Grant Number: 2007-0284
MPR Reference No.: 6333-400
Teacher Bonuses for
Extra Work: A Profile
of Missouri’s Career
Ladder Program
May 29, 2009
Timothy Silman
Steven Glazerman
Submitted to:
Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation
4801 Rock Hill Rd.
Kansas City, MO 64110-2046
Telephone: (816) 932-1068
Facsimile: (816) 932-1430
Project Officer:
Margo Quiriconi
Submitted by:
Mathematica Policy Research, Inc.
600 Maryland Ave. S.W., Suite 550
Washington, DC 20024-2512
Telephone: (202) 484-9220
Facsimile: (202) 863-1763
Project Director:
Steven Glazerman
A
CKNOWLEDGMENTS
his research was supported by a grant from the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation
of Kansas City, Missouri. The authors would like to thank the Foundation for its
support and acknowledge several people who contributed to this report. Margo
Quiriconi and Havaca Johnson of the Kauffman Foundation were helpful at various stages
of the process. We appreciate the generous cooperation of Leigh Ann Grant-Engle and
Rosalyn Wieberg of the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. Nii
Addy, formerly of Mathematica, Stephanie Schmidt and Elizabeth Warner, of the U.S.
Department of Education, and Mike Podgursky, of the University of Missouri-Columbia all
provided useful input at early stages of the project. We especially appreciate the dozens of
school district administrators and teachers as well as union officials who were both candid
and generous with their time in speaking with us, participating in interviews and focus
groups.
T
At Mathematica, Katie Burnett was instrumental in arranging focus groups and
conducting telephone interviews. Kathy Buek provided expert assistance with focus group
writeups. Tim Silva carefully read drafts and provided critical input on methodology. The
report was edited by Carol Soble and prepared for publication by Donna Dorsey.
C
ONTENTS
Chapter Page
I BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................... 1
A. POLICY PROBLEM AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS ................................................... 1
1. Research questions .......................................................................................... 1
2. Data .................................................................................................................... 2
3. Previous research ............................................................................................. 3
B. OVERVIEW OF THE MISSOURI CAREER LADDER PROGRAM ............................... 3
II THE ROLE OF THE DISTRICT ........................................................................................... 5
A. THE PARTICIPATION PROCESS ................................................................................ 5
1. District Career Ladder Plan ............................................................................ 5
2. State Support and Oversight .......................................................................... 6
B. P
ARTICIPATION TRENDS .......................................................................................... 6
C. EXPLAINING DISTRICT PARTICIPATION DECISIONS ........................................... 8
1. Who Decides? ................................................................................................... 8
2. Rationale for Participating: What Did Districts Hope to Achieve
With the Program? ........................................................................................... 8
3. Matching Rate ................................................................................................... 8
vi
Contents
Chapter Page
D. PROGRAM OVERSIGHT WITHIN THE DISTRICT ................................................... 10
1. Composition and Leadership of the Career Ladder Review
Committee ...................................................................................................... 10
2. Committee Responsibilities .......................................................................... 11
III TEACHERS’ EXPERIENCES .............................................................................................. 13
A. T
EACHER PARTICIPATION ..................................................................................... 13
1. Enrollment Process and Timeline ............................................................... 13
2. Trends in Teacher Participation .................................................................. 14
3. Decision to Participate: Do Districts Recruit Teachers? ......................... 16
4. Decision to Participate: Why Do Teachers Participate? .......................... 17
5. Possible Barriers to Participation ................................................................ 17
B. QUALIFYING FOR AND RECEIVING AN AWARD ................................................. 17
1. Advancement Along Career Ladder............................................................ 17
2. The Performance-Based Teacher Evaluation ............................................ 19
3. Award Levels .................................................................................................. 20
4. Work Hour Requirements ............................................................................ 21
5. Activities Under Career Ladder ................................................................... 22
IV P
OSSIBLE EFFECTS OF CAREER LADDER ..................................................................... 23
A. DIRECT EFFECTS ON STUDENTS ........................................................................... 23
B. INDIRECT EFFECTS ................................................................................................. 24
1. Effects on Teacher Career Decisions ......................................................... 25
V C
ONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................................. 27
vii
Contents
Chapter Page
REFERENCES .................................................................................................................... 29
APPENDIX A: DATA AND METHODS ......................................................................... A-1
APPENDIX B: PROTOCOL FOR DISTRICT-LEVEL INTERVIEWS .............................. B-1
APPENDIX C: FOCUS GROUP PROTOCOL ................................................................. C-1
F
IGURES
Figure Page
II.1 DISTRICT PARTICIPATION RATES ................................................................................... 7
II.2 MATCHING RATE FACTORS ............................................................................................. 9
III.1 TEACHER PARTICIPATION RATES ................................................................................. 15
C HAPTER I
B
ACKGROUND
A. P
OLICY PROBLEM AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS
Public school teachers are usually paid according to two objective criteria: their years of
experience and their educational attainment (certificates, degrees, or coursework). This
system, known as the uniform salary schedule, has received criticism for its unfairness, its
failure to reward effort or skill, and its inefficiency in not encouraging hard work or talent
(Hanushek 1981).
Education policymakers seeking to reform the system of teacher compensation have
tried many times, often without success, to tie teacher compensation more closely to the
quantity and quality of teachers’ work. An influential 1983 report by the National
Commission on Excellence in Education, entitled A Nation at Risk, spotlighted the problem
and spurred a wave of reform during the mid- to late 1980s. Many of the reforms included
career ladders for teachers. Career ladders allow teachers to advance in salary based on
factors other than seniority, such as demonstrated skills or performance. Most of the
reforms enacted in the mid- to late 1980s did not last long (Glazerman 2004), but the present
study focuses on one exception: a teacher career ladder program started in Missouri in 1986
that continues to operate today more or less unchanged.
Missouri’s Career Ladder program set forth two primary goals: to improve student
achievement and to attract and retain effective teachers. The program offers opportunities
for teachers to earn extra pay for extra work and professional development, with eligibility
for these opportunities based on a combination of seniority and subjective performance
evaluation. It is the intent of Missouri policymakers to improve academic services,
programs, and student learning outcomes both by encouraging teachers to engage in
productive activities and by attracting and retaining effective teachers through the extra pay
associated with those activities.
1. Research questions
This report is one of three from a study conducted by Mathematica Policy Research,
Inc. (MPR) of the Missouri program, which posed the following broad research questions:
2
I: Background
1. How does the program operate in theory and in practice?
2. What effect does the Career Ladder have on student achievement?
3. What effect does the Career Ladder have on teachers’ career decisions,
specifically their decision to remain in their district or in teaching?
This report directly addresses the first research question while providing some teacher
and district perspectives on the second and third research questions. Two companion
reports (Booker and Glazerman 2008a; 2008b) address the second and third questions by
providing a quantitative analysis of the relationships between Missouri’s Career Ladder and
student and teacher outcomes. The goal of the present report is to document everything we
were able to learn about the program that might help readers interpret the two companion
reports. We use qualitative data to understand how districts came to be in the program, how
teachers decided to participate, and how teachers qualified for and earned payments. We
also explored the mechanics of the program, its oversight and accountability, and the
possible pathways by which it could produce beneficial outcomes.
2. Data
This report draws on the following three types of data:
1. We reviewed all the relevant official program documentation that might tell
us how the program works, including state legislation, regulations issued by the
Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE), and other
program documents, such as the set of annual reports issued by DESE. We
also queried a longitudinal dataset that DESE provided covering teacher and
district participation in the program since 1991.
2. We conducted four focus groups with teachers who were participating in
Career Ladder. We conducted each focus group in a separate school district,
selected to provide diversity of settings (urban, suburban, rural). It is important
to keep in mind that the focus groups were designed to elicit stories about how
teachers came to participate in the program and how they might have
experienced it, not to generalize about all teachers who ever took part in Career
Ladder. Therefore we report on experiences without particular regard to the
number or percentage of teachers who had each particular experience or
impression. We spoke with teachers in grades K-12 who were at various stages
of the Career Ladder.
3. We conducted telephone interviews with officials from 15 randomly selected
participating school districts. The interviews were aimed at understanding how
districts came to participate in the program and at how program operations
look from a district level perspective. We intended to interview a district
administrator, but always asked to speak with the most knowledgeable person
on the district’s Career Ladder participation. In most cases, this led us to the
person who chaired a local Career Ladder committee, often a senior teacher.
3
I: Background
Appendix A describes the data and methods used for this study. The telephone
interview guide is attached as Appendix B and the focus group protocol as Appendix C.
3. Previous research
To date, policymakers have had little evidence on which to base answers to the above
questions about Missouri’s Career Ladder program. The only evidence that we were able to
find on the effectiveness or even the operation of the program was limited to two reports on
early program implementation (Schofer et al. 1987; Taylor and Madsen 1989), two single-
district studies from the program’s early years (Ebmeier and Hart 1992; Henson and Hall
1993), and a brief set of tabulations by the Missouri Department of Elementary and
Secondary Education (DESE) that used 1999 test score results for a subset of the state’s
districts (Phillips 2000). Our qualitative analysis aims to understand program
implementation. We drew on teacher perceptions of career effects elicited in focus groups
with participating teachers as well as on interviews with program administrators, thereby
producing a comprehensive picture of how Missouri’s Career Ladder program operates and
how it has evolved over more than two decades.
B. O
VERVIEW OF THE MISSOURI CAREER LADDER PROGRAM
For background purposes, we describe the program as it operates in theory according to
available program documents and published literature. Later chapters of the report examine
program operations in more detail, presenting relevant information based on first-hand data
collected for this study.
Program Structure and Operations. Through the Career Ladder program, teachers
who meet statewide and district performance criteria are eligible to receive supplementary
pay for Career Ladder responsibilities, which may take the form of extra work or
participation in professional development activities. The program supplements the regular
salary schedule but does not replace it. Career Ladder responsibilities must be academic in
nature and directly related to the improvement of student programs and services. Career
Ladder involves three stages based on years of experience and other factors. To move up
the ladder, teachers must undergo an assessment at each stage through periodic observations
and evaluations of documentation. Each successive stage offers the opportunity to receive
more supplementary pay for Career Ladder responsibilities: up to $1,500 for Stage I, $3,000
for Stage II, and $5,000 for Stage III. Out of more than 65,000 teachers in 524 districts
statewide, more than 17,000 teachers (26 percent) from 333 districts (64 percent)
participated in Career Ladder during the 2005–2006 school year.
The Missouri program is distinctive among the nation’s teacher compensation reforms
in that it is the most mature program. It has been operating since 1986, outlasting dozens of
programs that were introduced around the country at the same time. In addition, the
Missouri Career Ladder is unusual in how it mixes teacher performance, tenure, and extra
responsibilities to define salary supplements. Teachers must advance along the Career
Ladder based on tenure and progress in performance as rated by classroom observers, yet
they receive bonuses for taking on extra responsibilities.
4
I: Background
District Participation. Missouri’s program operates statewide, and districts must
choose to participate and provide matching funds. Districts interested in implementing a
Career Ladder program must submit a District Career Ladder Plan (DCLP) to DESE, which
is responsible for approving plans that meet state guidelines for improving student academic
services and programs. Districts share the cost of the program with the state. Poorer
districts as well as smaller districts receive a higher percentage of state matching funds. The
three possible matching rates are 60/40, 50/50, and 40/60.
Teacher Eligibility and Qualifications for a Bonus. To enroll in Career Ladder and
qualify for bonuses, teachers must develop a Career Development Plan (CDP) associating
each Career Ladder responsibility with either a designated plan or some other instructional
improvement. The teacher then submits the CDP to the district Career Ladder Review
Committee, which is made up of educators (selected by teachers) and administrators and
charged with approving CDPs.
To receive a salary supplement, teachers must spend a specified amount of time on a
certain number of responsibilities outside of their contracted time. Examples of extra
responsibilities assumed by Career Ladder teachers include extra work—providing students
with opportunities for enhanced learning experiences, remedial assistance, and various
extended day/year activities—and professional development activities—participation in
professional growth activities, including college classes, workshops, and professional
organizations.
1
Teachers must also meet milestones for years of teaching and program
experience, along with certain performance benchmarks on the state Performance-Based
Teacher Evaluation (PBTE) system. The district’s Career Ladder Review Committee
evaluates the teachers to determine if they have carried out their responsibilities and should
receive supplementary pay. Except for the case of the Kansas City and St. Louis school
districts, which operate their own retirement benefits plans, supplemental pay counts as
salary for the computation of retirement benefits throughout the state.
Drawing on a series of interviews with district leaders and other stakeholders as well as
on the results of focus groups with teachers, the remainder of this paper examines how
Career Ladder has operated in practice. We discuss program operations at the district level
in Chapter II. Chapter III reports on the teacher-level analysis of program operations.
Chapter IV discusses the mechanism by which Career Ladder might have impacts. Chapter
V offers some conclusions and discussion of conclusions and their implications for policy.
1
DESE recommends that teachers should not spend more than one-third of Career Ladder hours on
college classes and workshops.
C HAPTER II
T
HE R OLE OF THE D ISTRICT
he Missouri Career Ladder is a state-level policy with funding and guidelines
emanating from the state government, but it is locally implemented, with school
districts deciding to participate and making decisions that shape how the program
truly operates. This chapter explores the role of the district in relation to the state. Given
that the decision to participate in the Career Ladder program necessarily first rests with the
school district, we sought to understand how some Missouri districts came to participate in
the program. The participation decision explains whom the program does and does not
serve, helps illuminate district policymakers’ program expectations, and could help state
policymakers understand how state support and rulemaking affect intended participants.
We sought to explain which districts participate and why, but we also explored the oversight
role of the state and the district’s own oversight body, called the Career Ladder Review
Committee.
T
A. T
HE PARTICIPATION PROCESS
1. District Career Ladder Plan
To become eligible for state Career Ladder funding, a school district must first submit a
District Career Ladder Plan to the state. The DCLP outlines the program’s purpose,
compensation levels, eligibility requirements, guidelines for teacher performance, and
guidelines for acceptable (reimbursable) program activities.
The state guidelines for the DCLP specify a series of administrative guidelines and
required tasks. Teachers, administrators, and community members are required to be
involved in the development of the DCLP. Districts are directed to form a Career Ladder
Review Committee, consisting of teachers and administrators, that is responsible for
reviewing materials and approving payment to participating teachers. Under the direction of
the school board and with assistance from assorted stakeholders, districts must also
periodically review the Career Ladder program.
The state provides districts with a model Career Ladder plan and most of the districts
where we conducted interviews followed the model plan closely when crafting their own
DCLP. Consequently, most of the district plans we reviewed for the study were similar to
6
II: The Role of the District
the state template (and, by extension, to each other. However, some districts enacted
additional eligibility requirements for teachers or restricted the activities eligible for
compensation, making their requirements more stringent than the state guidelines.
After submitting their initial DCLP, districts must resubmit their plan only if they
modify it; otherwise, their existing plan remains in effect. Some district representatives that
we interviewed indicated that the Career Ladder Review Committee periodically discusses
whether to alter the allowable activities under the program, but they mentioned no other
potential revisions to the DCLP. In some cases, districts have sharpened the focus on
student achievement, subsequently requiring more work in activities such as tutoring.
2. State Support and Oversight
In addition to providing districts with guidelines and requirements for participation, the
state has imposed other mandates on participating districts. By April 15 of every year, each
participating district must provide the state with the exact number of participants for the
following program year. Each district must then verify the count of participants midway
through the school year. DESE stipulates other deadlines for confirming participants and a
date for submitting a summary of Career Ladder program activities for the previous year.
The state undertakes several activities to assist districts with Career Ladder operations.
DESE conducts technical assistance visits during the fall to a subset of participating districts;
in 2007, it scheduled 62 such visits,, with 76 scheduled in 2008. However, most interviewees
mentioned that the visits involved a review of their Career Ladder plans rather than technical
assistance.
Our interviews with district and DESE representatives suggested that interaction
between the district and the state was greater in the initial years of Career Ladder
participation and then declined, perhaps reflecting a need to overcome start-up barriers.
Some respondents indicated that the state previously offered districts assistance in the form
of workshops during the summer. Most district staff thought that state oversight was
effective; a number noted that DESE staff were readily available to answer questions and
provide program guidance and that communication with the state was unproblematic.
B. PARTICIPATION TRENDS
The Career Ladder program has steadily grown over the years. In recent years, the
number of districts participating in the program has risen to 328, or 60 percent of districts in
the state. The number has generally been rising, from 63 districts (about 18 percent of the
state) in the program’s first year to 32 percent in 1991, the first year for which we have
detailed data, to a peak of 62 percent in 2003, roughly the level at which participation
remains today (see Figure II.1). The sharpest increase in participation came during the early
1990s.
7
II: The Role of the District
Figure II.1. District Participation Rates
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008
Year
Percent of
Districts Enrolled
Districts with Fewer Than 1,500 students
Districts with 1,500 to 5,000 students
Districts with More than 5,000 students
All Districts
Once districts decide to participate, they typically do not discontinue participation. The
only declines in the participation rate—in 1997, 2004, 2005, and 2007— have totaled less
than 2 percentage points, with some of the declines, including the most recent one (from 61
to 60 percent), resulting from an increase in the number of districts in the state rather than
from a decline in the number of participating districts.
State union and government officials told us that Career Ladder was designed with the
aim of helping raise salaries in mainly small, rural school districts, as is largely borne out by
participation trends. Figure II.1, which shows overall district participation trends since 1991
also shows trends for different types of districts broken into categories of small, medium,
and large based on student enrollment. While participation has reached nearly 70 percent
for small districts (defined as those with fewer then 1,500 students), it has hovered closer to
50 percent for medium-sized districts (having 1,500 to 5,000 students) and has remained
under 30 percent for districts with more than 5,000 students.
8
II: The Role of the District
C. EXPLAINING DISTRICT PARTICIPATION DECISIONS
1. Who Decides?
It may help policymakers understand why districts participate in Career Ladder to know
that teachers are the driving force behind district participation decisions, according to people
we interviewed. While school boards must allocate the local share of funds for participation,
we often heard that teacher interest was the driving factor behind program participation. In
one large district, the teacher’s union wanted the program. In two other districts, a group of
teachers interested in the program persuaded the school board to vote for participation
despite the board’s initial reluctance. In another district, the central administration—
specifically, the superintendent—drove the participation decision, but teacher interest helped
spur the decision.
2. Rationale for Participating: What Did Districts Hope to Achieve With the
Program?
District representatives, many of whom were classroom teachers who had taken on
special duties helping to run the local Career Ladder program, cited numerous program
benefits as the rationale for program participation. Interviewees from nearly all of the
districts said that increased teacher compensation was the primary goal for instituting the
program. Many added that the increased pay was a means to achieve other goals, such as
increased teacher satisfaction, teacher retention, and, ultimately, student achievement. Most
thought that increased tutoring or other activities would lead to achievement gains; some
respondents also perceived such activities as an inherently beneficial, that is, regardless of
any potential impact on achievement. Representatives from one district mentioned
improved classroom instruction through professional and curriculum development as an
initial factor motivating the participation decision.
District representatives also cited cost factors that played into the participation decision.
For districts, the cost is a primarily a function of the number of participating teachers and
the level at which they participate—both of which determine the amount of bonuses to pay
out—as well as the local matching rate. Districts may have other costs related to program
administration, such as the initial effort of submitting and, if necessary, revising a DCLP and
the ongoing efforts of evaluating teachers, reviewing plans, making local rule changes, and
overseeing program operations. Next, we discuss the critical ingredient in determining the
cost to a district, its matching rate for state funding.
3. Matching Rate
Perhaps the most important factor in a district’s decision to participate in Career Ladder
is the generosity of the program, which is a function of the state matching rate. The higher
the share of state funding per dollar of local funding, the more likely we expect that a district
will participate, all other things equal. Matching rates vary by district, and the rules for
determining matching rates have changed.
9
II: The Role of the District
The matching rate formula in effect from program inception through the 1995–1996
school year was based entirely on the district’s assessed property value per pupil. Districts
were ranked on this measure from lowest to highest and divided into 12 groups. Districts
with the lowest assessed property value per pupil received 90 percent state funding for
program expenses. For each successive group of districts, the state funding share declined
by 5 percentage points, with the district in the highest group receiving 35 percent state
funding.
Legislation enacted in 1996 significantly changed the funding formula by making the
funding distribution narrower with fewer distinct matching rates; it also added total
enrollment as a ranking factor. The current formula involves an initial sorting of districts by
assessed property value per pupil, with the top 25 percent of districts on this measure
categorized as Group 1. The remaining 75 percent of districts are then rank-ordered
according to total enrollment from highest to lowest; the highest one-third of districts
constitute Group 2, and the remaining two-thirds constitute Group 3. The first group
receives 40 percent state funding, the second 50 percent, and the third 60 percent. Figure
II.2 shows the current matching rate by district wealth (property value per pupil) and size
(K-12 student enrollment), with the outliers “top-coded” (assigned to a maximum value of
$80,000 per pupil and 10,000 students) to make the figure easier to read. We used 1986
property valuation data and 1991 enrollment data for illustration because data from those
years were most readily available.
Figure II.2. Matching Rate Factors
$0
$10,000
$20,000
$30,000
$40,000
$50,000
$60,000
$70,000
$80,000
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 10,000
Enrollment
Property Wealth
High wealth:
40% state match
Low wealth, high enrollment:
50% state match
Low wealth,
low enrollment:
60% state match
Notes: Calculations from data provided by the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. Each
dot represents one school district. Property wealth values are top-coded at $80,000 per pupil; enrollment is
top-coded at 10,000 students.
10
II: The Role of the District
The revised funding formula reduced the influence of district property values per pupil
while providing less state funding for districts with greater assessed wealth per pupil. It
narrowed the range of state matching rates but added a component that gives weight to
smaller, primarily rural, districts. To make the rate change more gradual, districts
participating at the time of the legislative change and with a state matching rate higher than
that specified by the new formula saw their state matching rate decrease by 5 percentage
points per year until it reached the mandated level.
The rule change might have driven districts away from the program, but no interview
respondents reported any effects of the funding formula change on their district’s program
participation. Several noted that the change had no effect whatsoever; others simply
indicated that the district came up with any additional funds necessary to continue
participation. For one district, the change caused the administration to re-evaluate the
program and its costs/benefits; ultimately, the district decided to continue participation.
The 1996 legislative change also contained a “grandfather” clause specifying that
teachers participating in the program at the time of the change and continuing to participate
in the program thereafter would have their Career Ladder payments matched at the same
rate that was in effect before the change, thereby reducing district expenditures for certain
teachers. When asked, no district reported any effects of this provision.
D. P
ROGRAM OVERSIGHT WITHIN THE DISTRICT
Oversight within the district is primarily the responsibility of each district’s Career
Ladder Review Committee, whose members review teacher materials and approve payments
to participants. According to DESE, the committee’s mandate is broader still. “The local
committee is responsible for the quality of the program at the district level,” and its
members “are required to adhere to the minimum standards established by” DESE.
2
The
committee is also responsible for any additional standards that may be established.
1. Composition and Leadership of the Career Ladder Review Committee
The Career Ladder Review Committee is typically a teacher-led body composed of
teachers and administrators, with some districts extending membership to community
members or school board members. Committee members for districts in our sample
numbered between 3 and 30, with an average of 11 members per district. Each committee
was chaired by a teacher, except for one district’s committee, which was headed by an
administrator (the superintendent). Typically, however, the administrator was a non-voting
member. Teacher committee members were generally more experienced teachers than the
overall pool of participants.
2
DESE Career Ladder Frequently Asked Questions. Available online at:
http://dese.mo.gov/divteachqual/careerladder/FAQs.htm
11
II: The Role of the District
2. Committee Responsibilities
The committee’s primary responsibility is to oversee teacher-participants by reviewing
teacher CDPs and requesting revisions/corrections as necessary, analyzing program hours,
settling disputes, reminding teachers about deadlines, and answering program-related
questions.
In ten of the twelve currently participating districts where we conducted interviews, the
Career Ladder Review Committee made an annual presentation to the local school board on
the state of the program. The weight attached to the presentation varied from district to
district.
In six districts among the current participant districts in our sample, Career Ladder
Review Committees were involved in recruiting teachers for the program. Sometimes,
school building representatives, who may or may not be committee members, participated in
recruitment activities. Building representatives are teachers selected from each school within
the district to help answer questions from potential and current program participants.
In a few districts we studied, the Career Ladder Review Committee was heavily involved
in authoring the DCLP. In three of the currently participating districts where we conducted
interviews, the committee held discussions about the program’s current standards and made
decisions about whether priorities should be revised or requirements increased. In some
cases, such discussions related to committee members’ authorship of the DCLP.
C HAPTER III
T
EACHERS’ E XPERIENCES
his chapter delves into the school districts to explain how teachers come to
participate in the program, how they become eligible for Career Ladder payments,
and what they must do to receive the payments.
T
A. T
EACHER PARTICIPATION
A district’s decision to participate in the Career Ladder program opens opportunities for
teachers to join the district’s program voluntarily and become eligible for supplemental pay.
Teachers must have at least five years of public school teaching experience in Missouri
before becoming eligible for Career Ladder. Then, they must submit and obtain approval of
a teacher Career Ladder plan. Next, they must pass an evaluation, typically by a principal,
called the Performance-Based Teacher Evaluation (PBTE) and, finally, complete and
document the activities specified in the plan.
1. Enrollment Process and Timeline
To be eligible for supplementary pay under the Career Ladder program, teachers in
participating districts must be serving on a regular-length full-time contract and must have
Missouri teacher certification; they also must formally enroll in the Career Ladder program.
To enroll in Career Ladder and qualify for awards, teachers must develop a CDP that
associates each Career Ladder responsibility with either the teacher’s Professional
Development Plan or a designated improvement plan such as the DCLP, Curriculum
Development Plan, School Improvement Plan, Missouri School Improvement Plan, or some
other instructional improvement. The Career Ladder Review Committee must then approve
the teacher’s CDP.
14
III: Teachers’ Experiences
Teachers must submit CDPs either at the end of the school year preceding participation
or at the beginning of the school year to which the plan applies.
3
The Career Ladder Review
Committee may ask teachers for revisions. When prompted, few of our focus group
participants or district interviewees mentioned any involvement of district staff in CDP
review. Most teachers felt that the enrollment process was routine, although a few
mentioned difficulty with the initial process of crafting a CDP and enrolling in the program.
Forecasting the takeup and completion rate can be a challenge for some districts trying
to budget for future teacher pay supplements. Partly as a way to forecast Career Ladder
payments for budgeting, one district in our sample required teachers to sign an “intent to
participate” form in January as a condition of participation in the program. Unfortunately,
the rule proved less useful than intended because many teachers completed the form just to
maintain eligibility, regardless of their true intentions. The district in question has recently
reduced hours and compensation to half the state-recommended level and has instituted
more stringent paperwork requirements.
2. Trends in Teacher Participation
Participation by Missouri teachers in Career Ladder has been growing, though not as
sharply as the rate of increase in district participation. Figure III.1 shows the rates at which
district participation and teacher participation have increased. (The previous chapter
discussed district participation trends). Teacher participation nearly doubled, rising from 10
percent of Missouri’s teachers in 1990 to 18 percent in 2007. The increase in both the
number and size of participating districts is driving the overall growth of Career Ladder
teachers. The figure shows a particularly sharp increase in the late 1990s in the number of
teachers potentially eligible, that is, in participating districts. Not shown, but implied in the
data, is another trend: Districts that more recently began participating in Career Ladder tend
to be larger than districts already in the program. However, the take-up rate, that is, the
percentage of teachers in Career Ladder districts who apply for and receive supplemental pay
in the program, has been declining, from 52 percent in 1990 to 42 percent in 2007 as these
larger districts have joined. This decline has been offset by a rise in the number and size of
participating districts, producing overall only a slight increase in program participation.
Our analysis of administrative data on teacher receipt of Career Ladder payments from
1991 to 2007, the years for which data were available, shows that districts adhered to
program rules. Fewer than 0.1 percent of teachers had been assigned to a Career Ladder
stage without the statutory minimum years of experience. Table III.1 shows the percentage
of participants at each stage by the experience level at which they began receiving payments
at that stage. While 25 percent of participants who were ever at Stage I began that status
with 5 or 6 years of experience, the rest had more experience than that when they started.
The experience level among starting participants reflects the length of time needed to
qualify, the possibility that the district had not been participating in Career Ladder until
3
For example, plan submission could extend from April to October 2007 for teachers interested in
participating in the program during the 2007–2008 school year.
15
III: Teachers’ Experiences
participant-teachers had already accumulated considerable experience, and the possibility
that the program has attracted more experienced teachers to the district. For stage II, 79
percent had 10 or more years of experience when they started at that stage; for stage III,
nearly all teachers had the required 10 years of experience.
Figure III.1. Teacher Participation Rates
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006
Year
Percentage
Percentage of state's teachers in Career Ladder
Percentage of state's teachers in Career Ladder districts
Percentage of state's districts in Career Ladder
Career Ladder participation rate in Career Ladder districts
We also examined the duration of each teacher’s stay at a given Career Ladder stage to
gauge the speed of progress through the program. Of participants who completed their
careers within the 16-year period between 1991 and 2007, the average stay at stage I was 1.7
years; for stage II it was 2.1 years; for stage III, it was 5.6 years.
4
4
We use those with complete careers in order to avoid undercounting stays cut off by the endpoints of
the data.
16
III: Teachers’ Experiences
Table III.1. Experience Level at Initiation of Each Career Ladder Stage
Teaching Experience
Career Ladder Stage
Stage I Stage II Stage III
Experience category (percentages)
Fewer than 4 years 0.5 0.1 0.2
5–6 years 24.6 0.1 0.1
7–9 years 32.1 20.8 1.0
10+ years 42.9 79.0 98.7
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0
Average experience level (years) 10.9 15.2 18.6
Note: Data pertain to Career Ladder participants who began teaching in Missouri after 1990.
3. Decision to Participate: Do Districts Recruit Teachers?
Districts are not required to advertise or otherwise reach out to teachers to inform them
about the program or to encourage eligible teachers to participate. Despite the state
matching component for program funding, additional teacher participation represents an
additional district financial burden; thus, for some districts, cost containment may be a
reason to limit program outreach activities.
Districts varied in the extent to which they were active in making teachers, particularly
new hires, aware of the program. Some interviewees reported that they use the program as a
recruitment tool and advertise the program to potential hires, although this claim was rarely
reflected in the comments of focus group participants despite our asking explicitly how the
teachers had been introduced to Career Ladder and what messages they received in
connection with the program. A number of focus group respondents recalled asking their
prospective employer about Career Ladder opportunities when interviewing for their current
position; some were Career Ladder participants in a previous district, and one was advised by
her professors to ask about the program as she worked toward her education degree. A few
focus group respondents questioned whether administrators, given their limited involvement
with the program, could provide prospective teachers with accurate information about
Career Ladder.
A consistent message from the telephone interviews with district representatives and
from the in-person focus groups with teachers is that the program is largely teacher-driven;
program recruitment and information provision were no exceptions. Word of mouth was
perceived as a strong force in disseminating program information. Participating teachers,
particularly Career Ladder committee members or “[school] building representatives” who
may be responsible for handling questions, provide a large amount of program information.
They are often involved in contacting eligible or newly hired teachers and informing them
about the program. A number of districts make a point of mentioning the program during
teacher staff meetings. Some participating teachers, particularly those involved in program
oversight, encourage eligible teachers to participate; there was no indication that district
17
III: Teachers’ Experiences
personnel encourage participation, aside from possibly advertising the program during the
hiring process (as already described).
4. Decision to Participate: Why Do Teachers Participate?
Career Ladder participants mentioned additional teacher compensation as the primary
motivating factor for program involvement. Many noted that the Career Ladder payment
covers work or activities that teachers were already performing or would perform regardless
of payment under Career Ladder (although, as required by the state, the activities must be
performed outside of contracted teacher time). Some teachers noted that an additional
incentive was the opportunity to perform work that they previously wanted to perform but
were reluctant to undertake because of a lack of compensation. One district places a strong
emphasis on student tutoring across the district, not just through the Career Ladder
program. However, the average hourly wages under Career Ladder for tutoring are
considerably higher than the wages paid by the district to non-participating teachers.
Except for the two districts in the state with independent pension programs, Career
Ladder payments counted toward base salary for the purposes of determining defined
benefit pension payments under the state’s teacher pension plan. This arrangement makes
Career Ladder payments further desirable, particularly for teachers close to retirement who,
given experience requirements, are likely to receive the highest level of compensation under
the program (discussed later).
5. Possible Barriers to Participation
Focus group participants consistently cited paperwork as a barrier to participation,
particularly in some districts more than others. The basic Career Ladder paperwork can be
lengthy, and the process of documenting hours, which some respondents observe as
increasingly stringent in recent years, may be time-consuming. In some cases, districts’
rigorous documentation requirements present an additional burden. In an attempt to
document achievement growth, one district required student who were being tutored under
the program to take pre- and post-tests. These fixed costs of program participation that
cannot count as Career Ladder activities for the purposes of compensation lower the average
compensation under the program.
B. QUALIFYING FOR AND RECEIVING AN AWARD
1. Advancement Along Career Ladder
Advancement to each of Career Ladder’s three stages depends on a combination of
years of teaching experience in Missouri, experience at the previous stage, and classroom
performance. Table III.2 presents the state minimum qualification criteria for each stage of
the career ladder. For Stages I, II, and III, respectively, the state requires 5, 7, and 10 years
of teaching in Missouri public schools. The teacher must spend two years at Stage I before
advancing to Stage II and three years at Stage II before advancing to Stage III. However,
districts may (and, based on our interviews, do) waive most of these requirements, relying
18
III: Teachers’ Experiences
only on experience and a single year at the previous stage. The PBTE, a statewide teacher
evaluation system, measures classroom performance. Under the PBTE, an administrator
rates the teacher along 20 criteria. For Career Ladder, a teacher must meet expectations in
each criterion and, depending on the stage, exceed expectations on some fraction of the
criteria.
Table III.2. Missouri Career Ladder, Summary of Program Features by Stage
Program Feature
Career Ladder Stage
I II III
Minimum eligibility requirements
Experience teaching in Missouri 5 years 7 years 10 years
Experience at the previous Career Ladder
stage
a
N/A 1 year 1 year
PBTE criteria scoring expected or above
b
100% 100% 100%
PBTE criteria scoring above expected
b
0% 10% 15%
Minimum work requirements
Number of Career Ladder responsibilities 2 activities 3 activities 4 activities
Hours of work (minimum) 60 hours 90 hours 120 hours
Bonus Payments
Maximum bonus amount $1,500 $3,000 $5,000
Implied hourly rate (maximum
bonus/minimum hours)
$25.00/hour $33.33/hour $41.67/hour
Notes:
a
Minimum years at previous stages for Stages II and III are 2 and 3 years, respectively, but
waivers are offered for teachers with 7 and 10 years of experience, respectively. Given that
those experience levels are already minimums for each stage, the waivers would be the norm.
b
PBTE stands for Performance-Based Teacher Evaluation.
Teachers with National Board Certification (NBC), a voluntary advanced teaching
credential offered by the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards, are
automatically eligible to receive compensation under Stage III without any extra work. If a
district does not participate in Career Ladder, an NBC teacher may petition the district to
participate on a limited basis so that he or she may receive Career Ladder Stage III
compensation.
At their discretion, districts may enact additional requirements at each stage per DESE
regulations. Districts in our sample did so in a number of cases; some districts required
teachers to complete graduate coursework at all stages or to work toward or attain a master’s
degree in order to move to Stage III. One district required one year of instruction in the
district before participation regardless of any previous experience. Another district enacted
more stringent requirements for performance on the PBTE. Districts also lowered
requirements in several cases, specifically in terms of years of experience. Two districts
19
III: Teachers’ Experiences
allowed teachers to waive one or more years of participation at Stage I or II if they possessed
the requisite years of overall teaching experience either in Missouri or in general.
2. The Performance-Based Teacher Evaluation
Teacher performance, as measured by the PBTE, is an important component of Career
Ladder, at least as designed by the state. In practice, the influence of performance
evaluations on Career Ladder eligibility and advancement depends on the district and school
principal.
The PBTE is designed to provide administrators and teachers with information and
feedback regarding teaching competence and to help teachers improve on a continuing basis.
Teachers in each district are rated on 20 criteria spanning the following six areas: (1)
engaging students in class, (2) correctly assessing students, (3) exhibiting content knowledge,
(4) professionalism in the school, (5) participation in professional development, and (6)
adherence to the district’s education mission.
As applied to Career Ladder, each eligible teacher must show evidence of performance
at or above the expected level on each of the 20 rating criteria in order to maintain program
eligibility. DESE regulations stipulate that qualification for Stages II and III must also
involve performance above the expected level on 10 and 15 percent of the criteria,
respectively, on the most recent PBTE. In addition, state guidelines for the program require
DCLP to outline procedures for PBTE evaluator training, covering all of the main areas of
the PBTE as well as consistency and reliability among evaluators.
Districts may, at their discretion, enact additional requirements at each stage, as
provided under DESE regulations. Regarding the PBTE, one district in our sample
required teachers to achieve a higher percentage of evaluation criteria above the expected
level in order for teachers to qualify for Stages II and III (15 and 35 percent, respectively).
In the absence of a direct linkage between the evaluation ratings and student
achievement, the PBTE guidelines and process represent an attempt to formalize what is
inherently a subjective activity. The frequency of the evaluation process varies by teacher
experience; non-tenured teachers are subject to annual reviews, whereas tenured teachers are
reviewed on a five-year cycle. Teachers attain tenure after five years of teaching; accordingly,
the evaluation process as applied to tenured teachers is the only one applicable to Career
Ladder participants. According to the PBTE guidelines, all teachers should participate
annually in professional development activities.
For tenured teachers, the evaluation process involves a minimum of one scheduled and
one unscheduled classroom observation, along with professional development documents,
work sampling (such as lesson plans), drop-in observations (shorter, more informal visits
than classroom observations), and other materials such as lesson plans, with all data
collected for the evaluation recorded and filed. An administrators meets with the teacher
before (in the case of scheduled observations) and after observations. The administrator
then develops a formal report that incorporates all data collected during the evaluation
process and outlines the teacher’s performance in relation to PBTE standards and criteria.
20
III: Teachers’ Experiences
Districts are directed to develop a formal review and appeal process. The evaluation is
designed to be ongoing throughout the school year, with periodic progress evaluations and
criteria assessment.
The state PBTE materials represent guidelines for districts, not a formal mandate. Most
districts we contacted, however, used the state forms and guidelines, with some notable
variation and with one exception. The majority of respondents indicated that tenured
teachers complete the PBTE every three years as opposed to every five years. Even though
the DESE guidelines stipulate that PBTE performance should be measured from the most
recent final evaluation for the PBTE, some indicated that teachers would need to undergo a
formal evaluation if they planned to qualify for or advance in Career Ladder in the following
year.
Both focus group participants and district interviewees frequently mentioned
collaboration with administrators on PBTE components that influence Career Ladder
eligibility or advancement. Some teachers told us they chose when the scheduled
observation would occur and what lesson content would be observed. Some also stated that
they suggested or identified areas in which they thought they would or should achieve a
rating of above the expected level. District interviewees mentioned a number of
accommodations for Career Ladder teachers; one refrain was that administrators wanted to
avoid confrontations over PBTE ratings and thus would ensure that Career Ladder teachers
met benchmarks for advancement, sometimes by correcting a poor evaluation or completing
the PBTE with an eye toward the list of Career Ladder participants. However, some
respondents cited a more pro-active approach of addressing problems before any conflict
arose over Career Ladder eligibility.
According to focus group participants, administrators did not apply the PBTE
guidelines uniformly. Teachers raised the concern that administrators’ personal opinions
about teachers could affect ratings. For example, teachers’ accounts of their administrators’
definitions of and approaches to the “above expected” level varied considerably between
districts; some respondents were told by administrators that the rating pertained only to
exemplary work while other administrators rated all teachers above the expected level. One
teacher said, “I’ve known administrators to hold [the evaluation rating] over people’s heads.”
Another said, “I think [the administrator] knows if you’re doing your job, and your
evaluations have been fine they just sign off on it and assume you’re good to go for Career
Ladder.”
We also discovered examples of lax or nonexistent adherence to the state guidelines on
the PBTE. One district in our sample stopped following the state PBTE guidelines several
years ago according to our interview respondent. Instead, the school administrator simply
recommends and approves teachers for Career Ladder participation.
3. Award Levels
State guidelines set a maximum level of compensation under Career Ladder: $1,500 for
Stage I, $3,000 for Stage II, and $5,000 for Stage III. Districts may designate payment
21
III: Teachers’ Experiences
amounts lower than the state guidelines; however, “each stage shall contain responsibilities
commensurate and adjustable to the compensation offered for that stage.” Therefore, the
level of effort for each stage in terms of hours of work must be proportionally adjusted to
reflect payment amounts lower than the state maximums. Districts may offer more than the
state maximums, with the district paying 100 percent of the amount over the state
maximum.
Among the districts we studied, the timing of payments to teachers varied. State
payments to districts are made on July 20 as part of the normal disbursement to local
districts of state education funds earmarked to underwrite Career Ladder activities from the
preceding school year.
5
Some districts distribute the state and local portions of the teacher
bonuses separately, with the district-funded portion paid before July 20; other districts make
one lump payment to participating teachers, sometimes before receiving payment from the
state on July 20.
The compensation for each stage under the program has not been revised since the
original authorizing legislation took effect in the 1986–1987 school year. As a result, the real
value of the benefits has steadily eroded due to inflation. For example, the maximum payout
of $5,000 had the same purchasing power in 2007 as $2,683 in 1987, a reduction in value of
54 percent.
6
4. Work Hour Requirements
Each Career Ladder stage involves a prescribed minimum number of work hours that
correspond to the maximum payment amounts previously described. The amounts are 60,
90, or 120 hours for Stage I, II, or III, respectively. For the 2006–2007 school year, the
average number of hours spent for Stage I, II, and III teachers was 79, 109, and 144,
respectively.
7
The hours correspond, assuming maximum compensation under the law, to
supplementary pay of approximately $19, $28, and $35 per hour, respectively.
As of May 1 of each year, teachers may start logging hours for the next school year,
although districts may amend activity start and end dates within this framework. In some
cases, the date after which a teacher may start completing hours will fall ahead of the
deadline for submitting a CDP, particularly in districts that require the CDP at the start of
the school year. Nominally, under DESE regulations, teachers may not start logging hours
for the next school year until they have completed all their previous year’s activities,
including the Career Ladder Review Committee’s documentation review.
8
5
Rule 5 CSR 80-850.030 § 8.
6
We used the consumer price index for urban consumers nationally. The U.S. Department of Labor
does not publish a reliable rural price index based on goods purchased in Missouri over the same 20-year
period.
7 Missouri Career Ladder Annual Report 2006–2007, DESE.
8 Career Ladder Frequently Asked Questions, DESE.
22
III: Teachers’ Experiences
5. Activities Under Career Ladder
To be allowable under Career Ladder, activities performed by teachers must align with
what the district has outlined as acceptable activities in its DCLP. A DCLP generally
outlines the percentage of time to be devoted to student contact, allowable credit amounts
for professional development activities, and hour limits for particular activities; it also
prescribes methods for documentation. Some districts may emphasize certain types of
responsibilities. In general, though, most plans appear to be relatively similar, closely
following DESE’s model career plan.
As with increasing requirements for performance under the PBTE, each successive
Career Ladder stage incorporates a greater number of types of responsibilities or activities
(two, three, or four activities for Stage I, II, or III, respectively). The requirements ensure
that teachers expand and diversify the types of work they perform under Career Ladder as
they progress in the program. DESE also recommends that districts set hour limits on
certain activities that can easily extend into a commitment of time that, after a point, does
not directly benefit students, such as Internet research or professional reading. All activities
must be co-curricular in nature and related to existing priorities as outlined in district or
teacher curriculum, development, or improvement plans.
Teachers must submit documentation of their Career Ladder activities to the Career
Ladder Review Committee for verification and subsequent payment approval. The
committee must compare teacher activity to the requirements of the teacher’s stage and the
activities outlined in the teacher’s CDP. Almost all Career Ladder teachers receive their
supplementary pay. Some respondents mentioned that committees have recently become
more stringent in their requirements for documenting activities under Career Ladder. Many
also noted that the state and/or district had recently moved to target more narrowly
allowable activities under Career Ladder in order to focus more sharply on student
achievement.
Some districts allow teachers to amend their plans during the school year if
responsibilities or overall activity levels change; in theory at least, teachers may change stages
during the year and/or may reapportion the responsibilities they outlined on their CDP to
reflect activities completed.
According to focus group members and interview respondents, school districts placed
emphasis on activities involving student contact; in fact, DESE recommends but does not
mandate that one-third of time spent on Career Ladder should involve direct contact with
students. Respondents mentioned tutoring as their primary Career Ladder work and
frequently noted student clubs and enrichment activities. Other, slightly less frequent
activities included workshop attendance, serving on various committees, and curriculum
development. Respondents also mentioned professional development, particularly in
districts with graduate hour or degree requirements. One district interviewee mentioned that
its tutoring requirements provided a way to help fund tutoring activities mandated under No
Child Left Behind.
C HAPTER IV
P
OSSIBLE E FFECTS OF C AREER L ADDER
nce basic program operations are understood, it is natural to seek answers about
what type of impacts Career Ladder might have had on students and teachers. This
chapter reports on teachers’ perceptions of the likely consequences of Career
Ladder. It does not present estimates of program impacts based on objective data, although
we did ask teachers in focus groups to be candid about whether and how they thought the
program made a difference. We wanted to understand possible mechanisms by which the
program might lead to positive (or unintended negative) outcomes.
O
A. D
IRECT EFFECTS ON STUDENTS
Not surprisingly, focus group participants were confident that Career Ladder had
considerable benefits for students. The main perceived benefit was improved student
achievement. Their comments suggested that the program can raise student achievement
through a combination of at least two possible routes. The most direct route is through
Career Ladder activities themselves, principally tutoring, helping students learn. Regardless
of whether the content of the tutoring promotes learning during the sessions, teachers
reported that the time they spent with students outside of regular classroom hours was a
useful way to become better acquainted with student needs and interests, making participant-
teachers more effective with those students during the regular school day. Several teachers
believed that the program disproportionately benefits at-risk students, who may be more
likely to avail themselves of after-school activities such as tutoring and clubs.
Teachers in Career Ladder districts spent time in activities that they believed were
productive; of course, even worthwhile activities do not guarantee a positive impact on
students. The net impact that is most relevant for policymaking is the difference between the
outcomes under Career Ladder and those that would have been realized in the absence of
the program. According to DESE regulations, acceptable responsibilities are those that
“exceed the norm for the profession;”
9
that is, activities must take place outside of
participants’ contracted time such that, according to statute, Career Ladder activities must
9 Career Ladder Frequently Asked Questions, DESE.
24
IV: Possible Effects of Career Ladder
not be part of a teacher’s normal responsibilities. Does the availability of payments to
teachers under the program lead to new activity, or would teachers undertake new activities
even in the absence of the program?
Career Ladder teachers who participated in each of the focus groups stated that the
program’s primary purpose was to compensate teachers for work they were already
performing or would otherwise perform. In other words, participants suggested that the
activities they performed under Career Ladder were activities that they would have
undertaken even if they had not been in the program. They perceived Career Ladder as
simply a salary increase. If that were the case for all teachers and all activities, then the
program would be expected to have no direct impact at all, although it could produce
indirect impacts, as discussed below, resulting from the beneficial effects of higher salaries.
In fact, one district administrator we interviewed for the study described the development of
a “Career Ladder mentality” among participating teachers as a hidden cost of the program.
He felt that teachers often would not perform activities that did not count toward their
Career Ladder hours whereas they might have performed them before introduction of
Career Ladder.
Focus group respondents said that they had no difficulty in meeting the hour
requirements under Stage I but found the hour requirements under Stages II and III
challenging. Furthermore, given that the number of responsibilities assumed by teachers
increased with each stage, teachers had to diversify the types of activities they conducted as
they progressed through the program. Some teachers already meeting the Stage III hour
requirements but not yet on that stage because they had not qualified on other measures, had
to think of still other ways to diversify their activities to progress to that stage.
Some teachers did mention activities that, in their opinion, would not take place without
compensation under Career Ladder, such as extended enrichment activities that occur after
the end of the school year. Many also observed that the amount of tutoring and number of
after-school clubs had increased as a result of Career Ladder. Several focus group
respondents reported that the work under Career Ladder represented a combination of old
and new activities. Therefore, it would seem that, even though the program primarily
compensates teachers for activities that many might otherwise perform, the aggregate
amount of work completed by participating teachers may have increased; in fact, some
activities, particularly the more atypical or burdensome programs such as summer
enrichment, would probably not have taken place if not for Career Ladder. Further research
using more systematic sampling and measurement is needed in order to make generalizable
statements about the amount of work completed by Career Ladder participants.
B. INDIRECT EFFECTS
Regardless of whether the Career Ladder activities had direct impacts on student
achievement, the program may produce beneficial impacts through two indirect routes. One
is by making teachers better at what they do. We refer to this as a productivity effect. The
other is by improving the average quality of teachers in the district through recruitment and
retention. We refer to this as a composition effect.
25
IV: Possible Effects of Career Ladder
As for the productivity effect, teachers reported that the quality of their teaching
improved as they acquired new skills and undertook professional development, particularly
in districts that required graduate school hours for program participation. Few, if any,
however, mentioned any impact of curriculum development or improvements in course
content, which are areas that Career Ladder is ostensibly designed to target.
1. Effects on Teacher Career Decisions
The other indirect route for Career Ladder to improve teaching and learning is through
the composition effect, whereby good teachers are more likely to enter and remain in
participating districts. Retention effects are likely to arise through increased teacher morale
and job satisfaction. Most participants we spoke with said that the program improves
teacher satisfaction, partly because of the increased compensation. Some participants said
that the program activities increased their connection with students. Many thought that they
learned and grew from the professional development process and, in some cases, from the
other activities as well. They also mentioned improved staff cohesion as benefits.
Few of the focus group participants that we asked said that Career Ladder had any
impact on their decision to remain in the teaching profession. Most felt that Career Ladder’s
compensation was too low to have any effect. Others stated that they intrinsically enjoyed
teaching and that additional compensation was not a factor in their overall career path.
Participants more commonly said that Career Ladder affected their decisions about where
to teach. Several long-serving teachers explained that the lack of Career Ladder in a
neighboring district was a factor in their decision not to transfer. Newer teachers (to either
the profession or the district) also offered stories suggesting a positive recruitment effect. A
few teachers said that they learned of the program during the interview process, and others
who were aware of the program made a point of asking about it when they were making
employment decisions.
District interviewees cited retention effects, along with increases in student
achievement, as program benefits. The district staff interviewed for the study outlined
benefits similar to those cited by the teachers in focus groups. They viewed increased
compensation and teacher satisfaction as resulting in improved teacher retention.
C HAPTER V
C
ONCLUSIONS
his report set out to profile the Missouri Career Ladder program by delving beneath
the surface and comparing how the program works in practice (based on stakeholder
accounts) with how it works in theory (based on published statutes and regulations).
We found that in many respects the program operates as one might expect. Districts
implement rules that tend to follow the state guidelines, with some local tailoring. Teachers
of a given experience level must perform a set of allowed activities in order to receive
payments at one of the three Career Ladder levels.
T
While Career Ladder provided opportunities to supplement salaries by offering extra
pay for extra work, in most cases it would not qualify as a performance incentive program
for teachers. The use of an evaluation tool (the PBTE) to promote teachers along the career
ladder suggests that it should provide incentives for teachers to improve their practice.
However, we found little evidence that the PBTE is applied rigorously or implemented
uniformly in a way that would motivate teachers to raise their performance. Instead, Career
Ladder payments were seen as a reward for longevity and completion (with documentation)
of a set of allowable activities such as tutoring, after-school activities, or approved
professional development.
We also sought to explain how districts and teachers came to be in the program. We
found that district size matters. We documented the preponderance of small districts, which
happen to be rural and poor, in the program despite the rise over time in the participation
rates for medium and large districts. Larger districts in particular had low takeup rates, i.e. a
low percentage of teachers who had submitted a Career Ladder Plan and received Career
Ladder payments. A possible explanation for low takeup rates within a participating district
might relate to the generosity of the program; Career Ladder benefits have lost nearly half
of their value to inflation. In the large cities of St. Louis and Kansas City, where the benefits
do not count toward retirement pay, the incentive is even weaker. Thus the levels may not
be high enough for many teachers to justify completing the individual plans. Another
obvious explanation would be related to years of experience and eligibility. Some districts
may be eager to help their first-, second-, and third-year teachers, but the Career Ladder
program does not apply to these early career teachers, since they would not have qualified.
28
V: Conclusions
Finally, a goal of the analysis was to identify the mechanisms by which Career Ladder
might produce positive impacts. We identified plausible routes whereby the program could
raise student achievement, improve teacher satisfaction/morale, and improve teaching via
productivity and composition effects. Teachers reported that they get to know their
students better as a result of tutoring them outside of class. They also reported that a
district’s participation in Career Ladder might influence them to choose to teach in that
district over another district that did not have the program.
The activities that teachers in engage in, such as professional development workshops
and student clubs, may be productive in terms of improving teaching and learning.
However, there is reason to believe that the net impacts would be small as well. For
example, several teachers confided to us that the activities performed under Career Ladder,
at least those most commonly performed for Stage I, are similar to what the teacher would
be doing regardless of the program.
Ultimately, the question of impact is an empirical one, which can and should be
answered using the most rigorous quantitative methods available. The companion reports
by Booker and Glazerman (2008a; 2008b) attempt to answer these questions about impact,
albeit using existing data and relying on statistical adjustment to generate valid inferences
about impacts. Nevertheless, the current report and its companions go a long way toward
describing the Missouri Career Ladder and setting the stage for discussions of policy changes
and for further research.
R
EFERENCES
Booker, Kevin, and Steven Glazerman. “Does the Missouri Teacher Career Ladder Raise
Student Achievement?” Washington, DC: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., 2008a.
Booker, Kevin, and Steven Glazerman. “Does the Missouri Teacher Career Ladder Reduce
Teacher Turnover?” Washington, DC: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., 2008b.
DESE (Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education). Missouri Career
Ladder Annual Report, 2006-2007. 2007.
Ebmeier, Howard, and Ann W. Hart, “The Effects of a Career-Ladder Program on School
Organizational Process.” Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, vol. 14, no. 3 (1992),
pp. 261-281).
Glazerman, Steven. “Teacher Compensation Reform: Promising Strategies and Feasible
Methods to Rigorously Study Them.” Washington, DC: Mathematica Policy Research,
Inc., 2004.
Hanushek, Eric. “Throwing Money at Schools.” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, vol.
1, no. 1 (1981), pp. 19-41.
Henson, Bruce E., and Peter Hall. “Linking Performance Evaluation and Career Ladder
Programs: Reactions of Teachers and Principals in One District.” Elementary School
Journal, vol. 93, no. 4 (1993), pp. 323-53.
National Commission on Excellence in Education. A Nation at Risk. 1983.
Phillips, Penny. “Influence of Career Ladder Programs on Student Performance” Jefferson
City, MO: Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, January 2000.
Schofer, Richard C., Jerry W. Valentine, and Jeanette C. Murphy. “The Missouri Career
Development and Teacher Excellence Plan: An Initial Study of Missouri’s Career
Ladder Program.” Technical Report. Columbia, MO: University of Missouri, 1987.
30
References
Taylor, Barbara, and Jean Madsen. “The Career Ladder Process in Missouri: A Report on
How Districts Are Realizing the Goals of the Program.” Paper presented at the Annual
Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA, March
27-31, 1989.
A PPENDIX A
D
ATA AND M ETHODS
or this report we consulted existing documents and collected primary data. The
existing documents included state legislation, rules and regulations issued by DESE,
and district-level documents such as District Career Ladder Plans, many of which are
available on school district Web sites. Additional data for the study came from focus groups
with Career Ladder teachers and structured interviews with district program administrators,
state policymakers, and stakeholders. We also analyzed a longitudinal database on teacher
and district participation in Career Ladder that we compiled from data provided by DESE.
F
A. PROGRAM DOCUMENTS AND ADMINISTRATIVE DATA
The first step in our study of the Career Ladder program was to review the state
materials and legislation governing the program’s operations and structure. The Career
Ladder was first introduced in 1985 as part of the Missouri Excellence in Education Act,
known as House Bill 463 and implemented in the following year. The program underwent
some significant changes in 1996 under Missouri Senate Bill 795. We reviewed the text of
both laws to describe the historical changes in the program, particularly as related to its
funding structure. We also examined DESE’s program rules delineated in the Missouri
Code of State Regulations. The regulations provide additional guidance for districts
interested in participating in the program, particularly in areas not addressed by the
legislature, and set a timeline for the application process.
DESE publications are an additional source of useful program information. One such
resource is a District Career Ladder Plan that DESE is required by state statute to provide as
a template for local districts. These and other materials are available online. Web resources
also include guidelines for teachers and districts, Career Ladder “frequently asked questions”,
sample program forms, a list of activities inappropriate for Career Ladder, and web-based
Career Ladder reporting forms for teachers and districts.
DESE also provided us with electronic files that we used to construct longitudinal
databases that proved useful in several ways. For example, we used data on district
participation patterns and other characteristics to draw samples of districts for the focus
A-2
Appendix A
groups and telephone interviews. We also analyzed the state databases to measure district
and teacher participation rates and trends over time.
B. INTERVIEWS
We selected a random sample of school districts in which to conduct telephone
interviews that were aimed at providing the district perspective on the operation of the
Career Ladder program and the district decision to participate (or end participation) in the
program.
1. District Selection
We identified 16 school districts in which to conduct interviews, 15 of which had been
participating in Career Ladder during the 2006–2007 school year and one drawn from a list
of school districts that had ceased program participation within the last four years. We
stratified the sample in several ways.
First, we divided the districts on the basis of their Career Ladder participation history:
Recent Entrants: Districts that began participating in Career Ladder during the 1999–
2000 school year or thereafter. One of our goals for the study was to understand
why districts participate in the program; recent entrants to the program would be
best positioned to provide us with such information. We selected four districts
from the cluster of recent entrants.
Long-Term Participants: Districts that had participated continuously since the 1995–
1996 school year. The continuation of participation is another question of interest,
and long-term participants appeared most able to provide relevant information.
Operations in these districts may have settled into a predictable pattern, providing a
more accurate picture of resulting program characteristics. Initially, we sampled 10
districts from this group.
Second, we stratified by urbanicity by using the National Center for Education
Statistics locale codes from the Common Core of Data. Such stratification promised
representation from all urbanicity categories, ensuring that we would capture variations in
Career Ladder operations in different types of districts in terms of matching rates. The
standard measure of urbanicity is also based on the size of the locality and thus was highly
correlated with district size (e.g., enrollment). Therefore, we did not need to stratify
explicitly on district size. The stratum (group) definitions were:
1. Large city
2. Medium-sized city, urban fringe of medium-sized city, urban fringe of large city
3. Large town, small town, rural
A-3
Appendix A
The two district types and three urbanicity categories define six possible combinations.
We randomly selected districts within each of the combinations in order to get a diversity of
districts and then added two more districts based on their participation patterns:
Districts with Odd Participation Patterns: Districts with an unusual or unexpected
distribution of teachers across stages were of interest because such districts may
provide insight into program adaptations. In the case we examined, approximately
98 percent of teachers were in Stage III of the program.
Recent Leavers: Districts that ceased participating in the program since the 2002–
2003 school year were of interest. We randomly selected one such district, which
had stopped participating in Career Ladder after the 2004–2005 school year.
For each district, we identified one or two potentially knowledgeable respondents.
Although we initially expected that interviewees would be district administrators, we were
directed in most cases to the teachers responsible for overseeing the program through their
work on the Career Ladder Review Committee.
We tailored the interview protocol (shown in Appendix B) to each type of district. For
example, we asked staff from districts that had recently left the program about why they
ended their participation. We also divided interviewees into two categories: those with
knowledge of current program operations (e.g., staff who currently oversee the program) and
those with historical knowledge of the district’s decision to participate. In some cases, one
individual fit both categories. In other cases, we conducted two or three interviews in the
same district.
2. Completion Rates
We completed interviews with program administrators from 13 of the 16 districts we
selected (82 percent); we also completed two state-level interviews. One rural district
declined participation in both the district interviews and the focus group. We interviewed
more than one respondent in several districts. The result was 23 completed interviews: 6
districts in which we interviewed one person, 6 districts in which we interviewed two people,
one in which we interviewed three people, one interview with a state union leader, and one
interview with a DESE official.
C. TEACHER FOCUS GROUPS
To gain teacher perspectives on the program, we conducted four focus groups with
Career Ladder participants, each in a separate type of school district defined by district size
and urbanicity. Teacher focus groups were designed to help us understand teachers’
decisions to participate in Career Ladder, the incentives offered by the program, and
teachers’ general experience with and attitudes toward the program.
A-4
Appendix A
1. Site selection
From among the initial sample of interview districts, we selected four school districts
for a focus group with participating teachers.
10
To ensure a diversity of opinions and
viewpoints, we stratified districts by size and urbanicity, following a method similar to that
used for the district interviews. We divided districts into categories of large urban, suburban,
and rural. We restricted the potential rural districts to those with district enrollment greater
than 300 students, thereby ensuring enough potential participants to make focus group
recruitment feasible.
11
With only one large urban district in our sample, we selected that district with certainty.
To address logistical and cost concerns, we restricted the choice of a suburban district to be
among the three five districts sampled in close proximity to the large urban district already
selected and then randomly selected a suburban district from among this subsample. We
initially selected two rural districts at random from among the sample of interview districts.
As noted, one of the districts declined to participate in either the district interview or the
focus group. Subsequently, we selected a replacement rural district at random from the
district interview sample.
2. Recruitment and Completion
To recruit teachers for the focus groups, we used lists of participating teachers obtained
from the selected districts. We stratified and randomly selected participating teachers along
two dimensions: Career Ladder stage (I, II, or III) and grade level of instruction (elementary,
middle, or high school). Hence, we had nine selection bins and drew an initial sample of two
teachers from each bin. In one case, we released an additional recruitment sample as
necessary.
We vigorously recruited focus group members, producing a sample that was diverse
with respect to all grade levels, years of experience, and Career Ladder stage. Respondents
received a $40 incentive payment. Each focus group lasted about 90 minutes, followed an
identical protocol, and included an average of almost eight respondents. The protocol is
shown in Appendix C. The average experience level across all focus group participants was
15 years, ranging from 7 to 29 years. Of those whose Career Ladder stage we could identify,
23 percent were at Stage I, 46 percent at Stage II, and 31 percent at Stage 3.
10 Because we sought input from current participants in all stages of the Career Ladder, we excluded the
district that recently left Career Ladder and the district with nearly all of its teachers in Stage III of the program.
11 This restriction removed three rural districts from our pool of potential focus group districts.
A PPENDIX B
P
ROTOCOL FOR D ISTRICT-LEVEL
I NTERVIEWS
SCREENING QUESTIONS:
• In what capacity are you involved with the Career Ladder?
• How long have you been so involved?
• What other staff members at the district (and/or teachers) are involved with the
program?
• [At this point, can direct person appropriately to the different portions, and/or
ask for additional contact information].
To streamline interviews, obtain and review the district’s District Career Ladder Plan before
calling the district.
S
HORT-FORM INTERVIEWS
If district is long-term participant, complete section A.
If district is a recent Career Ladder program entrant, complete section B.
If district is a recent leaver, complete section C.
A. LONG-TERM PARTICIPANTS
The two interview sections may require two respondents, unless the person who
currently oversees the program was involved with the initial participation decision.
If this is not the case, then the interviewer needs to be directed to someone who
was involved with the initial participation decision to administer section (b). As you
B-2
Appendix B
will note, there is overlap between the sections. If one person is completing both
sections, adjust as necessary.
a. Current Implementation Status
1. What factors were involved in your district’s decision to participate in the
Career Ladder program?
2. Has the district experienced any benefits from participation in terms of student
achievement or teacher retention? Have there been any other benefits? [Probe:
If respondent unsure, then say: Such as teacher performance or satisfaction?]
Have there been any drawbacks? Is this based on anecdotal, qualitative, or
quantitative evidence?
3. Why does the district continue to participate? Does the district reevaluate its
participation in the program? If yes, how often? [Probe: Are there mandated
frequencies? Are there triggers (match rate change, budgetary issues, student
achievement) in this regard?] If no, any particular reason why?
4. The state guidelines provide districts some leeway in a number of areas [Probe:
Such as how teachers advance, compensation levels, etc.] How has the district
adapted the program to better fit its needs?
5. What types of staff or individuals are involved in the operation of the career
ladder?
6. Has participating been a largely positive or negative experiences? What do you
see as the good or bad features of the program?
b. Historical Factors/Participation Decision
1. What factors were involved in your district’s decision to participate in the
Career Ladder program?
2. What benefits did the district expect to realize when it decided to participate?
Did the district expect any benefits in terms of: teacher performance, student
achievement, teacher retention, or teacher satisfaction?
3. Starting in the 1996-1997 school year, the state matching formula for the
Career Ladder program changed. What impact, if any, did the change in match
rates have on your district’s level of funding contribution? Did this change
force your district to reevaluate its participation decision? Why or why not?
4. Has participating been a largely positive or negative experiences? What do you
see as the good or bad features of the program?
B-3
Appendix B
B. RECENT ENTRANTS
All of the “Recent Entrants” entered the program in 2000 or later. As such, the
person who currently oversees the program may or may not have been involved
with the initial participation decision. The interviewer must determine whether this
is the case. If so, then both parts (a) and (b) can be administered to this person. If
not, then the interviewer needs to be directed to someone who was involved with
the initial participation decision to administer section (b). There is overlap between
the sections. If one person is completing both sections, adjust as necessary.
a. Current Implementation Status
1. What factors were involved in your district’s decision to participate in the
Career Ladder program?
2. Has the district experienced any benefits from participation in terms of student
achievement or teacher retention? Have there been any other benefits? [Probe:
If respondent unsure, then say: Such as teacher performance or satisfaction?]
Have there been any drawbacks? Is this based on anecdotal, qualitative, or
quantitative evidence?
3. Why does the district continue to participate? Does the district reevaluate its
participation in the program? If yes, how often? [Probe: Are there mandated
frequencies? Are there triggers (match rate change, budgetary issues, student
achievement) in this regard?] If no, any particular reason why?
4. Has participating been a largely positive or negative experiences? What do you
see as the good or bad features of the program?
b. Historical Factors / Participation Decision
1. Why did the district decide to begin participating in the Career Ladder in Year
XXXX? [Probe: Teacher interest, availability of funds, expected benefits?]
2. What benefits did the district expect to realize when it decided to participate?
Did the district expect any benefits in terms of: teacher performance, student
achievement, teacher retention, or teacher satisfaction?
3. Can you describe what events occurred along the way, between the decision to
participate and implementing the program? Were there any particular
individuals or groups that were clear drivers in the decision to participate, the
planning process, and implementation?
4. Legislation passed, starting with the 1996-1997 school year, which affected the
program match rates for districts. Did this change in match rates have an
impact on the district’s decision to participate?
B-4
Appendix B
5. Was the process of creating the District Career Ladder Plan easy or difficult?
What level of guidance did you receive from the state? Is there any leeway
provided in the process?
6. What have been the reactions of staff to the institution of the program? [Probe:
if unsure of levels, specify at the district, school, and classroom levels].
7. Has participating been a largely positive or negative experiences? What do you
see as the good or bad features of the program?
C. RECENT LEAVERS
For this interview section, it will likely be more difficult to identify the correct
initial respondent. For the recent leaver district that has not reentered the program,
we may have to simply ask who previously oversaw the Career Ladder program
1. Why did the district decide to cease participating in the Career Ladder in Year
XXXX? [Probe: If unsure, ask: What were the primary factors behind the
decision? Costs, dissatisfaction, etc.?]
2. Were there any particular individuals or groups that were clear drivers in the
decision? Did complaints move up the school hierarchy or was it largely a
district decision?
3. Can you provide a timeline of the decision process leading up to exiting the
program?
4. Did the district realize any benefits from the program while it was participating?
5. 2007 re-entrant: At the time you left the program, did you expect to return to the
program in a certain number of years? What factors were involved in these
decisions?
D. DISTRICTS WITH ODD PARTICIPATION PATTERNS
1. How does the Career Ladder operate in your district? How does the district use
the flexibility provided by the state? How is your program unique? Can you give
an outline of the processes and decision makers involved?
2. It appears that ALMOST ALL participating teachers in your district are at Stage
3 . Why is this the case? [Note: If all teachers at Stage 3, ask whether this is due
to the Stage 1 and 2 exemption for teachers with National Board
Certifications].
3. [If not due to National Board Certification issue]: Do you explicitly limit the
program to certain teachers, or only publicize for certain groups of teachers?
B-5
Appendix B
LONG-FORM INTERVIEW
Note: Some of these questions may arise in some of the short form interviews, and
in those cases we will omit from this script. Those instances are noted as needed.
A. TEACHER QUESTIONS
1. What are the rules for teacher eligibility; is there anything in place aside from
the state guidelines?
2. Does the district/schools publicize the program? E.g. do they actively
encourage teachers to participate or provide information about the program?
Has the state undertaken any such activities?
3. Is the program competitive, either to become a Career Ladder teacher or to
move up Stages?
4. Are there barriers to participation for teachers, besides those explicitly outlined
by the state? [Probe: such as: long application forms, review of their submitted
documents, etc.]
5. Is there any aging out of the program? For example, after a certain amount of
time at Stage 3, do teachers have to leave the program?
6. How often do teachers fail to meet the criteria outlined for their Career Ladder
stage, or in their individual Career Development Plan? What possible reasons
are there for this (certification, failing to meet hour requirement, etc.)?
7. What is your perception of why teachers enter or leave the program?
B. PERFORMANCE-BASED TEACHER EVALUATION
1. Can you describe how the PBTE process operates in the district? Is there any
possible variation between schools in how it operates?
2. What, for your district, is the relationship between the PBTE and the MCL?
[Note: for long-term participants, we have the District Career Ladder Plan].
[Possible probe: Has the intersection of the PBTE and the achievement of
MCL stage requirements created tension between administrative staff and
participating teachers?]
C. FINANCES
1. What is your impression of the bonus levels as they are currently set? [Probe:
Levels are $1500, $3000, and $5000]. When Career Ladder funds were part of
the school foundation formula (i.e. basic school aid), and the legislature did not
B-6
Appendix B
fully fund the formula, did you reduce Career Ladder payments accordingly or
obtain funds to make up the difference?
2. When are monies distributed to teachers? Upon proof of successful
completion? Mid-year? Beginning of the school year?
3. Have taxes been levied (as allowed for under the law) to raise money for the
Career Ladder Program?
4. Does the MCL payment count towards teacher salary for the purposes of
determining defined benefit pension payments? [Note: KC operates
independent pension plan]
5. The 1996 legislative change stipulated that the district would have to provide
the 1995-1996 matching level for teachers who participated during 1995-1996
and continued to participate in the program. Has this had any significant effect
for the district?
6. A 1996 legislative change equalized payments for teachers within each stage
across districts. This meant that all teachers in the district on the same Career
Ladder stage received the same amount of award. Did this have any effect on
teacher participation in the program? Did this change mean that there was any
true practical change in the payments to teachers? [Only ask: if at district and
involved in MCL since 1996 legislation change]
D.
CAREER LADDER COMMITTEE AND PLAN
1. Can you give a description of the activities that the Career Ladder committee is
involved in on a regular basis? [Note: Ask interviewee if they have any
documents that they can share].
2. What is relationship between the local Career Ladder committee and the school
board?
3. How are teachers chosen to sit on the committee?
4. What amount of leeway is given by the state in crafting the District Career
Ladder Plan? What is your impression of the creation process, i.e. difficult,
easy? [Note: Asked in the recent entrants interview]
5. Did the state provide you with a model career ladder plan as an example?
6. Have yourself and/or other staff attended any workshops or other events
concerning the Career Ladder program? Does the state or any other entity
provide technical assistance or other types of guidance?
A PPENDIX C
F
OCUS G ROUP P ROTOCOL
A. INTRODUCTION
My name is Tim Silman and I work for Mathematica Policy Research. Mathematica, an
independent policy research firm with extensive experience in conducting education
research. We have received a grant from the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation of Kansas
City to conduct a study of the Missouri Career Ladder program. We are interested in learning
more about the program and about your experiences as participants. This discussion is your
chance to let us know how the program really works and how it relates to your career as a
teacher.
PRIVACY: Everything you say here is private. We will not release any information that
could be used to identify you. No individual staff member will be quoted by name. Our
report will describe the range of views expressed by teachers across districts, but specific
comments will not be attributed to specific individuals or districts. We hope that this will let
you be as candid as possible in expressing your opinions.
CONFIRM DURATION OF THE FOCUS GROUP: 75-90 minutes
MECHANICS OF TAPING: I am taping our discussion so that I can focus on the
conversation now and write notes later. No one outside of our research team will have
access to the tape. It will be helpful if you speak up, speak clearly, and speak one at a time.
ROLE OF THE MODERATOR: I’m going to lead the discussion. We have a number of
topics to discuss during the time we have for this discussion. At times, I may need to move
the conversation along to be sure we cover everything.
There are no right or wrong answers. People may disagree, and that’s okay. Please feel free
to offer your opinions, whether positive or negative.
PARTICIPANT INTRODUCTIONS: To get started, please introduce yourself by telling
me:
C-2
Appendix C
1. Your first name
2. What grade and subject you teach
3. How long you have been teaching; in total, in MO, and in the district
4. Your Career Ladder stage or level
B. PROGRAM PARTICIPATION
1. How did you first hear about the Career Ladder program?
Did anyone in your school or the district encourage you to participate in the
Career Ladder? How did they encourage you?
How is the program marketed or advertised to teachers? To current teachers or
prospective teachers? By subject or grade level, or on an individual basis?
2. Why did you decide to participate in the Career Ladder? What factors did you
consider when making your decision?
PROBES:
The level of compensation?
The amount and type of additional responsibilities?
Something else?
3. [For teachers who started participating at some point after the program was
implemented]: Was the Career Ladder program something you were aware of
prior to meeting the eligibility requirements?
IF YES:
Did it influence your decision to stay within the district?
Or to move to a participating district?
4. Is the number of slots in the program in any way limited? Or can any teacher
that meets the requirements participate? [COMPETITIVE?]
5. Why do you feel that eligible teachers do not or would not participate in the
program?
6. The [Name] district has been participating in the program since XXXX. Were
teachers, yourselves included, involved in any way with the district’s decision to
participate?
C-3
Appendix C
IF YES:
How, or in what ways?
C. CAREER LADDER COMMITTEE AND PLANS
1. Can you provide an outline or timeline of the Career Ladder application
process?
Does the first year process differ significantly from that in later years?
What do you think about the application process? Easy? Difficult? Quick?
Lengthy?
2. Tell me about your interactions with the Career Ladder committee.
PROBES:
How often are you in contact with the committee?
Is the committee only involved with reviewing individual career ladder plans?
Or do they perform other functions?
3. How are teacher representatives chosen for the Career Ladder committee?
4. How is your Career Ladder plan evaluated by the committee? Are there any
factors involved besides the responsibilities/activities it outlines and their
overall and relative amounts?
5. What has been your experience with the process of advancing up the Career
Ladder?
Have any of you received any sort of waiver for the Career Ladder
requirements?
IF YES:
For which component?
6. Can you describe the Performance-Based Teacher Evaluation?
PROBES:
How does the process work?
Who is involved in the evaluations?
How involved are teachers in the process of their evaluations?
C-4
Appendix C
Are there other evaluations of teachers that you have to undergo?
7. What are your thoughts on the linkage between the Career Ladder and the
PBTE?
PROBE:
For example, to qualify for the Career Ladder there is a mandated level of
performance on the PBTE. What is your opinion of this?
D. ACTIVITIES UNDER THE CAREER LADDER
1. How do your Career Ladder activities relate to your Career Development Plan?
2. How much time during the year do you spend doing Career Ladder activities?
[How far above the minimum requirements do you end up going in terms of
hours?]
3. What types of responsibilities or activities do you complete under Career
Ladder?
4. What proportion of your time do you spend in these areas?
5. How does this vary by Career Ladder stage?
6. Teachers do a lot of things outside of the classroom. Are the activities you do
for Career Ladder the types of things you did before participating in the
program? Or do you do different types of activities now that you participate?
7. How much are your school administrators involved in the program?
E. PROGRAM COMPENSATION
1. Has there been any significant change in the amount of Career Ladder
compensation over time?
2. Has the district ever fallen short in the amount of Career Ladder compensation
provided, compared to what was promised?
IF YES:
What was the stated reason?
3. What is your opinion on the levels of compensation under the Career Ladder,
given what is required of teachers?
IF NOT ENOUGH:
C-5
Appendix C
How far short? A little, a lot, somewhere in between? What do you think would
be fair?
F. OPINIONS ON EFFECTS, BENEFITS, AND THE PROGRAM OVERALL
1. What benefits has the program had for you, besides additional pay?
Has the program improved your satisfaction?
Encouraged you to stay in the district, or stay in teaching?
Anything else? [Teachers in general?]
2. What benefits has the program had for your students?
Improved student achievement?
Student behavior?
Anything else? [Teachers in general?]
3. What other benefits have you seen of the program?
4. What barriers do you see to participating in the program?
5. I want to return to a concept we touched on earlier. How do you think the
Career Ladder has influenced the decisions you’ve made with regard to your
career?
Has it affected?
Your choice of district?
Your effort in relation to the PBTE?
Your decision on whether to retire, or to stay in the profession?
6. Has the Career Ladder increased any of the following:
Time you spend with students?
Time you devote to professional development?
Time you spend on certifications or degrees?
7. What is your overall opinion of the Career Ladder program?
What elements do you like?
C-6
Appendix C
What do you dislike?
How can the program be improved?
8. Is there anything else you would like to share?
CLOSING REMARK
Thank you for coming here to speak with me. You’ve all given me a great deal of
valuable information that I think will help our study tremendously. Should you have any
questions, additional thoughts, or concerns please feel free to contact me [pass out business
card].
