Teacher Leadership and Pay
Transforming teachers’ careers and compensation in North Carolina: A new vision from some of our state’s best teachers
Content
Transforming teachers’ careers
and compensation in North
Carolina: A new vision from some of
our state’s best teachers
TeacherSolutions team
d
Karyn Dickerson ! Taylor Milburn ! Doyle Nicholson
Dave Orphal ! Ben Owens ! Sabrina Peacock
Joanna Schimizzi ! Nicole Smith
April 2016
Preface
More
than
half
a
century
ago,
the
single
salary
schedule
for
teachers
was
designed
with
good
reasons
in
mind:
to
promote
gender
and
racial
pay
equity,
to
protect
teachers
from
administrators
who
might
make
capricious
employment
and
pay
decisions,
and
to
encourage
teachers
to
pursue
advanced
academic
degrees.
Like
the
dusty
blackboards
still
found
in
some
classrooms,
the
single
salary
schedule
has
served
its
purposes,
met
its
goals,
and
outlived
its
usefulness.
With
challenges
and
opportunities
before
us
that
were
unimaginable
even
ten
years
ago,
our
public
schools
need
a
far
more
nuanced
approach
to
teachers’
career
pathways
and
professional
compensation.
This
report
comes
at
time
when
a
steady
stream
of
research
evidence
has
shown
how
effective
teaching
and
powerful
student
learning
are
not
primarily
accomplishments
of
singular
teachers
but
rather
“social
endeavors
that
are
best
achieved
and
improved
through
trusting
relationships
and
teamwork,
instead
of
competition
and
a
focus
on
individual
prowess.”
I
believe
this
report,
written
by
a
team
of
accomplished
North
Carolina
teachers,
can
help
bridge
the
long-‐
standing
communication
gap
between
the
makers
of
school
policy
and
the
teaching
professionals
who
put
that
policy
into
action.
This
report
makes
it
clear
that
teacher
leaders
understand
the
need
for
school
reform—including
well-‐crafted
incentive
pay
plans.
Most
importantly,
they
know
how
to
apply
the
research
evidence
on
what
matters
most
for
student
achievement
along
with
their
much-‐needed
insider
school
and
community
knowledge
to
help
prevent
well-‐intentioned
reforms
from
going
awry.
These
eight
teachers
began
their
investigation
in
late
January
2016,
working
together
in
the
CTQ
Collaboratory,
their
virtual
community.
Their
deliberations
often
continued
late
into
the
evenings
after
their
intensely
busy
teaching
days.
They
examined
the
findings
of
dozens
of
studies
and
engaged
in
deep
online
conversations
as
well
as
rapid-‐fire
chats
with
hundreds
of
teaching
colleagues.
This
report
represents
the
first
of
a
number
of
approaches
this
CTQ
TeacherSolutions
team
seeks
to
take
to
advance
the
teaching
profession
that
their
students
deserve.
Read,
debate,
and
consider
the
wisdom
of
those
who
teach
our
state’s
children
every
day.
Barnett
Berry,
CEO
&
Partner
Center
for
Teaching
Quality
April
2016
2
Executive summary
The what and why of this report
This
report
is
about
what
works
best
for
our
North
Carolina
students,
and
what
kind
of
teaching
profession
is
needed
to
fuel
school
improvement.
It
is
about
the
future
of
teacher
career
pathways
and
professional
compensation.
Both
the
principles
and
recommendations
have
been
assembled
by
eight
highly
accomplished
teachers
from
across
our
state
who
engaged
in
an
intensive
two-‐month
study
of
the
research
evidence
and
analysis
of
their
own
teaching
experiences.
These
classroom
experts
worked
with
hundreds
of
their
colleagues
from
across
North
Carolina
to
reach
their
conclusions.
They
found
that
more
than
anything
else,
teachers
want
more
opportunities
to
spread
effective
teaching
practices—with
the
ultimate
goal
of
helping
all
students
learn.
And
for
them,
this
new
compensation
system
should
do
just
that.
Assertions and findings
The
vision
for
the
future
is
based
on
six
principles
which
focus
the
specific
solutions
designed
by
the
team.
They
include:
1.
Teacher
compensation
must
begin
with
sound
base
pay
that
values
teaching
as
a
profession
and
includes
additional
salary
and
bonuses
that
fuel
leadership,
innovation,
and
creativity;
2.
The
evaluation
process
for
identifying,
recognizing,
and
rewarding
teacher
leaders
must
be
transparent
and
trustworthy;
3.
Informal
(as
well
as
formal)
leadership
roles
must
be
valued—and
incentives
for
leading
cannot
be
limited
to
financial
ones;
4.
Leadership
opportunities
must
be
available
for
all
teachers,
not
just
a
few
individuals;
5.
Incentives
and
rewards,
like
those
in
top-‐performing
nations,
must
focus
on
teachers
who
spread
their
expertise
to
others;
and
6.
School
districts
must
create
the
right
working
conditions—including
principals
who
know
how
to
cultivate
teacher
leaders—in
order
to
recruit
and
retain
classroom
experts
in
high-‐need
schools.
Our
proposal
for
teachers
moving
forward
in
their
careers
on
the
basis
of
the
skills
they
can
demonstrate
is
based
on
the
following
pillars:
Professional
base
pay
(and
if
teachers
do
not
deserve
a
professionally
based
minimum
salary,
they
should
not
be
teaching);
Demonstration
of
a
variety
of
expert
skills
based
on
a
well-‐designed
and
more
comprehensive
teaching
evaluation
system;
and
Leadership
pathways
(both
formal
and
informal
roles)
for
all
teachers.
Finally,
the
report
includes
some
key
considerations
necessary
to
ensure
teachers
have
the
appropriate
tools
to
support
student
learning,
which
includes
time
to
lead
and
administrators
who
support
them
in
doing
so.
3
Introduction
“Loss
of
Teacher
of
Year
to
private
industry
is
heartbreaking,”
blares
a
headline
from
the
Mooresville
Tribune
a
few
weeks
ago.
After
18
years
of
“great”
teaching,
Allen
Stephens
(2015-‐16
Teacher
of
the
Year
in
the
Mooresville
Graded
School
District)
has
left
the
classroom
to
work
in
the
private
sector.
This
trend
is
one
many
administrators
now
say
is
“snowballing”
across
North
Carolina.
Our
colleague
left
teaching
primarily
due
to
a
lack
of
decent
professional
salary
and
overcrowded
classrooms,
as
a
recent
Mooresville
Tribune
article
reported.
But
Allen
also
told
us:
The
current
climate
of
uncertainty
about
the
teaching
profession
made
me
feel
unappreciated
and
taken
for
granted.
.
.
and
I
needed
to
make
the
best
decision
for
my
own
family
and
make
sure
I’m
taking
care
of
their
basic
needs
as
well.
He
believes
the
outlook
for
our
profession
in
North
Carolina
is
“not
bright”—
forcing
him
to
choose
to
leave
the
profession
altogether.
It
is
Allen’s
experience,
as
well
as
our
own,
that
fuels
our
vision
for
the
renewal
of
teaching
in
North
Carolina.
And
so
does
decades
of
research.
Terry
Stoops
of
the
John
Locke
Foundation
recently
noted
that
“pay
raises
should
be
closely
tied
to
performance
as
an
incentive
to
keep
the
best
teachers
on
the
job.”1
We
agree.
But
we
have
discovered
that
too
many
teaching
policies
of
late,
particularly
related
to
performance
pay,
are
disconnected
from
the
evidence
on
what
works
in
education.
We
teach
students
across
North
Carolina:
from
our
inner
cities,
our
suburbs,
and
our
small
towns.
We
have
entered
teaching
through
both
traditional
and
alternative
pathways.
Some
of
us
served
in
the
military
or
worked
as
professionals
in
other
fields
before
choosing
to
teach
in
our
state’s
public
schools.
We
teach
young
children,
second
language
learners,
and
high
school
students,
one
of
us
with
North
Carolina’s
Virtual
Public
Schools.
One
of
us
is
now
a
principal
who
still
works
closely
with
teacher
leaders.
And
after
ten
years
in
the
classroom,
another
of
us
recently
resigned
due
to
poor
working
conditions
and
limited
opportunities
to
both
teach
and
lead.
Admittedly,
we
are
only
a
small
sample
of
the
95,000
teachers
across
North
Carolina.
But
like
a
vast
majority
of
our
colleagues,
we
agree
that
a
carefully
crafted
professional
compensation
system
has
huge
potential
to
transform
the
teaching
profession
in
ways
that
can
help
all
students
learn
more
deeply.
We
do
not
shy
away
from
the
principle
that
teachers
who
perform
at
high
levels
deserve
additional
compensation
for
their
performance.
At
the
same
time,
we
are
certain
that
many
of
the
pay-‐for-‐performance
and
career
pathway
blueprints
now
on
the
table
will
not
translate
into
the
high-‐
achieving
schools
imagined
by
their
architects.
It
seems
that
too
many
of
these
reforms
have
ignored
the
research
on
performance
pay,
as
well
as
4
“I
remember
tutoring
in
some
capacity
since
I
was
in
elementary
or
middle
school.
I’m
passionate
about
education.
I
teach
to
make
a
positive
difference
in
my
w orld.”
—
Nicole
Smith
Mathematics
teacher,
Mooresville
Senior
High
School
“I
started
teaching
because
I
really
believed
it
was
the
best
way
to
impact
students
and
their
families
in
high-‐poverty
communities.
I
knew
I
had
the
ability
to
reach
kids
personally
and
uniquely:
to
encourage
them,
challenge
them,
and
nurture
them.”
—
Taylor
Milburn
Former
teacher,
Durham
Public
Schools
“I
did
not
intend
to
teach
and
I
found
myself
in
a
middle
school
classroom,
hired
as
a
substitute
before
returning
to
pursue
my
doctorate
for
another
profession.
I
soon
knew
that
teaching
was
my
destiny.
I
loved
establishing
relationships
with
students,
sharing
my
love
of
learning,
and
helping
students
find
their
own
passions
and
future
goals.”
—
Karyn
Dickerson
AP/IB
Coordinator,
Grimsley
High
School
what
is
known
about
how
teachers
lead
and
support
one
another’s
teaching
practice.
Architects
of
prior
performance
pay
policies—in
North
Carolina
and
across
the
nation—have
not
heeded
what
researchers
have
long
documented.
We
are
certain
that
a
vast
majority
of
teachers
want
to
be
paid
differently—and
to
be
recognized
and
rewarded
for
their
accomplishments.
And
our
team
consistently
noted
that
these
career
ladders
can
no
longer
be
about
a
few
roles
for
a
few
teachers.
But
policymakers
seem
to
ignore
the
research
about
what
motivates
teachers,
and
most
others,
to
perform
in
their
jobs
at
high
levels.
As
Daniel
Pink
writes
in
Drive,
true
motivation
is
about
autonomy,
mastery,
and
purpose.2
And
this
is
exactly
what
needs
to
be
at
the
core
of
any
new
career
pathways
and
compensation
system
in
North
Carolina.
A new vision
We
have
a
vision
for
the
future
of
teaching
in
North
Carolina,
and
in
this
report
we
offer
specific
recommendations
for
building
a
system
of
teacher
development
that
advances
student
learning.
Our
plan
is
founded
on
six
principles
that
will
drive
a
new
approach
to
career
pathways
and
compensation
for
teachers:
1.
Teacher
compensation
must
begin
with
sound
base
pay
that
values
teaching
as
a
profession
and
includes
additional
salary
and
bonuses
that
fuel
leadership,
innovation,
and
creativity;
2.
The
evaluation
process
for
identifying,
recognizing,
and
rewarding
teacher
leaders
must
be
transparent
and
trustworthy;
3.
Informal
(as
well
as
formal)
leadership
roles
must
be
valued—and
incentives
for
leading
cannot
be
limited
to
financial
ones;
4.
Leadership
opportunities
must
be
available
for
all
teachers,
not
just
a
few
individuals;
5.
Incentives
and
rewards,
like
those
in
top-‐performing
nations,
must
focus
on
teachers
who
spread
their
expertise
to
others;
and
6.
School
districts
must
create
the
right
working
conditions—including
principals
who
know
how
to
cultivate
teacher
leaders—in
order
to
recruit
and
retain
classroom
experts
in
high-‐need
schools.
As
evidenced
by
our
set
of
guiding
principles,
we
recognize
the
need
for
a
more
nuanced
approach
to
career
pathways
and
professional
compensation—one
that
acknowledges
how
teachers
learn
to
improve
and
what
motivates
them
to
do
so.
This
approach
must
address
the
organizational
supports
that
teachers
need
to
be
successful.
Our
vision
of
how
teachers
can
advance
is
three-‐dimensional—looking
more
like
a
matrix
than
a
traditional
career
ladder.
As
Ben
explained:
The
keys
to
designing
an
effective
teacher
development
and
pay
system
will
be
the
concepts
of
customization,
flexibility,
and
a
myriad
of
growth
options—not
“one-‐size-‐fits-‐all”
pathways.
Ben
observed
in
a
later
online
conversation,
“Few
professions
these
days
typecast
their
employees
into
narrowly
defined
roles
as
we
have
in
teaching.
Any
teacher,
regardless
of
background
or
experience,
can
be
a
leader
and
make
positive
changes
outside
his
or
her
classroom.”
At
the
core
of
our
proposal
is
how
our
approach
will
drive
the
spread
of
teaching
expertise.
As
Sabrina
Peacock
pointed
out:
I
really
like
looking
at
how
teams
of
teachers
are
helping
one
another
grow.
This
will
encourage
more
collaboration
than
most
‘merit
pay’
plans
that
suggest
teachers
focus
just
on
their
own
classrooms.
5
5
We
next
dig
into
some
lessons
learned
from
a
long
history
of
policymakers
implementing
performance
pay
and
career
ladders
for
teachers,
including
more
recent
efforts
in
Charlotte-‐Mecklenburg
to
create
teacher
leadership
opportunities.
These
findings
will
set
the
stage
for
presenting
our
design.
Past and current efforts: Lessons learned
Calls
for
improving
teaching
salaries
are
not
new.
For
more
than
70
years,
America’s
policymakers
have
tried
to
implement
different
ways
to
pay
teachers.
There
have
been
countless
programs,
like
North
Carolina’s
own
approach
in
the
late
1980s,
but
they
have
all
come
and
gone
quite
quickly—and
for
many
of
the
same
reasons.
In
2004
the
Teaching
Commission,
established
and
chaired
by
former
IBM
Chairman
Louis
V.
Gerstner,
Jr.,
called
for
our
nation
to
commit
an
additional
$30
billion
to
teacher
compensation,
to
increase
base
pay
by
10
percent
for
every
classroom
practitioner,
and
provide
30
percent
more
for
“the
top
half”
of
them
who
performed
more
effectively.
In
2012-‐13,
however,
the
average
salary
for
public
school
teachers
in
the
United
States
was
only
$56,000
(and
$46,000
for
those
in
North
Carolina),
substantially
less
than
the
average
salaries
of
nurses
($69,000)
and
programmers
($83,000).
Unfortunately,
these
proposals
have
rarely
reflected
the
lessons
of
failed
efforts
from
the
past.
And
even
worse,
new
approaches
to
improve
the
teaching
profession
have
seldom
come
from
teachers—like
us.
We
believe
that
all
teachers
being
paid
on
the
single
salary
schedule
has
served
its
purposes,
met
its
goals,
and
outlived
its
usefulness.
But
it
is
not
just
about
incentive
pay.
As
Ben
Owens
described
in
one
of
our
online
conversations
via
the
CTQ
Collaboratory,
“What
matters
most
to
me
is
that
I
have
the
freedom
to
challenge
the
status
quo,
innovate,
share,
and
learn
from
my
peers
(and
students)
on
a
daily
basis.”
It
is
important
to
note,
however,
that
this
high
school
physics
teacher
in
Murphy
was
a
very
successful
engineer
for
20
years
prior
to
teaching
and
can
therefore
afford
the
modest
salary
he
earns.
Ben
noted:
I
spent
a
previous
life
in
a
career
that
gives
me
the
financial
independence
to
be
able
to
say
that.
Most
of
my
colleagues
do
not
have
the
luxury
to
take
this
approach.
Researchers
have
consistently
concluded
that
“bonus
pay”
systems
yield
no
positive
effect
on
either
student
performance
or
teachers’
attitudes
toward
their
jobs.
Recent
evaluation
reports
for
the
federally-‐funded
Teacher
Incentive
Fund
tell
the
same
story.
(See
accompanying
CTQ
research
brief
for
more
details.)
North
Carolina
has
had
its
own
history
of
incentive
pay
programs
to
encourage
teachers
to
move
to
hard-‐to-‐
staff
schools.
And
we
quickly
discover
the
results
mirror
what
researchers
have
uncovered
elsewhere.
For
example,
in
2006,
the
North
Carolina
General
Assembly
created
a
pilot
program
to
award
salary
supplements
of
$15,000
for
up
to
ten
early-‐career
teachers
who
agreed
to
teach
math
or
science
in
one
of
three
high-‐need
school
districts:
Bertie,
Columbus,
and
Rockingham
counties.
The
districts
could
attract
only
a
few
teachers,
and
the
program
was
abandoned.
More
recently,
from
2010-‐14,
fueled
by
$76
million
in
federal
Race
to
the
Top
funds,
North
Carolina
launched
performance
pay
initiatives,
and
once
again,
they
have
sputtered.
A
recent
evaluation
of
the
investments
revealed
that
teachers
were
not
motivated
by
the
financial
incentives,
and
the
program
failed
to
produce
any
upticks
in
student
achievement.
Evaluators
noted
that
the
teachers
who
“reported
significant
improvements
to
either
their
own
or
their
colleagues’
practice,
often
attributed
those
changes
to
learning
coaches,
professional
development
and
training,
and
collaboration
and
teamwork—not
to
the
presence
of
the
incentive.”3
Evaluators
found
that
districts
were
more
effective
at
attracting
talent
to
high-‐need
schools
when
they
“leveraged
their
existing
pool
of
effective
teachers”
rather
than
recruiting
them
from
elsewhere.4
6
We
also
had
a
chance
to
examine
some
early
evidence
from
Charlotte-‐Mecklenburg
Schools
(CMS),
which
has
supported
Project
LIFT,
an
important
effort
to
close
the
achievement
gap
for
students
and
provide
an
Opportunity
Culture
for
teachers.
These
are
valuable
steps
forward—recognizing
that
improving
student
learning
requires
more
comprehensive
approaches
to
reform.
In
spring
2013,
Project
LIFT
was
flooded
with
more
than
700
applications
for
approximately
two
dozen
teacher
leader
positions
in
pilot
schools,
where
bonuses
(up
to
$20,000)
could
be
earned
for
teaching
more
students
or
coaching
colleagues.
Teachers
are
hungry
to
lead,
both
here
in
North
Carolina
and
across
the
nation.
One
in
four
of
our
nation’s
teachers
is
“extremely”
or
“very
interested”
in
serving
in
a
hybrid
role
where
s/he
can
both
teach
students
and
lead
reforms.
Take
Bobby
Miles
for
instance.
As
a
multi-‐classroom
leader
(MCL),
Miles
continues
to
teach
while
leading
a
team
of
three
other
teachers
and
two
paraprofessionals:
co-‐teaching,
coaching,
MetLife
Survey
(2013)
planning,
and
collaborating
with
them.
Miles
is
personally
accountable
for
the
results
of
the
entire
team’s
421
eighth
grade
students,
but
he
also
receives
higher
pay.
In
just
one
year,
the
team
achieved
a
dramatic
increase
in
percentage
of
students
proficient
in
science—from
47
to
66
percent.
Miles
described
why
he
was
interested
in
the
MCL
position
in
a
recent
blog:
Before
I
became
an
MCL
this
year,
I
was
a
professional
development
facilitator.
I
wanted
to
expand
my
reach
outside
of
the
classroom
and
prepare
myself
for
future
leadership
roles.
But
I
was
missing
the
classroom
a
lot,
yearning
for
that
daily
impact
on
[students].
Project
LIFT
certainly
recognizes
the
challenges
of
closing
the
achievement
gap
in
under-‐served
and
fragile
neighborhoods.
Highly
effective
teachers
alone,
however,
cannot
dramatically
improve
student
achievement
without
necessary
resources
and
tools.
Project
LIFT
has
focused
on
transforming
the
culture
of
teaching
and
learning,
which
includes
community
investments
like
wraparound
services
in
these
high-‐need
schools.
Still,
recent
surveys
of
CMS
teachers,
including
those
at
Ranson,
suggest
there
is
a
lot
more
work
to
be
done.
The
good
news
with
Project
LIFT,
however,
is
that
Ranson
teachers
are
more
likely
to
find
their
collaboration
time
“productive”
(as
67
percent
now
do)
and
to
report
that
they
can
“regularly
analyze
student
work
against
the
standards”
(79
percent)
as
well
as
receive
helpful
feedback
from
supervisors
through
observations
(73
percent).
And
the
proportion
of
teachers
responding
positively
has
seen
a
steady
uptick
over
the
last
year.
But
something
is
amiss.
Only
about
half
of
the
teachers
noted
their
administrators
seek
feedback
from
them
(56
percent)
or
have
“put
them
in
charge
of
something
important”
(49
percent).
Furthermore,
only
4
in
10
teachers
claimed
their
school
leaders
identified
opportunities
for
them
to
pursue
leadership
roles
and
only
49
percent
noted
their
administrators
“publicly
recognized”
them
for
their
accomplishments.
Less
than
half
of
the
teachers
reported
that
their
evaluation
ratings
were
accurate
(48
percent)
and
that
the
person
who
assesses
them
“knows
how
much
growth
and
progress
their
students
have
made
this
year”
(46
percent).
The
Opportunity
Culture
system
in
place
has
yet
to
address
critical
workplace
conditions
central
to
teaching
effectiveness.
The
survey
results
are
stark.
Only
21
percent
of
teachers
reported
their
workload
is
“sustainable”;
Only
28
percent
of
teachers
noted
they
can
“provide
input
on
their
work
schedules”;
and
7
7
Only
26
percent
of
teachers
claimed
they
can
“consistently
accomplish
essential
work
during
[their]
regular
planning
time.”
In
addition,
a
woefully
small
percentage
of
teachers
(5
percent)
are
satisfied
with
their
compensation—and
just
one-‐half
of
those
responding
believe
they
will
“have
adequate,
long‐term
career
opportunities
while
working
at
CMS.*
A
recent
Charlotte
Observer
article
quoted
Denise
Watts,
Learning
Community
Superintendent
of
Project
LIFT,
who
noted
that
teaching
in
these
schools
“can
take
an
emotional
toll”
as
a
large
number
of
students
deal
with
a
host
of
issues—including
homelessness
and
neighborhood
violence—beyond
the
control
of
even
a
highly
skilled
teacher.5
As
Joanna
Schimizzi
pointed
out
in
one
of
our
team
discussions:
Many
teachers,
even
effective
ones,
are
not
prepared
for
high-‐need
schools.
Many
of
them
do
not
believe
they
can
lead
in
these
schools
as
they
have
had
no
preparation
for
the
roles
they
may
play.
Sabrina,
a
teacher
at
a
Title
I
school
in
High
Point,
reminded
us
that
the
current
teaching
evaluation
policies,
with
a
focus
on
year-‐to-‐year
value-‐added
test
score
gains,
may
undermine
efforts
to
recruit
and
retain
effective
teachers.
The
value-‐added
statistics
are
not
as
accurate
as
policymakers
believe.
In
a
high-‐need
school,
students
are
struggling
and
one
year
is
usually
not
enough
time
for
teachers
to
show
test
score
gains.
Most
teachers
I
know
do
not
want
to
go
to
a
high-‐need
school
because
of
the
fear
of
losing
their
job.
After
a
ten-‐year
teaching
career
in
challenging
communities
in
Alabama
and
North
Carolina,
Taylor
Milburn
recently
resigned
from
a
high-‐need
school
in
Durham
because
she
did
not
have
opportunities
to
both
teach
and
lead.
She
talked
about
what
it
takes
for
teachers
to
be
successful
in
high-‐need
schools:
When
teachers
take
on
the
challenge
of
working
in
a
high-‐need
school,
they
need
to
know
they
are
supported
in
many
different
ways:
professionally,
personally,
financially,
and
the
list
goes
on.
If
we
want
them
to
stay,
we
have
to
find
ways
to
make
sure
these
needs
are
being
met,
in
the
same
way
they
are
working
desperately
to
meet
the
needs
of
their
students.
The
biggest
incentive,
though,
is
TIME.
We
always
needed
more
time—specifically
time
together
as
a
team,
not
just
as
individuals—
time
to
plan,
time
to
collaborate,
and
time
to
reflect—in
order
to
improve.
Important takeaways
All
teachers
being
paid
on
the
single
salary
schedule
has
served
its
purpose,
met
its
goals,
and
outlived
its
usefulness.
Professional
compensation
involves
more
than
incentive
pay
as
“bonus
pay”
systems
yield
few
positive
effects
on
either
students’
performance
or
teachers’
attitudes
toward
their
jobs.
Teachers
support
evaluation
frameworks
designed
to
help
them
improve
their
practice
with
colleagues
as
well
as
expand
their
opportunities
for
leadership.
Workplace
conditions
(including
time
and
administrative
support)
are
central
to
teacher
effectiveness,
particularly
in
high-‐need
schools.
*
Administered
November
2-‐25,
2015.
This
is
the
sixth
administration
of
TNTP
Insight
in
the
district.
At
this
school,
92%
of
teachers
responded
to
the
Insight
survey
during
this
administration,
compared
to
73%
in
the
district
as
a
whole.
Out
of
49
survey
recipients,
45
responses
were
collected
at
this
school.
8
A new approach to transforming
teachers’ careers and compensation
We
imagine
a
comprehensive
teacher
career
and
compensation
system
that
takes
into
account
1)
the
widely
accepted
notion
that
all
teaching
salaries
need
to
be
higher,
and
2)
the
idea
that
those
who
demonstrate
superior
performance
and
lead
effectively
should
be
paid
more.
We
believe
these
two
goals
can
be
accomplished
by
creating
a
framework
that
rests
on
base
professional
pay
as
well
as
a
career
pathway
system
that
values
teachers
who
lead
in
a
variety
of
ways.
It
is
also
critical
that
the
system
reinforce
the
conditions
that
allow
teaching
expertise
to
spread.
In
other
words,
we’re
talking
about
pay,
career
pathways,
and
working
conditions
that
boost
teacher
learning
and
leadership
for
students’
benefit.
Our
model
is
more
sophisticated
than
the
overly
simplistic
merit
pay
schemes
and
career
ladders
of
past
and
present.
And
it
is
more
consistent
with
the
complexities
of
teaching
and
learning
today,
as
well
as
what
we
imagine
in
the
years
ahead.
Our
schools
and
the
career
pathways
of
teachers
need
to
look
much
differently
given
the
demand
for
students
to
meet
higher
academic
standards
to
succeed
in
our
global
economy.
“I
do
expect
that
my
colleagues
and
I
should
be
compensated
fairly
in
terms
of
base
pay,
relative
to
w hat
is
acceptable
to
attract
and
maintain
high-‐quality
teachers
that
consistently
produce
high-‐quality
results.
And
I
expect
that
such
base
compensation
be
supplemented
if
I
am
able
to
demonstrate
excellence
in
terms
of
growing
as
a
teacher,
growing
my
colleagues
(locally
and
elsewhere),
and
consistently
producing
strong
results
in
terms
of
an
array
of
student
performance
metrics.
While
teacher
leadership
may
be
hard
to
define,
it
is
easy
to
recognize.”
—
Ben
Owens
Physics/Mathematics
teacher,
Tri-‐County
Early
College
High
School
Our
model
draws
on
North
Carolina’s
current
teaching
evaluation
system—although
it
includes
some
major
modifications.
We
propose
that
teachers
move
forward
in
their
careers
on
the
basis
of
the
skills
they
can
demonstrate.
Once
they
demonstrate
advanced
skills,
they
have
far
more
opportunities
to
take
on
formal
and
informal
leadership
roles
and
tasks.
We
have
a
simple
formula:
As
teachers
show
what
they
know
and
can
do,
both
time
and
additional
compensation
are
made
available
for
them
to
lead.
When
classroom
experts
are
at
the
top
of
their
leadership
game,
they
can
tap
into
a
Teacher
Innovation
Fund,
modeled
after
the
one
just
launched
in
the
Netherlands,
where
€4,000
to
€75,000
(or
$4,700
to
$85,800)
are
awarded
to
those
who
“with
their
own
discretion
shape
the
enhancement
of
their
professional
practice,
improving
education,
and
strengthening
the
profession.”
However,
our
model
includes
another
dimension
that
definitely
deserves
further
exploration:
supports
and
rewards
offered
to
school
administrators
who
cultivate
teacher
leaders.
Policy recommendations
We
next
dig
into
some
of
the
specifics
and
policy
recommendations,
rooted
in
our
six
principles,
and
outlined
as
a
three-‐part
framework:
(1)
sound
professional
base
pay,
(2)
tools
and
incentives
to
recognize
teachers
to
learn
and
improve
their
practices,
and
(3)
leadership
pathways
so
teaching
expertise
can
spread
widely.
9
9
Recommendation 1: Professional base pay
We
believe
that
teachers’
base
pay
should
recognize
that
practitioners
come
to
the
education
workplace
with
varying
levels
of
experience
and
qualifications.
And
if
teachers
do
not
deserve
a
professionally
based
minimum
salary,
they
should
not
be
teaching.
In
2006,
the
National
Center
on
Education
and
the
Economy
released
Tough
Choices
or
Tough
Times:
The
Report
of
the
New
Commission
on
the
Skills
of
the
American
Workforce.
Authored
by
a
bipartisan
group
of
business
and
policy
leaders,
the
report
called
for
teachers’
salaries
to
start
at
$45,000
for
novices,
with
a
maximum
of
$95,000
for
the
most
experienced
and
accomplished
practitioners.
This
was
ten
years
ago.
We
believe
our
base
pay
should
range
from
$40,000
to
$56,000
(with
the
latter
pegged
at
the
national
average
for
all
teachers).
We
also
believe
a
school
district
might
pay
considerably
more
for
a
new
teacher
who
has
special
expertise
and/or
has
passed
a
rigorous
performance
assessment
and
is
specifically
trained
to
work
with
students
in
high-‐need
communities.
But
most
importantly,
every
teacher
within
a
school
system
must
have
the
opportunity
and
support
to
earn
additional
professional
compensation
and
demonstrate
that
he
or
she
deserves
the
maximum
salary,
incentives,
and
rewards.
Placing
caps
on
the
percentage
of
teachers
who
are
rewarded
for
strong
performance
and
leadership
runs
counter
to
the
idea
that
every
student
should
have
an
effective
teacher.
At
the
top
of
the
scale,
teacher
leaders
should
earn
$130,000—comparable
to
the
salaries
of
accomplished
nurses
and
engineers.
However,
we
need
a
much
more
nuanced
and
accurate
system
of
teacher
evaluation
to
identify
teaching
effectiveness
and
leadership
potential.
Recommendation 2: Evaluation process to demonstrate expert skills
As
accomplished
teachers,
we
put
student
learning
ahead
of
every
other
priority
in
our
professional
lives.
Individual
teachers
should
be
held
responsible
for
moving
specific
students
forward.
Target
goals
are
important,
but
they
should
not
be
arbitrary
like
some
of
the
test
score
metrics
by
which
teachers
are
judged
today.
As
Doyle
Nicholson,
principal
at
Davie
County
High
School,
noted,
“Our
end-‐of-‐course
exams
have
not
been
accurate
in
determining
teacher
effectiveness,
but
I
believe
a
well-‐designed
portfolio
can.”
Karyn
Dickerson,
National
Board
Certified
Teacher
and
the
AP/IB
Coordinator
at
Grimsley
High
School,
pointed
out,
“We
need
to
be
able
to
draw
cumulative
evidence
of
student
learning
where
our
analysis
is
used
to
measure
teaching
effectiveness.”
Ben
got
more
specific:
What
if,
instead
of
outdated
modes
of
assessment
and
then
tying
such
tests
to
teacher
evaluations,
we
adopted
a
statistically
valid
model
to
randomly
sampled
in-‐classroom
instruction
and
use
it
as
a
basis
to
measure
teaching
effectiveness?
What
if
we
used
a
series
of
measures
that
encouraged
innovative...
[classroom]
practices
that
were
proven
to
lead
to
deeper
student
engagement,
rather
than
an
incongruent
focus
on
‘test
prep’
that
saps
the
joy
and
wonder
out
of
student
learning
and
leaves
them
ill-‐prepared
for
today’s
global,
knowledge-‐intense
economy?
He
continued:
One
idea
would
be
to
allow
teachers
to
voluntarily
opt
into
a
system
of
periodic,
random,
and
unannounced
audits
by
a
colleague
who
has
expertise
in
teaching
the
subject
matter
to
determine
peer
effectiveness.
10
Doyle
believes
the
current
system
requires
“too
many
boxes
to
check”
and
a
“one-‐size-‐fits-‐all
standardized
test”
is
not
enough
to
focus
on
“what
is
really
going
on
in
the
classroom.”
The
current
approach
stands
in
stark
contrast
to
that
of
top-‐
performing
nations
like
Singapore
(see
sidebar
at
right).6
Researchers
have
shown
how
high-‐quality
collaboration
among
teachers
improves
student
achievement.7
And
in
top-‐
performing
nations,
teachers
work
together
in
very
structured
ways
to
assess
student
learning,
determine
their
own
professional
development,
and
collectively
evaluate
impact.8
We
can
do
the
same
in
North
Carolina.
And
we
can
imagine
teachers
earning
anywhere
from
5
to
15
percent
bonuses
upon
demonstrating
what
they
have
learned
as
well
as
the
impact
their
learning
has
had
on
their
teaching
practice.
In
addition,
these
types
of
evaluations
will
show
which
teachers
are
most
apt
to
lead
in
specific
ways.
Recommendation 3: Leadership pathways
We
live
in
a
time
when
enterprise
and
innovation
are
greatly
valued—when
American
entrepreneurship
is
seen
as
one
of
our
culture’s
greatest
assets.
Imagination
and
creative
collaboration
rank
high
on
the
checklists
of
important
21st-‐century
skills,
and
successful
companies
are
encouraging
their
professional
workers
to
think
outside
of
the
box
as
they
search
for
fresh
solutions
to
persistent
problems.
If
policymakers
and
school
reform
advocates
are
truly
committed
to
the
creation
of
high-‐
performing
schools,
they
will
encourage
teachers
to
become
innovators
and
entrepreneurs
by
ensuring
teacher
compensation
systems
that
stimulate
such
activity.
Evaluation system
in a top-performing nation
In
Singapore,
the
teaching
evaluation
system
focuses
on
teachers’
contributions
to
the
holistic
development
of
students
and
how
well
they
spread
their
expertise
to
colleagues.
Key
dimensions
include
a
focus
on
the
quality
of
student
learning,
pastoral
care
and
well-‐being
of
students,
co-‐curricular
activities,
and
collaboration
with
parents—not
on
standardized
test
scores.
The
evaluation
begins
with
a
self-‐assessment
where
assessors,
typically
senior
teachers,
use
a
narrative
as
opposed
to
a
checklist.
The
evaluation
process
“encourages
teachers
to
self-‐reflect
on
their
capabilities
and
achievements
and
chart
their
own
professional
development”
as
w ell
as
“reinforce[s]
behaviors
and
outcomes
the
Ministry
of
Education
values.”
The
evaluations
also
include
a
future
orientation—with
teachers
assessed
on
their
"current
estimated
potential.”
Decisions
are
made
on
evidence
from
a
portfolio,
and
principals
always
consult
with
senior
teachers
who
are
experts
in
the
field
of
the
teacher
being
evaluated.
We
imagine
a
wide
variety
of
formal
and
informal
leadership
roles
that
teachers
can
play,
with
special
funding
streams
from
the
state
to
assist
districts
in
paying
for
them.
We
imagine
at
least
five
state-‐supported
teacher
leader
roles,
plus
an
innovation
fund
so
classroom
experts
can
incubate
their
own
ideas.
First,
many
of
us
(and
many
of
our
colleagues)
would
serve
as
mentors
if
we
had
the
time
and
support
to
do
so.
North
Carolina
continues
to
be
plagued
by
high
teacher
turnover,
which
is
currently
15
percent
a
year.9
In
Northampton,
more
than
33
percent
of
the
district’s
155
teachers
left
last
year.
There
is
an
obvious
need
for
our
best
teachers
to
support
new
recruits
to
the
classroom.
Our
state’s
accomplished
teachers
have
deep
experience
at
this
work
and
want
to
do
more.
Joanna
offered
a
very
important
observation:
Being
an
effective
mentor
to
an
adult
requires
a
different
skill
set
compared
to
teaching
students.
Many
mentor
programs
are
online
click-‐through
trainings
that
leave
mentors
untrained
and
the
mentee
often
suffers.
In
addition,
mentoring
a
new
teacher
takes
a
significant
amount
of
time
and
energy,
sometimes
feeling
like
a
second
job.
Currently,
there
is
very
little
compensation
and
thus
many
experienced
educators
choose
to
work
a
second
job
that
pays
rather
than
a
second
job
that
doesn't
pay.
11
11
Second,
if
more
teachers
are
going
to
receive
more
high-‐quality
feedback
on
their
teaching,
then
more
of
us
need
to
be
prepared
and
utilized
as
peer
reviewers.
Studies
of
peer
review
programs
show
they
“can
improve
erratic
and
ineffective
teacher
evaluation
and
solve
the
problem
of
stalled
dismissals.”10
But
most
importantly,
researchers
have
shown
how
peer
review
also
improves
teaching
effectiveness,
and
the
key
to
creating
an
authentic
and
transparent
evaluation
system
is
to
have
teachers
play
a
major
role
in
it.
Ben
and
his
colleagues
with
the
North
Carolina
Center
for
the
Advancement
of
Teaching
have
designed
a
cross-‐district
collaborative
called
“Scaling
the
Pockets
of
Teaching
Excellence
in
Western
North
Carolina
Project”
to
enhance
peer-‐to-‐peer
observations
(like
lesson
study)
across
several
school
systems.
This
approach
is
in
its
second
year
and
has
been
proven
to
be
a
highly
effective
but
low-‐cost
method
to
provide
teacher-‐to-‐teacher
professional
learning
that
can
be
scaled
to
other
schools
and
districts
through
existing
professional
learning
networks.
It
draws
on
current
professional
development
dollars
and
can
serve
as
a
model
for
how
teachers,
with
time
and
support,
can
drive
their
own
learning.
We
need
more
teachers
to
serve
as
peer
reviewers
as
well
as
professional
learning
designers
who
can
spread
their
teaching
expertise.
Third,
accomplished
teachers
could
play
an
important
role
in
curating
resources
in
helping
our
colleagues
teach
the
new
essential
student
standards.
Teachers
do
not
lack
materials
and
tools—but
many
do
struggle
to
identify
which
are
the
most
helpful.
Many
districts
have
content
specialists,
but
as
Joanna
noted,
“The
shame
is
that
these
roles
usually
pull
some
of
the
best
educators
out
of
the
classroom
entirely.”
And
often,
as
Karyn
claimed,
content
specialists
are
not
utilized
to
“vet
resources”
for
busy
teaching
colleagues.
Teachers
need
less
supervision
and
more
support
in
shifting
from
teaching
topics
to
concepts,
and
as
a
result,
we
need
more
classroom
experts
who
can
serve
as
content
curators,
drawing
on
their
day-‐to-‐day
teaching
experience
with
students.
Fourth,
the
essential
standards
require
more
sophisticated
ways
to
assess
deeper
learning
outcomes.
That
is,
teachers
need
to
be
able
to
measure
students’
capacity
to
gather
and
evaluate
information
and
ideas
as
well
as
conduct
original
research
in
answering
questions.
The
knowledge
base
on
how
to
develop
performance
tasks
that
measure
students'
deeper
mastery
of
content
and
skills
is
emerging
(see
the
Center
for
Collaborative
Education’s
Quality
Performance
Assessment
(QPA)
framework).
But
we
need
more
teacher
leaders
who
have
skills
as
assessment
experts
to
assist
their
colleagues
in
learning
how
to
measure
student
mastery
of
deeper
learning
outcomes.
As
Karyn
reminded
us,
“Assessment
experts
would
also
need
to
be
strong
professional
development
leaders
who
know
how
adults
learn
best
in
order
to
share
the
assessment
shifts
with
other
educators.”
Fifth,
the
complexities
of
serving
students,
particularly
in
high-‐need
schools,
means
we
need
more
and
better
school-‐community
partnerships
in
order
to
build
bridges
between
teaching
the
core
curriculum
and
after-‐
school
and
summer
programs,
as
well
as
to
create
a
more
integrated
approach
to
teaching
students
and
working
with
parents.
When
asked
about
what
new
leadership
role
she
would
play
if
she
had
the
time
and
space
available,
Sabrina
said:
I
would
really
like
to
work
with
parents
and
members
of
the
community
so
we
could
share
resources,
ideas,
and
enrichment
activities
that
would
make
the
classroom
experience
even
better
for
our
students.
Karyn
noted
that
each
school
ought
to
have
several
hybrid
teaching
roles
so
more
teachers
can
“work
as
school-‐community
liaisons
to
organize
people
and
resources
to
get
the
community
into
the
school
and
the
school
into
the
community.”
12
We
believe
the
state
should
set
aside
another
pool
of
funds,
much
like
the
Iowa
state
legislature
has
done,
to
fuel
a
teacher
leadership
and
compensation
system.
The
legislature
allocated
$150
million
for
a
three-‐year
pilot,
with
$309
per
student,
so
districts
can
set
a
vision
and
goals
for
what
they
plan
to
accomplish,
which
includes
some
of
the
roles
we
have
described
herein.
(See
legislation
here.)
In
the
past,
North
Carolina
funded
mentors
at
$1100
per
teacher,
an
extremely
modest
investment.
With
limited
funds,
districts
like
Durham
Public
Schools
only
had
the
dollars
to
pay
for
one
full-‐time
mentor
for
100
beginners.11
We
believe
the
state
should
create
a
formula,
much
like
Iowa,
based
on
local
needs,
where
districts
can
sufficiently
compensate
and/or
offer
reduced
teaching
loads
to
work
with
administrators
in
both
coaching
and
assessing
their
colleagues,
as
well
as
sustaining
much
needed
school-‐community
partnerships
(like
Project
LIFT).
We
also
suggest
that
districts
work
together
(like
the
Pockets
of
Excellence
project),
using
online
communities,
so
they
can
share
teacher
leaders
in
their
roles
as
content
curators
and
assessment
experts,
creating
cost-‐efficiencies
as
they
spread
teaching
expertise.
Finally,
we
believe
so
many
more
teachers
could
create
new
policies
and
practices
if
they
had
an
innovation
fund
to
fuel
their
creativity.
We
believe
the
state
legislature
should
begin
by
offering
$5
million
annually
for
up
to
500
teachers
to
apply
(for
up
to
$35,000)
to
incubate
their
own
leadership
ideas.
(This
idea
is
not
so
far
fetched.
Not
only
do
we
see
this
in
the
Netherlands
today,
but
closer
to
home
in
the
late
1990s,
the
Ohio
legislature
provided
funds
to
teacher
teams
for
$25,000
per
year
to
support
efforts
to
redesign
their
schools
to
improve
student
learning.)
Our
team
represents
a
tiny
fraction
of
the
North
Carolina
teachers
who
could
contribute
valuable
insights
on
this
front.
As
22-‐year
veteran
history
teacher
Dave
Orphal
asserted,
“Why
can’t
classroom
teachers
help
advise
local
school
boards
and
state
lawmakers
about
educational
policy,
systematically
adding
a
perspective
and
new
programs
so
that
the
‘rubber’
of
proposals
might
meet
the
‘road’
of
learning
and
teaching?”
We
want
to
see
more
hybrid
roles
in
which
teachers
can
both
teach
and
lead.
Instead
of
only
deploying
full-‐time
coaches
or
supervisors
who
do
not
teach,
districts
can
create
more
hybrid
roles
in
order
to
enable
classroom
experts
to
lead.
Offering
year-‐round
hybrid
positions
with
comparable
pay
would
help
retain
strong
teachers
who
want
to
remain
in
the
classroom
but
are
also
eager
for
new
professional
challenges.
Year-‐long
contracts
could
be
built
with
innovation
in
mind.
For
example,
there
might
be
options
for
teachers
to
collaboratively
organize
their
own
work;
to
design
and
pilot
small
educational
initiatives
under
state
or
district
sponsorship;
or
to
build,
align,
and
implement
curriculum
in
ways
that
make
sense
for
diverse
students
they
teach.
This
is
what
Dave
had
in
mind
when
he
called
for
the
state
to
set
up
an
innovation
fund
for
teacherpreneurs
to
incubate
and
execute
their
own
ideas:
“Organizing
teacher
leadership
takes
time
and
resources.
When
I
wanted
to
spur
a
new
idea
for
my
school,
an
outside
organization
funded
buying
the
books
(and
other
resources
needed)
for
all
the
teachers
involved.
It
was
a
small
investment,
but
it
spoke
volumes
to
the
teachers
involved
and
made
the
work
more
possible.
B ut
teachers
shouldn’t
have
to
look
outside
their
w orkplace
for
funds
to
support
meaningful
professional
learning.
Innovation
funds
would
both
encourage
and
reward
continued
learning
and
collaboration
between
teachers.”
—
Joanna
Schimizzi
Biology
teacher,
North
Carolina
Virtual
Public
Schools
I
think
teachers
should
be
able
to
apply
to
their
district
with
an
idea
for
innovation.
A
team
of
respected
master
teachers
and
administrators
would
form
the
committee
that
would
decide
which
ideas
were
funded.
Funding
would
allow
teachers
to
have
release
time
to
lead
and
resources
to
incubate
their
idea.
13
13
As
Nicole
noted,
“Our
vision
is
for
the
state
to
create
and
update
funding
streams
to
assist
districts
in
paying
for
teachers
filling
various
formal
and
informal
leadership
roles.”
But
these
funding
streams
need
to
be
more
than
just
salary
supplements.
Teachers
need
time
to
lead,
but
they
also
require
genuine
administrative
support.
We
cover
these
matters
next
in
a
supplement
to
our
model
recommendations.
Key considerations: Ensuring time and administrative support
Rethinking
teacher
pay
and
career
pathways
are
important
steps,
but
they
must
be
accompanied
by
careful
attention
to
the
working
conditions
that
allow
teaching
expertise
to
spread.
We
make
this
case
not
just
based
on
our
collective
years
of
experience
teaching,
but
also
from
substantial
research
evidence
assembled
over
the
last
several
decades.
And
a
new
study
offers
us
even
more
insight:
Improving
school
climate
lowers
teacher
attrition
and
raises
student
achievement.
The
researchers
pointed
to
the
importance
of
both
“the
quality
of
school
leadership”
as
well
as
the
“extent
to
which
teachers
feel
supported
by
their
colleagues,
work
together
to
improve
their
instructional
practice,
and
trust
and
respect
one
another.”
12
However,
most
teachers
in
the
United
States
do
not
work
in
schools
that
are
organized
so
that
they
can
work
collaboratively
and
lead
in
ways
we
have
described,
a
fact
well-‐documented
by
many
other
researchers.13
For
example,
a
recent
survey
of
100,000
teachers
from
34
nations
found
that
U.S.
teachers
are
far
less
likely
to
see
one
another
teach,
and
far
more
likely
to
have
an
administrator,
rather
than
a
peer,
offer
feedback
on
their
teaching.14
In
the
U.S.,
50
percent
of
teachers
have
never
observed
a
colleague
and
offered
feedback.
In
Japan,
a
mere
6
percent
can
say
the
same.
More
than
25
years
ago,
researcher
Mark
Smylie
and
colleagues
concluded
that
“little
attention
has
been
paid
to
preparing
the
school
as
a
setting
for
new
forms
of
leadership”—
including
the
design
and
enactment
of
new
roles
for
teachers.15
Leadership
in
any
field,
but
particularly
among
teachers,
rarely
occurs
as
“a
chance
organizational
event.”16
The
National
Center
on
Time
and
Learning
offers
useful
resources
for
system
leaders
to
rethink
time,
roles,
and
school
design
to
advance
professional
learning
and
teacher
leadership.
One
of
the
models
they
highlight
is
the
Generation
Schools
Network,
which
draws
on
a
more
focused
curriculum
and
reallocated
personnel
dollars
so
teachers
can
learn
and
lead.
Students
get
more
and
better
learning
time,
and
teachers
have
two
hours
a
day
to
collaborate
with
one
another,
as
well
as
20
days
of
additional
professional
development
per
year.
Modest
adjustments
in
current
teaching
schedules
can
create
more
time
for
teachers.
A
CTQ
TeacherSolutions
team
from
Kentucky
developed
15
recommendations
as
a
primer
for
beginning
to
free
up
teachers
for
innovative
thinking
and
action.
These
include
reducing
unnecessary
bus
and
hall
duty
as
well
as
ensuring
uninterrupted
planning
time.
Nicole
Smith,
math
teacher
at
Mooresville
Senior
High
School,
suggested
another
option:
“dedicated
substitute
teachers
who
can
teach
classes
once
a
week
or
every
other
week
to
allow
teachers
time
for
reflection,
collaboration
and
true
professional
development.”
Our
schools
need
more
principals
like
Doyle
who
have
deep
teaching
expertise
and
embrace
teacher
leadership.
We
need
to
cultivate
more
principals
like
him.
Lori
Nazareno,
who
taught
for
more
than
25
years
in
two
high-‐need
school
systems,
told
us:
We
need
principals
who
are
responsible
for
identifying
and
leveraging
the
strengths
of
teacher
leaders
and
then
providing
the
autonomy
and
resources
for
those
strengths
to
be
activated
to
serve
the
school
community.
Think
conductor
here.
Conductors
are
responsible
for
ensuring
that
the
entire
orchestra
is
working
together
and
that
each
musician
gets
better.
They
are
NOT
responsible
for
actually
playing
any
instrument
and,
in
fact,
they
readily
accept
that
the
musicians
are
the
masters
of
14
their
craft.
That
said,
I
would
venture
a
guess
that
conductors
also
HAVE
played
an
instrument
or
two.
They
should
know
what
it
takes
to
do
that
well.
Greater
power
for
teachers
need
not
mean
less
influence
for
principals:
as
teachers
gain
authority
and
responsibility,
their
principals’
efforts
will
benefit
from
a
growth
of
capacity
and
visibility.
As
Doyle
noted:
I
try
to
be
a
principal
who
is
facilitator
of
true
collaborative
decision-‐making
with
the
teachers.
But
the
state
needs
to
look
for
ways
to
incorporate
these
possibilities
into
teacher
leader
schedules.
But
Doyle
and
many
other
principals
like
him
are
limited
in
what
they
can
do
to
advance
teacher
leadership
because
they
too,
as
Karyn
noted,
have
been
“overburdened
with
unnecessary
paperwork
and
limited
time
to
get
to
know
the
strengths
of
the
teachers
in
their
building.”
She
continued:
In
my
one-‐year
foray
into
the
central
office
administration,
I
saw
first-‐hand
the
impact
that
good
principals
had
on
their
schools.
I
witnessed
principals
who
could
unite
teachers
and
articulate
a
shared
vision.
But
I
did
see
principals
who
didn't
know
how
to
delegate
responsibility
or
didn't
have
any
additional
support
in
an
administrative
team—and
they
were
the
ones
who
struggled
the
most.
And
the
ones
who
also
struggled
were
those
who
had
little
knowledge
of
curriculum
and
instruction,
and
the
work
of
the
teachers
they
were
supposed
to
be
leading.
We
know
for
sure
that
any
system
to
transform
teachers’
careers—and
their
compensation—must
incorporate
new
ways
to
leverage
more
time
for
classroom
experts
to
lead,
and
boost
the
capacity
of
principals
to
do
so.
Conclusion
Paying
teachers
for
performance
is
not
a
new
idea.
Scholars
have
documented
the
failed
efforts
from
years
past.
These
initiatives
floundered,
in
large
part,
due
to
unresolved
technical
and
political
issues,
as
well
as
the
unwillingness
of
policymakers
to
invest
more
fully
in
teaching.
But
paying
teachers
for
performance—and
their
leadership—is
an
idea
for
which
the
time
has
come—if
it
is
done
correctly.
We
have
presented
a
framework
that
captures
our
teaching
knowledge
and
many
years
of
experience
working
with
students
and
their
families—gathering
insights
from
schools
across
North
Carolina
as
well
as
many
colleagues
across
the
country
via
the
CTQ
Collaboratory.
It
is
built
upon
four
simple
words:
valued,
trusted,
acknowledged,
and
accountable.
We
are
certain
our
recommendations
will
attract
more
talent
into
teaching,
ensure
our
best
teachers
can
spread
their
expertise,
and
retain
our
most
accomplished
practitioners.
Most
importantly,
our
framework
has
been
built
from
what
we
know
will
advance
the
teaching
profession
in
the
best
interest
of
our
state’s
students.
In
closing,
we
call
for
a
range
of
stakeholders
to
take
action:
Policymakers
can
study
the
lessons
of
failed
performance
pay
plans
of
the
past
and
invest
in
a
pilot
of
our
ideas
in
six
to
ten
school
districts;
Administrators
can
advocate
for
measures
that
prepare
and
support
them
in
how
to
redesign
schools
so
teachers
can
spread
their
expertise
and
lead;
Business
leaders
can
partner
with
schools
and
look
for
ways
to
support
and
invest
in
teacher
leader
development;
15
15
Teachers
associations
can
work
with
state
legislators
to
develop
a
teacher
compensation
plan
that
encourages
practitioners
to
spread
their
expertise
through
leadership
roles
as
well
as
advocate
for
fair
pay,
smaller
class
sizes,
and
protected
collaboration
times;
and
Teachers
can
proactively
participate
in
advancing
a
school
culture
that
encourages
peer
observation
and
leadership.
We
are
ready
to
work
with
those,
like
us,
who
want
to
attract
and
retain
the
best
and
brightest
in
our
profession,
and
help
them
both
teach
and
lead
without
leaving
the
classroom.
Everyone,
from
policymakers
to
teachers,
has
to
think
and
act
differently
about
the
teaching
profession—one
that
would
not
lose
a
professional
like
Allen
Stevens.
His
words
must
be
heard
and
understood:
We
shouldn't
have
to
choose.
We
should
be
able
to
spend
our
energy
during
the
day
nurturing
our
kids
and
making
sure
they're
learning,
but
also
be
able
to
go
home
at
night
and
have
enough
energy
left
for
our
own
kids.
As
Ben
concludes,
“We
stand
ready
to
support
the
ideas
offered
in
this
report
as
a
way
to
redefine
what
it
means
to
be
a
teaching
professional
in
North
Carolina—where
teachers
have
the
time
to
teach
and
to
lead.
Our
students
and
our
state
deserve
nothing
less.”
16
NC teacher team biographies
Transforming teachers’ careers and compensation in North Carolina
Karyn Dickerson
Karyn
Dickerson
is
a
National
Board
Certified
Teacher
and
the
AP/IB
Coordinator
at
Grimsley
High
School
in
Greensboro,
NC.
She
is
also
an
instructor
for
a
teaching
methods
course
for
Guilford
College.
An
educator
for
10
years,
she
has
taught
all
levels
of
high
school
English,
spent
a
year
as
an
academic
coach
for
Guilford
County
Schools,
and
now
teaches
IB
Theory
of
Knowledge.
She
was
the
2013-‐2014
North
Carolina
Teacher
of
the
Year,
a
2016
NEA
Foundation
North
Carolina
Teaching
Excellence
Award
winner,
and
an
Education
Policy
Fellow
graduate.
As
a
proponent
of
global
education,
she
visited
Germany
with
the
Center
for
International
Understanding
Global
Educators
Team
and
will
travel
to
Peru
this
summer
as
an
NEA
Foundation
Global
Fellow.
Taylor Milburn
Taylor
Milburn,
a
National
Board
Certified
Teacher,
spent
10
years
in
Alabama
and
North
Carolina
classrooms.
She
was
committed
to
teaching
in
Title
I
schools
where
she
taught
first
grade,
fourth
grade,
and
exceptional
education.
She
served
on
the
Alabama
State
Department
Teacher
Evaluation
Design
Committee
and
the
Alabama
Governor’s
Commission
on
Quality
Teaching,
worked
on
a
national
CTQ
TeacherSolutions
project
around
teacher
working
conditions,
and
was
a
lead
mentor
and
National
Board
candidate
support
provider.
Taylor
was
the
2014-‐2015
Jefferson
County
Schools
(AL)
Teacher
of
the
Year.
She
is
now
a
proud
member
of
the
staff
at
CTQ,
where
she
continues
her
work
advocating
for
the
teaching
profession.
Doyle Nicholson
Doyle
Nicholson,
a
24-‐year
education
veteran,
is
currently
principal
at
Davie
County
High
School
in
Mocksville,
NC.
A
National
Board
Certified
Teacher,
Doyle
taught
high
school
mathematics
for
20
years
before
becoming
an
administrator.
His
local
leadership
in
mentoring
novice
teachers
and
National
Board
candidates
earned
him
2006
Teacher
of
the
Year
honors
in
Yadkin
County
(NC)
Schools.
He
works
with
CTQ
to
provide
training
for
teacher
leaders
interested
in
becoming
virtual
community
organizers.
Dave Orphal
David
Orphal
is
a
22-‐year
veteran
of
the
classroom,
having
taught
history
and
education
theory
from
the
middle
school
to
the
university
level.
His
career
has
taken
him
from
rural
California
to
inner-‐city
Oakland
and
now
to
North
Carolina,
where
he
currently
teaches
American
History
in
Pittsboro.
He
has
been
publishing
about
teacher
evaluation
and
high-‐stakes
testing
since
2001.
Dave
is
honored
to
have
been
awarded
the
Quality
Teaching
Award
from
Oakland
Unified
School
District
(CA)
and
recognized
as
a
Leader
in
Human
Rights
by
the
California
Teachers'
Association.
He
has
served
on
teacher-‐led
educational
think
tanks
with
CTQ,
the
California
Teachers
Association,
and
Great
Oakland
Public
Schools.
You
can
see
his
TEDx
talk
on
teacher
leadership
on
YouTube.
17
17
Ben Owens
Ben
Owens
spent
20
years
working
as
an
engineer
for
a
multinational
corporation
before
beginning
a
second
career
as
a
physics
and
mathematics
teacher
at
Tri-‐County
Early
College
High
School
in
the
rural
Appalachian
mountains
of
North
Carolina.
He
is
a
2016
TeachStrong
Ambassador;
a
2014
Hope
Street
Group
National
Teacher
Fellow;
a
CTQ
Virtual
Community
Organizer;
and
a
recipient
of
the
North
Carolina
Science,
Mathematics,
and
Technology
Center’s
2016
Outstanding
9-‐16
Educator
Award
in
Science,
Mathematics,
and
Technology.
Sabrina Peacock
Sabrina
Peacock
is
a
National
Board
Certified
Teacher
at
Oak
Hill
Elementary
in
High
Point,
NC.
She
teaches
third
grade
and
has
been
teaching
for
23
years.
She
is
a
very
active
member
of
NCAE,
GCAE,
the
Common
Core
Work
Group
for
the
Mid-‐Atlantic
Region,
and
the
NC
College
and
Career
Ready
Leadership
Team.
Sabrina
is
devoted
to
developing
instructional
teacher
leaders
and
mentoring
new
teachers.
Joanna Schimizzi
Joanna
Schimizzi
is
a
National
Board
Certified
Teacher
who
lives
in
Charlotte,
NC.
She
has
taught
biology
for
9
years
and
currently
works
for
North
Carolina
Virtual
Public
Schools
to
support
students
with
disabilities.
Joanna
is
an
America
Achieves
Lead
Fellow
and
a
MeckEd
Teacher
of
Excellence.
She
believes
teacher
collaboration
is
one
of
the
most
powerful
tools
for
moving
students
forward,
and
so
she
works
closely
with
Student
Achievement
Partners
and
CTQ.
Nicole Smith
Nicole
Smith
is
a
high
school
math
teacher
in
Mooresville,
NC,
and
a
Marine
Corps
veteran.
She
has
been
teaching
for
two
years.
Nicole
is
an
active
member
of
CTQ,
as
well
as
the
team
facilitator
for
Math
II
at
her
school.
She
has
been
recognized
by
the
Bill
&
Melinda
Gates
Foundation
for
teaching
excellence.
Nicole
believes
multiple
perspectives
provide
a
clear
picture
of
the
educational
landscape,
so
she
has
written
articles
for
Education
Week
Teacher
and
Phi
Delta
Kappan.
18
ENDNOTES
Barrett,
M.
(2016,
February
1).
NC
legislature
looking
at
teacher
pay.
Citizen-‐Times.
Retrieved
from
http://www.citizen-‐
times.com/story/news/local/2016/01/31/nc-‐legislature-‐looking-‐teacher-‐pay/79474090/
1
2
Pink,
D.H.
(2009).
Drive:
the
surprising
truth
about
what
motivates
us.
New
York
City:
Riverhead
Press.
3
Stallings,
T.,
Parker,B.,
Argueta,R.,
Maser,R.,
Lauren,D.,
Kosolowski,K.,
&
Davis,
C.
(2016).
State
and
local
differentiated
educator
compensation
plans
across
North
Carolina:
An
updated
summary
of
Race
to
the
Top-‐funded
incentives
and
other
strategic
staffing
plans.
Consortium
for
Educational
Research
and
Evaluation—North
Carolina.
Retrieved
from
http://www.ncleg.net/documentsites/committees/house2015-‐175/January%2027-‐
28,%202016/Trip%20Stallings%20Handout_Strategic%20staffing%20and%20P4P%20in%20NC%20during%20RttT%20-‐%20v5%20-‐
%201%2027%2016.pdf
4
Ibid.
Dunn,
A.
(2014,
December
6).
Report
gives
mixed
reviews
for
Project
LIFT’s
effectiveness.
The
Charlotte
Observer.
Retrieved
from
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/local/education/article9242096.html
5
6
Jensen,
B.,
Sonneman,
J.,
Roberts-‐Hull,
R.,
&
Hunter,
A.
(2016).
Beyond
PD:
Teacher
professional
learning
in
high-‐performing
systems.
Learning
First.
Retrieved
from
http://www.ncee.org/wp-‐content/uploads/2015/08/BeyondPDWeb.pdf
7
Ronfeldt,
M.,
Farmer,
S.
O.,
McQueen,
K.,
&
Grissom,
J.
(2015).
Teacher
collaboration
in
instructional
teams
and
student
achievement.
American
Educational
Research
Journal,
52(3),
475-‐514.
8
Jensen,
B.,
Sonneman,
J.,
Roberts-‐Hull,
R.,
&
Hunter,
A.
(2016).
Beyond
PD:
Teacher
professional
learning
in
high-‐performing
systems.
Learning
First.
Retrieved
from
http://www.ncee.org/wp-‐content/uploads/2015/08/BeyondPDWeb.pdf
9
Brenneman,
R.
(2015,
October
15).
Teacher
attrition
continues
to
plague
North
Carolina.
Education
Week.
Retrieved
from
http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2015/10/14/teacher-‐attrition-‐continues-‐to-‐plague-‐north-‐carolina.html
10
Johnson,
S.,
Papay,
J.,
Fiarman,
S.,
Munger,
M.,
&
Qazilbash,
E.
(2010).
Realizing
the
potential
of
peer
assistance
and
review.
Center
for
American
Progress.
Retreived
from
https://www.americanprogress.org/wp-‐content/uploads/issues/2010/05/pdf/par.pdf
11
Alexander,
J.
(2014,
September
27).
DPS
to
expand
teacher
mentoring
program.
The
News
&
Observer.
Retrieved
from
http://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/education/article10071422.html
12
Kraft,
M.A,
Marinell,
W.H.,
and
Yee,
D.
(2016).
School
organizational
contexts,
teacher
turnover,
and
student
achievement:
Evidence
from
panel
data.
Retrieved
from
http://steinhardt.nyu.edu/scmsAdmin/media/users/sg158/PDFs/schools_as_organizations/SchoolOrganizationalContexts_WorkingPap
er.pdf
13
Lewis,
C.
(2015).
What
is
improvement
science?
Do
we
need
it
in
education?
Educational
Researcher,
44(1),
54-‐61.
Organisation
for
Economic
Co-‐operation
and
Development.
(2014).
Results
from
TALIS
2013:
County
note,
United
States
of
America.
Retrieved
from
http://www.oecd.org/unitedstates/TALIS-‐2013-‐country-‐note-‐US.pdf
14
15
Smylie,
M.
A.,
&
Denny,
J.
W.
(1990).
Teacher
leadership:
Tensions
and
ambiguities
in
organizational
perspectives.
Education
Administration
Quarterly,
26(3),
235-‐259.
16
Murphy,
J.
(2005).
Connecting
teacher
leadership
and
school
improvement.
Thousand
Oaks,
CA:
Corwin.
19
19
