Living Curriculum Teacher
Development Model
Teacher Evaluation and Compensation
at Wheaton Academy
© 2016 Wheaton Academy
Philosophy and Background
Board Identified the need to Pay teachers more and implement a more
effective compensation system as early as 2002
What we had:
Very modest Pay where teachers survived based on stipends
Teachers had to stay at Wheaton Academy for many years and do a
lot of things to survive and make a decent wage
Goal: Increase income & incentive for our best teachers
2008-2009 FACULTY PAY SCALE
Steps
BA
BA+15
MA
MA+15
MA+30
1
26,026
27,067
28,368
2
26,807
28,108
29,670
31,231
3
27,588
29,149
30,971
32,793
34,354
4
28,368
30,190
32,272
34,354
35,916
5
29,149
31,231
33,574
35,916
37,477
6
32,272
34,875
37,477
39,039
7
33,313
36,176
39,039
40,601
8
34,354
37,477
40,601
42,162
9
38,779
42,162
43,724
10
40,080
43,724
45,285
11
41,381
45,285
46,847
12
46,847
48,408
13
48,408
49,970
14
51,531
15
53,093
Key Questions:
First, take some time to discuss these questions at your table:
Should Compensation be related to performance?
To what extent are teacher evaluations related to
compensation at your school?
If you decided that teacher pay at your school would be
based on two criteria, what would those criteria be?
Why?
Our Answers:
We realized that we did want compensation to relate to performance - we
had some amazing teachers who were among the least paid at our school
We realized that it didn’t matter when we handed out contracts - before or
after we evaluated teachers because the two processes were completely
unrelated
We realized we wanted to pay teachers for:
Best teaching practice (inputs)
Versatility
Impact (outputs)
Realizations...
The idea of linking compensation to impact and best practice was
strongly linked to our Professional Learning Community philosophy
Focus on Learning
Focus on Collaboration
Focus on Results
Key Takeaway for You and Your School: Your evaluation
compensation plan MUST match your school philosophy
Models of Compensation
Stick around and get more education
Negotiation
Merit Pay - Based on student performance on high stakes
tests
Collegiate or university model (Professors, associate
professors, Assistant professors etc.)
We decided that none of these matched our philosophy - we
need to develop our own
Givens we went by
This will not be a buy-in issue however, what matters most is
what our best people think
There are “franchise” teachers, utility teachers, “Role-players”
- not everyone will be a “franchise” teacher, however everyone
could earn a “franchise” salary if they merited it
Some teachers will not feel that they are compensated
enough and that their raises are too small
Grandfathering was necessary
The Journey
June 2009 – Articulating what matters most in our model
June - December 2009 - Developing the model
January 2010 - Trial run to be March/April/May 2010
March - May 2010 - Side by Side run with new and Old system (no financial implications)
May - July 2010 - Revisions
August 2010 - Roll-out with teachers (criteria and process), Orientation
2010-2011 - Year one - Teachers got potential salary range - March 2011 - Teachers got a contract that
reflected the new evaluation system with their new salary
May 2012 - Teacher Focus Group - evaluation of the criteria and potential revisions
2012-Present – Consistency established
WA Evaluation Tool
3 major Domains - Teaching, Classroom responsibility
and Learning
Teaching - Inputs - what behavior a teacher exhibits
Classroom responsibility - Versatility
Learning - Outputs - what results in a teacher’s classroom
in terms of student achievement and relationships
Key Components:
Those categories were familiar (from our previous evaluation system), and
standard among the educational world
4 Levels of teacher:
Professional - Highly qualified Teacher
Advanced - Excellent teacher
lead - Excellent teacher with influence well-beyond their own sphere or
classroom - leads and influences other teachers, students, and school
culture
Developing - Falling short of Wheaton Academy Standards
Let’s Explore the Model
• Go to livingcurriculumonline.com
• Username is: [email protected]
• Password is: GuestPass16
Important points to Note:
Not Bad, Satisfactory and Good
lead is intended to be a lofty standard
Advanced teachers are excellent - they just
don’t necessarily extend their influence beyond
their classroom
Education and Experience - there is nothing for
experience, and education is one of 42 criteria
Important points to Note:
There were non-negotiables noted on the rubric by Italics - even if a
teacher meets the percentage to move up to the next level, they must
fulfill all italicized criteria in order to advance
To be in the professional category: Teachers must fulfill 75% of
the professional criteria (including all in italics)
To be in the advanced category: Teachers must fulfill 100% of the
Professional criteria, and 75% of the advanced criteria (including
all advanced criteria in italics)
To be in the lead category - teachers must fulfill 70% of the lead
criteria at all times
QUESTIONS?
How we gauge teacher performance?
Classroom observation - formal and informal (6 times per year
by Principal or assistant Principal)
Department Head Feedback (2 observations and other
interaction)
Student survey data
Teacher submitted portfolio
Self-evaluation/Portfolio
Classroom observation
observe for instruction, assessment and learning
environment
6 times per year for professional level, less for other two
levels
about two observations per day for principal and assistant
principal…until “The Breakthrough Coach”
Student Survey Data
We already gave student surveys - we realigned the questions to
correspond with categories in the tool
Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation research states that student
feedback is the most accurate indicator about what takes place in a
classroom and is essential in any evaluation process
Students don’t evaluate teachers - they give feedback that we as
administrators interpret and use
Some criteria begin with “When asked, students say...” and are
directly correlated with the survey question - typically to move to the
advanced level, teachers must have 80% or higher in the
agree/strongly agree answers on the survey for these categories
The Evaluation Meeting
3 days prior to the meeting, the teacher receives the final
administrative rubric and the narrative evaluation
Principal and Assistant Principal meet with teacher to go over
narrative and rubric
This is time for discussion, explanation and possibly
alteration of evaluation if teacher presents appropriate
evidence about a particular category
Goal - Reach consensus - this is an agreement not something
that is done to the teacher
EXAMPLE
2015-2016
EVALUATION
WHEATON ACADEMY
TM
Living Curriculum Teacher Development Model
Jonathan Jones
4.20.16
$50,944
Teachers are marked in each area as Developing (D), Professional (P), Advanced (A) or Lead Teacher (L)
CONFIDENTIAL
*indicates italicized items (essentials) on master checklists
15-16 Base Salary and Levels
Teaching
48,985
Classroom Learning
A2
A
D
P
% Full-time
A2
GF?
16-17 Base Salary and Levels (no GF)
100%
50,944
TEACHING
Instruction: Planning & Preparation
Teaching Classroom Learning
A2
A
4.0%
Level change from last year
Knowledge of Content
A
*
Resources for Teaching
Criteria and Standards
Use of Data for Planning
*
*
Planning and Preparation
*
*
*
L
Professional Responsibilities
y
Credentials
*
y
y
Timeliness
*
y
y
y
Grooming and Professional Attire
Professional Learning
y
D
P
x
y
y
Learning Activities and Assignments
y
Community Relations
Execution of Class Time
y
Support of WA Mission
*
y
y
Parent Contact
*
y
y
Co-Curricular Support
Variety of Teaching Techniques
Use of Technology
*
D
P
Assessing Student Progress
A
P
*
y
*
y
A
L
y
L
*
Feedback
L
Supervision of Students
D
0
A
Directions and Procedures
Assessment Items
% Change
L1
y
y
Intervention Strategies
y
Teaching Totals
Learning Environment
D
P
Classroom Climate
A
*
Expectations
L
*
Developing (Check for yellow boxes) 1
y
P
A
L
0
0
11
13
45.8%
54.2%
0.0%
0.0%
####
y
Importance of Content
D
*
Meets Professional
level 2
Meets Advanced
level 2
Meets Lead
level 2
100%
100%
y
CLASSROOM RESPONSIBILITIES
100%
54%
Level change from last year
Professional
Advanced
1 or 2 preps among a
5 class teaching load
Capacity to teach 3 or more prep levels; an AP may be included;
54%
0
Lead
y
3 or more preps & the ability to
teach all prep levels within the
department, including AP
LEARNING
Instructional Items
Level change from last year
D
P
A
L
Professional Responsibilities
Focus on Learning
*
*
y
Problem Solving
Relevance
*
*
y
Collaboration
Biblical Integration
*
*
y
Goal Accomplishment
*
y
When Students Struggle
D
P
Assessment of Learning
A
*
Learning Goals
Standardized Test Results
L
Student Activities
y
Parent Communication
y
Healthy Lifestyle & Attitude
x
P
L
y
y
y
D
P
A
L
*
Teacher-Student Relationships
*
y
*
y
D
P
A
L
*
Learning Totals
D
Knowing Students as Individuals
Classroom Environment
*
*
*
y
y
Developing* (Check for yellow boxes) 1
High Expectations
*
*
y
Meets Professional
level 2
Desire to Learn
*
y
Meets Advanced
level 2
Meets Lead
level 2
Comments:
1. A yellow box indicates all essential
requirements (indicated by *) have not
been met to advance to the next level.
P
0
0.0%
A
0
y
L
2
0.0%
y
*
Discipleship
Learning Environment
1
A
*
Community Relations &
Spiritual Formation
Assessment Items
D
14
12.5%
87.5%
####
100%
100%
100%
88%
88%
FINANCIAL WORKSHEET
Employee's Name:
Jonathan Jones
School Year:
2015-2016
2016-2017
$
48,985
Living Curriculum Teacher DevelopmentTM Evaluation
Teaching
Classroom Responsibility
Learning
Advanced
Advanced
Lead
Less 2015-2016 Base Salary
$
50,944
48,985
LCTDM Increase
1,959
2016-2017 Base Salary
$
Percentage Increase
Additional Duties
50,944
4.00%
16-17 Stipend
Stipend Compensation
$
-
TOTAL 2016-2017 LCTDM BASE AND STIPEND COMPENSATION
$
50,944
YELLOW BOX EXAMPLE
2015-2016
EVALUATION
WHEATON ACADEMY
TM
Living Curriculum Teacher Development Model
Jonathan Jones
4.20.16
$49,965
Teachers are marked in each area as Developing (D), Professional (P), Advanced (A) or Lead Teacher (L)
CONFIDENTIAL
*indicates italicized items (essentials) on master checklists
15-16 Base Salary and Levels
Teaching
48,985
Classroom Learning
A2
A
D
P
% Full-time
A2
GF?
16-17 Base Salary and Levels (no GF)
100%
49,965
TEACHING
Instruction: Planning & Preparation
Teaching Classroom Learning
P2
A
2.0%
Level change from last year
Knowledge of Content
A
*
Resources for Teaching
Criteria and Standards
Use of Data for Planning
y
Planning and Preparation
*
*
*
*
*
L
Professional Responsibilities
y
Credentials
*
y
y
Timeliness
*
y
y
Grooming and Professional Attire
Professional Learning
y
D
P
x
y
y
*
*
y
Learning Activities and Assignments
y
Community Relations
Execution of Class Time
y
Support of WA Mission
*
y
y
Parent Contact
*
y
y
Co-Curricular Support
Use of Technology
*
D
P
Assessing Student Progress
A
D
P
A
y
L
y
L
*
Feedback
L
Supervision of Students
Variety of Teaching Techniques
0
A
Directions and Procedures
Assessment Items
% Change
P2
y
y
Intervention Strategies
y
Teaching Totals
Learning Environment
D
P
Classroom Climate
A
*
Expectations
L
*
Developing (Check for yellow boxes) 1
y
P
A
L
0
2
11
11
45.8%
45.8%
0.0%
8.3%
####
y
Importance of Content
D
*
Meets Professional
level 2
Meets Advanced
level 2
Meets Lead
level 2
100%
92%
y
CLASSROOM RESPONSIBILITIES
92%
46%
Level change from last year
Professional
Advanced
1 or 2 preps among a
5 class teaching load
Capacity to teach 3 or more prep levels; an AP may be included;
46%
0
Lead
y
3 or more preps & the ability to
teach all prep levels within the
department, including AP
LEARNING
Instructional Items
Level change from last year
D
P
A
L
Professional Responsibilities
Focus on Learning
*
*
y
Problem Solving
Relevance
*
*
y
Collaboration
Biblical Integration
*
*
y
Goal Accomplishment
*
y
When Students Struggle
D
P
Assessment of Learning
A
*
Learning Goals
Standardized Test Results
L
Student Activities
y
Parent Communication
y
Healthy Lifestyle & Attitude
x
P
L
y
y
y
D
P
A
L
*
*
Teacher-Student Relationships
y
*
*
D
P
A
L
*
Learning Totals
D
Knowing Students as Individuals
Classroom Environment
*
*
*
y
y
Developing* (Check for yellow boxes) 1
High Expectations
*
*
y
Meets Professional
level 2
Desire to Learn
*
y
Meets Advanced
level 2
Meets Lead
level 2
Comments:
1. A yellow box indicates all essential
requirements (indicated by *) have not
been met to advance to the next level.
P
0
0.0%
A
1
y
L
1
6.3%
y
y
Discipleship
Learning Environment
0
A
*
Community Relations &
Spiritual Formation
Assessment Items
D
14
6.3%
87.5%
####
100%
94%
94%
88%
88%
2016-2017 Teaching Levels
Teacher Name
AS PER FINAL CONTROL SHEETS
Teaching
Professional
Learning
Responsibilities
NEW
OVERALL Teaching Level
Professional
A
A
A
Advanced
A
L
A
Advanced
P
L
L
L
P
L
Professional
Lead
P
L
P
Professional
A
L
P
Advanced
L
L
A
Professional
Lead
A
P
L
A
L
P
Lead
Professional
P
L
P
Professional
L
L
L
Lead
L
A
L
Lead
P
L
A
L
A
L
Advanced
Lead
A
L
A
Advanced
NEW
NEW
Professional
NEW
Professional
NEW
Professional
L
A
A
Advanced
L
L
L
Lead
L
A
L
Lead
L
L
L
Lead
A
L
A
Advanced
L
L
L
Lead
P
A
P
Professional
L
L
L
Lead
L
L
L
Lead
P
A
P
Professional
A
A
A
Advanced
A
L
A
Advanced
A
A
A
Advanced
A
L
A
Advanced
P
A
P
Professional
P
P
D
Professional
P
A
P
Professional
P
A
D
Professional
D
P
P
Professional
A
L
A
Advanced
A
L
A
Advanced
P
L
P
Professional
P
A
P
Professional
P
A
A
Advanced
L
L
L
Lead
P
A
D
Professional
NEW
Professional
NEW
Professional
Our Reflections
Trust is essential between Administration and teachers
Evaluation Process has improved teaching and learning
Can’t constantly change tool or the system
It is subjective
It must be based on school philosophy or mission
It will enable people to make a career at your school, but you won’t ever get a
ton of positive PR from teachers amongst each other
Non-Teaching staff will want a similar system for incentives
After a few years, pay jumps level off and we need to continue to find ways to
reward our best teachers
Now...
So for your school, now what? Where are you in this
process - ready to begin, still questioning, not ready?
Are there any pieces from this system you could go back
and implement now? (Evaluation process, student
surveys, observations etc.)
What obstacles exist at your school that would keep you
from implementing a strategic compensation model?
How would more strategic compensation and/or
evaluation benefit your school?
QUESTIONS?