Upload
smf-4lakids
View
220
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
8/6/2019 NCTQ on LAUSD: Teacher Quality Roadmap 06-07-2011
1/58
TeacherQuality
RoadmapImprovingPolicies and
Practices inLAUSD
8/6/2019 NCTQ on LAUSD: Teacher Quality Roadmap 06-07-2011
2/58
About this study
This study was undertaken on behal o the672,000 children who attend school in theLos Angeles Unifed School District.
About NCTQThe National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ) is a non-partisan research and policy
organization committed to restructuring the teaching proession, led by our vision that
every child deserves eective teachers.
Partner and Funders
This study is done in partnership with the United Way o Greater Los Angeles and a
coalition o groups including, Parent Organization Network, Families in Schools, Alliance
or a Better Community, Asian Pacic American Legal Center, Los Angeles Urban League
and the Mexican American Legal Deense and Education Fund. Additional unding or this
study was provided by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
The NCTQ team or this project
Emily Cohen, Project Director
Priya Varghese, Policy Analyst
8/6/2019 NCTQ on LAUSD: Teacher Quality Roadmap 06-07-2011
3/58
Table o Contents
Introduction 3
Standard 1: Teacher Assignment 7
Standard 2: Evaluations 19
Standard 3: Tenure 34
Standard 4: Compensation 39
Standard 5: Work Schedule 48
8/6/2019 NCTQ on LAUSD: Teacher Quality Roadmap 06-07-2011
4/58
8/6/2019 NCTQ on LAUSD: Teacher Quality Roadmap 06-07-2011
5/58
1
Introduction
IntroductionAt the request o the United Way o Greater Los Angeles, the National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ)
undertook this analysis o the teacher policies in the Los Angeles Unied School District (LAUSD). A
coalition o civil rights groups were also involved in this project, including Parent Organization Network,
Families in Schools, Alliance or a Better Community, Asian Pacic American Legal Center, Los Angeles
Urban League and the Mexican American Legal Deense and Educational Fund.
Not unlike students in other urban districts in this country, ar too many LAUSD students are under-
perorming academically. LAUSDs graduation rate hovers just below 60 percent and only 11 percent o
4th grade students scored procient in reading on the nations report card, the National Assessment o
Educational Progress (NAEP).
In the ace o these challenges, recently appointed Superintendent John Deasy has mapped out an
aggressive series o goals or improving graduation rates, student perormance, attendance and school
saety. The district plans to drive these changes through a targeted human capital initiative ocused
on perormance-based management and accountability.
Snapshot o LAUSD
n 2nd largest district in the county
n 27 cities, in addition to Los Angeles,
included in the school district
n ~800 schools
n 2,000 administrators
n ~29,000 teachers
n ~672,000 K-12 students
- 79 percent receive ree or reduced lunch
- 30 percent are English language learners
The backdrop to these reorm eorts is a $408 million budget shortall or the 2012 scal year which likely
guarantees signicant teacher layos and urloughs or the third consecutive year. Teacher perormance,
student perormance and solutions to the districts nancial crisis are interconnected to an unprecedented
degree. These changes have dramatically changed the make-up o the teacher workorce; the number o
teachers in the beginning o their careers has allen by nearly 15 percent, due to seniority driven layo policies.
Race/ethnicityStudents(percent)
Teachers(percent)
Black or Arican American 9 11
American Indian 0 0.6
Asian 4 9
Filipino 2 3
Hispanic or Latino 75 33
White 9 44
8/6/2019 NCTQ on LAUSD: Teacher Quality Roadmap 06-07-2011
6/58
Improving Policies and Practices in the LAUSD
2
Figure 1. Changing workorce in LAUSD
Source: LAUSD Human Resources
Also shaping the local context are the varying school models within LAUSD that provide students a
choice o where they attend school. These various school models (whether Partnership, pilot, magnet
or school-based management) also give the adults in the building increased autonomy (most notably in
stang and work schedules) in exchange or greater accountability.
What this report seeks to accomplishThis report seeks to shed light on the policies that can improve the quality o the teaching orce in
LAUSD. We explore these policies both as they are written on paper and as they play out in practice.
NCTQ rames this analysis around ve standards supported by research and best practices rom theeld or improving teaching quality:
1. Teacher Assignment. District policies acilitate schools access to top teacher talent.
2. Evaluations. The evaluation o teacher perormance plays a critical role in advancing teacher
eectiveness.
3. Tenure. Tenure is a meaningul milestone in a teachers career and advances the districts
goal o building a corps o eective teachers.
4. Compensation. Compensation is strategically targeted to attract and reward high quality
teachers, especially in hard-to-sta positions.
5. Work Schedule. Work schedule and attendance policies maximize instruction.
8/6/2019 NCTQ on LAUSD: Teacher Quality Roadmap 06-07-2011
7/58
3
Introduction
Under each standard we provide several recommendations, some or LAUSD and some or the state
o Caliornia.
This symbol denotes recommendations that the LAUSD central oce can initiate without
changes to the teacher contract.This symbol denotes recommendations whose implementation requires negotiation in the
collective bargaining agreement between the school district and the teachers union.
This symbol denotes recommendations that require a change in state policy to implement.
MethodologyTo undertake this study, NCTQ rst reviewed the districts current collective bargaining agreement
with its teachers union, the United Teachers o Los Angeles (UTLA), along with any relevant school
board policies. We also looked or state laws aecting local policy. We compared the laws and policies
in LAUSD and Caliornia with the 100-plus school districts ound in our TR3 database (www.nctq.org/
tr3). This exercise allowed us to determine where LAUSD alls along the spectrum o teacher quality
policies and identiy practices that LAUSD might emulate.
NCTQ then held ocus groups with community leaders and parents to hear about their experiences in
LAUSD. We also spoke with teachers, principals, district administrators and union leaders to deepen
our understanding o how policies play out in practice.
We surveyed teachers and principals to gain a broader sense o sta attitudes and experiences;
1,317 teachers (4.5 percent) and 247 principals (31 percent) completed the surveys. Quotations in this
report come rom these surveys and ocus groups. These quotations are not necessarily statements o act,
but rather teacher and principal perceptions about LAUSD policies and practices.
Finally, we looked at a range o teacher personnel data to give us a better understanding o the outcomes
o teacher hiring, transer, evaluation, attendance and compensation policies.
A drat o our analysis was shared with LAUSD, UTLA and the Associated Administrators o Los Angeles
(AALA) to veriy its accuracy. Both LAUSD and UTLA provided eedback that was incorporated in the
nal report.
8/6/2019 NCTQ on LAUSD: Teacher Quality Roadmap 06-07-2011
8/58
8/6/2019 NCTQ on LAUSD: Teacher Quality Roadmap 06-07-2011
9/58
5
Standard 1.
Teacher AssignmentDistrict policies acilitate schools access to top teacher talent.
Indicators on which this standard was assessed:1.1 Teachers apply directly to vacancies at schools; principals and/or school committees select
applicants they wish to interview and have nal say over teacher assignment.
1.2 When positions must be cut, teacher perormance is a key actor in deciding who stays or goes.
1.3 The districts stang timeline ensures that the majority o vacancies are lled by June o
each school year; accordingly teachers who are retiring and resigning provide notice beore
transers occur.
1.4 The district recruits an ample supply o candidates who have the personal and proessional
characteristics ound to correlate with teacher eectiveness.
1.1 Teachers apply directly to vacancies at schools; principals and/or school
committees select applicants they wish to interview and have nal say over teacher
assignment.
FINDING: LAUSD practices some elements o mutual consent stang, but restrictive
state laws and contractual rules prevent ull implementation.
When teachers in LAUSD seek a new position in the district they apply directly to individual schools
which have advertised vacancies. This rather progressive policy is a departure rom the standard
practice o most large American school districts, in which teachers must rst go through the districtsHR department to nd a new assignment, oten having to rank their preerences and securing a new
position according to seniority.
Although seniority is not a actor in deciding where teachers are placed when they transer schools, it is a
actor in deciding who teaches which classes within each school. Article IX-A o the UTLA contract permits
8/6/2019 NCTQ on LAUSD: Teacher Quality Roadmap 06-07-2011
10/58
Improving Policies and Practices in the LAUSD
6 www.nctq.org/tr3
teachers to rank their preerence or the classes they want to teach, with
seniority being the deciding actor. This provision is unusual; ew contracts
in our TR3 database ormally grant teachers seniority preerences in
determining which class they will teach.
Seniority is also a actor in deciding which positions will be cut when
school populations shit or when layos must be made.1 In the past
two years, as LAUSD has signicantly downsized (the result o state
budget cuts and declining student enrollment), thousands o teachers
have been either laid o or displaced. LAUSD principals are oten
pressured to hire teachers who lost their position at one school who
then land on the priority placement list, commonly known as the
must-place list, beore they are allowed to consider other applicants.
Principals also report that this priority placement pool delays other
stang decisions.
Not unlike most districts, in LAUSD, teachers who have lost their posi-
tion in one school in the district are guaranteed a position at another
school in the district. It is this guarantee that proves problematic and
is the motivation or the policy changes being made elsewhere in the
country.2
Districts are relatively powerless to change this dynamic. Caliornia
state law does not allow a district to release a tenured teacher on the
basis o not being able to nd another position in the district. LAUSD
and other Caliornia districts are let with little choice: they can either
orce principals to accept teachers who have been displaced or nd
unds to keep teachers on the payroll without a school assignment.
The latter practice is costly but some districts are still taking on the
expense: New York City estimates it spends $100 million to pay 1,000
displaced teachers not to teach.
1 With the introduction o school-based budgeting, principals have some say over whichprograms will be cut and thereore some indirect infuence on which teachers will bedisplaced.
2 Colorado, or example, passed a law in 2010 that allows teachers who are without aclassroom assignment ater one year to be placed on unpaid leave.
I dont think itmakes sense tocut people byseniority. I usedto be a managerof a restaurant. IfI have to get rid ofservers, Im goingto keep the oneswho are mosteffective.
- LAUSD teacher
8/6/2019 NCTQ on LAUSD: Teacher Quality Roadmap 06-07-2011
11/58
7
Standard 1. Teacher Assignment
Figure 2. How oten are teachers hired rom the
priority placement list a good t or your school?
Source: NCTQ Survey o LAUSD Principals, Feb/Mar 2011. n=201
While teachers are displaced on the basis o seniority and not
perormance, there is nonetheless a stigma associate with being onthe priority placement list. Principals and teachers both commented in
ocus groups that the excellent teachers who do end up on the list are
snatched up quickly. LAUSD principals are rustrated with eectively
being orced to hire teachers rom this pool. Three-quarters o principals
surveyed by NCTQ said that they were unable to hire their teacher o
choice because they needed to hire rom the priority placement list.
Three-quarters o principals surveyed also said that teachers on the
must-place list are rarely i ever a good t or their school.
FINDING: Both Caliornia law and the LAUSD teacherscontract provide principals some latitude over stang, but
principals are either unaware o or reticent to take advantage
o special provisions that allow them to reuse orced place-
ment o teachers.
State law allows principals at Caliornias academically struggling
schools the right to reuse placement o voluntarilytranserring teachers.3
At the local level, the UTLA teacher contract also permits principals to
make exceptions to the provision requiring teachers to be displaced
by seniority when such an approach to not be in the best interest othe school.4 It is unclear what burden o evidence rests on principals to
3 Schools aorded the right to reuse teachers by Caliornia Education Code 35036 arethose with an academic perormance index o 1, 2 or 3, on a scale o 1 to 10.
4 Principals have discretion over excessing i the teacher has a unique set o skills or areaso expertise or hardship or medical issues.
Ive gotten aR.I.F. notice 3out of the 4 yearsthat I have been a
teacher. What kindof appreciation orsupport is that? Itis demoralizing.
- LAUSD teacher
8/6/2019 NCTQ on LAUSD: Teacher Quality Roadmap 06-07-2011
12/58
Improving Policies and Practices in the LAUSD
8
argue or these exceptions. Principal ocus groups as well as survey responses suggest that principals
do not eel they have the authority to use the exceptions.
Pilot, charter and school-based management schools have signicantly greater autonomy in stang
than traditional schools. Pilot schools (schools whose teachers have an amended work agreementrom the UTLA contract) are not required to hire teachers rom the priority placement list, except
when the district is engaged in a Reduction in Force (RIF), which it has been now or three years.5
1.2 When positions must be cut, teacher perormance is a key actor in deciding
who stays or goes.
FINDING: LAUSDs recent settlement with the ACLU and Public Counsel spares the neediest
schools rom layos by requiring layos to be distributed more evenly across the district,
but it alls short o a more permanent solution to the stang problems created by seniority-
based policies.6
Caliornia law requires that districts use seniority as the determining actor in layos. Caliornia is
one o only 12 states mandatingthat layos be conducted according to reverse seniority, with most
states deciding not to weigh in on the subject. In the last 18 months, a handul o states have changed
laws to now prohibit seniority as the primary determinant in layo decisions (Arizona, Florida and Idaho).
Other states now require a teachers perormance to be the top criterion or determining who will be
laid o (Colorado, Indiana and Oklahoma).
While Caliornia law requires that layos be conducted according to reverse seniority, it does provide
some fexibility. Districts may lay o teachers out o seniority order or either pedagogical reasons
or to ensure students rights to a quality education. LAUSD has interpreted the fexibility granted by thelaw narrowly. In the 2008-2009 school year, LAUSD laid o 590 teachers out o seniority order whose
credentials did not meet No Child Let Behinds Highly Qualied Teacher requirement. It has not used
the provision to protect a newer, eective teacher, while laying o an older, ineective teacher.
Worth noting is that LAUSD negotiated a provision into its current contract that gives even greater
weight to seniority than the state law. The contract provision requires that seniority determinations be
made district-wide, as opposed to within each school. This approach results in more disruption to the
highest needs schools that oten employ the least senior teachers.
5 Teachers who work in a pilot school must sign an elect to work agreement that is an addendum to the UTLA contract. The workagreement or pilot schools is designed and ratied at each school site. Teachers are reviewed annually against this document, whichalso contains an expedited arbitration process should it be determined that a teacher is not t or the school. Teachers dismissed rompilot schools are still guaranteed a position elsewhere in the district. The agreement is requently short (oten only ve pages), andteachers maintain nearly all o the rights and protections o UTLA membership, including accruing seniority, salary and benets.
6 The premise o the case was that the impact o teacher layos at certain schools was so severe and destabilizing that it compromisedthe constitutional rights o students at those schools.
8/6/2019 NCTQ on LAUSD: Teacher Quality Roadmap 06-07-2011
13/58
9
Standard 1. Teacher Assignment
The 2011 settlement with the ACLU and Public Counsel protects up to 45 o the highest-poverty
schools rom layos entirely, but those schools comprise only about 6 percent o the 792 schools in
the district. LAUSD anticipates that this year nearly three times as many teachers will lose their jobs
as last year. Consequently, virtually all schools in LAUSD will be aected to an unprecedented degree by
budget cuts. Even though the districts very poorest schools will be spared, 153 o schools in the rstpoverty quartile (with an average poverty rate o 94 percent) will still be aected.
As it turns out, the highest numbers o inexperienced teachers (those in their rst and second years)
are now notworking in the poorest schools, rather, they are employed in somewhat more afuent
schools. This shit is not surprising because the districts poorest schools have already elt the brunt
o layos in the previous two years.
Figure 3. Inexperienced teachers by poverty
quartile, 2009-2010
Source: LAUSD Human Resources
1.3 The district hiring timeline ensures that the majority o vacancies are lled by June
o each school year; accordingly, retiring and resigning teacher provide notice
beore transers occur.
FINDING: Teaching vacancies in LAUSD are still being created well into the summer,compromising the districts ability to recruit top candidates and schools opportunities to
work with their teams over the summer.
In surveys, principals report lling vacancies in the summer months more than any other timeand
oten near the start o the new school year.
Figure 4. LAUSD teacher layos
Source: LAUSD Human Resources
8/6/2019 NCTQ on LAUSD: Teacher Quality Roadmap 06-07-2011
14/58
Improving Policies and Practices in the LAUSD
10
Figure 5. Month principals report lling the most vacancies
Source: NCTQ survey, February/March 2011. Respondents: 247 principals
LAUSD does not require that retiring and resigning teachers have to notiy the district o their intention
to leave until June 30 o each year.7 While this late deadline is common among many large urban schooldistricts, it hinders schools abilities to hire the best teachers. LAUSD HR data show that the number o
vacancies is highest in July, but the number o job applications received (and positions lled) is highest
in August. This timeline places a high burden on HR and principals to ll positions close to the rst
day o school, with the district having to hire hundreds o teachers in the month beore the new school
year begins.
Figure 6. Timing o teacher hiring in LAUSD
Source: LAUSD Human Resources, 2010
7 LAUSD Personnel Policy Guide, E-14
8/6/2019 NCTQ on LAUSD: Teacher Quality Roadmap 06-07-2011
15/58
1
Standard 1. Teacher Assignment
For two years LAUSD tried implementing an early declaration incentive to
encourage departing teachers to give early notice o their plans to leave.
The program began in the 2008-2009 school year, paying teachers $300
i they gave notice in April and was increased in 2009-2010 to $1,000.8
LAUSD reports that neither amount increased the rate o early notices.
1.4 The district makes principals jobs easier by recruiting
teacher candidates who have the personal and proessional
characteristics ound to correlate with teacher eectiveness.
FINDING: Principals had mixed reviews about the quality o the
applicants screened by HR.
Figure 7. Principal satisaction with teacher applicant sources
Source: NCTQ survey, Feb/Mar 2011. Respondents: 247 principals
O the various sources o teacher candidates, principals are most satised with new hires.
FINDING: LAUSD limits schools access to teacher
candidates by permitting them to interview only teachers
who have been teaching in the same local district.
FINDING: The interview process at the school level lacks rigor.
Although LAUSD provide principals guidance on how to conduct interviews,
such guidance does not include asking a candidate to teach a sample
8 In the 2008-2009 school year, 429 teachers notied early, and in the 2009-2010 schoolyear, 623 teachers notied early.
I think in thepast 4 to 5 years,HR has done
an incredible jobof preliminaryscreening,questioningand calling aboutnew candidates!Their process hasimproved greatlyand it shows in thecaliber of personsthat we interview!
- LAUSD prinicpal
8/6/2019 NCTQ on LAUSD: Teacher Quality Roadmap 06-07-2011
16/58
Improving Policies and Practices in the LAUSD
12 www.nctq.org/tr3
lesson. Consequently most candidates are not assessed on the skill or
which teachers are presumably hired: their ability to teach. According to
surveyed teachers hired since the 2006-2007 school year, the majority
(89 percent) were interviewed by their principal as part o their application
process or their current position, but only 13 percent had to teach asample lesson as part o their interview.
FINDING: Less than hal o LAUSDs teachers graduated rom
more selective academic institutions.
One important indicator o teacher promise is a teachers academic
background. There have been many studies over the years showing
that teachers with higher scores on tests o verbal ability, such as the SAT
or ACT, or teachers who have graduated rom more selective colleges,
are more likely to be eective.9 It is by no means a guarantee that theywill be more eective, but a teachers own academic perormance is
an attribute that districts are well-advised to consider when reviewing
applications.10
To explore this measure o a teachers academic capital, NCTQ reviewed
the undergraduate institutions o teachers working in LAUSD or the
2009-2010 school year. Based on selectivity rankings set by U.S.
News & World Report, only a third o teachers graduated rom a school
ranked as either most or more selective, the top 25 percent o
institutions (352 colleges and universities).
LAUSD is recruiting most o its teachers rom schools with relatively low
admissions standards, even though, with ewer vacancies, it can aord
to be more selective about whom it hires. Baltimore, or example, has
signicantly improved the academic caliber o its newly hired teachers,
as it too has aced similar declines in enrollment and unding to LAUSD.
9 Boyd, D., Lankord, H., Loeb, S., Rocko, J., & Wycko, J. (2007). The narrowing gap in
New York City teacher qualifcations and its implications or student achievement in highpoverty schools. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
10 For example, a study by the Illinois Education Research Council ound the ollowingmeasures to be linked to a teachers ability to produce academic gains among students:the selectivity o a teachers undergraduate institution, a teachers own SAT or ACTscores (not just the average or the institution) and a teachers pass rate on statelicensure exams. There was a particularly strong correlation between eectiveness andteachers who only had to take their licensing test once. In sum, teachers who werethemselves good students tended to be good teachers.
Human resourcesneeds to do a betterjob of screeningapplications. Werecently interviewednine candidatesand asked, Howdid seven of these
get past HR?- LAUSD principal
8/6/2019 NCTQ on LAUSD: Teacher Quality Roadmap 06-07-2011
17/58
1
Standard 1. Teacher Assignment
Figure 8. Changing undergraduate selectivity
o teaching corps (2009)
Source: LAUSD and Baltimore City Human Resources
New teachers hired in LAUSD come rom less selective institutions than the workorce as awhole. Given that LAUSD is hiring ewer new teachers, now is a good time to improve the quality
o new recruits.
Figure 9. Five largest producers o LAUSD teachers (2009)
College/ University
U.S. News andWorld Reportranking*
% o LAUSDteacher corps**
1. Caliornia State University,Northridge
Less selective 16%
2. Caliornia State University,Los Angeles
Less selective 12%
3. University o Caliornia,
Los Angeles
Most selective 10%
4. Caliornia State University,Dominguez Hills
Less selective 7%
5. Caliornia State University,Long Beach
Selective 5%
* US News and World Reportrankings are: Least selective (25), Less selective (282), Selective(704), More selective (287) and Most selective (70).
** LAUSD was missing data on the undergraduate institution o 25 percent o its teachers.District ocials report that they are currently in the process o obtaining this inormation.
There will always be a certain percentage o candidates who are strong
but who lack a solid academic record, particularly older career-switchers.Strong recruiters o teachers such as Teach For America and The New
Teacher Project consider a candidates academic caliber early on in
the process o selecting their initial pool o candidates, but then turn
to more complex, personal characteristics best judged in the interview
process when making nal decisions. The average GPA o a Teach For
The process [ofapplying to charterschools] is gruelinginterviewsby staff, deans,principals, evenparents andstudents, plus
youre requiredto teach twosample lessons.Compare that tothe cake walk ofLAUSD.
- LAUSD teacher
8/6/2019 NCTQ on LAUSD: Teacher Quality Roadmap 06-07-2011
18/58
Improving Policies and Practices in the LAUSD
14
America corps member is 3.6. The average GPA o a teaching ellow in The New Teacher Project is
3.3, but both groups will report that they do hire some candidates who were not academically strong
and that they rule out many candidates who were very strong students.
LAUSD divides its schools into eight local districts, each managed by its own regional superintendent.Teachers transer rst within local districts and not across local districts. Principals rightly eel their
options to hire teachers that are a good t or their building are limited by this smaller applicant pool.
Principals in the poorest local district (District 5) report that they receive ew high-quality applicants
in high-need subject areas like mathematics and science.11
Figure 10. Percentage o principals
reporting they received enough
qualied applicants or high-need
subject areas, by LAUSD subdistrict
Source: NCTQ survey, February/March 2011 n=247
11 The poverty rate or LAUSD as a whole is 76 percent. To weigh the poverty rates o schools in each local district, NCTQ used thecount o teachers as a proxy or school size instead o the student count, which was unavailable.
Figure 11. Percentage o principals
reporting hiring the most teachers
in August and September, by
LAUSD subdistrict
Source: NCTQ survey, February/March 2011 n=247
8/6/2019 NCTQ on LAUSD: Teacher Quality Roadmap 06-07-2011
19/58
1
Standard 1. Teacher Assignment
Recommendations or LAUSD
1. Eliminate the priority placement list. The priority placement list orces LAUSD to
compromise on its commitment to mutual consent stang. While districts bear the nancial
burden o keeping teachers without a permanent assignment on the payroll, it is preerableto orcing a principal to hire a teacher who is not a good t. As other districts have done
in the ace o restrictive state laws and nancial challenges, LAUSD should more actively
identiy and counsel low perorming teachers rom the proession who cannot nd a new
placement.
2. Educate principals in high-poverty schools on their right to reuse placement o
teachers in the priority placement pool. Too ew principals are aware o their right
to reuse a transer. LAUSD should take a page rom the UTLA, which does a good job o
inorming teachers o their rights, such as how to le a grievance (see evaluation goal or
more detail). The district administration need to provide similar guidance to principals on
how to utilize the fexibility and tools available to them.
3. Establish an earlier resignation notication date to help principals anticipate
vacancies earlier in the year. With nancial incentives proving ineective, LAUSD simply
needs to move up the notication deadline or all teachers in order to ll vacancies sooner.
4. Improve applicant recruitment and screening in HR to ensure that high caliber
candidates are sent to schools.
5. Remove contract language that grants teachers seniority preerence in selecting
which classes they will teach. The most eective teachers should be given the assignments
where they can have the greatest impact on student learning, and perhaps should becompensated to do so.
6. Take advantage o the state fexibility in layos. State law permits districts to lay o
teachers or pedagogical reasons. Although LAUSD interpreted this to mean when teachers
are not ully certied, it presumably could take a broader interpretation that would include
poor perormance.
Recommendations or Caliornia
1. Permit districts to dismiss teachers who are without an assignment ater one
year (two hiring cycles). Currently, Caliornia law does not allow school boards to terminate
a teachers contract or a ailure to nd a position. Several other states, however, do aord
districts this authority. This so-called exit strategy is critical i districts are to ully implement
mutual consent hiring.
8/6/2019 NCTQ on LAUSD: Teacher Quality Roadmap 06-07-2011
20/58
Improving Policies and Practices in the LAUSD
16
In the absence o such an exit strategy, districts are let to pay the salaries o unassigned
teachers who remain on the district payroll until they are hired by a principalan expense
that no district can justiy over the long term.
2. Allow perormance to be used as a actor in determining which teachers will belaid o. Not only is experience a poor predictor o teacher eectiveness ater the rst ew
years, it results in more teachers being laid o.12 I Caliornia is unable to make perormance
a determining actor in layos across the board, here are several compromises that remove
at least some o the preerence or seniority:
n Lay o rst-year teachers rst. Research shows that teachers who have been
teaching only or a year are not likely to match other teachers eectiveness. Targeting
rst-year teachers is preerable to treating all nontenured teachers as the same.
n Lay o nontenured teachers on the basis o perormance, so that at least
some o the lowest perormers go rst. The point is that protections or tenured
and nontenured teachers can be treated dierently.
n Lay o teachers on the basis o a weighted system that gives more points to
perormance and ewer to seniority.
I Caliornia does change its layo policy it would also need to reconsider the rights it
grants to laid-o teachers to be reinstated to their jobs. Currently teachers have rights to
a position or up to 39 months ater they were laid o i the district later resumes hiring.
3. Expand Caliornias Education Code 55036 (the lemon law) to give principals
the right o reusal, regardless o whether a teacher is transerring voluntarily
or involuntarily. Caliornias current policy is a good rst step in giving schools more
autonomy over stang, but it does not go ar enough because it does not apply when
teachers are involuntarilytranserring schools, which occurs most oten when positions
are cut due to a change in student enrollment. No school should be required to accept a
teacher who is not a good t.
12 Goldhaber, D., & Hansen , M. (2009). Assessing the potential o using value-added estimates o teacher job perormance or makingtenure. Seattle, WA: Center on Reinventing Public Education.
8/6/2019 NCTQ on LAUSD: Teacher Quality Roadmap 06-07-2011
21/58
1
Standard 2.
EvaluationTeacher evaluations serve to enhance the quality o the teaching orce.
Indicators on which this standard is assessed:2.1 All teachers receive an annual evaluation rating.
2.2 Objective evidence o student learning is the preponderant criterion
on which teachers are evaluated.
2.3 Classroom observations ocus on a set o observable standards
that gauge student learning.
2.4 Evaluations actor in multiple observations by multiple parties,
such as school administrators, department heads, trained
exemplary teachers, central oce evaluators and content
experts. These observers provide regular eedback to teacherson their classroom instruction.
2.5 Evaluations oer multiple ratings to distinguish dierences in
perormance among teachers.
2.6 Observations occur early enough in the school year to provide
sucient time or struggling teachers to improve and or
administrators to make a nal decision about a teachers
continued employment by years end.
2.7 Decisions to terminate a poorly perorming teacher occur switly
and are made by educational leadership, not a court o law.During the 2010-2011 school year, LAUSD convened a task orce to
examine district practices and policies on teacher eectiveness, with
the goal o revising its teacher evaluation policies. The districts core
strategy is to develop multiple-measure perormance reviews. In large
part, LAUSD is moving in a direction that mirrors many o the evaluation
goals articulated here.
Two-thirds o surveyed
principals said that the
number one change theywould make to improve
teacher evaluations would
be to actor in a teachers
impact on student
achievement;
8/6/2019 NCTQ on LAUSD: Teacher Quality Roadmap 06-07-2011
22/58
Improving Policies and Practices in the LAUSD
18
Figure 12. What change would you most recommend to improve teacher evaluations?
Source: NCTQ survey, February/March 2011 principals n=254; teachers n=1317
2.1 All teachers receive an annual evaluation rating.
FINDING: In LAUSD, not all teachers receive an annual evaluation. In the 2009-2010
school year, LAUSD evaluated only 40 percent o its tenured teachers and 70 percent o
nontenured teachers.
Hal o all states require that teachers be evaluated annually. Annual evaluations help both the district
and principals understand the perormance distribution o their sta. They also ensure that all teachers,
both strong and weak, receive eedback on their instruction. However, Caliornia law requires that only
nontenured teachers and tenured teachers who previously received a low rating are evaluated annually.
Tenured teachers with a previous satisactory evaluation only have to be evaluated every other year.
The state also permits principals to reduce the requency o evaluations to once every ve years or
teachers with more than 10 years o experience.13
Unortunately, the districts current evaluation proposal to the LAUSD Board o Education makes no
recommendation or increasing the requency o evaluations or tenured instructors. As is common in
many districts, state minimum requirements become the local de acto policy, although no state laws
preclude a school district and a union rom negotiating more requent evaluations. This practice is thecase o LAUSD; the teacher contract mirrors state law.
13 Caliornia Education Code 44664
8/6/2019 NCTQ on LAUSD: Teacher Quality Roadmap 06-07-2011
23/58
1
Standard 2. Evaluation
2.2 Objective evidence o student learning is the preponderant criterion on which
teachers are evaluated.
FINDING: Although LAUSD intends to incorporate objective evidence o student learning
into teacher evaluations, its current tool, the Stull evaluation, ails to so.
In the current system, principals and teachers set teachers proessional goals at the beginning o the
school year, a process which could potentially include student outcomes. There is little guidance rom
the district, however, on what would constitute rigorous and measurable goals.
Incorporating student growth into the evaluation system is an important objective or the district, but
is much easier said than done, as Los Angeles teachers know better than most. The use o value-
added data in assessing teacher eectiveness has played a prominent role in the national discussion
about how to best account or student achievement in teacher evaluations. This method o statistical
analysis is a particularly sensitive issue in Los Angeles, where the Los Angeles Times commissioned
its own value-added analysis o about 11,500 elementary teachers working in the district between2004 and 2010.14 They have controversially published individual teacher ratings on the newspapers
website or two consecutive years. Among their ndings rom the 2011 analysis were the ollowing:
n More than 8,000 students were assigned the poorest rated teachers two years in a row.
n The quality o instruction varied more within schools than across the district. In other words,
there are very good teachers and very weak teachers in nearly every school. The strongest
teachers were not necessarily in the most afuent schools.
The analysis has, unortunately, created an emotionally charged atmosphere in LAUSD. While intending
to show the merits o value-added data, the public release o teachers value-added scores demoralized
many teachers, as indicated in NCTQ ocus groups. Although this experience has let some less willing
to consider the constructive role value-added data can play in teacher evaluations, it at least initiated a
public conversation about using data on student learning to evaluate teacher perormance.
At the end o the 2010-2011 school year, LAUSD is privately sharing with teachers their value-added
scores, also reerred to as academic growth over time. For at least this year, the district has
pledged not to actor in teachers value-added scores in their rating; whether they are ultimately used
is subject to uture negotiations with the UTLA.
14 The analysis evaluated teachers based on student growth in math and English Language Arts.
8/6/2019 NCTQ on LAUSD: Teacher Quality Roadmap 06-07-2011
24/58
Improving Policies and Practices in the LAUSD
20 www.nctq.org/tr3
2.3 Classroom observations ocus on a set o observable
standards that gauge student learning.
Although value-added assessments have dominated national debates,
classroom observations oer another valuable component throughwhich evidence o a teachers impact on student learning can be assessed.
FINDING: LAUSDs current evaluation instrument ocuses on
teacher behaviors, not on the impact those behaviors have on
student learning.
The Stull component that rates a teachers classroom perormance has
little to do with well-executed instruction and more to do with whether
teachers utilize specic materials when planning instruction. Delivery
o academic content is not evaluated.
The ollowing comparison demonstrates the dierences between three
evaluation rubrics that assess a teachers ability to develop students
critical thinking abilities through eective questioning and discussion.
D.C. Public Schools IMPACT rubric explicitly describes good instruction
or observers and teachers, and requires the observer to cite detailed
evidence describing the teachers perormance. LAUSDs currentStull
assessment is too vague; it provides insignicant guidance or evaluators.
LAUSDs new rubric, currently under development, is less vague; it
includes two standards that address observable classroom instruction, yethow the components will be weighted has yet to be decided. Ultimately,
the revision still alls short in providing the level o specicity and detailed
examples ound in D.C.s IMPACT rubric.
A principalsfeedback isntbased on whatsgoing on in theclassroomitswhether you aresigned up for
committees orother things. I hada principal wholoved me andwho praised meup and downand I had maybehad two or threeconversationswith her ever.
- LAUSD teacher
8/6/2019 NCTQ on LAUSD: Teacher Quality Roadmap 06-07-2011
25/58
8/6/2019 NCTQ on LAUSD: Teacher Quality Roadmap 06-07-2011
26/58
Improving Policies and Practices in the LAUSD
22 www.nctq.org/tr3
2.4 Evaluations actor in multiple observations by multiple
parties, including school administrators, department heads,
trained exemplary teachers central oce evaluators and
content experts. These observers provide regular eedbackto teachers on their classroom instruction.
FINDING: Currently, LAUSD bases a teachers evaluation on a
single observation by the school principal. LAUSD does not en-
courage principals to incorporate others expertise. Both the UTLA
contract and state law prohibit teachers rom evaluating peers.
Among other recommendations, teachers surveyed by NCTQ most
requently suggested having an additional classroom observer with
content-area expertise. Moving to more requent evaluations also requires
broadening the pool o observers so as to not unairly burden principals.
Unortunately, the current UTLA contract prohibits members o the same
bargaining unit rom evaluating each other. Furthermore, Caliornia state
law requires that anyone perorming an evaluation o a teacher hold an
administrators license. These kinds o requirements greatly limit the pool
o potential evaluators. These same rules apply to nontenured teachers,
even though they are eligible to receive two observations during the year.
In its new evaluation system, LAUSD seeks to involve other trained
observers, including teacher leaders and peers, along with surveys o
parents, students and employees. In order or these changes to occur,both the UTLA contract and state law must be changed.
FINDING: Teachers receive little eedback on their instruction, but
want more.
LAUSDs contract states that observations should be ollowed with
conerences to discuss perormance, but in our surveys teachers report
that these conerences oten do not happen.
One quarter o teachers surveyed reported that they never receive any
eedback rom their principal, but o those that do, over 60 percent o
teacher respondents reported that this eedback is at least somewhat
helpul.15
15 Principals, on the other hand, claimed to give teachers eedback at least monthly.
I teach high schoolbut my principaltaught elementaryschool, so shedidnt have anyidea about my
work or subjectareas.
- LAUSD teacher
8/6/2019 NCTQ on LAUSD: Teacher Quality Roadmap 06-07-2011
27/58
2
Standard 2. Evaluation
Figure 14. Frequency at which teachers report
receiving eedback rom their principal
Source: NCTQ survey, February/March 2011 n=1,317
Commendably, the LAUSD contract does not require that observations be
scheduled in advance. This practice allows principals or their designees to
assess a typical lesson, instead o a rehearsed one, and is likely one o
the reasons many teachers nd administrator eedback helpul.
Some LAUSD schools have implemented schoolwide student evaluations
o their teachers. While these evaluations do not ormally contribute to
teachers ratings, teachers interviewed or this study reported receiving
rich eedback rom the results o almost 2,000 student surveys conducted
at their school. Teachers said that the student eedback was not onlyhelpul or their own instruction, but also that it conrmed colleagues
own estimation about who was struggling.
The experience o these teachers is consistent with research on the
validity o student eedback that nds a correlation between student
eedback on teacher instruction and value-added scores.16
16 Learning about Teaching: Initial Findings rom the Measures o Eective Teaching Study,The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, December 2010
I have rarely beenevaluated properly
or been givenconstructivecomments sincemy student teaching15 years ago.
- LAUSD teacher
8/6/2019 NCTQ on LAUSD: Teacher Quality Roadmap 06-07-2011
28/58
Improving Policies and Practices in the LAUSD
24
2.5 Evaluations oer multiple ratings to clearly distinguish dierences in perormance
among teachers.
FINDING: Teachers are assigned one o two ratings on the nal evaluation: meeting
standard perormance and below standard perormance. Teachers are rated on individualindicators using three ratings: Meets, Needs Improvement and, oddly, No.
This reductionist approach does not dierentiate between teachers whose weaknesses could be remedied
with more proessional support and those who are undamentally ill-suited or the proession. Furthermore,
it ails to dierentiate truly outstandingteachers rom those who are merely competent.
Figure 15. LAUSD teacher evaluation
ratings, 2009-2010
Source: LAUSD Human Resources
O the 11,000 LAUSD teachers evaluated in the 2009-2010 school year, 79 percent met the standard
in all27 indicators, signaling that they did not need anyimprovement. Contrast teachers apparent
extraordinary level o perormance with student perormance: only 41 percent o students scored
procient on the state language arts exam and only 39 percent scored procient in mathematics.17
17 Average prociency o grades 3-11. September 2010 LAUSD District Goals Data Update
Figure 16. Number o evaluation ratings
in the largest 25 U.S. districts
Source: NCTQs TR3 database, www.nctq.org/tr3
8/6/2019 NCTQ on LAUSD: Teacher Quality Roadmap 06-07-2011
29/58
2
Standard 2. Evaluation
Figure 17. LAUSD student and teacher perormance, 2009-2010
Source: LAUSD Human Resources
Principals are reluctant to rate teachers below standards or a number o reasons. First, the evaluation
instrument is prone to grievance. Any evaluation where an educator received a below standard rating
is subject to a grievance.18 An evaluation refecting a signicant disparity between the overall rating
and the eedback on the evaluation orm is also subject to grievance. O the 540 UTLA grievances
led against LAUSD last year, nearly 40 percent were related to teacher evaluations.
A quarter o districts in NCTQs TR3 database do not allow a teacher to grieve an evaluation rating.
Figure 18. UTLA grievances led during 20092010 school year
Source: LAUSD Human Resources
18 The UTLAs 11-page handbook to the Stull evaluation contains a three-page checklist o constraints [that] keep teachers andstudents rom achieving their potential. This document is essentially a guide or teachers in how to respond toand grieve overa negative evaluation. The handbook has a 43-item checklist o potential problems in teachers work environment. Examples includeclosed stock rooms to insucient number o telephones.
8/6/2019 NCTQ on LAUSD: Teacher Quality Roadmap 06-07-2011
30/58
Improving Policies and Practices in the LAUSD
26
Perverse incentives may dissuade school leaders rom executing their management responsibilities. For
example, the online evaluation system, includes a pop-up warning telling principals who have selected
needs improvement or 3 or more o the 27 indicators to contact Sta Relations and present
documentation to reinorce the ratings. This step likely gives administrators pause; i they have not
diligently collected evidence, or eel that pursuing a negative rating will take too much time, they maydecide it is not worth the eort. In this case a principal may likely limit hersel to highlighting only
two needs to improve areas. There should be a high burden o evidence and eedback or every
ratingboth negative and armative.
Other problems with the current instrument include the ollowing:
n The instrument does not indicate how many o the 27 indicators a teacher must meet in
order to be rated as meets standards.
n All 27 indicators appear equally weighted despite diering importance.
n There is nothing to prevent two teachers rom receiving
the same rating on each indicator, but a dierent Overall
Evaluation ratings.
2.6 Observations occur early enough in the school year to provide sucient time
or struggling teachers to improve and or administrators to make a nal decision
about a teachers continued employment by years end.
FINDING: LAUSD allows observations to occur late in the year, leaving struggling teachers
foundering or months.
Even highly eective teachers stand to benet rom early eedback that gives them time in the school
year to adjust their practice. Although the contract requires that teachers and principals meet soon
ater commencement o the academic year to agree upon teachers perormance goals, there is no
deadline or these conerences. It is unclear whether these goal-setting conerences actually happen,
as the district does not require any documentation rom these meetings.
Observations can occur at any point in the school year provided the principal submits the nal evaluation
report at least 30 days beore the last school day. The lack o a timely observation requirement means
that many teachers may not be observed until the school year is almost over.
A teacher receiving an overall rating o Below Standard Perormance must receive a written description
o deciencies, recommendations or improvement and assistance to be given. According to state law,
tenured teachers receiving this rating must participate in Peer Assistance and Review (PAR), through
which they receive support rom trained, consulting teachers who oer personalized assistance but
who do not evaluate. One year ater the initial below standards rating, teachers are reevaluated by their
principal. This timeline is signicantly more protracted compared to other districts where teachers are
8/6/2019 NCTQ on LAUSD: Teacher Quality Roadmap 06-07-2011
31/58
2
Standard 2. Evaluation
reevaluated one or two times ater an initial unsatisactory rating and
all within the same school year.
2.7 Decisions to terminate a poorly perorming teacher
occur switly and are made by educational
leadership, not a court o law.
FINDING: In 2009-2010, less than 2.5 percent o the LAUSD
teacher workorce received a low rating, though the district
now appears to be taking evaluations more seriously.
As gure 19 shows, ew LAUSD teachers historically have been dismissed
or poor perormance, largely because it was not a priority in prior LAUSD
administrations. In the past 18 months, the number o poorly perorming
tenured teachers given notice o their dismissal has greatly increased, butit is still only a tiny raction o the nearly 29,000 teachers in the LAUSD
workorce.
Figure 19. LAUSD workorce dismissal
School year
Dismissalso tenuredteachers
Resignationsto avoid
dismissals
Dismissalso nontenured
teachers
Total
2005-2006 6 10 81 97
2006-2007 3 15 44 62
2007-2008 6 55 25 86
2008-2009 7 62 52 121
2009-2010 10 182 89 281
2010-2011 94(as o April
25)
36(as o January
19)
150(as o April
25)
280
Source: LAUSD Human Resources
68 percent o surveyed
teachers said that there
were tenured teachers
currently working in
their schools who should
be dismissed or poorperormance.
34 percent o principals
surveyed said that they
did not even try to dismiss
a poor perorming teacher
because the processwas unlikely to result
in dismissal.
8/6/2019 NCTQ on LAUSD: Teacher Quality Roadmap 06-07-2011
32/58
Improving Policies and Practices in the LAUSD
28 www.nctq.org/tr3
According to Caliornia state education code, the ollowing steps must
occur in order to dismiss a poorly perorming tenured teacher. Principals
must:19
1. Document a teacher as below standards in an evaluation;
2. Include detailed recommendations as to areas o improvement
in the perormance o the employee;
3. Notiy the employee in writing and describe the unsatisactory
perormance; and,
4. Meet with the employee to recommend improvements in the
employees perormance and assist the employee making those
improvements.
Although none o the states requirements appears overly onerous,
principals asserted that they have only enough time to dismiss one ortwo teachers a year. More requently, principals will counsel an under-
perorming teacher to voluntarily transer rom their school (66 percent
o surveyed principals admitted to using this strategy). Teachers them-
selves may oer to transer as well. It is a lot less cumbersome to have
a low-perorming teacher transer to another school than to have to
evaluate the teacher out o the district via the ormal dismissal process.
19 Caliornia Education Code 44664
I began thedismissal process,but then teacheroffered to bedisplaced.
- LAUSD principal
I was in processof dismissing ateacher, but theteacher requested avoluntary transferand I was advised
to accept it.- LAUSD principal
8/6/2019 NCTQ on LAUSD: Teacher Quality Roadmap 06-07-2011
33/58
2
Standard 2. Evaluation
Recommendations or LAUSD
Perhaps more than any policy change, LAUSDs central administration needs to send a strong signal
to principals about the importance o evaluations or improving teacher perormance and or holding
teachers accountable.
1. Make student perormance the preponderant criterion on which teachers are
evaluated. The impact o LAUSDs proposed redesign will be determined by how each
domain is ultimately weighted, and whether the most weight is given to a teachers observable
perormance in the classroom along with student outcomes.
Standardized test results provide one source o evidence that students are learning, but
there are others sources districts can and must use since standardized testing does not
occur in all grades and subjects. Alternatives are oten more dicult to implement consis-
tently and are less technologically advanced. Their application also requires more human
judgment, which is not necessarily a negative, given many teachers expressed discomort overthe interpretation o value-added scores absent important context.
One option is or LAUSD to develop a set o standards or how much learning should occur
in a given year or each subject or grade. That process o standard setting is best done
by teams o exemplary teachers or each grade level or subject area. For example, LAUSD
might assemble the citys best Spanish teachers to arrive at a metric that describes superlative,
acceptable or unacceptable progress or students to make in any given year o Spanish. The
metric would be applied during the evaluation process as a tool that provides the evaluator
with a yardstick by which to measure growth or mastery.
The evaluator would need to weigh a teachers perormance on the metric with other actorssuch as the level o progress students made in the previous year under a dierent Spanish
teacher. For example, the evaluator notes that a teacher only covered three-quarters o
the material she should have gotten through or a Spanish II class, but also that students
clearly had mastered the material that was covered. Putting these results in context, the
evaluator also knows that the Spanish I teacher was extremely weak and that the Spanish
II teacher had to spend a good deal o time on catch-up. The Spanish II teacher earns an
adequate rating or covering about a years worth o material. This display o judgement is
exactly the sort o process that good principals have engaged in or years, even though it
was not part o the ocial district policy.
Skirting the hard work o developing these alternatives, course by course, grade by grade,
is only likely to make the system too dependent on standardized test scores.
8/6/2019 NCTQ on LAUSD: Teacher Quality Roadmap 06-07-2011
34/58
Improving Policies and Practices in the LAUSD
30
Where its been done:
Washington, D.C., provides one o the strongest examples o a district requiring that
student achievement be the preponderant criterion o evaluations. For teachers in viable
grades and subject areas, 50 percent o their rating is determined by value-added data.Those teaching in other grade levels and subjects set goals to capture students growth
or mastery o academic content. It is important to note that the teacher evaluation policies
in the District o Columbia are not subject to negotiation with the local union, but are a
management right.
In consultation with its teachers union, the New Haven public school system recently
revamped its evaluation instrument. Almost hal o a teachers rating is determined by
student growth goals. Measures o progress include standardized tests, district assessments
and student work. The remainder o a teachers rating is largely determined by classroom
observation, which ocuses on evidence o student learning rather than on teacher behaviors.
Also, when the teachers rating rom the observation does not match the teachers student
growth rating, the mismatch generates an automatic review by the central oce, an important
check and balance to the system. Teachers who receive either the highest or lowest evaluation
rating rom their principal are also automatically reviewed by another evaluator.
2. Develop a team o independent evaluators to validate principal evaluations and
provide content-specic eedback on teacher instruction. Evaluations that regularly
incorporate the views o multiple, trainedobservers allow the district to gauge the robustness
o individual principal ratings. When a principals observations closely match those o
an outside evaluator, teachers can be more condent that the principal is unbiased and
skilled at evaluation. I the ratings confict, the school district needs to investigate reasons
or the variance. Even i only one teacher in a building is checked by a third-party evaluator,
principals will take this task more seriously.
Where its been done:
Hillsborough County Schools employs a team o 75 content experts, usually ormer teachers
in the system, to evaluate teachers. These observations happen in addition to those done
by school administrators. Observations by both master teachers and administrators actor
into the teachers evaluation rating.
3. Adjust the observation schedule so that educators receive eedback on theirinstruction no later than the end o the rst semester, increasing their opportunities
to demonstrate improvement.
8/6/2019 NCTQ on LAUSD: Teacher Quality Roadmap 06-07-2011
35/58
3
Standard 2. Evaluation
4. Collect and examine student eedback on teacher instruction. Feedback rom students
can help teachers improve and can give evaluators a better sense o teacher instructional
practices. A questionnaire or student eedback might look like the ollowing.
Figure 20. How much do you agree or disagree with the ollowing statements?Check one box ater each question.
Strongly agree
Agree
Disagree
Stronglydisagree
1. When I work hard in this class, animportant reason is that the teacherdemands it.
2. I dont like asking the teacher in thisclass or help, even i I need it.
3. The teacher in this class calls on me,even i I dont raise my hand.
4. I have pushed mysel hard to completelyunderstand my lessons in this class.
5. I I were conused in this class, I wouldhandle it by mysel, not ask or help.
6. One o my goals in this class is to keepothers rom thinking Im not smart.
Source: The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
Recommendations or Caliornia1. Make the evaluation tool and process a management right not subject to negotiation
with the union. Changing the scope o bargaining to explicitly declare evaluations as
a management right would remove many hurdles and local political battles that impede
evaluations.
2. Require annual evaluations or all teachers. State policy, intended only to establish
the minimum requency o evaluations, too oten becomes the de acto maximum in most,
districts. It is critical that the state establish stronger guidance to ensure that all teachers,
even good ones, are evaluated annually.
3. Revise requirements or evaluator eligibility so that observers are not requiredto hold an administrators license. Currently, peer evaluations can be used to inorm
principals and help struggling teachers, but are not incorporated into the evaluation. For
LAUSD to establish a cohort o trained peer evaluators, Caliornia must remove its current
requirement that all evaluators hold an administrators license. This change will greatly
expand the pool o applicants who can observe.
8/6/2019 NCTQ on LAUSD: Teacher Quality Roadmap 06-07-2011
36/58
32
Standard 3.
TenureTenure is a meaningul milestone in a teachers career and advances
the districts goal o building a corps o eective teachers.Indicators on which this standard was assessed:3.1 Teachers are eligible or tenure ater no ewer than our years in order to actor in multiple
years o meaningul data into tenure decisions.
3.2 Evidence o eectiveness is the preponderant criterion in tenure decisions.
3.3 Tenure decisions are decided by a panel o reviewers in a process that looks at a teachers
record and impact on student perormance.
3.1 Teachers are eligible or tenure ater no ewer than our years in order to actor
in three years o meaningul data into tenure decisions.
FINDING: Caliornia state law impedes LAUSDs ability to incorporate important evidence
into tenure decisions.
Tenure or public school teachers is, in theory, a guarantee o due process; in practice however, it is
a $2 million decision by a school district actoring in combined salary, benets and pension over the
course o a teachers career. Tenure should be considered a signicant milestone or teachers who
have consistently demonstrated eectiveness and commitment. Unortunately, in most states, including
Caliornia, tenure is oten awarded automatically, ater a teacher has been in the classroom or two or
three years. No other proession, including higher education, oers practitioners this benet ater only a
ew years o working in the eld. Ideally, districts would examine three years o data on a teachers
perormance beore awarding tenure.
Districts decide whether to award teachers tenure, but state law sets the terms. Caliornia mandates
that teachers must be considered or tenure ater only two years o teaching. Even with such a short
probationary period or tenure, Caliornia has no provision allowing districts to extend the probationary
period an additional year, as do 12 other states.
8/6/2019 NCTQ on LAUSD: Teacher Quality Roadmap 06-07-2011
37/58
3
Standard 3. Tenure
Figure 21. Time period or earning tenure
Source: NCTQ TR3 database, www.nctq.org/TR3
Not surprisingly principals surveyed by NCTQ suggested that two years is not enough time to make
inormed decisions on teacher tenure, with the majority o principals saying they need at least three
years. As research on the impact o teacher experience shows, teachers greatly improve their crat
in the rst three years o their career.20 A longer probationary period gives new teachers the benet
o the doubt and more time to show their improvement.
3.2 Evidence o eectiveness is the preponderant criterion in tenure decisions.
FINDING: A teachers eectiveness only matters nominally in LAUSD tenure decisions.
According to state law, an LAUSD teacher is eligible or tenure provided his or her most recent evaluation
resulted in a satisactory rating. This single criterion does not appear to serve as an eective screen,
as historically in LAUSD virtually all teachers have received a satisactory evaluation.
Figure 22. Length o experience
Length o experience in LAUSD
Teachers belowstandard perormance
Teachers meetingstandard perormance
Fewer than 2 years 3% 97%
More than 2 years 2.5% 97.5%
20 Goldhaber, D., & Hansen , M. (2009). Assessing the potential o using value-added estimates o teacher job perormance or makingtenure. Seattle, WA: Center on Reinventing Public Education.
Caliornia
8/6/2019 NCTQ on LAUSD: Teacher Quality Roadmap 06-07-2011
38/58
Improving Policies and Practices in the LAUSD
34
Only 3 percent o nontenured teachers in LAUSD were rated below standard, virtually the same percentage
as tenured teachers. I tenure were a meaningul designation, teacher evaluation ratings between less
experienced teachers and those who have earned tenure would presumably look quite dierent.
3.3 Tenure decisions are decided by a panel o reviewers in a process that looks
at a teachers impact on student perormance.
FINDING: In recent years, LAUSD has made tenure a more meaningul designation by
requiring principals to actively approve a teacher or tenure.
In 2009 LAUSD began an armative tenure process, whereby principals actively approve a teacher or
tenure. In the 2009-2010 school year, LAUSD reports that 89 teachers were denied tenure, approximately
10 percent o those eligible and a 60 percent increase over the prior year. This year LAUSD ocials
estimate that approximately 120 teachers in their rst year and 30 teachers in their second year will
not be invited back or perormance reasons.
Teachers interviewed and surveyed by NCTQ overwhelmingly expressed the sentiment that the teaching
proession is not given due respect, requently contrasting teaching with more prestigious careers
such as academia, medicine and law. The relative selectivity or entry into these elds contributes to
public esteem. The lack o selectivity at every stage o the teaching career, including the automatic
nature o tenure decisions, only serves to eed a public perception o teaching as low status.
Figure 23. Academic caliber o teacher recruits
Finland top 10 percent
South Korea top 5 percent
Hong Kong top 30 percent
Singapore top 30 percent
United States bottom third
Source: Barber, M., & Mourshed, M. (2007). How the worlds best perormingschool systems come out on top. McKinsey & Company.
Without teacher preparations programs and state licensure policies raising the bar or entry into the
eld, the onus rests on districts to not just do a better job recruiting and hiring top teachers, but also
in deciding who gets tenure.
8/6/2019 NCTQ on LAUSD: Teacher Quality Roadmap 06-07-2011
39/58
3
Standard 3. Tenure
Recommendations or LAUSD
1. Hold a tenure review to decide whether to award tenure. Tenure should be a signicant
milestone in a teachers career and awarded only ater deliberate and thoughtul consideration
o a teachers perormance. LAUSD should develop a review process in which both theprincipal and teacher must present the cumulative evidence o teachers proessional success
and potential.
2. Make perormance the primary actor on which teacher tenure is decided. Sound
tenure decisions should be directly dependent on a robust and inormative evaluation
instrument. The ability to know the areas in which a teacher excels and struggles and
how her perormance compares to others in the teacher corps should be the crux o any
decision. To adopt this strategy requires more time to collect data on individual teacher
perormance than 20 months permits.
3. Reward teachers who earn tenure with a signicant pay increase. A meaningultenure process should be accompanied by a salary structure that recognizes the teachers
accomplishments. See Standard 4 or more ideas on how LAUSDs salary schedule can
work toward attracting, retaining and rewarding eective teachers.
Food or thought:
Economists recommend that districts should routinely dismiss at least the bottom-
perorming 25 percent o teachers eligible or tenure in order to build a high-quality teaching
corps that is capable o making signicant gains in student achievement. Denying tenure
to the least eective teachers would have an eect comparable to reducing class size by
ve students per class.*
* Goldhaber, D., & Hansen, M. (2009). Assessing the potential o using value-added estimates o teacher jobperormance or making tenure decisions. Seattle, WA: Center on Reinventing Public Education.
4. Provide teachers with intensive development during their probationary years. A more
deliberate process leading up to tenure could include intensive investments in probationary
teachers, including instructional coach support, requent classroom observations by content
experts, videotaping lessons or refection and critique, release time to observe master
teachers and other specialized proessional development. Many o these and similar supports
are included in the districts own Teacher Eectiveness Task Force recommendations. Tenure
panel should have multiple years worth o a teachers perormance when deliberating theteachers tenure decision.
8/6/2019 NCTQ on LAUSD: Teacher Quality Roadmap 06-07-2011
40/58
Improving Policies and Practices in the LAUSD
36
Recommendations or Caliornia
1. Extend the probationary period or teachers to earn tenure rom two years to at
least our years. A compromise to extending the tenure decision to our years statewide
would be to permit principals to extend the probationary period. A quarter o states grantlocal administrators this right.
2. Move the March 15 deadline or tenure decisions to the end o the school year.
Caliornia policy results in districts using ewer than two years o inormationand possibly
only one ormal evaluationto assess a teachers candidacy or tenure. The March deadline is
also problematic or districts that lack a ormal deliberation process because it may easily
be missedthe result is automatic tenure or new teachers. Furthermore, as districts
move to incorporate value-added data into teacher evaluations, this March 15 deadline
or notiying nontenured teachers will become even more problematic. State test results
are not available until ater the school year ends. A principal could technically non-renew
a nontenured teachers contract without a second evaluation on le, but such practice is
unair to teachers and should be discouraged by LAUSD.
8/6/2019 NCTQ on LAUSD: Teacher Quality Roadmap 06-07-2011
41/58
3
Standard 4.
CompensationCompensation is strategically targeted to attract and retain
high-quality teachers, especially in hard-to-sta positions.Indicators on which this standard was assessed:4.1 Raises are tied to a teachers impact on student learning and not indiscriminately to
advanced degrees or solely to years in the classroom.
4.2 The districts salaries are competitive with other school districts in the area.
4.3 The district oers dierentiated pay to employ and retain eective teachers in high-need
schools and critical shortage content areas.
4.4 Teachers receive a signicant pay increase ater earning tenure.
Any discussion o teacher salaries at this juncture must acknowledge LAUSDs unprecedented nancial
crisis. This analysis explores the structure o LAUSDs pay system and attempts to oer alternative
models to strategically compensate teachers, absent additional unding.
4.1 Raises are tied to a teachers impact on student learning and not indiscriminately
to advanced degrees or solely to years in the classroom.
FINDING: LAUSD teachers have one option or earning higher pay: accumulating an
extraordinary number o graduate course credits.
LAUSD spends 25 percent o its teacher payroll ($519 million a year) to compensate teachers or
completing graduate coursework.21 While virtually all districts boost teacher pay or completing additional
21 The district degree expenditure is calculated by determining what the districts payroll could be i all teachers (regardless o educa-tional attainment) were paid according to the base salary lane--with dierentials only awarded or experienceand not coursework.The percentage is reported as the dierence between the current and possible payroll as a portion o the total current payroll. Thisgure is intended or illustrative purposes only.
8/6/2019 NCTQ on LAUSD: Teacher Quality Roadmap 06-07-2011
42/58
Improving Policies and Practices in the LAUSD
38 www.nctq.org/tr3
coursework and advanced degrees, LAUSDs pay structure is unusual. It
encourages teachers to take anycoursework, regardless o its connection
to a degree. For instance, advancing one lane on the salary schedule,
which requires the coursework equivalent to hal a masters degree, earns
a teacher ve times as much as holding a masters degree (advancing onelane on the salary schedule equals a raise o $2,613; the stipend or
having a masters degree is $584 a year).
In LAUSD, completing additional coursework is virtually the only way to
qualiy or raises (other than cost-o-living increases) once a teacher has
been working or nine years or more. It is no surprise, then, that LAUSD
teachers take a lot o coursework, with 60 percent o LAUSD teachers
currently having earned at least 98 graduate course credits. In act, this
number o credits is roughly equivalent to three masters degrees.
Ater completing 98 credits o coursework teachers also qualiy oradditional raises or experience that teachers who have not completed
such coursework do not.
Figure 24. LAUSD teachers qualiying or each salary tier
Source: LAUSD payroll data 2009-2010 school year
The degree to which LAUSDs pay structure is tied to coursework
completion is problematic on a number o ronts.
1. Research concludes that graduate coursework does notmake teachers more eective. We provide a meta analysis
here that summarizes all o the research on the impact o masters
degrees on teacher eectiveness, as measured by student learning.
I think LAUSDshould renegotiatehow raises aredetermined. Takingclasses to get
salary points doesnot make anyone abetter teacher.
- LAUSD teacher
Moving up asalary ladder for
completing course-work should bediscontinued. Toomany people gamethe system to reachtop pay way beforethey are worth it.
- LAUSD teacher
8/6/2019 NCTQ on LAUSD: Teacher Quality Roadmap 06-07-2011
43/58
3
SCHN
IDER
,1985
SCHN
IDER
,1985
SCHN
IDER
,1985
SCHN
IDER
,1985
SCHN
IDER
,1985
MONK
,1993
MONK
,1993
RIORDA
N,2006
RIORDA
N,2006
RIORDA
N,2006
GOLD
HABE
R&BRE
WER,
2000
HARR
IS&SA
SS,2007
HARR
IS&SA
SS,2007
CLOTFELTER
,LAD
D,&VIDG
OR2007
CLOT
FELTER
,LADD,
&VID
GOR2007
GOLH
ABER
&ANTH
ONY,
2007
HARR
IS&SA
SS,2007
HARR
IS&SA
SS,2007
HARR
IS&SA
SS,2007
GOLH
ABER
&BRE
WER,
2000
GOLH
ABER
&BRE
WER,
1997
GOLH
ABER
&BRE
WER,
1997
GOLH
ABER
&BRE
WER,
1993
HARR
IS&SA
SS,2008
GOLH
ABER
&ANTH
ONY,
2007
HARR
IS&SA
SS,2007
HARR
IS&SA
SS,2006
HARR
IS&SA
SS,2007
GOLH
ABER
&ANTH
ONY,
2007
GOLH
ABER
&ANTH
ONY,
2007
CLOTFELTER
,LAD
D,&VID
GOR2006
CLOTFELTER
,LAD
D,&VID
GOR2006
CLOT
FELTER
,LADD,
&VIDG
OR2006
CLOTFELTER
,LAD
D,&VIDG
OR2006
HANU
SHEK
,ETA
L.,1998
HARR
IS&SA
SS,2007
NO EFFECT
POSITIVE
NEGATIVE
Studiesorindividualestimatesndingapositiveeect
Studiesorindividualestimatesndinganegativeeect
0
0.0025
-0.0025
0.005
-0.005
0.0075
-0.01
-0.0075
0.01
0.0125
-0.0125
Small, but
Signicant Eect
Small, but
Signicant Eect
0.015
-0.015
-0.0175
-0.02
ModerateEect=0.
06
La
rgeEect=0.1
5
ModerateEffect=-0.0
6
LargeEffect=-0.1
5
Figure 25. The impact o teachers advanced degrees on student learning
Out o 102 statistical tests examined, approximately 90 percent showed that advanced degrees had either no impact at all or,in some cases, a negative impact on student achievement. O the 10 percent that had a positive impact, none reached a levelo statistical signifcance. In act, a good number o the studies ound a signifcant negative correlation between teachers degreestatus and student achievement. The ew studies that have shown a positive correlation between a teachers degree statusand student achievement are when teachers complete a degree in the subject they teach; the fnding is particularly strikingor mathematics degrees.
8/6/2019 NCTQ on LAUSD: Teacher Quality Roadmap 06-07-2011
44/58
Improving Policies and Practices in the LAUSD
40 www.nctq.org/tr3
2. LAUSDpolicy requires that courseworktaken by teachers
mustbe directly related to the subjects commonly taught
in the District (pre-K through grade 12), but there is no
policy requiring that the coursework relate to a teachers
own content area. Approval or such courses should be consideredonlyin relation to the subjects a teacher actually teaches.
There are two schools o thought on how to better align any
continuing education with district goals, given that districts are
getting poor return on their investments and teachers are burdened
with pressure to take more coursework. Some argue that
districts should restrict additional compensation to those masters
degrees that are in the subject area taught or a specialist degree,
such as in reading or special education. Others argue that teachers
should never be compensated or coursework per se, that any
increase in compensation should be linked to evidence o studentlearning gains in the classroom. In other words, only increased
eectiveness should be awarded.
3. Teachers are given salary credit or repeating courses
they have already taken as long as they are spaced more
than ve years apart.
Figure 26. Percent o teacher payroll spent on
coursework-based compensation
Source: NCTQ district policy analyses
O the fve districts where
NCTQ has completed a
similar policy analysis,
only Seattle spends
a larger percentage o
its payroll on raises
associated with additional
coursework.
8/6/2019 NCTQ on LAUSD: Teacher Quality Roadmap 06-07-2011
45/58
4
Standard 4. Compensation
FINDING: LAUSDs salary schedule penalizes teachers who have not completed the
maximum coursework by capping their annual raises ater nine years. To reach the top o
the pay scale, teachers must take excessive amounts o coursework and even then it takes
roughly 30 years to reach the top o the scale.22
Most school districts have a salary schedule that requires teachers to work 20 to 25 years beore
earning their peak salary. A shorter salary schedule works to teachers advantage as it means higher
lietime earnings. Furthermore, it is a pay structure more comparable to other proessions.
Figure 27. Year maximum salary is reached
4.2 The districts salaries are competitive with other school districts in the area.
FINDING: Teacher salaries in LAUSD start o relatively competitive with surrounding
school districts, but quickly lose ground as teachers gain more experience.23
New LAUSD teachers with a bachelors degree and no prior work experience earn $44,071 a year,
comparable to nearby districts. As LAUSD teachers progress through their careers their salaries donot keep pace. Consequently lietime earnings (based on an estimated 25-year career) are lower in
LAUSD than in most o the surrounding school districts.
22 It takes 29 years or teachers on lane 27 to achieve the maximum salary. Teachers on lane 27 move to the 1st Career Increment(CI) ater completing step 14 (CI 1 is essentially step 15); teachers on lane 27 move to the 2nd CI ater ve years on CI 1 (essentiallyater 19 years o experience); teachers on lane 27 move to the 3rd CI ater ve years on CI 2 (essentially ater 24 years o experience);teachers on lane 27 move to the 4th CI ater ve years on CI 3 (essentially ater 29 years o experience).
23 One component o the compensation package not included in this analysis is health and other ringe benets. LAUSD pays approximately$14,000 a year per employee or these benets. LAUSD pays the entire premium. LAUSD is one o only seven districts in the largest 25school districts nationally where teachers receive health insurance at no cost. (Source: NCTQ TR3 database, www.nctq.org/tr3).
Figure 28. Teacher relative earnings compared
to doctor and lawyer
Source: Vigdor, Jacob. Scrap the Sacrosanct SalarySchedule, Education Next. Fall 2008, Vol. 8, No. 4
8/6/2019 NCTQ on LAUSD: Teacher Quality Roadmap 06-07-2011
46/58
Improving Policies and Practices in the LAUSD
42 www.nctq.org/tr3
Figure 29. Lietime earnings in LAUSD and surrounding districts
(based on a 30-year career)
Source: LAUSD and surrounding district salary schedules (2010-2011)
4.3 The district oers nancial incentives to employ
and retain eective teachers in high-needs schools and
critical shortage areas.
FINDING: LAUSD has experimented with salary dierentials or
teachers working in high-demand areas, dierentials are small
and are not targeted to the most eective teachers.24
These bonuses represent typical pay dierentials in many districts, but
none o the bonuses are targeted at recruiting teachers in the subjects
that principals requently cite as hard-to-sta (e.g., mathematics and
science) or in schools that are deemed more challenging. Additionally,
these bonuses are primarily awarded to teachers based on their positions
and certications, instead o their eectiveness in those areas.
24 Caliornia state law encourages local districts to award incentives to teachers in areas ohighest need and to recognize actors in lieu o traditional educational units/degrees andyears o experience in determining teacher salaries; Caliornia Education Code: 45028(e).
I think that LAUSDdoes little to
recognize teacherexcellence. Ive setup three computerlabs and the districtdid nothing torecognize it. Ivewon numerousawards from outsideorganizations, even a
commendation fromthe city, but neverhas the district doneanything to applaudor recognize thecontributions thatI have made.
- LAUSD teacher
8/6/2019 NCTQ on LAUSD: Teacher Quality Roadmap 06-07-2011
47/58
4
Standard 4. Compensation
Figure 30. Types o additional pay available to teachers
Stipend Who qualies Amount o award
Master Plan Teachers o English as a secondlanguage and teachers with
some level o bilingual certica-tion serving in predominatelyminority schools
$1,020-$5,100 per year,depending on the level o
bilingual certication achievedand the school demographics
Advanced Placement Teachers o AdvancedPlacement courses
Hourly rate o pay or extrahours worked ($43 - $75per hour)
National Board Teachers with National BoardCertication: according to theNational Board For ProessionalTeaching Standards, 1,546LAUSD teachers have completed
National Board Certication.
7.5 percent bonus on topo base pay; an additional7.5 percent raise is availableto National Board-certiedteachers who provide 92 hours
o service, beyond their regularhours (minimum o $3,194 to$5,523, gure does not includeadditional pay or 92 hours oservice)
Consulting teachers with thePeer Assistance and