SuhmATNE REPORT
& RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PROGRAM MODIFICATIONS
OF THE ARIZONA CAREER 1,ADDER RESEARCH
& EVALUATION PROJECT
by
Dr. R i r d D. Packard, Director
Dr. Mary L Dereshiwsky, Statistical Research Specialist
Tbe CEE - R & D Partnership
Center for Excellence in Education - Nwtbern Arizona University
Box 5774 - Flagstaff, Arizona - 86001
Pb: (602) 523-5852
Document presented to the
Joint Legislative Committee on Career Ladders Task Force
State Capitol, Senate Caucus Room
September 14,1989
Table of Contents
Page
Summative Report and Recommendations for Program Mflication of the
Arizona Career Ladder Research and Evaluation Project .................. 1
Overview ............................................... 1
Organization of the Task Force. ..................................... 1
Task Force Directives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
A . Organizational Environment and Readiness Levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1 . Policy Uniformity vs . District Diversity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
a) Related Legislative Guidelines. .................... 2
b) General Research Findings ....................... 3
c) Recommended Program Continuations and Modifications . . 3
2 . Recommendations for Career Ladder Models ................ 4
a) Effective Schools Career Ladder Model . Level IIl (ESCLM) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
b) Transition Schools Career Ladder Model . Level II (TSCLM) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
c) Developing Schools Career Ladder Model .
Level I (DSCLM) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
B . Task Force Program Goal Priorities. .......................... 7
1. Student Achievement. ............................... 7
a) Related Legislative Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
b) General Research Findings ...................... 7
c) Recommended Program Continuations and Modifications . . 8
2 . Teacher Evaluation and Placement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
a) Related Legislative Guidelines .................... 10
b) General Research Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 1
c) Recommended Program Continuations and Modifications . . 12
3. Job Enlargement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
a) Related Legislative Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
b) General Research Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
c) Recommended Program Continuations and Modifications . . 1 6
4. Salary, Finance and Budgetary Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
a) Related Legislative Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
b) General Research Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
c) Recommended Program Continuations and Modifications . . 19
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
List of Figures
Figure 1 - Mapping the Developmental Process for Effective
School Reform: Designs and Structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Figure 2 - Assessment Model for Projected District Readiness Levels . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Figure 3 - District Readiness Profile of Strengths and
Weaknesses - Support Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Figure 4 - District Readiness Profile of Strengths and
Weaknesses - Focus Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
SUMMATIVE REPORT I1
Summative Re~oratn d Recommendations for Prom- am Modification
of the Arizona Career Ladder Research
pnd Evaluation Proiect
Overview
Final summative evaluation reports related to the Arizona Career Ladder Research
and Evaluation Project began on July 20, 1989 with a morning presentation to the JLCCL
of an "Executive Summary" and "A Chronology of Research and Evaluation Procedures
for Assessment of the Pilot-Test Career Ladders Teacher Performance and Incentive
Programs." Initial recommendations for study were presented to the Committee's Task
Force that afternoon in the form of a report entitled, "A Preliminary Planning Document
Based on Long-Range Research and Evaluation." Documents presented prior to this time
were quantitative and qualitative research reports and formative summaries depicting the
progress and development of career ladder district plans and project evaluation results.
The summative nature of this report does not imply that formative research and
evaluation has ended. The 1989 data is still in the process of being analyzed and
summarized for reporting to participating districts, so that they may continue to develop and
improve their individual programs through the approved and funded cycle.
Organization of the Task Force
The primary purpose of the first formal meeting of the Task Force was to determine
the processes and procedures to be followed in its operation. Discussion centered around
several questions to be addressed and the way in which participants planned to review and
study the complex and extensive amounts of information which has accumulated from
several sources during the past four years. The committee decided that the next meeting
would be scheduled for September 14, 1989, in order to receive reports from the districts
represented on the Task Force and from the "outside" or "third-party" evaluators at
Northern Arizona University's Center for Excellence in Education. Each district is required
by legislation to conduct its own yearly program evaluation. Third-party "total-program
evaluators" at NAU were established by law and directly approved by the JLCCL to
provide objective assessment, review and evaluation/interpretation of data. This model has
proven effective for informed decision making by policy leaders.
Task Force Dlrec~ . . v s
Through the Senate Chair of the JLCCL, the Task Force requested that the districts
and NAU separately develop and present evaluative information related to two major
concept areas: (1) the type of organizational environment (or district readiness levels)
required for successful integration and implementation of operational career ladder models;
and (2) provision of evidence of the impact of the intervention program on identification
and improvement in levels of effectiveness of four major areas considered to be key
elements to the success of the career ladder concept. The four career ladder goal areas
which the Task Force identified as essential for immediate consideration are as follows: 1)
student achievement; 2) teacher evaluation; 3) job enlargement; and 4)jinunce and funding.
A. Organizational Environment and Readiness Levels
1. Policy Uniforrnitv vs, District Diversitv. A major consideration for Task Force
analysis relates to the question of whether more than ont program model is required
in order to attain the desired goals of improved teacher performance and student
achievement by means of the career ladders concept. This is part of the more
general issue of program effectiveness in influencing recruitment, retention and
motivation of high-quality professionals.
a) Related Le~islativeG uidelines. In 1988, S. B. 1 195 essentially included the
original policy guidelines of S. B. 1336 (developed in 1985) and S. B. 1384
(revised in 1986). It also extended the pilot program stipulations providing
funding for the districts through 1990-91.
[S. B. 1195 (Section 9, A.) states, in part,
"If the recommendation of the joint legislative
committee on career ladders is to allow continuation
or statewide participation in the career ladder
program, the recommendation shall include recommended
requirements for career ladder plans to replace the
requirements prescribed in section 5 of this act."
b) ckneral Research Flndlngs
. . . Research and evaluative evidence has indicated
extreme diversities among districts with respect to readiness to support change
and improvement programs such as career ladders. These diversities, as
reflected within organizational profiles and corresponding diflerences in
individual assessed needs, require determination of the types of career ladder
model programs which would support such differences in developmental levels
- or readiness stages. Some districts have made considerable progress toward
success with the present legislative guidelines and standard structures and
design models, while several others are experiencing dificulties with program
implementation within the short time period allowed for change. On the
average, change theory indicates that it takes a minimum of six years for the
efSects of major intervention and change phenomena to be realized. (Please see
Figures 1 and 2, pp. 22-23, for an example of some of the interrelated support
and focus factors to be assessed for district model placement.)
c) Pecommended Prosram Continuations and Modifications. Based on the
legislative guidelines and the research and evaluation findings, the following
recommendations are in order:
(1) Present pilot-test districts should be placed on a continuation
basis; that is, they should be provided with the authorized
level of funding for a three-year period to enable them to
reach an "Effective Schools Level" of operation. This would
involve such activities as meeting program requirements of curriculum
development; validation of all evaluation systems for students, teachers and
administrators; making realistic adjustments in salary plans based on
financial capabilities of the district and state; and improving other key
interrelated organizational support and focus factors. If these pilot-test
districts are unable to achieve needed changes within a three-year period of
time, then they should be placed on a "transition" or "developing" level,
which would constitute a continuing assessment and profiling cycle. After
another three years of developmental effort, a determination would again be
ma& regarding the district's appropriate career ladder placement level.
Depending on state funding capabilities, planning for
statewide participation is presently warranted. If statewide
implementation is forthcoming, a plan for assessing and approving new
districts would need to be devised and the total state program should be
subject to review and modifications every three to six years. New districts
would voluntarily apply and be phased into one of the model levels, based
upon the state's ability to generate adequate revenue to support their
participation.
(2) A minimum of two to three types of program models are
required to meet the developmental stages of school districts.
During the initial planning stage, each approved district, based on state
funding potential (please see the section on salary and funding), would be
assessed and profiled (Figure 2, p. 23, illustrates examples of assessment
and placement levels; Figures 3, p. 24, and 4, p. 25, show sample profiles
of strengths and weaknesses related to support and focus factors). Each
district would then be placed into one of the three categories described
below:
(a) Effective Schools Career Ladder Model - Level III (ESCLM)
The ESCLM would essentially meet the intent of career ladder
legislation and district plans, designs and structures presently in
operation. Districts would be supported at a maximum approved level
based on the funding formula. They would be placed in this category
as a result of being assessed and profiled as effective operational
systems which clearly provide accountability in meeting program
goals. These districts should be assessed and profiled on a cyclical
basis every three to six years; in addition, they should continue to
work on needed improvements and other modifications identified as
being desirable. Teachers would have the opportunity for competitive
placement within any one of the maximum number of approved career
levels in their district, i. e., Levels I, II or 111.
(b) Transition Schools Career Ladder Model - Level TI (TSCLM)
The TSCLM would be funded at a transitional level for a period of
three to six years, as a means of attaining the following purposes: (1)
developing and improving organizational weaknesses with the
assistance of teacher leaders qualified for identified job enlargement
functions; and (2) refinement of a district system which can validly
account for the impact of district, school and teacher performance on
student achievement.
Teachers would have the opportunity to compete for placement in
the lower number of approved career levels in their district, i.e.,
Levels I and 11. The maximum number of teachers recruited for this
program model should not exceed 50% of the total teacher population.
(c) Qeveloping Schools Career Ladder Model - Level I (DSCLM)
The DSCLM would be funded at a minimum level for a period of
three to six years, for the purposes of changing and improving
organizational weaknesses with the assistance of teacher leaders
qualified for job enlargement functions. These functions would be
determined through the organizational needs assessment and profiling
procedure. Examples of such components include cumculum, student
learning and assessment, and job enlargement assignments related to
social and demographic requirements of the unique district
environment (i.e., culturarnanguage needs; retention programs and
assisting with the correction or improvement of other social/behavioral
conditions which affect student progress). A Level I position would
be the maximum career opportunity level for teachers in this type of
district. The number of district teachers recruited for program
development should not exceed 20-25% of the total teacher
population.
(3) Due to the extreme diversities in school organizations, it is
important that the policy allow for flexibility in the required
amount of time to plan, implement and improve the program at
all levels, based on individual district stages of development
and local conditions for change.
(4) In 1985, the Center for Excellence in Education at NAU was
designated to evaluate the pilot-test program; however, there
was a critical oversight with respect to the usual provisions of
funding the research efforts. An objective "third-party" research
and evaluation operation is necessary in order to insure district
accountability for meeting program specifications and for efficiency and
effectiveness in expending state funds. Districts require unbiased
evaluations and profiling of strengths and weaknesses in order to be placed
at the appropriate model level and to meet individual developmental needs.
B. Task Force Program Goal Priorities
1. Student Achievement. The primary goal of the career ladder programs is to enhance
student achievement. Therefore, program requirements related to progress in
demonstrating accountability for improving student achievement were given a high
priority by the Task Force.
a) Related Legislative Guidelines. Section 5. "Requirements for career ladder
plan," essentially remained the same with respect to student achievement for
Senate Bills 1336, 1384 and 1195.
"Sec. 5. Peauj&anents f o r career ladder wlan. To
receive approval t o budget f o r a career ladder program
as provided i n s e c t i o n 4 of t h i s a c t , a school
d i s t r i c t ' s c a r e e r l a d d e r plan must c o n t a i n t h e
following:
1. . . .
2. How t h e plan is designed t o improve student
academic achievement."
b) General Research Findings. While all participating districts have met
the stated legal requirements of the plan (point #2, above), few of
them have actually been able to demonstrate tangibly the effects of
the program on improved student achievement. In particular, several
districts have been unable to develop adequate scientific and technological
support required to do the following: 1) establish a valid curriculum and
student assessment program based on that curriculum; 2) relate process
evaluation of teacher skill levels to product evaluation of student achievement
gains; 3) develop teacher capability to pre- and post-test students' learning and
determine the signijicance of related achievement gains; and 4) reliably associate
teaclzer pelformance levels with student achievement based on state or national
standardized and nonned tests. Those districts which have valid and reliable
reacher evaluation systems are beginning to &mnstrate a connection between
teacher performance levels and student achievement. To the researchers'
knowledge, this has not been accomplished before in education on such a large
scale.
Recommended Program Continuations and Modifications. Based on the
legislative guidelines and the research and evaluation findings, the following
recommendations are in order:
(1) Districts should continue to show "how the plan is designed
to improve student academic achievement." At the same time,
legislative guidelines need to be expanded to include
requirements for demonstrating accountability for student
achievement. Districts should be placed at their appropriate
stages of "developing," "transitional," or "effective schools
levels," based upon their current operational capabilities,
analogous to teachersf placement on career-ladder levels
according to their demonstrated accountability for student
achievement.
(2) Districts placed on the DeveloDinr Schools Career r,;L1Ldder~
Model (Level I) should devise a long-range plan of improving
accountability for student achievement throughout the total
system (district, school and teacher). In particular, this plan
should contain a detailed description of procedures for developing valid
and reliable measures within each unit of the entire system. Before being
eligible for the transitional model, all teachers within the district should
have received professional development in pre- and post-assessment and be
able to demonstrate individual student and group gains with respect to
curricular objectives being taught in their classrooms.
Those districts using the DSCLM are not yet capable of directly
connecting teacher performance with student achievement. Therefore, their
career ladder teachers should be assigned to "Placement Level I," applying
their extended time and responsibilities in providing leadership to develop
and validate curricular objectives, teaching methodologies and school
programs which are closely associated with student achievement.
(3) Districts placed on the Transitional Schools Career Ladders
Model (Level 11) should continue to develop their teachers by
means of extensive job-enlargement assignments. In addition,
they need to refine and validate a curriculum to track assessment of student
learning on the classroom, school and district levels over a long-range
period of time.
(4) Districts would be eligible for the Effective Schools Career
Ladders Model (Level 111) when the system is able to
implement a program which can validly and reliably account
for student achievement based on at least two types of
measurement. The two measurement requirements to be monitored on
the district, school and teacher levels are identified and described below:
(a) In order to account for student improvement throughout the long term,
a sound and well-developed curriculum (including content objectives)
which is designed for students within the local community would be
validated and normed on quantitative and qualitative measures which
can be reliably tracked. Districts would then be able to assess and
compare improvement in student achievement more equitably within
the local environment. Local districts should not be held
accountable to an unrealistic standard in comparison to
other schools with different curricular needs, or to
communities which have environments that may be
extremely divergent from their own.
(b) At least one other standardized state or national measure for district
accountability should be required. Appropriate nonning should occur
on the local level in order to prevent unfair or misleading comparisons
across diverse districts, as well as to enhance accountability.
Specifically, this means that each district (and the schools contained
within it) should norm the state-approved or accepted standardized
tests. Each district should also be able to assess teacher, school and
district improvement throughout an extended time period, in order to
determine the local impact of its particular career ladders program on
student achievement.
2. Teacher Evaluation and Placement Teacher evaluation andplacement was
identified by the Task Force as another key program consideration. The purpose of
the career ladder concept is to reward teachers based on levels of performance.
Therefore, such components of teacher evaluation as improvement of classroom
skills and related extended job responsibilities (requiring greater time commitments
and higher levels of expertise) which directly impact student achievement were a
logical focus of immediate attention.
a) Related Legislative Guidelines. Section S., Paragraph 4 of the career ladder
legislation states, in part,
"The c r i t e r i a f o r advancement s h a l l be challenging
enough t h a t not a l l teachers are expected t o advance
t o the highest l e v e l . Movement, e i t h e r upward or
downward, on t h e career ladder s h a l l be conditional
and based on the evaluation procedures as provided i n
paragraph 6 of t h i s section."
Paragraph 6 relates to the evaluation procedures contained within the career
ladder program for teachers. It states that,
"the evaluation procedures shall be based on the
evaluation system as provided in section 15-537,
Arizona Revised Statutes, and shall include at least
the following:
(1) More than one measure of teacher performance
including performance in relation to student
academic progress.
(2) An explanation of the procedures used to determine
that the measures of teacher performance are fair
and objective.
(3) Opportunities for improvement of teacher
performance."
b) General Research Findings. Research indicates that most districts are doing an
excellent job of building on past evaluation procedures of assessing teaching
input and process. At the same time however, few of them have attained the
primary objective of validly connecting teaching pe~ormance levels to the
content product (or output) of student academic achievement. Pe~ormance-based
systems require multiple and specific criteria which are appropriately clear
and developmental in nature and scientifically connected to student achievement.
The criteria in most evaluation systems are "challenging enough," but they
deal to a greater degree with evaluating teachers' adherence to lesson-plan
procedures and "cook-book" methodologies, rather than with the level of
academic content and accountability demonstrated in student learning. Several
districts appear to have ''measures of teacher performance" which are 'Ifair and
objective," but most have not conducted reliability and validity studies on their
evaluation systems in order to demonstrate clearly the connection between
classroom pelfonnunce and achievement.
A particularly notable success of the career ladder teacher development and
incentive program has been the expanding variety of professional "opportunities
for improvement of teacher pelforrnance." Teachers have been found to be
extremely dedicated to professional development; they have expended extensive
amounts of time and effort in support of district and state guidelines and
directives for improving education.
While teachers are very enthusiastic and professional about following
requirements, a major problem has developed with respect to district self-monitoring
of program success. Several districts are not yet able to apply or
assess thz eficacy of evaluation and improvement programs systematically and
objectively in the short implementation time allowed.
Recommended Pro~ram Continuations and Modifications. Based on the
legislative guidelines and the research and evaluation findings, the following
recommendations are suggested:
(1) The career ladder program should continue to require districts
to meet the specifications of Section 15-537 of the Arizona
Revised Statutes, as well as the more specific policy of
connecting "teacher performance in relation to student
academic progress."
(2) The law needs to require more than "an explanation of the
procedures used to determine that the measures of teacher
- performance are fair and objective." Individual districts' evaluation
systems need to be assessed to determine their current levels of readiness
for effective placement of teachers on the ladder. More specifically, this
should be accomplished by districts progressing through the developing,
transitional and the effective schools model levels based upon objective
validation of their systems.
Extreme diversities with respect to districts' readiness
levels require that teacher evaluation and improvement
systems be modified within a time frame which would support
the unique change conditions affecting each district. That is,
districts have experienced differences in change conditions which affect
their ability to develop with respect to required time and technological
sophistication. Such differences in ability to adjust to change should
therefore be directly incorporated into recommended programs.
(3) Career ladder policy should provide for the establishment of
an objective and effective evaluation system, which would
include the following components:
(a) establishment of a valid curriculum, including educational
objectives, which meet local needs;
(b) validation and norming of tests to be used to determine
student progress with respect to content being taught,
which in turn is based on local curricular objectives;
(c) local norming of a state or national standardized test
within each district, school, subject and grade level; and
(d) validation of the teacher evaluation system through
determination of the relationship between levels of
assessed teacher performance (process evaluation) and
results of student progress (product evaluation).
Those districts capable of progressing through the foregoing
developmental phases would warrant placement in the "Effective Schools
Career Ladders Model." In order to merit this placement, it is necessary
for districts to re-allocate their efforts; that is, to spend proportionately &
time on process evaluation and more time on product evaluation.
Furthermore, teachers are devoting too much time to the technicalities of
classroom performance. They need to concentrate more on the
development of a cumculum, with related testing and evaluation of content
which is linked to differences in developmental levels of their students.
As districts move from the developing career ladder model to the
effective school model, the evaluation system should progress from
process to product evaluation. Developing schools which are not yet
capable of reliably assessing student achievement based on valid
procedures would rely on process evaluation to a greater degree. Effective
schools, in contrast, would balance evaluation systems by using more
product evaluation procedures. Advanced teachers in effective schools
should have an evaluation system which would allow for creative and
imaginative varieties of teaching methodologies, rather than having to
follow a more rigid "cook-book process of instruction. Creative and
unique methods of teaching have in fact been found to result in greater
student progress and achievement.
(4) Since research has shown that teacher input into change systems is of
utmost importance, it is crucial that the evaluation system be assessed and
refined on a continual basis, with teacher leaders playing a major role in all
stages of its improvement.
3. Job Enlargement. The Task Force was very astute in recognizing the importance of
the influence teachers could have in assisting districts through extended time
involvement and greater instructional responsibilities. The principle of job
enlargement, or delegation of expanded duties, has been found to be as workable
and intrinsically motivating in education as in private industry.
Related Lgg . . islative G u m . Section 5. Requirements for career ladder plan,
paragraph 3, relates to provisions for job enlargement.
" (b) Improved or advanced teaching skills combined
with one of the following:
(i) Other skills.
(ii) Additional responsibilities.
(iii) Other skills and additional responsibilities."
b) General Research Findings. Practical experience has sbwn that improving
those aspects of district organizational structure which relate to teacher skills
development and accountability for student progress is a very complex and
time-consuming endeavor. As is the case for top-level management in the
private sector, administrators are faced with numerous pressing responsibilities,
such as those related to personnel, budgets and facilities, all of which place
excessive demands on their time. Delegating increased responsibility to teacher
leaders would not only help to alleviate this problem, but would also improve
the overall instructional program of the school as a result of wider professional
- participation and input.
In order to be maximally efficient and effective, job enlargement
responsibilities must be systematically planned to meet local district profiled
needs related to both the social and academic concerns of the community and
school system. The following is a brief explanation of the parameters of these
two major areas:
(1) Individuals' potentials for learning are greatly influenced by the particular
environment in which they live. As a result, there is a great deal of
digerence in the types of expertise and programs which require directed
assignments for teacher leaders. More specifically, schools and
communities are quite diverse with respect to social conditions such as the
following: culture, ethnic majorities, retention rates, drug use, family
structures, nutritional habits, values, economic sufliciency and stabilit),,
neighborhood housing arrangements and crime rates. Schoollbusiness
partnerships are types of supportive programs which have attempted to
recognize these social and academic concerns explicitly; they would lend
themselves well to job enlargement assignments.
(2) Academic assignments which are associated with the goals of the career
ladder program include areas such as curriculum development,
measurement of student progress, mentoring, classroom coaching,
modeling, clinical supervision, and evaluation of peers. Job enlargement
also requires explicit consideration and task assignments regarding
psychological, physical, and emotional variables, since these factors are
closely related to individuals' ability to achieve.
c) Recommended Program Continuations and Modifications. Based on the
legislative guidelines and the research and evaluation findings, the following
recommendations are in order:
(1) The requirement for "additional responsibilitiestt should
continue to be a key element in changing and improving
school operations which have the greatest positive effect on
the development of teaching skills and student progress.
(2) As districts progress through the developing, transitional and
effective schools models, job enlargement assignments should
be refined to meet the ongoing identified and profiled
improvement needs. For example, preliminary instructional
assignments may consist primarily of curriculum development and
validation of student measurement procedures, while corresponding social
assignments at this stage may involve working on retention or
parent/school programs. Once the dismct qualifies for an effective schools
model, greater attention would be focused on activities such as mentoring
novice teachers, as well as refining internal programs designed to connect
teacher performance with student achievement by applying the latest
technological innovations.
(3) The extended time involvement which is necessary for
implementing effective job enlargement should be explicitly
incorporated into legislative policy. Teachers at the top levels of
the ladder who are receiving executive salaries should be awarded contract
extensions equivalent to those of other professions.
(4) Legislation should be modified to require administrative and
governing board approval of all job enlargement assignments.
Neither the career ladder steering committee nor any other single internal
organizational unit should be held totally responsible for developing or
implementing job enlargement assignment decisions. The requirement of
approval at the district level would insure that the local governance
procedures would continue to meet both community and school needs
which have been openly and publicly identified and approved.
4. Salary. Finance and Budgetary Considerations. The issue of program funding
warranted special attention fiom the Task Force for a number of key reasons. The
total amount of available funds for educational improvement, as well as the
motivational aspects of salary as a teacher incentive, are instrumental factors in
energizing and mobilizing this educational reform movement.
a) Related Leyislative Guidelines. Teacher salary and "restructuring of the salary
schedule" was included in Section 5, paragraph 7 of the legislation and states,
in part, the following:
"7. A compensation system which is based on a
completely r e s t r u c t u r e d s a l a r y schedule i n which a
s a l a r y range is set f o r each l e v e l on the career ladder
and t h e s a l a r y f o r a t e a c h e r within t h e range is based
on objective performance evaluation or other objective
f a c t o r s . The s a l a r y schedule s h a l l not be t h e
t r a d i t i o n a l schedule based on experience and education
with a d d i t i o n a l stipends added on for higher l e v e l s .
I f p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n t h e c a r e e r ladder program is
o p t i o n a l , t h e t r a d i t i o n a l s a l a r y schedule may be
r e t a i n e d f o r t h o s e t e a c h e r s who choose not t o
p a r t i c i p a t e i n the program."
Through Section 6, paragraph A of the policy, accepted school districts
were provided the "approval to budget for career ladder programs," as follows:
"1. For f i s c a l year 1986-1987, 2.5 p e r c e n t .
2. For f i s c a l year 1987-1988, 3.7 per cent.
3. For f i s c a l year 1988-1989 and 1989-90, 5.0 per cent."
b) General Research Findings. The Center's ongoing research studies have
consistently identified the motivational impact of higher teacher salaries as a
significant extrinsic incentive for reachers to assume expanded responsibilities
and extended time commitments. The absolute dollar amount of the increase is
not the critical factor. Rather, it is the establishment of some basis of monetary
recognition of teachers for increased competency and performance. In other
words, there needs to be a systematic means of meaningful differentiation in
monetary rewards given to teachers. Provided that such a policy is in place, it
has been found tlzat there are also several intrinsic factors, such as professional
recognition and satisfaction with the work environment, which may be as
strong an incentive as pay itself. Large salary increases, in fact, have been
. . atremelv negative and Be-motwatzo& in those districts which currently lack
objective and valid procedures to determine the hierarchical expertise of their
teachers with respect to curricular content and student progress.
The process of budgeting for the career ladder program has
been very beneficial to all of the districts. However, the practice
of planning for yearly increases has not proven to be
economically or financially effective. Participating districts
should instead be funded based on their respective developmental
stages or readiness levels. Automatically providing large amounts
of funds to those districts which lack readiness can, in effect,
serve to perpetuate existing organizational weaknesses, instead of
fostering positive change and improvement efforts.
mmended Prog- ram Continuations and Modifications. As a result of
budgeting and funding, most districts and teachers have made tremendous
advancements toward meeting Career Ladder program goals. However, certain
modifications of existing practices are essential in order to attain even greater
economic and financial advantages. Based on the legislative guidelines and the
research and evaluation findings, the following recommendations are suggested:
(1) As established by current legislation, the compensation
system should continue to follow a "completely restructured
salary schedule;" in addition, teachers should continue to be
rewarded for "objective performance evaluation or other
objective factors." However, instead of explicitly stating a
dollar amount for the "salary range," it is recommended that a
differentiated percentage be used in order to reallocate total
available program funds more equitably among the
participants.
(2) The decision as to whether the career ladder program should
be required or optional for teachers should be made by each
district on a local level. Furthermore, if the program is
expanded statewide, it should be voluntary. That is, only
those school systems wishing to participate would adopt a
procedure of rewarding teachers based on performance, rather
than solely on years of experience and accumulated college
credit hours.
(3) A certain percentage of program funds should be earmarked
for recognition of participation in inservice programs (i.e.
leave of absence for personal study), as well as for
differential performance levels. The primary purpose of such a
policy would be to attempt to alleviate the problem of teacher burn-out.
That is, teachers have tended to over-extend themselves in their drive to
earn recognition for their work efforts. The proposed corrective policy is
designed to address this problem by capitalizing on the positive nature of
intrinsic rewards.
(4) Career ladder districts should be funded based on their model
level of organizational performance; i.e., placed in
developing, transitional or effective levels determined
through a three-year cycle of evaluation and improvement.
It is recommended that the Task Force review modifications to the
current budget formula. The following are offered for committee
consideration:
(a) Funding Base x Special Factors x ADM x CL Base
(b) Funding Base x Special Factors x ADM x (CL Model Base x CL
Teacher Proportion)
(c) Funding Base x Special Factors x ADM x (CL Model Base x CL
Teacher Proportion x Experience Factor)
(d) Funding Base x Special Factors x ADM x (CL Model Base x CL
Teacher Proportion x Experience Factor x Resource Factor)
Letter (a) above depicts the present budgetary formula for career ladder
districts, while (b) through (d) add factors which should be studied and
considered for mWications. A brief definition of new terminology is provided
below:
CL Model Base represents the maximum limits of funding available within
the three levels of developing, transitional and effective model assignment
(i.e., ranges of 2 to 3%, 4 to 5%, and 6 to 7%).
CL Teacher Proportion is the percentage or participation rate of teachers
within each district. This should onlv be a ~ ~ l iteo dth e Effective Schools I I - - ~- ~ -
- - - - - . - - -
Model if limitations are placed on th; percentage of teachers allowed into
developing and transitional models.
Experience Factor is a weighted adjustment factor for districts which have a
large number of teachers with relatively few years of experience but who
are performing at high levels.
Resource Factor is an adjustment for districts which suffer from an unequal
financial base and lack the resources of other, more affluent communities.
Conclusion
If the career ladder program continues as recommended by the evaluators, and if it
is expanded to allow an application and approval process for other Arizona school districts,
the present Career Ladder districts should continue to be funded at current levels for a
- three-year period. At the end of that period of time, those districts not meeting the
requirements of the Effective Career Ladder Schools Model would be placed at a
developing or transitional level and receive appropriate funding for that particular stage of
development. Additional schools would be admitted to the program at an approved rate
based on the state's funding capabilities and according to their respective assessed model
levels.
Dr. Richrd D. 1988
Figure 1
MAPPING THE DEWPMENTAL PROCESS
FOR EFFECTNE SCHOOL REFORM:
CURRlCULUM I INSl'RUCI1ON /
SlUDJihTA-MEASmlxEhT
INPLUEh'CE OF
UNXVERSITY ROLE, .
RES WNSIBILfllES CONDITIONS ON
AND PrQS FOR EDUCATION &
THE PRIVATE
EDUCAllONAL IMPROVEMENT & SUCCESS
PROFESSIONAL NETWORKS
STATE EINANCE & FUNDING
A Model of Interrelated Components of Program Support and Focus
for Effecting Change and Reform in Education
Figure 2
Assessment Model for Projected
District Readiness Levels
I LEGISLAnVE GUIDELINES H STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION
(Department of Education)
program
Assurance of
Accountability -
Assessment of
Student Achievement
(Production & Outcomes) District
I I \ Readiness Level t Teacher Skills
Development & Leadership
I I
Administrator
Development & Leadership
I I
Evaluation
(Teacher & Administrator)
I I
Motivation
(Intrinsic/Extrinsic)
I 1 b I Local Finance & Funding
(Salsry W e )
I I I
District R & D
1 (Program Evaluation)
I Professional Input
(M~P)
r I I
Program Designs
and Structures
I 1
Local Governing Board
(Understanding & Support)
I Organizational Factors
(Climate/Communication)
Application of
Needed Change
Development
Models
1
lntemal
Development of
Level I
1
District Model
Placement Level Level II
Based on
Assessment and
hfiled Needs . "
Level I
Developing Schools
Career Ladder Model
4 4
DISTRICT ASSIGNMENT AND ADJUSTMENT BASED ON I PROFILED AND PROJECTED TIME AND CHANGE REQUIREMENTS 1
