Several years ago, when the doors opened at our district's recruitment fair for teachers, a wave of excited prospective teachers rushed into the room, much like holiday shoppers seeking bargains. Like most shoppers, they knew exactly where they wanted to go—they hurried over to the tables of our most affluent schools, where lines ran 20 applicants deep. It was a different story, however, at the tables of our high-needs schools. Said one principal, "When no one came to our table all morning, our hearts sank."
Similarly devastating was the fact that just two years ago, Guilford County Schools, which serves 71,400 students in North Carolina, had only seven applications on file for certified secondary mathematics teachers. As a result, the following year, one of our high-needs middle schools did not have a single certified math teacher, and four of our high-needs high schools had one or more math vacancies during the school year.
Much like other school districts across the United States, Guilford County was experiencing a human-capital challenge (Hershberg & Lea-Kruger, 2007). We knew that our district's annual salary of $32,000 for beginning teachers could not compete with the $50,000 that a college graduate with a degree in mathematics could expect to earn annually in the corporate world. We had to do something.
What Would It Take?
So we asked teachers, "What would it take for you to teach in one of our most challenging schools?" In small focus groups, more than 100 Guilford County teachers provided a variety of answers. Some replied, "You couldn't pay me enough. I'd quit before I taught there." One said, "You're on an impossible mission," which generated the eventual name of our project—Mission Possible.
- A strong, experienced principal.
- Incentives, especially to teach math or English.
- Additional compensation for getting results.
- High-quality professional development.
- Instructional coaches.
- Smaller class sizes.
The teachers' answers weren't surprising. Our high-needs schools not only were led by inexperienced principals, but also were staffed by our youngest and often our most ineffective teachers. Guilford County Schools differentiated teacher salaries on the basis of years of experience and level of degree held, but the district did not pay more to teachers who produced outstanding student academic gains. Staff development was a one-size-fits-all process featuring one- or two-day workshops that provided little or no capacity building. Teachers reported that they specifically wanted coaches to help them improve instruction. Class sizes at our neediest schools were larger than districtwide averages because the schools did not have Gifted and Talented programs that yield smaller class sizes.
A radical solution was necessary—Mission Possible, a comprehensive teacher recruitment and retention program.
Gaining Support
We knew that garnering full support for the program was not going to be easy. Armed with a preliminary proposal that included compensation incentives, performance accountability, professional development/capacity building, and structural support, we approached our local teacher association. Although the teachers clearly recognized the dilemma we faced, they expressed deep concerns regarding the program, claiming that the compensation incentives would destroy morale and pit teachers against one another.
Soon thereafter, the teacher association sponsored a forum to discuss the proposed Mission Possible program, with more than 200 teachers, the entire board of education, and local media in attendance. For more than two hours, we fielded questions and listened to those who opposed the program. After reminding the audience that the ideas for the program components came from local teachers, we asked for alternative suggestions to recruit or retain teachers in our schools most affected by poverty. The request was followed by silence.
The next day, the forum and the Mission Possible concept received local and national media attention. Following positive support from the local newspaper's editorial board, from our principals, and from many of our teachers and the business community, the board of education approved the Mission Possible program by a 9–2 vote.
School Selection and Funding
Our next step was to identify participating schools. Our neediest schools shared several characteristics. They exceeded the district average of approximately 50 percent of students receiving free and reduced-price meals. They had teacher turnover rates among the highest in the district for five years in a row. Thirty-seven schools carried the Title I designation, and several contained the maximum number of subcategories identified by No Child Left Behind. Using these factors, we selected nine elementary schools, four middle schools, four high schools, and three middle-college high schools to be a part of the Mission Possible program.
To finance the program, the district raised class sizes by .5 students in the 5th grade—from 23.5 students to 24 students—a move that kept classes below state averages but yielded funds from the personnel budget. We reallocated additional dollars by not filling 30 vacant teaching assistant positions. In total, we redirected $2,073,624 in local funding to fund the four major components of Mission Possible.
Component 1: Compensation Incentives
Using redirected local funds, Mission Possible provides both kinds of pay incentives requested in the teacher focus groups. The first—a recruitment and retention incentive—is paid on a recurring annual basis in monthly increments for teaching in a qualifying position at one of the Mission Possible schools. Qualifying teacher positions include those who teach courses used in determining adequate yearly progress (AYP). Elementary teachers and secondary English teachers receive an incentive of $2,500 annually to teach in a Mission Possible school. Harder-to-recruit secondary math teachers are paid up to $10,000 in additional incentives. Principals who lead Mission Possible schools receive annual incentives of $5,000 for elementary school, $7,500 for middle school, and $10,000 for high school.
The second incentive acknowledges highly effective teachers whose students achieve extraordinary academic results. William Sanders, former professor of statistics at the University of Tennessee, found that the average 5th grade student who has had highly effective teachers three years in a row will score 50 percentile points higher on the state exam than peers who have had ineffective teachers three years in a row (Sanders & Rivers, 1996).
To identify highly effective teachers, we use Sanders's value-added data model to average test results and create a mean value-added score for tested courses districtwide. We then work closely with the Sanders team to determine annually which teachers have produced value-added gains and losses. Teachers who produce gains of 1.0–1.49 standard errors above the district value-added mean receive an annual salary bonus of $2,500. Those who produce gains of 1.5 or more standard errors above the mean receive $4,000. Principals who lead their schools to making AYP receive an additional performance bonus of $5,000, and their curriculum facilitators receive $2,500.
By pairing the recruitment and performance incentives, especially for math teachers and administrators, Guilford County Schools is able to offer the most competitive salaries in the state. Math teachers can potentially earn the equivalent of a starting corporate salary by working in a Mission Possible school.
Component 2: Performance Accountability
To recruit and retain the very best teachers, you must have a way to measure performance. Mission Possible uses value-added data to hold teachers accountable for their performance. The Sanders value-added method tracks cohorts of students over time, with each student serving as his or her own control. The process uses previous standardized test scores to project future scores; actual results are compared with the projections. Student scores that are significantly above projected values indicate effective instruction. On the other hand, student scores that are significantly below projected values indicate ineffective instruction. The process isolates the effect of instruction on student learning and adjusts for student characteristics, such as ethnicity, parents' education level, and socioeconomic status. This process enables us to identify our teachers' strengths and weaknesses without holding them accountable for factors beyond their control.
Component 3: Professional Development and Capacity Building
One lesson learned from the teacher focus groups was that high-quality professional development is necessary for recruiting and retaining teachers. We use the value-added data from the first two components—data about students' projected and actual test scores and data about gains and losses in student achievement relative to a districtwide mean—to determine teachers' professional development needs.
Value-added data show individual teacher trends. Teachers tend to teach toward the lower quartile, middle range, or upper quartile of students. The data revealed that teachers needed help differentiating their instruction to meet the needs of all students. In addition, value-added data reports for math teachers indicated strengths and weaknesses in specific content areas. That enabled us to focus our math professional development on Algebra I, our weakest area. Our 2006–07 Algebra I scores increased as a result.
Each Mission Possible teacher participates in 24 hours of carefully selected professional development each year. In addition to differentiated instruction and a focus on specific content areas, training includes such topics as undoing racism, classroom management, and cooperative learning. Teachers can also customize their training through independent study or by taking university courses.
Component 4: Structural Support
Many principals in the Mission Possible schools were young and inexperienced. The first support structure we put in place was a selection process for identifying principals with the aptitude and attitude to successfully lead high-needs schools. We used the STAR principal selection program developed by Martin Haberman from the University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee to identify four experienced principals, whom we then placed in some of our Mission Possible schools. We have found the system to be an excellent predictor of principal success. Principal evaluations and principal mentor reports show successful performance of all new Mission Possible principals selected using the Haberman instrument.
Likewise, we put in place a support structure that enables us to regulate teacher quality in Mission Possible schools. We made a politically charged decision to use value-added data to identify teachers in Mission Possible schools who had several years of scores two or more standard errors below the mean. As a result, we transferred an initial 26 teachers out of Mission Possible schools and hired teachers with proven records of success to fill the vacancies. The teachers who were transferred out could select the school of their choice, but we assigned no more than one of these teachers to a single school. We placed all transferred teachers on an improvement plan and required them to attend intensive summer training programs. We are currently monitoring their progress.
After the end of the first year of the program, the district took similar action with 12 additional teachers who had two or more years of consecutive value-added scores two or more standard errors below the mean. Sanders's research shows that students who work with two consecutive teachers identified by value-added scores as ineffective may never attain the level of accomplishment that they might have reached with better teachers. Nontenured teachers in this category lose their jobs in the district.
With the best faculty now in place, the remaining support structures promoted conditions conducive to program success. We reduced class sizes to a 15:1 ratio in grades K–2 and to a 20:1 ratio in Algebra I. Local and foundation grants provided high school math teachers with the most advanced technologies available: Promethean Boards (interactive whiteboards); wireless laptops; document cameras (similar to an overhead projector, with a high-resolution video camera for display); Bluetooth tablets (used to annotate presentations and run computer applications while moving about the room); student-response systems; graphing calculators; and an online learning community using Blackboard (an Internet-based communication platform).
To coordinate these support structures and all other Mission Possible program components, we hired a director and data manager. The Mission Possible Office now recruits faculty; manages value-added data processes; budgets local and federal program funds; maintains a comprehensive database with more than 100 data points for each Mission Possible teacher; facilitates advisory groups of principals and teachers; coordinates professional development; aligns districtwide efforts related to Mission Possible schools; and communicates with faculty, parents, evaluators, media, and other constituents. The coordination of all program components and services has strengthened our ability to successfully recruit and retain teachers in our high-needs schools.
The Program Grows
As we continued to develop the initiative, media attention on Mission Possible intensified with a front-page story appearing in The New York Times (Dillon, 2007) and an interview on National Public Radio (Abramson, 2006). Within a month, Erskine Bowles, president of the University of North Carolina system, was so intrigued with the concept that he requested support from local business and foundation leaders as well as two local state universities to add two additional high schools to the project. The local business and foundation community committed $2.1 million to fund program expansion during a three-year period. Each Mission Possible high school math teacher was given a laptop, five additional math coaches were hired, and teachers were paid an additional $4,000 stipend for attending a proficiency-based, 40-hour training program in math.
Shortly thereafter, we discovered that Guilford County Schools had become the first district in North Carolina to receive a federal Teacher Incentive Fund grant to differentiate teacher salaries. The $8 million grant enabled us to expand the program even further by adding eight additional schools, for a total of 30 Mission Possible schools in the 2007–08 school year.
Better Teachers, Better Schools
We are in the middle of the second year of our Mission Possible program and are encouraged by our early results. In May 2005, the district had seven math teacher applications on file. One year later, after announcing Mission Possible, we had 167 applications from certified math teachers. Only 10 percent of teaching faculty left after the 2006–07 school year, the result of natural attrition (retirement, transfers, and long-term leave). During the past two school years—and for the first time in 10 years—all Mission Possible schools were fully staffed by highly qualified teachers.
Following the first year of implementation (the 2006–07 school year), 76 of 322 Mission Possible teachers received bonuses for academic results significantly above the districtwide average. Of those, 64 percent achieved the highest-level incentive of $4,000. Fifty-two percent of the teachers receiving incentives taught secondary math. At one of our most challenging high schools, 60 percent of the teachers achieved results yielding incentive bonuses. Five Mission Possible schools made AYP for the first time.
We believe that this year's testing outcomes will result in more teachers receiving bonuses and that the teacher turnover rate in Mission Possible schools will be significantly lower than the districtwide average. In our Mission Possible schools, we now have a new sense of hope.
Six Lessons Learned
Incentives. Fund an incentive structure that provides some support for all teachers in a Mission Possible school. All provide a valuable service to students and spend their own resources ensuring that their students have the materials and services necessary to be successful in school. This approach appeases those naysayers who claim that rewarding only some of the teachers will cause morale problems.
Data. Hire a data manager to track all value-added data as well as data related to teacher turnover, recruiting, salaries, professional development, performance incentive awards, and recruitment and retention incentive awards. It is impossible to manage this amount of data without a well-developed database and a competent person to maintain it.
Teacher performance. Know that every teacher will not earn performance incentives. Engage in conversations about the continual effort to improve performance. Be aware that teachers who had high value-added results in affluent schools may not get similar results in Mission Possible schools. Often their success was the result of teaching high-achieving students. They may not be as successful when working with average or low-performing students.
Professional development. Customize job-embedded professional development and capacity-building efforts. A one-size-fits-all approach will never work. Teachers will engage in the improvement process if they help to create it. Offer multiple options that differentiate for the age, experience level, competence, and content knowledge of each of your teachers. Tie the completion and implementation of professional development to incentives.
Communication.Develop a communications plan. Use multiple methods of communication and program marketing, including a regular newsletter, e-mail distribution groups, a Web page, program brochures, promotional materials, advisory team meetings, and focus groups. Work with local, state, and national media to promote your successes.
Program leadership. Hire someone who can provide strategic leadership for your program. This person will need to be able to coordinate all program components and work with the departments of human resources, payroll, professional development, and curriculum as well as with site-based teachers and principals. Crucial to the success of this program are carefully developed, trusting relationships. People need to know that their problems will be resolved the first time around; that their concerns will be dealt with confidentially; and that people, not programs, are at the forefront of this reform initiative.
