Littleton Public Schools (LPS) has had no performance pay program since the Board of Education (BoE) and superintendent quietly agreed a few years ago to discontinue the program for administrators, most of whom apparently preferred to not have performance of individuals as a factor in determining pay increases.  The LPS BoE has been reluctant to have public discussion of performance pay programs for administrators and/or teachers. 

Cherry Creek School District (CCSD) has a successful performance pay program which applies to those administrators who are designated as members of the Administrative Council (AdCo) by their individual job descriptions:

• The performance evaluation shall form the basis for performance pay for all administrators.

• The evaluator shall recommend to the superintendent or designee those individuals who are eligible for performance pay based on the evaluation process as outlined in CCSD Policy 4191.

• Based on evaluation, administrators may receive a salary increase of 1% for meeting or exceeding standards.  This increase will take effect at the beginning of the 2003-2004 administrator's contract year.

• All administrators may receive an amount equal to $2,400 or 3% of the average administrator's base salary, whichever is greater, as a one-time performance pay increase based upon an evaluation rating which documents performance significantly exceeding district performance standards.  This type of performance pay may exceed the maximum pay of the job range.

• Administrators who lead their schools to significant achievement gains on the CSAP and ACT tests, or expand the organizational capacity and achievement in schools with highly impacted populations, may receive a one-time exemplary pay of $4,000 or 5% of the administrator's base pay, whichever is greater, upon recommendation of the supervisor and approval from the district's leadership team.

Douglas County School District (DCSD) and the Douglas County Federation of Teachers (DCFT) have a well-supported teacher performance pay plan which aligns teacher appraisal and compensation with the school district's strategic goals.

• For the last 10 years the superintendent and assistant superintendents have been on performance pay.

• The Douglas County Federation of Teachers (DCFT) union leadership is collaborative, flexible, and believes in taking risks.

• Evaluation pay credit is based upon performance:

  • Unsatisfactory in any single criterion results in no evaluation credit or salary increase, and it causes a remediation program.

  • Proficient evaluation based on the job description must be satisfactory in all criteria to receive the increase in base salary.

  • Outstanding must be proficient and use an application process with additional criteria to receive a proficient salary increase plus bonus.

• Total teacher salary is based upon total general compensation (including knowledge, skills, and master teacher components for proficient evaluation and outstanding teacher credits) plus responsibility pay and group incentive.

• More information is available at the website for the DCSD teacher performance pay plan and the March 20 Rocky Mountain News article ("Douglas celebrates decade-old pay plan; Performance-based system has raised teacher retention").

Denver Public Schools (DPS) and the Denver Classroom Teachers Association (DCTA) have agreed to a new pay plan known as the Professional Compensation System for Teachers (ProComp):

• The DPS Board of Education approved the ProComp plan on February 19. 

• During a two-week period that ended March 18, of the 2,718 votes cast from the 3,200 DCTA membership (from the DPS total of about 4,500 teachers), 59% voted in favor of (and 41% were opposed to) putting the ProComp proposal before voters in November, 2005.  The ProComp plan would cost about 12% more annually on teacher compensation.

• According to the Rocky Mountain News, DCTA said they don't think Denver voters would support giving teachers more money to continue in the current pay system.  About 70% of Denverites have no contact with DPS schools, either because they don't have children or because they send their kids to private schools, or schools outside the city.

• If voters agree to finance the plan (with an annual tax increase of about $25,000,000), the plan takes effect in January, 2006.  The annual cost would be about $40 for the owner of the average Denver home ($250,000).

• Teachers are given nine goals-based options under four areas:

  • Knowledge and Skills (professional development, degrees or license, and tuition reimbursement)

  • Professional Evaluation (rated satisfactory)

  • Market Incentives (hard-to-staff and hard-to-serve assignments)

  • Student Growth (meeting annual objectives, exceeding CSAP expectations, and serving in a distinguished school)

• Teachers hired before 2006 can opt to remain in the existing (years of service and advanced training) plan and still have several years after 2006 to decide whether to switch. 

• Both metro Denver daily newspapers have endorsed the decision: March 20 Rocky Mountain News editorial ("Denver teachers take the plunge") and March 20 Denver Post editorial ("Teachers make right move").

• More information is available at the March 18 Denver Post article ("Teachers facing merit pay D-day; 'All eyes on Denver,' expert says"), March 19 Rocky Mountain News article ("Close vote likely on teacher pay; Tally expected today on proposal to end raises for longevity"), March 19 Rocky Mountain News article ("Teachers pass pay program"), March 20 Rocky Mountain News article ("Pay plan gets a gold star; Teachers approve changes; voters will be next test"), March 20 Rocky Mountain News article ("ProComp vote"), March 20 Rocky Mountain News article ("Teachers cautious, hopeful; Most 'excited' by pay plan, though questions remain"), March 20 Denver Post article ("Teachers approve reward system; Pay tied to results instead of longevity"), and March 21 Denver Post article ("Teacher-pay lessons on way; Seeking voter approval, DPS officials to tout results-based proposal").

Of course, development and implementation of a performance pay program for teachers must consider expectations such as the six-page 12/12/00 LPS Teacher Position Description [PDF 60KB] and the 82-page 6/25/03 LPS Collective Bargaining Agreement [PDF 1110KB] with the Littleton Education Association (LEA) and the included Compact on School Governance with the LEA and the Littleton Association of School Executives (LASE).

Based upon School Accountability Report (SAR) ratings for relatively large Colorado districts, the top three districts do not have collective bargaining agreements, and the fourth-ranked district has performance pay plans for teachers, superintendent, and assistant superintendents.

Littleton Academy (LA), a K-8 charter school which began in September, 1996, has an outstanding, well-developed performance pay program:

• LA does not have any collective bargaining agreement (all staff are "at will" employees).
• LA also has salaries well below LPS pay rates for comparable positions.
• However, LA adds large one-time payments for that year's performance:
  • Each teacher submits a "Teacher Profile Form" to claim credit for accomplishments.
  • Most parents submit an annual "Parent Opinionnaire" that rates professional attributes and subject-specific performance areas with open-ended comments for each factor for every teacher of each child in that family.
  • The principal also considers formal evaluator(s) ratings of 17 professional attributes and contributions.
  • The principal enters summary data from those forms into the performance pay evaluation grid for each teacher and then allocates payments proportional to performance.
• The LA Governing Board, principal, and nearly all staff are very pleased with that performance pay program.
• The entire school (including parents) is very pleased with LA overall performance, which is the highest academic achievement level compared to every elementary school and every middle school in the Littleton Public Schools district.  In fact, LA ranked seventh-highest in Colorado for both categories based on the 2003 SAR ratings for elementary schools and for middle schools (2004 ratings are not yet available).

Last modified: 08/07/2004

[ Home ] [ Up ]

Send mail to webmaster@ICAN4.info with your questions or comments about this website.
Copyright © 2003-2005 Independent Citizens Action Network (ICAN).   All Rights Reserved.