, but they won’t have long to wait. They’ll be included in 2011–12.

The plan has solid support from four of five members of the school board and the Colorado Springs community. “This paradigm needed to change,” said Board President Deborah Hendrix. She said the majority of the feedback on the plan has been positive, with comments like, “…it’s about time someone is really going to pay teachers what they are worth” and “it’s about time that teachers will no longer be compensated just because they get another degree and have a certain number of years of service.”

Covering the cost

Initially, the plan will cost the district more than the traditional salary schedule. For example, 75 percent of those on the E&R scale got a raise with their initial placement. That’s not likely to happen every year. “We’re pretty sure that 75 percent of staff won’t get to the next level next year unless our student achievement goes through the roof, and if it does, that’s a good problem to have,” Miles said. Also, the district won’t pay its current teachers less than what they made in 2009–10.

The district has applied for grants including an Investing in Innovation (i3) grant to help defray the plan’s costs, but doesn’t intend to rely on grant funds to keep the plan going. “To sell the board, the community, and staff on this plan, we had to show them that this would be sustainable over the long haul even if we don’t get grant money in future years,” Miles said.

As a result, the amount the district will spend on salaries won’t drastically change. What will change is that the district will spend its salary funds differently. Gone are master’s degree stipends, attendance incentives, and extra pay for those who take on extra professional roles.

“We’re changing the way we think about the profession. We believe that if you are a teacher at a higher level and we ask you to be a department chair, you have an obligation to do it whether we pay you for it or not,” Miles said. “Also, as professionals, experienced teachers should take care of the new teachers and get them up to speed. That’s your professional obligation.”

Making fundamental changes

Miles, a former Army Ranger and Foreign Service officer with the U.S. State Department, has also been a classroom teacher and education consultant. He models the practices he expects of other school leaders daily, visiting classrooms and talking to principals about his observations. It’s clear to them that he’s committed to improving student outcomes. Perhaps that’s why the district’s educators are willing to go where no district has gone before.

Miles is confident the pay plan will help the district meet its goals. “We’ve already raised student achievement by having a laser focus on improved instruction,” Miles said. “[The pay plan is] the last big piece of the system that’s not aligned. We will have to work out some bugs, sure, but it’s a solid plan.”

“The hard part is not the details,” Miles observed. “The hard part is how people feel philosophically about a paradigm shift like this. You have to work hard at changing the way people think about how they get paid.”

“When we hired Mike Miles, we told him that our district needed a transformation that would contribute to the improvement in student achievement,” Hendrix said. “We’ve been on a journey for the last four years, and this system is the final culmination of that work.”

Hendrix offered the following advice to school board members who want to change the way teachers are paid but fear that the Harrison School District Two plan is too far-reaching to fly at home:

• Your superintendent must have strong leadership skills and be able to make the hard decisions that change requires.
• Your board must be united to withstand the pressure that could come from teachers or the community. The board must focus on student results.
• The building blocks (aligned curriculum, trained teachers and administrators, instructional leadership, and a fair evaluation system) must be in place first.
• Get input from teachers, especially regarding evaluation.
• Be willing to stay the course.

—“Colo. District Scraps Traditional-Pay Schedule,” by Stephen Sawchuk, Education Week, May 12, 2010.
—“Harrison on leading edge of teacher pay reform, experts say,” by Carol McGraw, The Colorado Springs Gazette, Jan. 9, 2010.