Q-Comp is an incentive plan meant to reward working toward raising student achievement. The plan we are proposing includes incentives for completing observations, achieving a building goal, and achieving an individual student achievement goal. There are also “career ladder” options which are positions and incentives for evaluating and supporting peers in the process. It is funded with a combination of money from the state based on the number of students we have and an additional local levy placed on district residents.
OBSERVATION INCENTIVE
This is a financial incentive for successfully completing three observations, two with a peer evaluator and one with a colleague of your choosing. Since this incentive is based on the parts of our work over which we have the most control (compared with standardized test results), it would be 90% of the incentive, or $1728.
The state requires three observations done by a group of well trained evaluators. For a district our size, we felt a group of full time peer evaluators, including those from as many different types of assignment as possible, along with one observation done by a colleague of your choosing would work best.
Observation 1: This would be a baseline type of evaluation where you discuss your individual goals with your evaluator. The process will be very much like our current performance evaluation process (PAS) with a pre-meeting, observation, and post meeting with a peer evaluator for most educators. For non-classroom educators, the process will follow the PAS process you use now. These observations would be based only on the instructional domain of our current PAS system, not the entire rubric.
Observation 2: This is a more formative type of evaluation with your peer evaluator and a colleague of your choice. The pre and post meeting will involve you, a colleague that you choose, and a peer evaluator. The observation itself is conducted by your colleague. Each site will decide on a pool of staff who will do these observations and they will attend training on the process to be eligible. The colleague will be compensated $100 for each person they observe, for up to five observations. The goals of this observation would be to check your progress toward your goal and provide you feedback from someone who does the same work as you do.
Observation 3: This is the summative evaluation where you and your evaluator have a pre-meeting, observation, and post meeting to check for progress toward your goals. In the post meeting, you will discuss your eligibility for both the observation and student achievement incentives.
BUILDING LEVEL INCENTIVE
This is a financial incentive for your site working together toward a building level goal that the site sets at the beginning of the year. This will be in the format of a “SMART” goal and may be developed in the same way your current site level improvement plan (SLIP) is created. The state requires that this goal be tied to standardized test results (MCA’s or MAP’s are the most common). The compensation for reaching this goal or showing adequate work toward the goal would be $210 for each participant at the site.
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT INCENTIVE
This is a financial incentive for achieving an individual goal that you set at the beginning of the year. This will be in the format of the “SMART” goals we began last year and may be developed in your PLC if that is available to you or individually. You will also decide the standards for measuring your progress toward this goal. This goal should support one or more of your building level goals and apply specifically to your work. The compensation for reaching or showing adequate work toward this goal would be $210.
APPEALS
For those who do not successfully complete their observations, there will be options for additional support from the evaluators, colleagues, or administrators along the way. If those do not work, participants can appeal to the Q-Comp steering committee which is made up of half educators appointed by AHEM and half administrators. If the appeal is not successful, the participant will not receive the incentives and the next year the participant will be on a formal PAS process. If the observations in the second year are also not successful, the participant will neither be awarded incentives nor get a step increment on the salary schedule (reminder: step increments are always conditional on negotiations).
PEER EVALUATORS
A team made up of half educators appointed by AHEM and half administration would choose thirty peer evaluators to observe the participants. Peer evaluators could stay in the position for up to three years, then return to their former site. These evaluators will be trained to ensure consistent assessments across the district. Peer evaluators will need to have at least seven years experience in their field and at least three years experience in our district.
Q-COMP COORDINATORS
The program would be coordinated by one teacher on special assignment (TOSA) and one principal on special assignment. Each would be chosen by a team of an equal number of educators and administrators.
TIMELINE
September 2010: We submitted our proposal to the Minnesota Department of Education (MDE).
December 2010: We heard from the MDE on the status of our application and changes they wanted us to make to the plan. We will made those clarifications and resubmitted the proposal.
January 2010: The MDE signed off on our proposal.
February 2010: We will hold meetings around the district to answer questions about our proposal.
March 2010: You will decide whether or not to accept the proposal.
March 2010 through May 2011: If the proposal is accepted, we will put together the infrastructure needed for the plan including putting together the steering committee, hiring staff, and training.
August 2011: We begin implementing the plan.
September 2011 through April 2012: As we work through the plan, the steering committee takes input from members to see if we need to make changes to the plan.
May 2012: We vote on whether to continue plan as is, continue it with changes, or to discontinue the plan.
LETTER FROM AHEM PRESIDENT, JULIE BLAHA
On behalf of all of us at Anoka Hennepin Education Minnesota (AHEM), I hope this mailing finds you well and enjoying your summer break. Before the business of the new school year begins in full force, we’d like to give you a preview of the Q-Comp proposal you will have the chance to decide on this fall.
After we finished negotiations last year, we set up a team of AHEM members, district administrators and school board members to put together a proposal to seek approximately $9 million in state funding for a Q-Comp alternative compensation plan. With school funding as scarce as it is right now, we felt we owed it to our members to have a chance to consider this opportunity for additional compensation and staff development.
In order for the proposal to be implemented, it must be approved by the MN Department of Education (MDE); it will need to pass by 75 percent of a AHEM member vote; and win a majority vote of the school board. If the proposal passes, it will be implemented in the 2011-2012 school year.
Our goal was to create a proposal that will not only fit the parameters set out by the MDE and provide additional compensation for our efforts, but also make us better educators as well. We worked to make the plan accessible to all members and focused on items over which we have control, like the choices we make in our classrooms and with our students. We also made an effort to base the components that involve standardized test scores (which are 20% of the additional compensation) on progress toward a goal rather than hitting an exact score, since scores are influenced by so many factors outside of our work.
Most importantly, we wanted to create a proposal that includes real choices for our members. Each of the 30+ positions the plan creates will be hired by teams of equal numbers of educators and administrators. Also, you will vote on not only acceptance of the plan this year, but also on whether to keep the plan each year thereafter.
In brief, the proposal provides financial incentives in three separate areas:
- Successfully completing three observations by a peer,
- Meeting a student achievement target you set for yourself, and
- Reaching a student achievement goal as an entire building.
Whenever we could, we used processes and structures we already have in place, like parts of our current Performance Appraisal System (PAS) and the SMART goal process we began last year.
As with any compromise between educators, administrators and state government, there are positives and negatives in this proposal. As you weigh the components of the proposal for yourself, don’t hesitate to contact us with your questions at ahem@anoka.k12.mn.us. In the coming weeks, we will make the entire proposal available, as well as offer you times to meet with us and ask questions.
I look forward to talking with you in the months ahead about this and all the other facets of our work.
