How Vaughn Next Century Learning Center
Developed A Knowledge- and Skill-Pay Program
Eileen Kellor, Tony Milanowski, Allan Odden and H. Alix Gallagher Consortium for Policy Research In Education
University of Wisconsin-Madison Madison, WI 53706
(608) 263-4260 May, 2001
The research reported in this paper was supported by a grant from the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, National Institute on Educational Governance, Finance, Policymaking and Management, to the Consortium for Policy Research in Education (CPRE) and the Wisconsin Center for Education Research, School of Education, University of Wisconsin-Madison (Grant No. OERI-R308A60003). The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the view of the National Institute on
Educational Governance, Finance, Policymaking and Management, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education, the institutional partners of CPRE, or the Wisconsin Center for Education Research.
2
1. Introduction
The Vaughn Next Century Learning Center (Vaughn) is a public charter school within the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) located in San Fernando, California. The school was previously part of the LAUSD and converted to charter status effective July 1, 1993. Effective July 1, 1998, the school implemented a mandatory knowledge and skill-based pay system for all newly hired certificated staff and optional participation for those with five years or less of teaching experience, along with a school-based performance award bonus program for all staff. This paper documents the programs’ details and the process used to develop the first two years of a multi-year knowledge- and skill-pay system pilot, and the evaluation process
associated with the knowledge- and skill-pay program.
The case has three sections: a background section that describes the school’s geographic and socio-economic context and its educational vision and governance; a section that describes the first three years of the pilot program, the knowledge- and skill-evaluation process, the new salary structure and its funding; and a summary section that discusses some key design issues.
2. Background The School’s History
The school is located in Pacoima, an extremely low income and high crime neighborhood in the San Fernando Valley. Vaughn’s pre-K through fifth grade enrollment in 1998-99 was 1139 and 1227 in 1999-2000. The enrollment has been relatively stable for at least the past five years. The student population is virtually completely minority: 93.7% Hispanic, 5.5%
African-American and 0.1% Asian. About 97.8 of the students are eligible for the free and reduced price lunch program. Only 12.7% of the students are considered to be English proficient, with 73.9% designated as English learners (California Department of Education, 1999).
3
The houses near the school are very modest single-family homes; however, according to the school’s principal, it is not unusual for several families to occupy each location, with perhaps as many as 13 school-aged children at an address. Although the median income for the general area is $19,000, extrapolating from the students’ participation in the subsidized school lunch program, the family income of the school’s students is about $9,000. Almost two thirds of the local population has no high school diploma. However, anecdotal comments by Vaughn staff suggested that the overall economic status of the neighborhood may be improving slightly and that when students move out of the Vaughn area it is now often attributed to upward mobility.
Almost 10 years ago Vaughn was among 60 schools cited by a public education advocacy group as the worst schools in the LAUSD. The current principal was appointed to Vaughn in May of that year as a result of racial-ethnic conflicts, a high number of teacher grievances, and repeated death threats to the former principal. The new principal began to make changes almost immediately. For example, beginning in July 1991, the school participated in the LAUSD’s site-based management program. It also received SB 1274 monies, which was a state program to stimulate school restructuring. Although Vaughn was functioning as a site-based management school, the limited degree of flexibility and decision-making it actually had impeded its ability to make the wanted changes. Staff who were involved in school decision-making at that time noted that the decision to become a charter school was in part due to growing frustration with the LAUSD’s rules and regulations and the time it took to get approvals for changes, as well as a 10% salary reduction and yearly work stoppage or strike.
Educational Program
The school’s initial charter was granted for five years and a revised charter was approved in 1998 for another five-year period. The key elements of the initial charter’s educational
4
program were aggregated under 12 concepts. The concepts were: 1) child-centered curriculum and instruction; 2) school readiness and child care; 3) supportive programs for students with special needs; 4) professional development of teachers; 5) integration of technology; 6) alternative assessment; 7) on-site health and social service collaboration; 8) middle school transition; 9) high school and college internship; 10) lifelong learning opportunities; 11) expanded roles of parents and community; and 12) shared commitments. The charter also specified six “practical arrangements” that related to the school’s structure and strategies for attaining some of the “concepts.” They were 1) diversified student groupings; 2) class size; 3) grade level served; 4) school calendar; 5) instructional schedule; and 6) facilities.
The school’s second five-year charter began on July 1, 1998. Sixteen “principles and beliefs” comprise the foundation of the school’s vision as reflected in the new charter. These statements have similarities to the 12 “concepts” but are perhaps stated more directly. The principles and beliefs in the current charter are:
• Assure that every student is a successful learner.
• Ensure that each student has equal access to a rigorous curriculum.
• Demand high standards of achievement and expectations from all students. • Provide learning opportunities to all students and adults.
• Construct an interdependent and self-reliant school community. • Provide a clean, safe and healthy learning environment.
• Guarantee every child is ready to learn.
• Ensure a successful transition, school readiness to elementary to middle school. • Provide a variety of professional growth opportunities to all.
• Utilize technology effectively as teaching, learning and assessment tools.
• Collaborate with health and human service agencies to reduce barriers that impede learning.
• Promote literacy and economic development among families and in the community. • Include all stakeholders in decision making, and in carrying out their shared
responsibilities.
• Integrate all reform programs (Special Education-IDEA, Title 1-ESEA, Healthy Start, School-to-work, Early Literacy, Goals 2000, LA-SI, etc.).
• Strengthen grass roots governance, management, and financial independence. • Creates workable models with new paradigms for systemic changes.
5
The priority areas of instructional needs identified as part of the charter renewal process included literacy, language development, inclusion of special education and at-risk students, and integration of technology as a teaching and learning tool.
Governance Structure
Vaughn has no central governing body or board, but rather a largely decentralized and inclusive governance structure. The intent is that the staff are full partners in the decision-making process, rather than relying on a traditional labor-management dichotomy and collective bargaining process for the staff’s involvement. The school initially had nine standing committees, which was eventually modified to cut down on the time rquirements on staff. The current three working committees and the staff/parent composition are: Instruction (51% staff, 49% parents); Business (50% staff, 50% parents); and Partnership (51% parents, 49% staff). The composition of each committee reflects the desired balance of staff and parents representative, although Vaughn staff noted that the desired parent participation levels for each committee have not necessarily been achieved or maintained in all cases. The current three-committee structure allows for half the teachers to be relieved of committee responsibilities, yet to have a role and voice in decision-making for teachers through the teacher representatives on each committee.
The governance structure was intended “to assure a ‘bottom-up and maximum inclusion’ design,” as well as “to develop greater organizational capacity, longevity of leadership, and equalization of power and responsibility.” (original charter, p. 59) However, a Special Council exists to oversee and resolve disputes between the three committees. In the event the members cannot reach consensus, the Principal retains final decision-making authority. To date, the Principal has not exercised this ultimate decision-making authority.
6
During the initial five-year charter period, staff who had been employed by LAUSD prior to the conversion to charter status, retained some residual collective bargaining rights. However, effective July 1, 1998, those staff who were on leave from LAUSD had to either leave Vaughn or return to a job in the district, or stay at Vaughn and resign from the LAUSD. On July 1, 1998, all union representation at Vaughn ended and the new charter explicitly stated that “there will not be collective bargaining at Vaughn as staff members are decision and policy makers who set salaries and working conditions.” (Charter, p. 69) However, in 1999 legislation was passed in California providing special collective bargaining provisions for charter school teachers. In response to an organizing effort relating to this legislation, Vaughn staff had discussions with various unions and organizations in the fall of 1999. As of now, many teachers have joined the California Network of Charter Educators, a professional organization that will provide some legal help, representation in due process and mediation/arbitration. There appears to be little or no interest in formal union representation. This outcome was apparently surprising to the small group of individuals who began the organizing effort and who apparently expected the teachers to vote for representation by the United Teachers of Los Angeles.
Employee Expectations, Professional Development and Evaluation
A Code of Ethics adapted from the California Education code has been in place since 1993 for all Vaughn employees. The three principles codified in the code are commitment to the student, commitment to the public, and commitment to the profession. (Charter, pp. 67-68) The expectation is that all Vaughn employees will “recognize the magnitude of the responsibility being accepted in the field of education and engage individually and collectively to hold each other accountable.” (charter, p. 67)
7
The charter document also outlines Vaughn’s professional development and evaluation programs. These exist within the context of the school’s broad vision, which states in part that:
All teachers are continual learners, collaborators, and innovators who implement quality instruction and classroom management to achieve well-defined outcomes. They seek to maintain the highest professional and ethical standards and effective instructional techniques. (charter, p. 2)
Professional development opportunities and expectations include participation in certain mandatory programs with some teacher choice allowed. Professional collaboration is recognized as a form of professional development and growth. For example, one day every month the instructional day is shortened so teachers can “think and plan jointly in clans.” (Charter, p. 49) (A “clan” is a grade-level grouping of instructional staff.) Staff may borrow computers during vacation time for use at home, in addition to having at least two laptop computers available for staff use. Vaughn allocates funds for training by outside experts, as well as having four administrators who are primarily responsible for training, evaluation, and professional development for their assigned staff.
The Curriculum Committee is responsible for planning all staff development, with staff input part of the planning process. Several staff development opportunities each year are intended to bring all staff together for training; they include winter and summer retreats. Each month a schoolwide staff development seminar addresses specific instructional techniques. Vaughn also provides a structured literacy training program for K-3 teachers and a new teacher support program for teachers with less than three years of public school teaching experience. All beginning teachers participate in California State University-Northridge’s Beginning Teacher Assistance Program with assigned mentors. In addition, they have one-on-one mentors assigned by Vaughn. With that university’s Professional Development Center located at Vaughn and UCLA extension classes offered on-site, Vaughn teachers have additional opportunities for
8
professional growth. Staff also have access to national and state-level training programs, as well as participating as speakers or experts in forums or hearings related to charter schools. Finally, the school’s commitment to training is also evidenced by the training provided to Room Mothers, who assist teachers with clerical needs; the training is intended both to enhance and standardize the services provided by the Room Mothers, as well as to provide job-training skills to those individuals.
The staff evaluation program states that “Vaughn is holding everyone accountable for student achievement.” (current charter, p. 63). Up until the 1999-2000 school year, the evaluation process consisted of an action plan prepared by each teacher at the beginning of the school year, participation in a planning conference with an administrator and several classroom observations by an administrator. The assigned administrator conducted formal and informal classroom visits throughout the year and recorded observations from each visit on a log. Observed performance was evaluated using grade-level standards and benchmarks and instructional checklists and post-visit conferences were held with teachers. At the end of each school year, the assigned administrator wrote up an overall evaluation of each teacher based on the various sources of evidence.
Effective with the 1999-2000 school year, all teachers were placed under a new evaluation process that was initially used for those individuals who were participating in the knowledge- and skill-pay program. Briefly, the new evaluation process includes a self-evaluation by the employee using the same evaluation tool as the peer reviewer and administrator use, several classroom observations each semester, and consideration of relevant staff development training taken by the employee. A rubric was developed for each of the 10 performance areas included in the knowledge- and skill-pay program (see Appendix A).
9
In addition to the regular performance evaluation program for all teaching staff, a progressive system of assistance and intervention is defined for teachers who are identified through the evaluation process or other means as in potential need of assistance. The maximum length of time for this process, from the start of the assistance phase to the end of the consequence phase, is nine months. A due process system is available to those who are dissatisfied with the outcome of the consequence phase.
Each clan engages in a weekly planning and inquiry process. The process is intended to provide group members with feedback and promote further discussion by the group on areas that need improvement. The discussion revolves around a structured list of questions on certain matters and teaching methods.
In summary, the professional development and evaluation programs at Vaughn have operated in an integrated fashion and with responsibility for these functions seemingly well defined since it became a charter school. These programs encouraged and supported a collegial and collaborative work environment and shared decision-making. Accountability has been shared, with very few, if any, decisions made completely from the top-down. Current changes to the evaluation process build on the collegial spirit of the school and sense of shared responsibility of the outcome of the students and operation of the school itself, with an increased focus on the individual’s responsibility to critically reflect on one’s teaching. The concept of a knowledge- and skill-pay system that encouraged and rewarded ongoing professional development would seem compatible with this climate.
3. Vaughn’s Compensation Programs
This section summarizes the “old” or traditional compensation structure for Vaughn, which initially was the LAUSD salary system, then describes the new compensation system that
10
was implemented in July 1998 and expanded in July 1999. It concludes with a discussion on funding because the new schedule pays teachers at a higher, average level.
The Starting Point: A Traditional Single Salary Structure
When Vaughn converted to charter status employees who had been LAUSD employees went on a charter leave and became employees of Vaughn. The salary structure for Vaughn teachers essentially replicated that for LAUSD employees. The primary reasons for this apparently were to “hold harmless” those staff who stayed at Vaughn and had previously worked for LAUSD, and to keep Vaughn’s salary competitive with its obvious competitor, LAUSD. In addition to maintaining the same basic salary structure, essentially the same benefits were provided to employees as those that had previously been provided under the LAUSD benefit system.
That compensation structure was a traditional single salary schedule, with cells corresponding to years of experience and college credits above the basic degree. New teachers advanced on the salary structure every 12 months, although the amount of the increase, if any, varied from cell to cell. After becoming permanent the advancement was every six months, regardless of performance. Employees who were hired with emergency credentials had a rating-in limit of step 2 on Schedule 22. Employees who held full California teachrating-ing credentials could be rated in at a higher schedule and step. The practical effect of this was that credentialed employees progressed on a higher salary structure than those with emergency credentials, although their initial base rate was not necessarily greater than that for teachers with emergency credentials.
However, an important consideration was that the rating-in point determined how soon one was eligible for a salary increase. Thus, although initial pay rate was an important
11
consideration for new teachers, so also was the actual point at which one’s pay was set. Under the traditional salary structure, for the 1998-99 school year the minimum for a new emergency teacher was $31,325; for a new credentialed teacher the minimum was $31,606). The new emergency teacher at the minimum would not receive a pay increase until the fourth year; a new credentialed teacher at the minimum would receive a pay increase in the second year. (Note: The amounts on the Vaughn schedule are slightly different than the corresponding amounts on the LAUSD schedule due to differences in computing the effect of a one-time pay increase applied retroactively to the base.)
In addition, under the LAUSD schedule that Vaughn continued, a supplement for bilingual instruction certification was paid. However, as a result of Proposition 227, which eliminated bilingual education effective in the 1998-99 school year, the bilingual differential was no longer provided to all the LAUSD teachers who previously received it. Because of Vaughn’s charter school status it was not subject to the same restrictions on bilingual education and chose to continue to provide bilingual instruction and to continue to provide the bilingual certification differential to those teachers who provide primary language instruction to English learners. However, rather than being paid as a monthly supplement for school year 1998-99 the differential was paid at the end each semester as a lump sum bonus. In addition, the Budget Committee did not allocate specific funds for the payment of the differential, so payment of the differential at the end of the school year technically was contingent on the availability of funds.
Since becoming a charter school Vaughn has provided an additional four weeks of instruction to students in grades one through five and to low-achieving kindergartners. Unlike LAUSD where such extended school year opportunities are provided on the basis of seniority, all Vaughn teachers of those grade levels who want to teach during the extended period are
12
guaranteed an appointment, which provides the opportunity for an additional month’s salary. Vaughn has committed to continue the extended calendar as long as funds are available for this purpose. To date, the funds for the extended school year have been derived primarily from significant increases in attendance, which resulted in higher funding from the district. Beginning with the 1999-2000 school year, teachers can also teach after school clubs and receive compensation.
In short, the compensation program for current Vaughn teachers typically paid at least as much as the same individual would be paid at a LAUSD school. In addition, the opportunity existed for almost all teachers to receive an additional month’s appointment and additional pay. Benefits provided were also comparable to those LAUSD teachers received.
The Knowledge- and Skill- (Performance Pay) Pilot
Origin of the idea. As Vaughn continued to implement its first charter, the principal began to think that, in addition to changing other programs, structures and expenditure patterns in the school, change in compensation might also be an effective way to improve student achievement. She was reluctant to implement “merit pay,” because that approach has not worked in education. In early 1997, she met CPRE researcher Allan Odden and read the book on teacher compensation written by him and Carolyn Kelley (1997), which described knowledge- and skill-based pay and schoolwide performance bonuses. She felt these ideas could work at Vaughn and could help to implement the goals of their charter. She immediately began to work with her teachers on new compensation ideas, working quickly to create a new salary structure for the 1998-99 school year.
Effective July 1, 1998, the old single salary schedule system no longer applied to teachers hired on or after that date. Current teachers with five years or less experience at Vaughn were
13
given the option of being paid under the new knowledge and skill pay system or remaining under the traditional single salary schedule. In addition to the knowledge and skill-based pay program, a schoolwide performance award program was also established for all staff. Information on the schoolwide performance award program was provided in a case study description of that program (Chan, Galarza, Llamas, Kellor and Odden, 1999).
The new knowledge and skill-based pay program was created to address six issues and concerns. It had two components: a competency/performance-based component and a contingency-based component. The issues and concerns, as well as the solutions, were identified informally over time rather than being the express product of any single work group or project. The concerns were:
• Pay inequity among teachers. The single salary schedule used credits and seniority to set pay; in addition annual raises were based on the schedule. This resulted in long-term teachers receiving increases that were twice those received by the less senior teachers, even though many junior teachers were perceived to be making as great a contribution to the school as more senior staff.
• A concern that the single salary schedule promoted mediocrity. By simply rewarding seniority and credits, there was no incentive to actually update learning or teacher expertise. For example, Vaughn staff and the principal observed that some senior teachers did not attend workshops. This was perceived to be a symptom of the lack of any incentive in the pay system that would potentially motivate people to participate in professional development and to gain the knowledge and skills the school believed all its teachers needed to improve student achievement.
14
• A perceived need to develop a more explicit internal accountability system, given the focus on external accountability resulting from its charter school status. The school’s charter emphasized accountability on the part of students and parents and identified measures to assist in holding those groups accountable. However, there was no explicit method by which teachers were formally held responsible for schoolwide student achievement and no link between teacher performance and student outcomes.
• A need to provide regular increases to new teachers, rather than paying all new teachers the same rate for three years. Vaughn wanted to increase the retention of new teachers, many of whom left within three years. To do so, it wanted to offer better compensation for better performance and thereby encourage good performers to stay in the teaching profession, as well as recouping the school’s investment in training and developing its new teachers by maximizing retention of new teachers.
• A concern that many teachers perceived movement out of the classroom and into
administrative positions as the only way to make more money. By providing an alternative pay system that financially rewarded performance, Vaughn hoped that good senior teachers would be more likely to stay in the classroom.
• An interest in making any financial incentive plan for teachers contingent on increasing student outcomes, consistent with the school’s charter and commitment to increase student achievement.
Comments from Vaughn staff suggested that the staff’s acknowledgement of at least some of these concerns and issues as valid reasons to change the pay system might have been an outgrowth of the collaborative and collegial work environment at Vaughn. Teachers worked frequently and closely with other teachers, both in committees and in instructional areas, and
15
could easily observe first-hand the different levels of effort put forth by different staff. There appeared to be a shared sense of purpose among many staff, i.e., a common goal of doing what was best for the kids and using resources (especially money) in the manner in which it would most benefit the children’s education. In that context, it didn’t seem “right” that a junior teacher who exerted a great deal of effort and time to educate the children should receive relatively so little financial acknowledgement for their efforts.
The First Year: Targeting New and Early Career Teachers
Designing the pay program. The pilot was designed to take place within the school’s five-year charter period. A key design principle was that a higher base rate was appropriate for more years of experience, at least up to some point. The initial plan was to add additional base rates each year to continue the pay progression of those employees who were being paid under the new system. There was also a commitment to expand the program in future years so that it could apply to more veteran teachers, thus sending the message to senior staff that they, too, could potentially participate in the new pay program as well as indicating a likely “shift” in the compensation philosophy at the schol.
For the 1998-99 school year, the lowest beginning salary rate was $30,000 for an “emergency credentialed” teacher, slightly less than the base rate for a new LAUSD teacher with the same credentials. The beginning salary was $31,000 for a teacher holding a California elementary teaching credential. A base salary increase of $1,000 would be provided each year for five years, contingent upon satisfactory performance. An additional $1,000 was provided for any teacher possessing a Master’s degree, and $4,000 for certification from the National Board for Professional teaching Standards (NBPTS). (At that time, there were no staff who were board certified or who were going through the certification process, but the idea was to create an
16
incentive for teachers to do so.) Thus, under the first iteration of the new pay plan, a fully credentialed teacher would receive a base rate of $36,000 after five years, plus $1,000 annually if a Master’s degree had been earned, and $4,000 annually if certified by NBPTS, which would compare favorably to a base rate of $37,867 under Vaughn’s traditional schedule.
The first year, additional pay increments were available for four competencies and for four contingency-based items. The competencies and associated amounts were: instructional expertise in literacy, including reading and writing ($1,300); ESL, sheltered English, language development ($1,300); technology ($400); and special education inclusion ($300). The contingency-based items and associated amounts were student attendance ($250); student discipline ($250); parent partnership ($150); and teaming efforts ($150).
The areas were chosen because they were non-controversial and assessments or measurement tools already existed or could realistically be developed in the foreseeable future. These areas also directly related to instructional principles articulated in the charter document and thus were intended to directly support and enhance the likelihood that the overall school goals would be achieved in the current five year charter period.
In July 1998, 13 newly hired teachers were placed on the new pay system and five experienced teachers opted to be placed on the new pay system, including one staff member with five years of experience. Some reasons they cited for opting into the new pay system included the ethics of being paid based on one’s ability to improve student performance; the potential of being paid more under the performance pay system; the importance of being a role model to students and parents by being held accountable for student achievement; and the equity of a new system that did not tie pay increases to outside courses that might not be achievable by everyone because of financial and/or time constraints. Vaughn’s role as an innovator and role model for
17
other schools was also noted as a reason to commit to the new pay system. Finally, some staff interviewed indicated that the new pay system would help enhance the professionalism and overall image of the teaching profession by making teachers more accountable by directly relating at least some of their pay to demonstration of certain performance or knowledge or skills.
Although the specific measures and methods to assess whether a particular competency or contingency has been met were still under development when the pay program was first implemented, most staff interviewed at the beginning of the 1998-99 school year implicitly believed that both the expectations and measures would be fair and attainable. They seemed willing to accept the commitment to develop a fair assessment system and to embark on the new pay scheme without knowing all the details. There were several possible reasons for this high degree of trust.
First, the previous performance evaluation system at Vaughn was relatively comprehensive and specific compared to that at many schools. Two administrators shared primary responsibility for evaluating teachers and it was a major component of each of their jobs. Thus, employee evaluation appeared to be perceived as a regular and expected activity that would occur several times throughout the year even under the traditional pay program. Second, the development of the assessment system for the competencies and contingencies was planned to be done in a shared decision-making context. Although an administrator was given the primary responsibility to develop a proposed assessment system, it was reviewed by the Instruction Committee before it was implemented. Both teaching and administrative staff interviewed indicated that they believed the expectations would be realistic and attainable by many teachers, although the expectations were expected to involve some challenge and “reach.
18
Third, many staff had expressed complete trust in the principal’s commitment and ability to treat the staff fairly, and believed that the principal would make sure that the expectations and assessments were fair and realistic.
In addition, several key enabling conditions that could assist staff in attaining or demonstrating the competencies or meet the contingencies were present. For example, when the school’s initial five-year charter expired on June 30, 1998, staff were closely involved both in reviewing the school’s progress toward the first charter’s goals as well as developing the new charter proposal. As a result, the school’s mission and goals were clearly articulated and well known and understood by all staff.
Another important enabler was the focus on providing professional development opportunities that were directly related to the school’s goals. Vaughn already provided a literacy training program internally, which supported the literacy competency. Even prior to the new pay system, technology training was made available to staff at little or no cost and staff were given access to computers, which enhanced their ability to master the technology competency area. The school also had specific attendance and discipline policies in place, which were expected to support the achievement goals relating to those areas.
Funding the first year. Primarily because Vaughn is a charter school it had significant ability to decide how and on what to spend its money. The additional funds required for the initial knowledge- and skill-based pay components and the expertise-based pay came largely from savings in many non-salary areas, as well as from salary savings attributable to retirements of veteran teachers.
The hazards of designing “on the fly”: Year 1 design and program administration issues. Although the first phases of Vaughn’s new pay program were formally implemented on July 1,
19
1998, some important design and administrative issues were still pending at that point. As noted previously, one significant program element in particular was yet to be completed, i.e., how the competencies would be measured.
The initial knowledge- and skill-pay program included policy statements regarding future “directions” for the pay program. One of the policy decisions that had to be made during the first year was the frequency of payout for the competency payments. The guiding policy stated that all earned bonuses would be paid at the end of each semester, yet well into the first semester of the pilot the evaluation criteria were not yet firmed up. The school did pay bonuses at the end of the first semester, but there was less than two months in which to establish and communicate the evaluation method, take or conduct the measurements and/or evaluation, and make the decisions regarding bonus payments.
Another critical issue that had to be faced during the first year was whether competencies would be partially credited, i.e., whether something less than full attainment of competency would be credited. If partial mastery were to be compensated, that possibility would need to be communicated to teachers included in the new pay system and an evaluation method developed that would allow for measuring partial mastery. At some point during the first semester, the decision was made to not credit any type of partial proficiency.
Several longer-term issues were identified at the outset. The pay policy stated that “modifications within the next three years must ensure additional compensation (i.e., all amounts will go up and never go down).” Although the funds for the pay programs were seemingly easy to find the first year, no dedicated funding source was committed for that purpose from year to year. In the event funds were to become tighter in the next three years, maintaining the pay plan as it was originally designed could require cuts elsewhere. In addition, if the program were
20
successful at its goal of retaining new staff, the base salary costs would likely increase faster than under the traditional pay schedule because the base rate increased faster on the new plan. These were not likely to be insurmountable problems, but illustrated the type of challenges and decisions that could make it more challenging to continue or expand the pay pilot in future years. However, the fact that the school had had an operating fund surplus of over $1 million for several years suggested that the salary elements could be funded from the fund balance if necessary.
In addition, the school made a policy statement that competencies would “be added or changed yearly based on student and schoolwide needs,” although the process and timeline to identify and decide on new competencies and the associated amounts were not set forth. Thus, it was not expressly clear how the statement of intent regarding adding or changing competencies in the future and the statement that amounts would “only go up” were intended to interface. Did the statement that amounts “will go up” mean that the individual amounts for each included competency must remain static or increase for three years, or that the aggregate amount available through the competency-based program must not go down, although the “mix” of competencies might change? These obviously suggest very different intents.
The last key outstanding policy area was in regard to program evaluation. Vaughn staff and administrators indicated intent to evaluate the program but had no specific plan as to how the program evaluation would be done. At Vaughn’s request CPRE staff made some informal suggestions on possible approaches and, at the end of the first year, administered a survey to Vaughn’s teaching staff. Although the survey was able to get at teacher attitudes, perceptions, and other intangible and subjective elements, it did not measure the tie to improved student achievement. The actual effect on student achievement, if any, of the knowledge- and skill-pay
21
program itself may be difficult to measure because although the mobility of the student population is decreasing, it is still significant, which makes longitudinal tracking difficult. Moreover, Vaughn does not have access internally to the level of technical expertise that would be required to plan and conduct meaningful statistical analyses. CPRE staff will continue to assist Vaughn in this area but has limited staff available for that purpose.
First year in review. The following sections address several specific elements of the pay program’s first year, in particular those that were influential in how the expanded pay program ultimately looked.
Assessing the knowledge and skills.
The evaluation process to determine whether an individual had demonstrated the competency was based on an average of a self-evaluation by the individual, a peer evaluation and an administrator’s evaluation. The four-level rating scale included in the Danielson Framework for Teaching was used as the rating scale. However, rather than developing a rubric for each item in the evaluation, interpretation of the four level scale was left to each individual to determine based on his or her own expectations of what performance at each level would look like. To receive pay for a particular competency an average rating of 2.5 was required.
At the end of the first semester, 60% of the teachers participating in the knowledge- and skill-pay system received some payment under the new program, with 40% of the participating teachers receiving the maximum amount ($1,750). To illustrate the variation among individuals, one beginning teacher holding emergency credentials and no prior teaching experience received the full amount, while another teacher with full credentials and a year of teaching experience at a district school did not receive any performance pay.
22
An individual’s self-evaluation rating was allowed to stand no mater how valid the administrator or peer reviewer believed it was. However, according to a Vaughn administrator, where there were “significant differences” between the self-evaluation and either or both of the other evaluations, a discussion was held with the individual to review the results, discuss the reasons why the individual had scored him or herself in that manner and why other evaluators had chosen their ratings. The individual was then given a day during which to reflect on the self-evaluation and to decide whether she or he wanted to make any changes.
There were only two cases in which the self-evaluation was substantially higher than the other evaluations; both were first year emergency credentialed teachers. Reactions to the opportunity to review the self-evaluation varied. Some people changed the self-evaluation only minimally. Another beginning teacher who had rated herself as a “4” (distinguished) in almost every area initially was very defensive and emotional about being asked to reflect on her self-evaluation. However, the individual did make significant changes to the self-self-evaluation.
Vaughn administrators commented that they believe that interaction “saved” a beginning teacher who was not off to a strong classroom start because it forced a discussion about what teaching behaviors were or were not being demonstrated. When asked how the interaction with this teacher compared to similar interactions in the past with beginning teachers with problematic starts, Vaughn administrators stated that the discussion was much more focused on what outcomes were expected and what they could look like or how they could be demonstrated.
The first semester $13,050 was paid to 10 individuals (with 17 total participants), the second semester a total of $20,700 was paid to 15 individuals (with 18 total participants). The first semester the amount paid to the 10 individuals who earned at least one performance pay element ranged from $150 to $1650, with an average of $1305. The second semester the amount
23
paid to individuals ranged from $650 to $1650, with an average of $1490. In addition, at the end of the school year, $9,100 was paid as part of the contingency pay program under which individuals could earn annual payments relating to four classroom or individual areas (student attendance, discipline, teaming, and use of substitute time). Each of the 18 participating teachers received some amount of contingency pay, ranging from $75 to $825, with an average of $535. The largest combined amount of competency and contingency pay any single teacher received over the course of the school year was $3,975.
All but three teachers earned at least one performance-pay component the second semester, including several who had earned little or nothing the first semester and were able to demonstrate competency during the second semester. Vaughn administrators perceived that many of the people with ratings just below the 2.5 required to receive the performance pay for a particular competency made conscious efforts to improve their performance the second semester, or at a minimum to provide more evidence of the performance level. At the end of the school year three beginning teachers were given three month conditional contracts for the 1999-2000 school year. Two of those three were not given a contract renewal after the initial three months and the third, according to a Vaughn administrator, “pulled out” of the performance problem (the individual scored above 2.5 in every area the first semester of the following school year) and was given a contract for the balance of the school year.
Getting a first year perspective.
CPRE-UW researchers made a site visit to Vaughn near the end of the 1998-99 school year to gather information on how the first year of the performance pay plan had gone and what plans were underway for the next year. In addition, they received permission to conduct a mail survey of the certified staff to learn more about how teachers reacted to the knowledge- and
skill-24
pay plan. Surveys were sent to 63 employees and 59 usable responses were received, for an exceptionally high response rate of 94%.
The site visit information and the survey responses were generally consistent. Both the informants and the survey respondents raised several general themes. These themes included the process used to assess whether the specified knowledge and skills had been demonstrated, the effect of the new pay system on the sense of community and morale at the school, and the extent to which related systems such as professional development were aligned with the new pay system and with the expanded pay system that was being developed for the 1999-2000 school year. It is interesting to note that little or no mention was made of the effect of the new pay plan on student achievement, except in response to direct questions to that effect.
Perspectives on the evaluation process.
The most consistent and frequent concerns noted had to do with the assessment process. The main things noted were that the number of observations set forth did not always take place, that the assessment criteria and the standards against which people were being evaluated were not clear or did not exist, and that the rubrics were too vague and open to individual interpretation.
Both administrators and staff noted the difficulty in actually having a peer conduct three observations as well as the heavy burden the observation process would put on administrators when the evaluation process was expanded to all teaching staff. Both the challenge of observing a classroom for an extended period of time and of arranging for substitute coverage for the peer teacher were noted. The classroom observations were noted as perhaps being too long (a full day in some cases) and perhaps not the most efficient and effective use of the peer evaluator’s time.
25
The extent to which the assessors were given consistent and standardized training was noted as a possible problem.
Overall: a “difficult” year.
The informants acknowledged that the school year had been “difficult” in some ways, but believed that overall implementing the performance pay plan had been a worthwhile effort. The “difficulty” appeared to be not so much about the knowledge- and skill-pay plan that was implemented, but rather the plans to make a similar pay plan available to move senior staff the next school year. One person noted that the prospect of implementing a knowledge- and skill-pay plan for more senior staff “brought out people’s true colors,” especially in that it called into question the “whole tenure philosophy.” Another noted that there did seem to be some sense of friction between some new teachers and veteran teachers, with some new teachers perceiving that they were being required to “do more” for their salary than the more senior staff.
These perceptions were echoed in the survey, which indicated that 67% of the respondents felt that the performance pay controversy had hurt morale at Vaughn and 50% of them agreed that the controversy had reduced the sense of community at the school. There was also some concern that the increased emphasis on classroom instruction would decrease people’s interest and participation in school governance activities.
The silver lining.
Informants and survey respondents did note positive effects, however. For example, both administrative and teaching informants perceived the evaluation process, especially for new teachers, as more meaningful than the previous system. They noted that there was more depth and more focus to the evaluation itself and more discussion of what was or wasn’t evident, rather than a more general characterization of overall performance. The survey respondents generally
26
agreed that the performance pay plan helped to get discussion going about how to define good teaching, in obtaining agreement about how to define good teaching, and clarified what it took to be a good teacher at Vaughn.
Overall, the respondents did not believe that the knowledge and skills identified for the pay program were in conflict with other knowledge and skills that were important to teaching at Vaughn, nor did they believe that working towards the identified knowledge and skills prevented them from developing other important skills. However, informants did suggest that some teachers felt that identification of the knowledge and skills and development of more specific evaluation standards had a limiting or constraining effect on their individual classroom practice or “art” of teaching.
The second year: providing new opportunities to veteran teachers
Designing an expanded program. As was the case with the initial knowledge- and skill-pay program, the design of an expanded program took a great deal of time and involved many parties. Vaughn’s unique governance structure and ongoing discussion by committees of budget, personnel and compensation issues (each of which is inter-connected) meant that there was not necessarily a designated group of people with responsibility for designing an expanded pay program. Rather, it appears that the same people who were involved in designing the initial pay plan were involved at least initially in designing the expanded program. In addition, several veteran teachers joined in the design process after they learned more about the possibilities the new pay system might offer to them. As more information was shared with teaching staff, more people became involved in the design process in some manner.
The principal reported that she attempted to allow teaching staff to take the lead in the design process so that it would not be perceived as something that she was personally endorsing.
27
In retrospect, she noted that perhaps she should have taken a more active role in communicating information about the options to the rest of the staff, as well as perhaps been more openly involved earlier in the process. She noted that the responsibility of designing the expanded pay plan and dealing directly with peers on difficult and challenging compensation issues may have been too great a responsibility to put on the teachers.
The development of the expanded program differed in at least one important way from the development of the initial pay system. The state of California made available a substantial amount of money related to specific educational reform efforts or goals. Thus, Vaughn’s compensation designers identified ways in which the newly-available funds could be used to support the goals of the expanded pay plan as well as being compatible with the school’s charter. The availability of new funds provided an opportunity but on the other hand, required that they move more quickly to expand the program than perhaps would have been ideal given the complexity and sensitivity of the topic. According to one informant, this was the first time that state funds were “available for teachers rather than children” and the designers felt they had to move quickly to take advantage of availability of the funds to support the new compensation program.
Externally, other factors increased the sensitivity of the topic of a new pay program for veteran teachers. Near the end of the 1998-99 school year, LAUSD teachers were granted a retroactive 2% base increase which created disparities between Vaughn’s traditional salary schedule and the district’s. Vaughn had previously decided to allocate the 2% it had received from the state to help support the school’s school-based performance award program. The retroactive base salary increase for LAUSD teachers’ resurrected the issue of Vaughn’s pay
28
equality with LAUSD’s and appears to have reintroduced the sensitive topic of what some people perceived to have “given up” to teach at Vaughn.
Developing new pay principles for veteran teachers. A key challenge in designing an expanded pay program for veteran teachers was how to develop a performance-based pay system that would not seriously disadvantage teachers near the top of the traditional salary schedule. A system that did not “honor” credits in the same manner as the traditional schedule could introduce a great deal of uncertainty as to what people would actually be paid. Although the potential to earn more than their current salary might be appealing, the potential to earn less, or to have a lower monthly salary during the year, could be impediments to getting veteran teachers to support the new pay system. In fact, some veteran teachers suggested a system in which the traditional salary structure would essentially be maintained and the performance pay would be salary enhancements.
Another conceptual challenge was the relative value of the performance pay bonuses. For new teachers, the value of the performance pay bonuses could easily add 25% to their annual salary. However, for a veteran teacher with a higher current salary, the additional pay available through performance pay bonuses might increase their net salary by only 5-7%, taking into account that their base salary would be lower under the new pay program. Thus, some veteran teachers proposed that the performance pay bonuses provide the same differential pay opportunities to staff, rather than providing flat bonus amounts that had greater value to lower-paid staff. Based on estimates prepared by Vaughn’s principal, the new pay program provided, on average, the potential of 17% more than the individual’s current compensation.
Reconciling these interests with the goals of a new performance-pay plan was challenging and not without controversy. Throughout the design process, strong reactions from
29
teachers were reported. The reactions were communicated through formal means, e.g., at meetings at which the new pay program was a topic of discussion, as well as informal means, e.g., “secret” meetings of teachers who were perceived to be “against” the new pay program or those viewed as likely to be disadvantaged by such a program. It did not appear that there was a formal design process or appointed team, perhaps because the responsibility to design and approve the new program essentially was woven into the existing governance structure and decision-making process. Ongoing efforts were made to share information with people not involved in the design process, including developing detailed comparisons of individual teachers’ current salaries and their potential pay under the new system, based on their current education and experience level and assuming they attained the rubric rating level required for the applicable knowledge or skill area.
In designing the expanded program multiple goals were taken into consideration. The plan had to provide base pay rates that would be attractive to veteran teachers who were already quite advanced on the salary scale. However, the plan’s designers believed that a balance needed to be struck between an “adequate” base rate and the accountability and motivational aspects of the knowledge and skill program. In addition, many teachers had considerable progression on the salary schedule due to a combination of seniority and educational units. Although the designers did not intend to guarantee that all employees would necessarily be kept whole under the new pay system, they did want to acknowledge that advanced degrees and additional education had value. Thus, when determining the appropriate base rates for the new system, the designers considered how current employees, with their varied levels of pay, seniority, and education units and degrees, would be affected.
30
An important goal in designing the expanded pay system was to provide pay incentives that would provide the potential for higher pay for virtually everyone who participated in the new program. To do so, yet arrive at a base pay rate that provided a reasonable balance between fixed and variable pay, was challenging and of great concern to those individuals who were thinking about participating in the new pay program. Asking people to take a cut in their monthly pay with the promise of potentially higher pay at some point down the road, was a difficult decision. Before the final base pay rates were decided, the designers made a policy decision that the new pay program would include monthly “off-sets” or “advances” against the performance pay as a transition measure. The philosophy was that providing some transitional pay stability would encourage people to participate in the program while giving them time to make adjustments to their finances that might be necessary if they were to have a lower monthly pay rate. The transition plan is intended to be in place at least for the first year; the details of the second year are still being developed.
Although the existing knowledge and skill areas were deemed to be appropriate for all teachers, the designers believed that additional knowledge and skills should be identified for veteran teachers. This also was consistent with the expectation of continuous growth and development that the new program was intended to support, as well as the fact that most teachers do grow in breadth as well as depth. Thus, three levels or categories of knowledge and skills and/or proficiency were established.
The first, Level 1, was characterized as “depth in essentials.” The individual areas are the same four as in the first year, i.e., literacy ($1,300), language development, ($1,300), technology ($400), and special education inclusion ($300). In addition, two additional areas, classroom management and lesson planning, were added to Level 1in response to some concerns that were
31
identified the first year regarding beginning teachers and specific knowledge or skills they needed to have or to quickly develop in order to be a successful teacher at Vaughn. These two areas have nominal amounts associated with them, i.e. $100 each, but identifying them highlights their importance as separate items in the evaluation process. This will ensure that these areas are reviewed for both formative and summative purposes and potential problems identified early on. In order to receive performance pay for Level 1 knowledge and skills, an average rating of 2.5 must be received for a particular area.
At Level 2, five additional areas were identified to represent the breadth of knowledge and skills required of essentially all teachers, since Vaughn is an elementary school and few individuals specialize in a particular area. The Level 2 knowledge and skills are in addition to those identified in Level 1, not in place of the Level 1 knowledge and skills. They are: mathematics ($1,000), social studies ($800), science ($800), English learners support ($2,500), and arts ($500), for a potential total of $5,600. The amounts designated for each area reflect the relative importance or value of the area to the school’s overall goals and student achievement. To be assessed on Level 2 performances, an individual must have a clear California teaching credential and receive an average rubric rating of at least 3.00 in all Level 1 areas. To earn performance pay for a Level 2 area, an average rating of at least 3.0 must be received for a particular area.
The third level, Level 3, does not include any additional knowledge or skill areas. Rather, this level is intended to recognize teaching that is overall at a higher than average level and is reserved for those people who attained an average rubric rating of at least 3.5 in the Level 2 areas (Vaughn equates a 3.5 rubric rating with a B+ grade). Teachers earning a bonus at this
32
level will receive an additional $4,000 on top of their Level 1 ($3,500) and Level 2 ($5,600), for a potential yearly total of $13,100 in performance-related bonuses.
Veteran teachers had to decide near the end of the 1998-1999 school year whether they would participate in the knowledge and skill pay program. Certain teachers continued proposing changes to the proposed second year plan almost up until the very moment that teachers had to make their decision whether or not to opt into the new plan. Teachers were told that the decision must stand for three years; those who opted in could not opt to go back to the traditional schedule for that period and those who chose not to go under the performance pay plan could not change their decision for that three year period. This approach was taken in part so that the school would be able to plan future salary costs with a reasonable degree of certainty, as well as to make sure that people were making informed decisions that they were willing to live with for some period of time. In addition, the success or effects on student achievement of the new pay program would be very difficult, if not impossible, to evaluate if the composition of the participating teachers was subject to significant change every school year. The likely degree of commitment and motivation of teachers to work on the knowledge and skills included in the pay program was also perceived to be greater if participation in the pay program required a longer-term commitment.
The days preceding the deadline for deciding whether or not to participate were tense. Some people initially involved in the design process had dropped out of active participation because of frustration and personality clashes. There seemed to be some friction between the newer teachers and the more veteran teachers and difficulty in getting those two groups to recognize the validity of each other’s perspective.
33
A major philosophical difference emerged regarding how the implementation of and transition to the new pay structure should be handled for veteran teachers, including whether salary rates established under the previous pay system should be maintained in the new system. Some teachers firmly believed that the traditional salary structure, including specific pay rates for various combinations of experience, degrees and additional credits, was clearly the preferred method for setting pay and that to do otherwise would essentially “penalize” people for having played the game by the previous set of rules. Conversely, other teachers, including many who had “played the game” by the previous rules, were looking at the new pay system as providing a more equal playing field. Among the reasons stated as to why the new system would actually be more “equal” was that the traditional schedule rewarded people for activities that did not necessarily benefit Vaughn and its students. For example, people who were actively involved in governance committees might be required to spend more time at school and in doing so, not have the time available to take college courses and work towards additional degrees, yet their contribution and value to Vaughn was more direct and perhaps greater than that of people who left campus everyday within minutes of the students leaving.
Moreover, comments were made that suggested the traditional schedule adversely affected women, especially those with children, who simply could not find the time to participate in traditional college courses. In a sense, those people who made the decision to spend their time outside the classroom on things that directly related to and affected Vaughn felt they were being penalized because that time did not result in acquisition of additional college credits that would provide additional salary movement. This was not necessarily a gender- or age-related perception, but was identified by several informants as being an important factor in favor of the new pay system. In essence, many people felt the new system would not require extra effort on
34
their part because they were already providing quality instruction and the new pay system would provide a means to document and reward them for that level of instruction.
Potentially adding to the sense of tension was the fact that three of the new teachers participating in the first year pilot were given only three-month contract extensions for the fall, which likely highlighted the potentially high-stakes that could be associated with a more thorough, comprehensive and focused teacher assessment process. In the end, 51 certificated staff opted for the new pay system, with 19 choosing to remain on the traditional salary structure.
Fine-tuning the assessment tool and process. An important point of controversy contributing to the tension surrounding the decision of veteran teachers to participate in the pay program was the teacher assessment and evaluation process. Although the first year’s process was deemed by most to work adequately, it was not flawless. For example, as noted previously, the number of promised individual observations were not always carried out. Some evaluators apparently felt pressure to give ratings that would ensure the individuals received the performance pay; the high stakes nature of the evaluation and the visible outcome it would produce also placed evaluators in a more visible and powerful role than ever before.
Also as noted previously, individual rubrics for each area assessed had not been in place the first year; only the four-level rating scale was available. There was no documented set of expectations as to what was should be seen or happen at the various performance levels and the different areas being evaluated. It appears that the pilot’s designers may have been overly optimistic about the degree to which there was a common understanding of “good teaching” at Vaughn. Their over-optimism may have been due to the school’s governance structure that fully involved teacher representatives in almost every education decision at Vaughn, as well as in developing both the initial and the second charter proposal.
35
To provide more guidance to evaluators and teachers for the second year of the new pay program, a commitment was made to develop rubrics for each performance area at each level before or very close to the beginning of the next school year. The purpose was to provide a more common and defined set of expectations and standards that would provide guidance to both the teachers as well as the evaluators. In addition, the decision was made that all teachers would be evaluated using the new standards and expectations regardless of whether they were participating in the new pay program. This would ensure that all teachers were being held to the same standards.
Financing the new plan: making the most of old and new money. One of the reasons Vaughn moved quickly to develop an alternative pay program for veteran teachers was that state funds became available for various reform-related purposes. By identifying and targeting performance areas that were related to and in support of the respective reforms, Vaughn was able to fund most of the performance-pay program through additional funds it received from the state. In addition, as was the case every year, every item in the school’s budget was reviewed and scrutinized by the Budget Committee when the 1999-2000 school year budget was developed. Thus, conscious and deliberate decisions were made as to how to spend virtually every dollar in the budget, including what should be included for the performance pay program.
Mid-year status. At the end of the first semester of the program’s second year, Vaughn’s principal reported that over $107,000 will be paid to participating teachers. Several veteran teachers attained the Level 3 rating and will receive more than $5,000 each for the first semester. The rubrics were reported as working well, especially for the new teachers on emergency credentials. Four of the experienced teachers who opted not to participate in the performance pay program petitioned the Governing Committee to allow them to opt in to the program,
36
although the decision was to have been binding for three years. On February 1, 2000, their request was approved due to the Committee’s belief that these teachers should be able to earn more money and that they apparently did not completely understand the new system or had relied on inaccurate information when they initially decided not to opt into the new pay program. Ancillary pay programs and issues. It is important to note that Vaughn’s performance pay program is not the only pay innovation in place at the school. The 1999-2000 school year is also the second year for the school’s school-based accountability award program. The school met its goal for the 1998-1999 school year and full-time teachers each received a $1,500 bonus payment; that amount was pro-rated for part-time teachers. This program continued for the 1999-2000 with some adaptations to align it with the new state-level accountability goals.
The contingency-pay program described for the first year was continued as part of the second-year program as well. At the end of the school year participating teachers will receive $250 for each of the four areas (student attendance, student discipline, parent partnership, and teaming efforts) for which the stated goal was achieved. Also continued were the “gainsharing” program in which participating teachers receive the savings from decreasing the use of substitutes for the respective teacher and the “expertise pay” for specific roles or responsibilities. Finally, a new “stock options” program was created by investing a lump sum received up-front from a new grant. A total of $290,000 was invested on behalf of all certificated staff participating in the performance pay program. The policy on how to distribute the earnings has not yet been established, although Vaughn administrators believe that it is clear to everyone that the “Employee Incentive Fund” is intended to be a long-term investment.
37 The Third Year: Refining the System
CPRE staff returned at the end of the third year of the knowledge- and skills pay
program. The climate at Vaughn was generally very positive and there is an increased sense of trust in the evaluation system. Many of the teachers who originally opposed the system have retired or left, and the staff is supportive of the philosophy of teacher professionalism and improved student achievement that undergirds the system.
Although creating this culture is an ongoing project for the entire staff, one particular incident stands out as symbolic of how the school works to build trust and to reward teachers for their ongoing efforts to improve student achievement. Under California’s school-based
accountability award program (the Academic Performance Index), Vaughn was required to improve standardized test scores a given percentage to qualify for a schoolwide performance pay bonus. The state originally set the amount at $1500 per teacher at all schools that demonstrated the targeted gains. Statewide, the amount of the reward has been cut to under $600 (due to lack of funds) and has not yet been paid out to teachers due to litigation. The day the principal found out that Vaughn had hit the target, she arranged for teachers to receive the full $1500 they had been originally promised by paying teachers out of another fund. She feels this symbolizes her commitment to the teachers and helps to reinforce the understanding that the Vaughn
administration wants to see teachers financially rewarded and has the fiscal capability to follow-through on bonus pay. The sense of support and family apparent at Vaughn is important for the reader to keep in mind when seeking to understand the evolution of the Vaughn knowledge- and skill-pay program.
It is also important to note staff members’ commitment to the program as part of a school-wide improvement philosophy. One key example comes from evaluators. Since Vaughn