Standards-Based Teacher Evaluation as a Foundation for Knowledge- and Skill-Based Pay

By Herbert G. Heneman III, Anthony T. Milanowski, Steven M. Kimball, A. Odden. 2006

120 citations recorded by the source corpus.

State accountability systems and the federal No Child Left Behind Act have put additional demands on schools and teachers to improve teacher quality and improve student achievement. Many researchers (e.g., Cohen, 1996; Corcoran & Goertz, 1995; Floden, 1997; Newman, King, & Rigdon, 1997) have argued that such improvements will require a substantial increase in the instructional capacity of schools and teachers. One strategy for capacity building is to provide teachers with incentives to improve their performance, knowledge, or skills. The incentive strategy requires the design and implementation of alternative teacher compensation systems that depart from the single salary schedule (Odden, 2000; Odden & Kelley, 2002). Though slow to take hold, the incentive strategy is currently being pursued by several states (Peterson, 2006). Most of these new or proposed plans link pay to combinations of assessments of teacher performance, acquisition of new knowledge and skills, and student test score gains. Denver's widely followed Pro Comp plan also contains these components. The Teacher Compensation Group of the Consortium for Policy Research in Education (CPRE) has been studying the design and effectiveness of such systems for nearly a decade. We initially focused on school-based performance award programs, in which each teacher in a school receives a bonus for meeting or exceeding schoolwide student achievement goals (Heneman, 1998; Heneman & Milanowski, 1999; Kelley, Heneman, & Milanowski, 2002; Kelly, Odden, Milanowski, & Heneman, 2000). We then shifted our attention to knowledgeand skill-based pay (KSBP) plans, an approach that provides teachers with base pay increases for the acquisition and demonstration of specific knowledge and skills thought to be necessary for improving student achievement. Our initial research described a variety of experiments with KSBP plans (see Odden, Kelley, Heneman, & Milanowski, 2001). We found plans that were rewarding numerous knowledge and skills, including (a) additional licensure or certification, (b) participation in specific professional development activities, (c) National Board Certification, (d) mastery of specific skill blocks such as technology or authentic assessment, (e) leadership activities, and (f) teacher performance as measured by a standards-based teacher evaluation system. We also found districts experimenting with standards-based teacher evaluation without an intended pay link. As described below, in standards-based teacher evaluation systems, teachers' performance is evaluated against a set of standards that define a competency model of effective teaching. Such systems replace the traditional teacher evaluation system and seek to provide a more thorough description and accurate assessment of teacher performance. Findings from our research on some of these systems are the focus of this issue of CPRE Policy Briefs.

Subfields: Education, Information Systems and Management

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/7241085f9dbcf33129bc680211604263635fc13f

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Education

In Information Systems and Management

Citations in the corpus

Examining Teacher Evaluation Validity and Leadership Decision Making Within a Standards-Based Evaluation System (2009, methodology): “The framework developed by Danielson (1996) represents one commonly used standards-based teacher evaluation approach (Heneman et al., 2006).”
Is Traditional Teaching Really All That Bad? A Within-Student Between-Subject Approach (2011, background): “…literacy hour at the same point in time in a difference-in-difference framework, the authors show that 4For example Borman and Kimball (2005), Gallagher (2004), Heneman et al. (2006), Holtzapple (2003), Kimball et al. (2004), Milanowski (2004), Matsumura et al. (2006) and Schacter and Thum (2004).”