HUHS Educator Salary Advancement Overview Certified Compensation and Benefits Committee April 6, 2017
Background During the 2011-2012 school year, the District Educator Supervision and Evaluation Guide (Handbook) and the Educator Salary Advancement Guide (Guide) were developed with input from an advisory committee of teachers and administrators.
Background (cont.) During the summer of 2012, the documents were finalized, and in August 2012, the Superintendent proposed and the HUHS Board of Education approved the Handbook and the Guide.
Background (cont.) The vision was to create a new compensation model that would align to a teacher growth and effectiveness model. The committee reviewed various school models (Ripon, Neenah, Douglas County, etc.) and research around compensation models (Edweek). The Ripon Model was utilized as framework as it included information that connected professional growth with compensation.
Background (cont.) The district began the 2012-2013 school year using My Learning Plan and the Stronge Model. Mid-year, the Danielson Framework for Teaching was implemented but without fidelity for all faculty second semester. Stage placements and promotions were not made.
Background (cont.) 2013 2014: Faculty were evaluated using the Handbook and Guide and placed in a stage accordingly. At this point, compensation amounts for the stages overlapped. HUHS implemented the SLO process as part of the evaluation process.
Background (cont.) 2014 2015: the Handbook and Guide cycles and processes were fully implemented. Stage compensation overlaps were eliminated for the following year.
Background (cont.) 2015 2016: Professional Stage E. was added; cycle changes were made for Stage D (2 or 3 year choice); for new hires, a new cycle was implemented. Stage promotions changed from two consecutive years to two cycles (2 or 3 years per cycle).
Overarching Handbook and Guide Intentions The introduction of Danielson's Framework for Teaching was intended to improve teaching skills, encourage professional growth, and to improve student achievement. The compensation model and the evaluation model were to be separate from each other.
Additional Information After Act 10, HUHS removed automatic step/lane for salary advancements. Negotiations between the District and the HEA were prescribed by Act 10. Currently, the model includes the following: Stage promotions could be earned based on the criteria contained in the Guide, and synchronized with the Handbook.
Additional Information (cont.) The Guide outlines compensation as related to the Handbook, and the Handbook outlines the evaluation process. Promotion to the next stage is dependent on faculty meeting criteria in 4 domains and 22 components from the Danielson Framework.
Additional Information (cont.) An evaluation cycle includes at least one nonsummary and one summary year SLO s and PPG s were also part of the evaluation
The SLO Process Three HUHS teachers piloted SLO s for DPI during the 2012-2013 school year. During the 2013-2014 school year, all HUHS staff completed two SLO s as part of DPI s Educator Effectiveness Pilot. SLO s became part of the evaluation process and compensation rubric during the 2014-2015 school year. HUHS continues to use one SLO as part of the compensation model using DPI s SLO Evaluation Scoring Rubric. During the 2016-2017 school year, HUHS implemented a school-wide SLO.
Additional Information (cont.) Exceptions to the evaluation cycle are based upon a recommendation from a Director of Teaching and Learning (DTL) or Supervising Administrator (SA) Based on the evaluation process, stage promotions are recommended by a DTL or SA. Incongruency existed/exists with some faculty re: placement in evaluation stage and compensation
Initial Salary Placement New Hires After July 1, 2012 Initial annual salary determined at the time of employment by the administration. A new hire's compensation could be within stages beyond Stage A. Based on supply/demand, prior experience, unique skill sets, etc.
Initial Stage Placement (cont.) There has been ambiguity in the past regarding initial Professional Stage placement for new hires. Currently, new hires are assigned to one of the two options, based on prior teaching experience: 3 year sequence for those with 0-4 years of experience. 2 year sequence for those with 5+ years of experience. After completing the sequence, the new hire would then be placed in the appropriate Professional Stage.
Evaluations Evaluations utilize, and faculty ratings are based on, the 4 domains and the 22 components in Danielson s Rubric
Evaluations (cont.) There are 4 rubric levels o Unsatisfactory o Basic o Proficient o Distinguished o Link to Eval Cycle Chart o Link to Promotion/Salary Plan
Professional Stages Stage B: Rated Proficient or Distinguished in at least 14 of 22 components across domains on summative evaluation for at least two consecutive cycles. Stage C: Rated Proficient or Distinguished in at least 19 components across domains on summative evaluation for at least two consecutive cycles. Stage D: Rated Proficient or Distinguished in all components and rated Distinguished in at least 4 components across domains on summative evaluation for at least two consecutive cycles. Stage E: Rated Proficient or Distinguished in all components and rated Distinguished in at least 10 components across domains on summative evaluation for at least two consecutive cycles.
Additional Expectations for Stage Promotions No Unsatisfactory ratings in any component. Successful completion of Student Learning Objectives (SLO) process with a rating of 3 or 4, and demonstrated and embedded changes in instructional practice. (Stage B rating of 2,3 or 4)
Movement Within and Among the Stages Faculty may only move from one Professional Stage to the next based on evaluations at a higher stage for two consecutive cycles. Faculty may only move within a stage based on the negotiated cost of living raises (CPI), if any. The Board of Education may (and has) provided additional annual stipends/raises to all faculty and other staff.