Ohio Evaluation Compensation Reform

&& Compensation Reform

& fo

Solutions by Teachers, for Teachers

November 2011

Day in and day out, teachers see the needs ofstudents. They understand what works and whatdoesn’t work, they celebrate success when

students achieve, and they work hard to find better wayswhen students struggle.

Studies have repeatedly shown that teachers aretremendously important to student achievement.i Theyhave also found that when a student has an ineffectiveteacher, achievement suffers dramatically.ii

States across the nation, including Ohio, are starting torecognize the high price that is paid when we ignore theresearch, compromise our standards, and don’t insistthat every student be taught by an effective teacher. It isfor this reason that Ohio enacted legislation in 2011 toimprove and strengthen the state’s teacher evaluationprocess and requirements. Ohio’s current teacherevaluations are not differentiating sufficiently betweeneffective and ineffective teachers. High percentages ofteachers receive excellent ratings, despite wide variancein student learning. Ohio wants to stay competitive withother states, like Florida, that are implementing rigorousteacher evaluation systems based on demonstratedimprovements in student learning, and getting positiveresults.iii The map on page 2 shows those states thatare working to improve teacher evaluation and tyingevaluation, in part, to student academic achievement.

For too long, evaluation systems have treated all teachersthe same when, in fact, they are not.iv Ensuring that everychild has an effective teacher is a bipartisan issue. On manyoccasions, President Obama has made the case that ournation must focus on ensuring that there is an effectiveteacher in every classroom. He has called for radical changesaying, “We’ve got to be able to identify teachers who aredoing well. And, ultimately, if some teachers aren’t doing agood job, they’ve got to go.” v

Similarly, Secretary of Education Arne Duncan has made astrong case for an improved system that identifies andrewards effective teachers.He said, “It is time torecognize and reward ourbest teachers, supportthose in the middle, andalso acknowledge thatteaching may not be thebest career choice for asmall minority of teacherswho continue to struggledespite support andmentorship. Teaching is nota job for everyone.”vi

Governor John Kasich iscommitted to the successof every student, and to the

importance of hearing the perspective of teachers asOhio works to build an outstanding P-16 educationsystem. He was emphatic in the spring of 2011, whenhe said, “I want to hear from those teachers who want abetter way and who have ideas for how to get us there. Ilook forward to working with them to create a betterway.”

In response to this call, Robert Sommers, Director of theGovernor’s Office of 21st Century Education, and Sarah

Dove, Ohio’s Teacher Liaison,assembled a steeringcommittee consisting of across-section of teachersrepresenting schools andeducators across the state.This steering committeeprovided valuable guidance andleadership to the process ofsoliciting and analyzing teacherinput. Dr. Sommers and Mrs.Dove conducted 19 meetingsacross the state. They reviewedthe many letters and emailsresponding to the governor’scall. More than 1,400 teachersoffered their input.

1

Executive Summary

“Let me be clear: if a teacher is given achance, or two chances, or three chances,and still does not improve, there is noexcuse for that person to continueteaching. I reject a system that rewardsfailure and protects a person from itsconsequences. The stakes are too high.We can afford nothing but the best when itcomes to our children’s teachers and tothe schools where they teach.”

—President Barack Obama

The responses wereoverwhelminglyproductive, frank andhelpful. Teachers did nothold back with toughcriticism, but they alsoexpressed a sharedunderstanding and beliefin the fundamentalprinciples behindreforming teacherevaluation and compensation. To those who responded –we are deeply grateful. This report represents acompilation of the input received, and recommendationsderived from that input.

Even as research and public opinion continue to supportreforms to boost teacher effectiveness, we know thatthere will be individuals skeptical of reform. A recentlyreleased report by the National Council on TeacherQuality stated that, “nothing about building a trulyeffective teaching force is going to come easy. The realityis that teacher reform is being met with unparalleled,vocal opposition.”vii While we respect the opinions andperspectives of those who are opposed to this work, webelieve the interest of the state’s children and the qualityof our education system is well-served by moving forward.

If we are truly honest with ourselves, there has alwaysbeen a quiet grapevine that has run throughout ourschools identifying the best and worst teachers. Parents,administrators, and teachers themselves request thattheir own children be placed with teachers known to bethe best and try to avoid teachers who are understood tobe less effective.

Is it fair that knowledgeable parents and schoolemployees are able to grab seats for their own children inthe best classrooms, leaving behind parents and childrenwho don’t know how to work the system? Is it fair thatthose teachers who could benefit from peer help andassistance don’t get it because those same peers can

simply use the system to workaround them?

This process of engagingteachers has further deepenedthe Administration’s belief thatOhio’s teachers are the mostcritical element in improvingeducation in our state.

Based on what we’ve learned,we recommend that our new system clearly identifygrowth measures, offer freedom for high achievers andmost importantly, allow for the flexibility that teachersdemand. We need tobuild in proper support,communication andtraining for everyoneinvolved in any newsystem. Along withincreased accountabilityshould come increasedinput into decision-making.By properly and effectivelyimplementing thisframework, our schoolscan improve and teacherscan have the fair andproductive evaluationsystem they deserve.

Performance of Ohioansin all walks of life issubject to review, andtheir organizations arebetter and morecompetitive as a result.With a competent andcarefully drawn programof teacher evaluation,Ohio schools will achievethe same result.

2

States D New E Syste

Student Grow

States (in green) are developing new evaluation systems using student growth.

“I want to hear from those teachers whowant a better way and who have ideas forhow to get us there. I look forward toworking with them to create a better way.”

—Governor John Kasich

Analyzing andsynthesizing thecomments and inputreceived fromhundreds of teachersis no easy task. Thissummary is notmeant to be ascientific compilationof the information. Itis intended, rather, topresent the generalsentiment of theproductive commentsreceived. It isacknowledged that inany particularcategory, commentswere received thatwould range acrossthe entire spectrumof pros and cons.

Teachers believe a meaningful evaluation oftheir performance is important and valuable,but they also believe that new evaluations, if poorly designed and implemented, could be disastrous.

Teachers are proud of thework they do and arestrongly committed tobeing the best they can be.They want meaningfulfeedback on theirperformance. Meaningful,however, does not meansimply checking boxes ordoing something forcompliance purposes. Ifevaluations are to beimplemented, they wantthem to provide relevantand timely input into theirpractices in the interest ofimprovement.

Many teachers believe that current evaluation processesare not working. However, some expressed confidence inspecific and structured evaluation systems that they haveseen as effective, including the Peer Assisted Review(PAR) system. Teachers crave more information aboutwhat the new evaluations could look like, how they wouldbe implemented, and the potential impact on teacheremployment and compensation.

Teachers believe that evaluation systems should be easyto understand and implement effectively. They also believethat complicated and confusing evaluation systems havethe unintended consequence of treating teachers unfairlyand arbitrarily. Teachers believe the underlyingexpectations embedded in the evaluation system shouldbe communicated clearly, giving each teacher a fullunderstanding of what is required to receive high ratings.

Teachers believe thatthe greatest value thatcan come fromevaluations isimprovement in theirpractice and theresulting studentlearning. Evaluationsmust be one part of alarger quality assurance

process that includesmeaningful professionaldevelopmentopportunities, as well asregular support andcoaching from qualifiedleaders and othereducators. Teachersbelieve it is necessary toexamine their ownpractice and scrutinizetheir own strengths andweaknesses as part of aself-assessment in their own quest for improvement. Self-assessments, in conjunction with external evaluations,should drive their improvement plans and professionaldevelopment opportunities.

Teachers believe that using multiple measuresin an evaluation is important, but they alsobelieve that an evaluation system needs to be clear, easy to understand, and timely inproviding feedback.

Teachers understand that the best evaluation systems donot rely on just one measure of their practice. Theygenerally support the use of multiple measures, includingstudent growth and learning (see below), observation,artifacts of practice, etc. Teachers believe that a widerange of options should be explored in the process ofdeciding on those measures that ultimately will beincorporated into the system.

Teachers recognize, however, that the more factors thatare included, the more difficult it is to understand exactlyhow a teacher’s final rating is determined. Ultimately,there is a need to ensure that the evaluation system isdesigned in such a way that teachers can understandclearly how each factor contributes to the overallevaluation result.

Teachers appreciate receiving timely feedback. Thesooner teachers can be made aware of how well they areperforming, or areas that need improvement, the betterit will be for them to act on such information. Thisconcept extends to a desire for more timely informationabout assessment results.

3

Teacher Perspectives: Evaluation

A Teacher’s Voice:“The evaluationprocess that iscurrently in place isineffective, subjectiveand biased. There isno evidence baseddocumentationattached to theevaluation processand no futureplanning/ trainingoptions.”

A Teacher’s Voice:“It is true that highperforming teachersare not recognized in aconsistent fashion andto do so might helpretain the best and thebrightest.”

A Teacher’s Voice:“The problem in mybuilding is everyonegets a goodevaluation. Even reallybad teachers.”

Teachers believe that student growth andachievement is the true measure of aneducator’s effectiveness. Nevertheless, they are tremendously skeptical aboutwhether it can be measured fairly andaccurately, with some suggesting it may not be measurable at all.

Teachers are divided in their beliefs about being heldaccountable for student learning. Many are comfortablewith including student growth and learning as acomponent of a teacher evaluation system. Others believea child’s external circumstances can overpower anyefforts made in the classroom to improve studentacademic achievement. Some of the teachers in thislatter category suggest that, given these factors outsidetheir control, they cannot be held solely accountable forstudent learning. While we respect this point of view,there is convincing evidence showing that schools andteachers can, in fact, go a long way toward mitigating thenegative academic implications of these circumstances.Given the proper support, professional development andknowledge of appropriate pedagogical strategies andinterventions, teachers and schools can succeed withstudents that face these external realities in their lives.

Teachers have been interested in hearing aboutorganizations across the country that have worked toidentify schools that are “beating the odds” – that is,successfully educating students who face difficult externalcircumstances. In Ohio, we have a long standingprogram to recognize schools that are beating the odds.Recognition for these “Schools of Promise” began in2002 and more than 590 schools have received thisdesignation. The Ohio Department of Education also hassponsored case study research on the effectiveinstructional practices and cultural qualities of Schools ofPromise and published a number of documents relatingto that research.viii

Emphasizing the point that student achievement must bea significant factor in teacher evaluations, Arne Duncansaid, “I understand that tests are far from perfect andthat it is unfair to reduce the complex, nuanced work ofteaching to a simple multiple choice exam. Test scoresalone should never drive evaluation, compensation ortenure decisions. But to remove student achievemententirely from evaluation is illogical and indefensible.”ix

Ohio law requires that the state framework for teacherevaluation to be approved by the State Board of Educationinclude student academic growth measures for 50 percentof each evaluation. Given this reality, teachers want to havea complete understanding of the assessments that will beused and the manner in which computations will be made.

4

Teachers understand that a state system ofassessments will form the basis formeasuring student growth, but they havepersistent concerns about the quality of thecurrent assessments. They have littleunderstanding of the assessments that arebeing developed to assess the Common CoreState Standards.

This document is not theproper forum to air thelitany of complaints thatteachers have about Ohio’scurrent assessmentsystem. Comments aboutproblems with the currentassessment system werenumerous. Even moresignificant, however, is therealization by teachers thatthe state will soon have anew system ofassessments that arealigned to the CommonCore State Standards.While they are hopeful that the new assessments willovercome the shortcomings of the old assessments, theyhave no concrete information. They are concerned thatassessments, which have yet to be designed, will formthe basis of new evaluation and compensation systems tobe adopted in the near future.

Another issue raised, primarily by teachers whosestudents are either significantly above or below gradelevel, is whether the state’s assessments are broadenough in scope to measure true student growth at theextremes of the spectrum. As the state migrates to anew assessment system, ensuring that the assessmentshave the capacity to address this issue is important.

Finally, teachers recognize that for the system to bemeaningful, the state’s data system must accurately trackstudents in relationship to the teacher who is responsiblefor their learning. Teachers want clarity about how“teacher of record” will be determined moving forward.

Teachers believe that observations of theirclassroom practice should form a part of theevaluation. They also believe that observationsmust be made against well-defined criteriabased upon definitions of good practice and beconducted by qualified evaluators who havestrong content and pedagogical knowledge.

Teachers understand that observations of classroompractice, and feedback based on those observations, candrive a teacher’s growth and improvement. Theobservations must be meaningful, however, andstructured so the observer and the teacher have ashared understanding of the practices which result instudent growth. Teachers believe that evidence-basedexpectations for their practice and performance can bedefined to form the basis for observations. Expectationsmust be articulated clearly and understandable beforethey are used for evaluation purposes.

In general, teachers are well-informed about the researchregarding teacher performance (i.e., Charlotte Danielson,Marzano, etc.). They are interested in making sure thatthe expectations specified for their practice are evidence-based and rely on a clear rubric, which defines goodperformance. Teachers want a clear understanding ofwhat is expected of them before new evaluations areimplemented.

Teachers recognize that principals may not always havethe content and pedagogical knowledge to evaluate everyteacher effectively. At the same time, they recognize thatthis is not an insurmountable obstacle, and that thereare ways that evaluators can be identified or trained sothat their observations provide meaningful and relevantfeedback. Teachers want to have confidence in thesystem and be comfortable that they will not beevaluated arbitrarily. They want to know who will observethem, the evaluator’s qualifications and what trainingevaluators will receive.

In many cases, teachers were open to the idea of a third-party evaluator. The recent report issued by the NationalCouncil on Teacher Quality observed, “A third-partyevaluator can provide important feedback on theevaluation process and important checks for principalsand other administrators typically charged withimplementing teacher performance reviews. A neutralparty who is a demonstrated effective teacher may beable to provide feedback to other teachers oninstructional practice in a way that is non-threatening.”x

5

A Teacher’s Voice:“I do, however,wonder howteachers in the non-core classes will bemeasured for meritpay with no statestandardized testsavailable.”

Teachers have mixed views on the use ofstudent and parent feedback as part of theevaluation system, but they seem open tofurther exploration of how such input into an evaluation system might work.

Teachers have great respect for parents and students,but they realize that families are not always happy withevery encounter they have with a teacher. Teachers areunsure about how student and parent evaluations couldbe factored fairly into an overall evaluation system. At thesame time, they acknowledge that experimentation withdifferent approaches can lead to a comfort level withusing such input. Student and parent input must bestructured in a productive way, and not in a way thatsimply provides a vehicle for amplifying complaints.

Teachers believe that flexibility and creativity are important to the practice of good teaching. Overly prescriptiveevaluation systems could stifle theseimportant characteristics.

Teachers believe that in recent years, flexibility andcreativity have been dismissed and diminished as keydistinguishing characteristics of the practice of teaching.This is largely blamed on the nature of the state’sassessment system. Poorly constructed evaluations couldwork to further undermine these important traits.Teachers recognize that the bottom line is studentlearning. They want the flexibility and freedom to helpstudents learn in whatever way works for both thestudents and the teacher.

Teachers believe that collaboration is animportant element of good practice and thatthe evaluation should include this component.They believe that evaluation systems mustavoid features that could foster competitionand stifle collaboration among teachers.Teachers value collaboration. In the best schools, there is aconstant exchange of ideas and a focus on workingtogether to improve student learning. Teachers are afraidthe new evaluation and compensation systems could drivea wedge between teachers and force greater competitioninstead of collaboration. In response to this, some teachershoped to see a portion of their evaluation be focused on theachievement of team, grade-level, or building goals.

Teachers also are concerned that the new evaluation andcompensation structures might include limits on thenumbers of teachers designated as high- performing.Teachers worry that such limits would diminish collaboration.These types of design elements should be avoided.

Teachers believe that the state can developgood models for teacher evaluations, but theyalso believe that flexibility should be a featureof these models.

Teachers understand statewideframeworks generally must be, bytheir nature, applicable to all teachersin all circumstances. Nevertheless,they do not feel comfortable with aone-size-fits-all approach. They believepart of the design of the stateframeworks must include

6

A Teacher’sVoice:

“One sizewon’t fit alland shouldn’t!”

features that allow differentiation at the district or buildinglevel. Such differentiation might consist of the inclusion ofadditional factors, a variety of evaluators, varying weightsand use of various approaches to measuring studentgrowth. Teachers believe these conversations and decisionsat the local level should be made with input from teachers.

Teachers also believe that flexibility should be allowed forthe evaluations of teachers who demonstrateeffectiveness in improving student outcomes. Thisflexibility could include choices around who conducts theevaluation, the frequency of the evaluation and the typesof measures included.

Teachers believe there are circumstancesaffecting students that create challenges for any evaluation system, and thesecircumstances can be factored into theevaluations in a fair way.

Teachers recognize they do not live in a perfect world,where every student comes prepared and ready to learn.In fact, in any given classroom, one is likely to findstudents facing particular challenges, which, in turn,create difficulties for the fair evaluation of a teacher’sperformance. This is not to say that teachers aredismissing the importance of educating all students. Infact, teachers strongly believe that those students whopresent special challenges need nurturing and strongeducational environments to succeed, as much andperhaps more than others.

Teachers do not want to be relieved of responsibility forany of their students. But they do want an evaluationsystem that is designed in a way that treats teachers fairlywhen it comes to the performance of the students in theircharge. Teachers believe the evaluation system can bedesigned fairly to meet both student and teacher needs.

Teachers feel strongly that current approachesto professional development are not meetingtheir needs. They believe setting goals forimprovement can be a valuable part of theevaluation process. They want more rigorousand meaningful professional development thataddresses eachteacher’s own needs.

Teachers have chosen theirprofession because they wantto help students discover thejoy of learning and acquirevaluable knowledge and skills.They realize it is important tobe on the lookout constantlyfor opportunities to improvetheir practice. A well-developed evaluation systemcan be an importantcomponent of thatimprovement process.

7

A Teacher’sVoice:“If you wantteachers who areexperienced,seasonedprofessionals, setup a plan to keepthem movingthroughprofessionaldevelopment andreward theirprogress.”

To have a truly powerfulimpact, however, theevaluation system must leadto professional developmentopportunities that are timely,relevant and aligned witheach teacher’s needs. Manyteachers do not feel that thecurrent approaches toprofessional developmentaccomplish this. They believethat effective teachers shouldbe trusted to make choicesand be given flexibility in thepursuit of the mostappropriate professionaldevelopment to meet their needs and the needs of theirstudents.

One notable comment made by teachers was theacknowledgement of the need for more professionaldevelopment on understanding and using data. Teachers canbe inundated with data that sometimes defiesunderstanding. Helping teachers develop their skills arounddata analysis and use – as well as emphasizing that datareports should be prepared with a strong eye toward user-friendliness – can serve teachers well in identifying strengthsand weaknesses.

8

Teachers believe implementing a newevaluation system should be a priority,but they also believe that the use of thesystem at its outset – when it is stillbeing defined and refined – must be donein a way that is fair to teachers andsensitive to potential consequences.

While teachers are not interested in slowing downthe process, they do believe that it is veryimportant to find valid and reliable approaches toultimately determine their destiny andcompensation. Teachers will become morecomfortable with the system as they see it fairlyidentifying high performers as well as poorperformers. Rushing into full implementation beforefully understanding the reliability of the new systemcould be harmful to many teachers and erode trustin any future systems. Teachers also believe that,as with any performance, there can be fluctuationsover time. For this reason, teachers believe it wouldbe fair to use multiple years of data as thefoundation for their evaluation.

A Teacher’s Voice:“Including annualprofessional goals towork towards everyyear will encourageteachers to try newideas and techniquesin the classroom,keeping current withthe new thoughts andtrends in education.”

Many teachers indicated a level of openness in movingto a merit pay system, but they are unsure whethervalid and fair alternatives can be developed andimplemented.

Of all the subjects discussed by teachers,those relevant to changes incompensation were the most emotional.Understandably, teachers areapprehensive – some, even fearful –about the implications of a newcompensation system. Many teachershave no experience with performance-based compensation systems and findthemselves in uncharted territory.Teachers consistently indicate that theyare not in the teaching profession for themoney; but like the rest of us, teachershave bills to pay and financial obligationsto meet. Consequently, as the prospectof changes to the compensation systemare discussed, teachers understandablybecome nervous.

At the same time, almost everyteacher can identify inequities in thecurrent system such as the “teacherdown the hall” that may not beperforming at an effective level. Theyknow different teachers have differentimpacts on student learning, and theyare attracted to the idea of rewardsbased on effectiveness.

However, they are skeptical of thenotion that a fair and impartial compensation system that is tied toeffectiveness can be designed. In the absence of specific information,teachers are highly suspicious and anxious about what compensationreform looks like and what the possible benefits and risks might be.Will it be possible for teachers to earn substantially higher salaries ifthey are highly effective and show other valued characteristics? Howwill districts deal with large numbers of highly effective teachers? Is itpossible for teachers to receive large reductions in salary for poorperformance?

Figure 1 entitled “What does performance-based compensation looklike in other places?” provides a broad overview of the key elementsthat generally appear in such models. Additionally, in Appendix A, threespecific examples are provided. These examples are provided forillustrative purposes only and their inclusion is not intended to indicateany preference or endorsement.

Compensation is important, but other conditions of employment canbe even more important. Teachers want respect and the opportunityto lead and to help others grow. They also see that sometimes the“reward” for high performance can be assignments that are evenmore difficult and challenging and may put their effectiveness at risk.Compensation systems that are not well-designed may discourageeffective teachers from taking on more difficult assignments if theyrisk negative financial consequences.

9

Teacher Perspectives: CompensationFIGURE 1

WHAT DOES PERFORMANCE-BASED COMPENSATION LOOK LIKE IN OTHER PLACES?Performance-based compensation systemscan take many forms. These ideas areprovided for illustrative purposes only andtheir inclusion is not intended to indicate anypreference or endorsement. Generally, theapproaches address the following elements:

Grid or no grid: Some performance-basedplans (e.g., District of Columbia PublicSchools) are built on top of a typical “steps-and-lanes” salary grid. Others (e.g., DenverPublic Schools) eliminate the grid entirely andsimply tie percentage increases or dollarbonuses to various performance criteria. If atypical grid stays in place, the automaticincreases in the grid may be curtailed in favorof stronger performance- based elementsthat are in addition to the grid salaries.

Base Salary Increases: Performance-basedcompensation models generally havemechanisms that allow for a teacher’s basesalary to grow. These are tied to specifiedcriteria and are generally permanent. In somecases, states or districts establish newteacher categories (i.e., novice, experienced,master, etc.). As a teacher meets the criteriafor a higher category, he/she moves into ahigher salary level. Similarly, if a teacher is notperforming up to the criteria established forthe current salary level he/she could beshifted to a lower level (usually afterpersistent underperformance over multipleyears).

Bonuses: Performance-based compensationmodels usually include bonuses that reflectthe value that a district places on certaintypes of activity or teacher commitment.Bonuses are not factored into the base salaryand must be earned each year. These mayinclude specific enhancements for teaching inhard-to-staff schools, teaching in certainsubject areas (e.g. STEM fields), teachinglarger numbers of students, etc.

Grouping: Some performance-based modelsinclude features that reward groups ofteachers – usually at the building level—fortheir impact on student achievement. Theserewards are usually in the form of bonuses,which must be earned each year.

Appendix A discusses, in greater detail, threeperformance based compensation systems;Denver Public Schools – ProComp; District ofColumbia Public Schools – IMPACTplus; andHarrison School District (Colorado Springs,Colorado) – Effectiveness and Results Plan.

A Teacher’s Voice:“Bring on merit pay! Iplan to earn it,because I work hardto be good at what Ido! You are right –test scores alone arenot enough. Schoolsare required to put inplace a rigorous,multi-facetedevaluation andintervention plan forspecial needs and at-risk students. Let’sput that same kind oftheory to work inteacher evaluations.Should test scoresplay a part?Absolutely, insofar asto show annual yearlygrowth for students.”

10

Teacher Perspectives: Other Related Issues

Teachers believe administrators and othersworking in schools and districts also needmeaningful evaluation systems tied to studentperformance.

Teachers understand they are not alone in establishing theconditions for successful student learning. While they mightbe the most important in-school factor impacting studentsuccess, the excellence of building and district administratorsalso is a key in creating the conditions for teachers andstudents to succeed. Teachers believe a strong and credibleevaluation system for principals and leaders in our schoolsand districts must be part of a comprehensive systemdesigned to drive improvements to student learning acrossthe board.

In some cases, teachers identified instances where principals“stacked” a class in a way that made it difficult for the teacherto succeed. They are afraid such practices might continue incases where administrators have a bias against a teacher ortarget a teacher for removal.

In our conversations, teachers were pleased to learn that thedevelopment of evaluation models for principals andsuperintendents is already underway pursuant to state law.These evaluations will be aligned with the teacher evaluations.Furthermore, the principal evaluations will also be tied tostudent performance. Therefore, there will be a tremendousincentive for principals to ensure class assignments arehandled in such a way as to maximize the likelihood ofstudent, teacher and school success.

Teachers desperately want more, clearer,and better communication about theteacher evaluation work, as well as anywork related to teacher compensation.

There is a great deal ofmisinformation andfactual inaccuracy aboutevaluation andcompensation reformcirculating amongteachers. In theabsence of reliable andtrustedcommunications,teachers have no choicebut to consider anythingthey hear – and, in manycases, the worst thingsthey hear – in formingtheir perceptions andopinions. Teachers wantmore, better, regularand reliable informationabout the process anddetails of teacherevaluation andcompensation systemdesign.

A Teacher’s Voice:“Administratorsshould also beable to receivefeedback; andfeedback fromteachers and thestaff workingunder anadministratorshould affecthis/her salary. If performance is going to affect teachersalaries, it should also affectraises foradministrators.”

It is not sufficient to simply listen to what teachers say.Their voices must contribute to the design andimplementation of the teacher evaluation system and

new compensation system models. Based on the inputreceived and presented, the Steering Committeesubmits the following recommendations to policymakersand other interested parties for consideration. Theserecommendations are made in the interest of informingand strengthening the design of Ohio’s teacherevaluation and compensation systems. The Committeerecognizes that not all of them will be embraced bypolicymakers or the governor.

The Ohio Department of Education (ODE)should promptly identify and define whatassessments or measures may be used for producing student growth data.

By July 1, 2013, Ohio school districts are required toadopt teacher evaluation policies that are aligned with themodel developed by ODE. Ohio’s enabling legislationrequires ODE to develop an evaluation system thatprovides for multiple evaluation factors and identifiesmeasures of student academic growth for grade levelsand subjects for which the Value-Added progressdimension is currently not available. This work must becompleted by Dec. 31, 2011. The available choicesmust be communicated to local school districts in a waythat allows instructional leaders and teachers tounderstand how the tools can be used within theevaluation process. This timeline will allow schoolcommunities to engage in the difficult task of preparingtheir evaluation policies.

Teachers understand the importance of student growthas a measure of their effectiveness in the classroom, butare limited in their understanding of how student growthcan and will be measured. This is particularly true forteachers who provide instruction in areas not currentlysubject to statewide assessments. They have expressedstrong concern with the ability to rely solely on a single,annual assessment as the measure of student growth.

Evaluation systems currently in use in other stateshave clearly defined processes for selecting the growthmeasures that will be used and provide for flexibilitybased on the individual teachers’ environments.Washington D.C.,xi Rhode Island,xii and New Haven,Connecticut,xiii all rely on a combination of standardizedtests and alternative measures that have beenselected in coordination with an instructional leader. Byrelying on a method that engages teachers in thereview and definition of their measurement tools, theygain a clear understanding of what will be measuredand confidence that the measures will accuratelyreflect their impact on student growth.

11

Steering Committee Recommendations

The evaluation system should includeopportunities for a differentiated evaluationprocess based on a teacher’s success, asmeasured by the student growth factors. At aminimum, the evaluation system should allowcredentialed evaluators to include administrators,peers, and third-party evaluators.

The state’s biennial budget bill (House Bill 153) included provisionsrequiring the annual evaluation of teachers. These provisionsrequire the evaluations be conducted by a superintendent,assistant superintendent, principal, vocational director, supervisorin any educational area or a person designated to conductevaluations under an agreement providing for peer review. Thestatute gives local school boards the option of evaluating“accomplished” teachers every two years rather than annually.

Teachers believe currentevaluation systems, which areperceived to be less complexthan the frameworks beingdeveloped, are already tooburdensome. They areconcerned about the long-termfeasibility and practicality of anynew or expanded evaluationsystem. They are also concernedthat the workload foradministrators who have toevaluate every teacher, everyyear will become unsustainable.Additionally, some teachers feelthat if their students areconsistently showing growth theyshould be given some flexibility inhow they are evaluated.

There are a variety of examplesacross the country thatillustrate ways to address theseissues. For instance, InMontgomery County,Maryland,xiv two differentevaluations are used. The firstone is used when evaluating anovice teacher or anexperienced teacher whoperforms below standard on anevaluation from their principal.These evaluations use the PeerAssistance and Review (PAR)

approach conducted by “consulting teachers.” The second oneis used for experienced teachers who are meeting thedistrict’s standards of effectiveness. These evaluations areconducted by principals and take less time to complete.

A Teacher’s Voice:“Let’s use peerreview! Manyqualified educatorswould be willing tobranch out andtravel to evaluatepeers in otherdistricts andregions. That, bythe way, would be agreat new businessopportunity for astart-up company!Let’s use parentsand communities aswell. While manyteachers are almostcombative in theirattitude towardparents, the betterteachers build thatrelationshipenthusiastically anduse it to helpstudents succeed.”

It is recommended that student growth measures be usedas an initial screen to determine which evaluation process ismost appropriate for each educator. Teachers whosestudents achieve appropriate levels of student growthshould have more freedom and options for the evaluatorand the evaluation method. Teachers whose students donot demonstrate appropriate levels of student growthshould require a more prescriptive evaluation. All evaluatorsshould be provided with substantial training and should bemonitored over time to ensure fairness and validity. Figure 2on page 14 illustrates these ideas.

The process of developing the evaluationsystem should include piloting multiplemeasures, tools, and methods to judgeeducator’s work.

Ohio’s statute prescribing the general features of ateacher evaluation model stipulates that the evaluationframework must provide for multiple evaluation factors.Teachers agree that they want the freedom to be able todemonstrate their abilities and effectiveness using avariety of measures.

Systems in other states, like Rhode Island, look to avariety of artifacts and measures to assess educators.Ohio should allow for a wide range of factors in anevaluation system. These could include, but should not belimited to:

! Portfolios that might include:! Lesson/Unit plans! Student work! Copies of curricular materials! Assessments! Records of communications with parent/colleagues! Copies of student records! Copies of grade book! Student progress reports! Other materials deemed useful

! Parent surveys

! Student surveys

! Evaluation of classroom instruction and/or artifacts (i.e., Educational Testing Service)

! Licensure type

! Teacher’s responsibilities, leadership and involvement

! Coursework and professional development.

All of these measures should be examined to determinehow they might best be used in Ohio’s districts. It isrecommended that, for each of these categories, cleardefinitions of quality be established by the state ordistricts so that teachers and evaluators can have ashared understanding of excellence and expectations.

12

PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE should be

demonstrated through observation and other means determined by

an administrator.

PROFESSIONAL DESIGNATION

should be determined by

combining professional

practice and student growth scores.

Educators should be designated

PROFICIENT, ACCOMPLISHED, DEVELOPING or

INEFFECTIVE.

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT should be at the discretion of the PROFICIENT or

ACCOMPLISHED educator.

Professional Development should

be prescribed for those educators

designated DEVELOPING or

INEFFECTIVE.

For teachers who can demonstrate growth at proficient level or better:

For teachers who cannot demonstrate student growth at proficient level or better or for whom data does not exist:

PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE should be

demonstrated through observation and other means determined by

the educator.

PROFESSIONAL DESIGNATION

should be determined by

combining professional practice and

student growth scores. Educators

with strong student growth numbers

should be designated either

PROFICIENT or ACCOMPLISHED.

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT should be at the discretion of the PROFICIENT or

ACCOMPLISHED educator.

FIGURE 2 RECOMMENDED EVALUATION PATHS FOR EDUCATORS

13

For teacher who can demonstrate growthat proficient level or better:

For teacher who cannot demonstrate student growthat proficient level or better or for whom data does not:

The Ohio Department of Education mustcommit to providing increasedcommunications with teachers about newevaluation and compensation models.

Little effort has been expended by the Department ofEducation in educating teachers on where the state isand where it is headed in the areas of evaluation andcompensation. By providing teachers with a “big picture”version of the state’s evaluation framework, the statecan lay the groundwork for educated and committedteachers. The Department of Education must reach outand collaborate with key stakeholders to assist withgetting the needed communications to teachers andleaders across the state. ODE should develop andimplement a strategic communications plan to identifykey messages, important milestones and identify who isresponsible for sharing information.

According to law, the state must develop a standards-based framework for the evaluation of teachers thatmeets nine established criteria. This framework shouldbe shared with teachers in early 2012, along withregular updates from districts piloting the framework.Pilot information will guide changes to the model itself,but communicating a well- formed framework toteachers, administrators, school board members andother interested stakeholders would go a long waytoward helping teachers accept the evaluation systemand the potential it provides for improvement.

Educators do not have a good understanding of performancecompensation. While salary schedules and traditionalcompensation systems are more comfortable, they are notnecessarily well-liked. These systems are “safe” andpredictable, which puts educators at ease. However, simpleperformance compensation examples that help illustrate howperformance measures, combined with currentcompensation lead to decisions about increases in salary,would help build comfort with a new system of compensation.Examples would also help educators to see the importance ofmaintaining high levels of achievement for themselves andtheir students when making compensation decisions.

Understanding that the Ohio PrincipalEvaluation System is in the process of beingdeveloped, it is recommended that it shouldbe designed in such a way as to mirror theOhio Teacher Evaluation System forconsistency across the process. Additionally,evaluations for superintendents and otheradministrators should be aligned similarly.

A system of evaluations that spans all employees shouldpromote the alignment of the human resources of anorganization toward a common goal. In this case, thegoal is student achievement and ensuring that by thetime students graduate, they have mastered theknowledge and skills required for them to succeed incollege and careers. This can be accomplished by

making sure that evaluations for all school districtpersonnel are constructed around this common goal.

HB 153 stipulates, “Each board shall adopt proceduresfor the evaluation of all assistant superintendents,principals, assistant principals and other administratorsand shall evaluate such employees in accordance withthose procedures. The procedures for the evaluation ofprincipals shall be based on principles comparable to theteacher evaluation policy adopted by the board undersection 3319.111 of the Revised Code, but shall betailored to the duties and responsibilities of principalsand the environment in which principals work. Anevaluation based upon procedures adopted under thisdivision shall be considered by the board in decidingwhether to renew the contract of employment of anassistant superintendent, principal, assistant principal orother administrator.”

The approach of verticallyaligning all evaluations helpsaddress a major concernexpressed by teachers: thatadministrators could “stack”classes to give preference tosome teachers or createsituations in which otherscouldn’t succeed. Similarly, somesuggest that principals andadministrators may bedeliberately unfair in theirevaluations and target older ormore costly teachers. By ensuring that student growthdata is a fundamentalcomponent of principal andadministrator evaluations, theproper incentives are in place tomake decisions that promotemaximizing student achievement.

Administrators also should beevaluated on the quality of theteacher evaluations theyperform. This would be yetanother way of aligning thevarious evaluation systemsaround student learning.

14

Student Learning

Teacher Evaluation

Principal Evaluation

Superintendent Evaluation

A Teacher’s Voice:“I feel teachersshould be evaluatedon performance butthe problem is thatthere is personalbias and teachersare not givenequitable classrooms– some are givenmore behaviorproblems and lowerperforming studentsif the administratorsfeel a particularteacher is morecompetent thananother; hence,turning effectivenessinto a negativeimpact for thehighest performingteachers.”

The Ohio Department of Education mustinvest time and effort into training schoolboards and administrators beforeimplementing any new systems.

There is nothing quite so disturbing as getting mixedmessages and confusing signals about a topic asimportant as evaluation and compensation reform. Whatsource does one trust? Teachers have indicated that theyare receiving different answers about the new evaluationand compensation systems, depending on whom they ask.There must be a concerted effort to ensure that schoolboards, administrators and others communicating onthese issues have an accurate and clear grasp of thespecific requirements and directions.

It also is commonly understood that these newevaluations will have an impact on the way administratorsuse their time, which may lead to funding andmanagement implications for school districts. Doing thiswork correctly is very important to the successfuloutcomes that are desired. Consequently, school boardsand administrators need help understanding how toprioritize time and funding to ensure that implementationis successful.

Holding teachers and principals accountable forstudent achievement can be difficult if they donot control decisions about resource utilizationand allocation. The Ohio Department ofEducation should identify and promoteoperating models that grant principals andteachers greater control over curricular andoperational decisions, as well as expenditureswith the potential for impacting studentachievement.

Good organizational management practices seek to alignthe use of resources toward the mission and goal of theorganization. New evaluation systems and compensationstructures have the potential to promote greateralignment of the people working in a school districtaround common objectives. But there are otherresources that can be brought to bear on meeting theorganization’s goals. It is important that the deploymentof those resources also be aligned.

Sometimes at the school building level, teachers andprincipals have a vision for what they must do to meet theneeds of their students, but they are unable to realizethat vision fully because many resource inputs are outsidetheir control. Across the country, we see examples wheremore and more authority to influence spending and otherresource allocation practices is being infused into building

leaders and managers. These ideas are not always simpleto implement and are not to be taken lightly.Nevertheless, exploring them in the spirit of supporting acomplete and targeted approach to meeting the needs ofstudents in a particular school building could have positiveoutcomes.

As part of the discussion on this issue, teachers wereinterested to learn about Innovation Schools, whereteachers and principals have the opportunity to takecontrol of their schools for the benefit of children. By avote of the staff in a building, the school can becomeexempt from central administration, school board andstate rules and regulations. This freedom would beprovided in exchange for a student performancecommitment by the staff. Innovation schools couldprovide teachers with the freedom to “do what’s right”for the children they serve.

Teachers were really interested in this new idea. Assuch, the Department of Education should begin thedevelopment of rules that allow for the implementationof Innovation Schools. They should gather anddisseminate information about these models that allowfor greater resource alignment at the building level andgreater decision-making responsibility on the part ofprincipals and teachers. These models should beactively publicized and volunteers should be identified topilot their effectiveness.

The Ohio Department of Education shouldhelp schools identify alternative supports forstudents when parents aren’t involved tocompensate for that absence.

The challenges faced by students who do not havesupportive parents and communities compounds theteaching challenge. There are examples in variousschool districts of systems of supports, which providestudents with alternative external support mechanismsdesigned to improve student attentiveness to academicpursuits outside of class. These approaches often takethe form of deep mentorships. Teachers and schooldistricts need a better understanding of these options.

The Department of Education developed theComprehensive System of Learning Supports Guidelinesto assist local district and school building leadershipteams in the creation of plans and policies that wouldprovide every student access to academic andnonacademic programs and support services that arecritical for success. ODE should strengthen theseguidelines with examples of programs and strategiesthat work and ensure that all schools and districts areaware of the guidelines and successful models. Theyalso should work to identify opportunities to expand theuse of these strategies and analyze their impact.

15

Teachers have great impact on the education of ourchildren. Their ideas and perspectives also shouldhave great impact on strategies adopted to improve

the educational system.

When given the opportunity, teachers will be constructiveand productive in helping policymakers design newapproaches to improve educational outcomes.Specifically, with regard to teacher evaluation andcompensation systems, teachers understand how thesetools can become a powerful force in creating theclimate, conditions and incentives that promotealignment toward a common goal – improving studentachievement. If structured properly and implementedfairly, these systems will be one of multiple strategiesnecessary to further advance Ohio’s education system.

The work ahead will be difficult and will not be flawless. Onthis point, the report by the National Council on TeacherQuality xv observes that, “Stakeholder input is important –but bold leadership is also important.” Bold leadership caninclude teachers who are willing to stand up for doing whatis right in the interest of students. The recommendationsin this brief are one reflection of that leadership.

The existence of other perspectives and viewpoints maymean that not all the recommendations are adopted, butthey nevertheless reflect productive input into thecomplex consensus-building that will result in the state’sfinal approach. Teachers must be involved in the ongoingdevelopment, implementation and review of the evaluationand compensation systems. In the end, teachers are thegreatest and best resource we have to move Ohio towardthe vision we hold for the future of education.

i Rivkin, Stephen G., Hanushek, Eric A. and Kain, John F.2004. Teachers, Schools, and Academic Achievement.University of Texas at Dallas Texas Schools Project. Available:http://edpro.stanford.edu/Hanushek/admin/pages/files/uploads/teachers.econometrica.pdf

ii Sanders, W.L. and Rivers, J.C. 1996. Cumulative andResidual Effects of Teachers on Future Student Academic.Achievement. Research Progress Report. Knoxville, TN.Available:http://heartland.org/sites/default/files/sites/all/modules/custom/heartland_migration/files/pdfs/3048.pdf

iii http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/states/

iv Weisberg, D.; Sexton, S.; Mulhern, J.; and Keeling, D.2009. The Widget Effect: Our National Failure toAcknowledge and Act on Differences in TeacherEffectiveness. New York: The New Teacher Project. Available:http://widgeteffect.org/downloads/TheWidgetEffect.pdf

v Excerpted from September 27, 2010 interview with MattLauer. Available athttp://msnbc.msn.com/id/39378576/site/todayshow/ns/today-parenting

vi Remarks to the National Board of Professional TeachingStandards, July 29, 2011. Available athttp://www.ed.gov/news/speeches/working-toward-wow-vision-new-teaching-profession.

vii National Council on Teacher Quality. October 2011. State ofthe States: Trends and Early Lessons on Teacher Evaluationand Effectiveness Policies. Available:http://www.nctq.org/p/publications/docs/nctq_stateOfTheStates.pdf

viii Information on the schools of promise and the researchpublications can be found on the Ohio Department ofEducation’s website (www.education.ohio.gov) by searching for“schools of promise”.

ix Remarks to the National Education Association, July 2,2009. Available athttp://www2.ed.gov/news/speeches/2009/07/07022009.html.

x National Council on Teacher Quality. October 2011.

xi http://www.dc.gov/DCPS/In+the+Classroom/Ensuring+Teacher+Success/IMPACT+%28Performance+Assessment%29/IMPACT+Guidebooks

xiii

http://www.ride.ri.gov/educatorquality/educatorevaluation/Docs/RIModelGuide.pdf.

xiii

http://www.nhps.net/sites/default/files/1__NHPS_TEVALDEV_Introduction_-_Aug_2010.pdf.

xiv http://www.mcea.nea.org/pdf/PAR-FINAL%280805%29.pdf

xv National Council on Teacher Quality. October 2011.

16

Conclusion

This appendix provides examples of three performance-based compensation systems.

!Denver Public Schools – ProComp

!District of Columbus Public Schools – IMPACTplus

!Harrison School District, Colorado Springs, Colorado – Effectiveness and Results (E & R) Plan

The Denver ProComp system was approved for implementation in the Denver Public Schools in 2004. In 2005, Denvervoters approved a $25 million levy to fund the compensation plan, and the plan went into effect in 2006. ProComp doesnot use any type of salary grid. Rather, the entire compensation system is driven by a single “index” amount – a dollaramount negotiated by the district administration and the union. The index amount for 2010-2011 is $37,551. TheProComp system uses a combination of sustained salary increases and one-time bonuses. The system generally providessustained increases (base building) for professional development, satisfactory evaluations, and demonstrated studentprogress. Bonuses (non-base building) are provided for circumstances that can change from year to year – working in hard-to-serve schools, accepting hard-to-staff assignments, teaching in high-growth schools, etc. Figure 3 presents the keyfeatures of the Denver ProComp Plan.

17

Appendix A: Performance Based Compensation Examples

FIGURE 3 RECOMMENDED EVALUATION PATHS FOR EDUCATORS

Component ofIndex $37,551

Element Descrip!on of ElementE"ect on

Base SalaryPercent of Index

Builds pensionand highest

average salaryPayment Type and Frequency6

ProfessionalDevelopment

Unit

Providing ongoing professionaldevelopment – !ed to the needs ofour students – is a central strategyto help you expand your skills,

improve student performance, andadvance your career with the district

BaseBuilding2

2% YesMonthly installments upon

submission of properdocuments

AdvancedDegree andLicense

Compensa!on for graduate degreeor advanced licenses or cer!ficates

Base Building9% per degree orlicense. Eligibleonce every 3 yrs.

YesMonthly installments upon

submission of properdocuments

Knowledge andSkills

Tui!on andStudent Loan

Reimbursement

Reimbursement for tui!on or foroutstanding student loans

Non BaseBuilding

Actual expense upto $1,000/yr.

No3Up to $1,000 per year upon

submission of properdocuments

Proba!onaryIncreases for new teachers based on

a sa!sfactory evalua!on.Base Building 1% every year Yes

Pro rated over 12 months. Ifunsa!sfactory, delayed at least

1 yr.

NonProba!onary

Increases based on a sa!sfactoryevalua!on.

Base Building3% every three

yearsYes

Pro rated over 12 months. Ifunsa!sfactory, delayed at least

1 yr.

ComprehensiveProfessionalEvalua!on

Innova!onNon

Proba!onary

Increases based on a sa!sfactoryevalua!on.

Base Building1% every year if no3% in past 2 yrs.

YesPro rated over 12 months. If

unsa!sfactory, delayed at least1 yr.

Hard to ServeSchool

Designed to a"ract teachers toschools with a high percentage of

free and reduced lunch

Non BaseBuilding

6.4% YesMonthly installment uponcomple!on of service each

monthMarketIncen!ves

Hard to Sta#Assignment

Designed to a"ract teachers to roleswith high vacancy rate and high

turnover

Non BaseBuilding

6.4% YesMonthly installment uponcomple!on of service each

month

Student GrowthObjec!ves

Incen!ve paid for mee!ng studentgrowth objec!ves

BaseBuilding4

1% Yes1 objec!ve – Paid lump sum. 2objec!ves – Paid in monthly

installments

Exceeds CSAPExpecta!ons

Teachers whose assigned students’growth in CSAP scores exceed

district expecta!ons

Non BaseBuilding

6.4% YesPaid lump sum in the yearfollowing assessment

Top PerformingSchools

Teachers in schools designated as a“Top Performing School“ based on

the DPS School PerformanceFramework

Non BaseBuilding

6.4% YesPaid lump sum in the yearfollowing assessment

StudentGrowth

High GrowthSchool

Teachers in schools designated as a“High Growth School” on the DPSSchool Performance Framework

Non BaseBuilding

6.4% YesPaid lump sum in the yearfollowing assessment

II. District of Columbia Public Schools -- IMPACTplus

IMPACTplus is the performance-based compensation system used in the District of Columbia Public Schools (DCPS)for Washington Teachers’ Union (WTU) members. The system is promoted as offering the opportunity for highlyeffective teachers to more than double their compensation in a few short years. Annual bonuses for highly effectiveteachers range from $3,000 to $25,000, depending on the IMPACTplus category under which they are evaluatedand other factors such as the free- and reduced-price lunch rate of the school in which they teach.

IMPACTplus is driven by DCPS’ new performance-based teacher evaluation system – IMPACT. The system includesdifferentiated evaluations for teachers of general, ELL and special education students; counselors; mentor teachers;and other support staff. Teacher evaluations are multi-dimensional and include five observations conducted by masterevaluators and principals. The system identifies two types of teachers – Group 1 includes teachers in grades andsubjects for which value-added scores are available (math and reading in grades 4-8); Group 2 includes teachers innon-tested subjects. Teachers who are rated “highly effective” under the evaluation system are then eligible toparticipate in the IMPACTplus compensation system.

IMPACTplus is layered on top of the districts basic “steps-and-lanes” salary schedule. The compensation system hastwo elements. The first includes annual bonuses that are based on the school’s free- and reduced-price lunch rate, aswell as whether a teacher is a Group 1 teacher or teaching in a high-need subject area. Figure 4 below summarizesthe bonus structure.

IMPACTplus also includes a component that can affect a teacher’s base salary. The structure allows teachers toaccelerate through the basic salary grid in use by the district, based on the school’s free- and reduced-price lunchpercentage. Figure 5 summarizes the base salary impact approach.

III. Harrison School District, Colorado Springs, Colorado – Effectiveness and Results Plan

Harrison School District was one of the first districts in the nation to replace a traditional salary schedule with a paysystem based entirely on observations of teacher practice and student achievement results. The Effectiveness andResults (E&R) Plan was implemented in the 2010-2011 school year, when 85 percent of teachers in the districtwere paid based on this new compensation system, rather than a traditional salary schedule. Beginning with the2011-2012 school year, 100 percent of teachers will be on the plan. All principals also will be compensated under asimilar system. An essential factor in determining which pay level educators earn is significant, demonstrated successin helping to improve student achievement.

18

YOUR IMPACT RATING

YOUR SCHOOL’S FREE AND

R ICE LUNCH RATE

YOUR BONUS

IF YOU ARE IN IMPACT GROUP

1

IF YOU TEACH A “HI

SUBJECT

YOUR TOTAL POSSIBLE

ANNUAL BONUS

HIGHLY EFFECTIVE

60% OR HIGHER $10,000 ADDITIONAL $10,000 ADDITIONAL $5,000 $25,00059% OR LOWER $5,000 ADDITIONAL $5,000 ADDITIONAL $2,500 $12,500

YOUR IMPACT RATING FOR TWO CONSECUTIVE YEARS

YOUR SCHOOL’S FREE AND ICE LUNCH RATE YOUR SERVICE CREDIT

HIGHLY EFFECTIVE

60% OR HIGHER 5 YEARS59% OR LOWER 3 YEARS

FIGURE 4 IMPACTplus ANNUAL BONUS STRUCTURE

FIGURE 5 IMPACTplus BASE SALARY ACCELERATION

As shown in Figure 6, the Harrison E&R system for teachers has nine pay levels—Novice, Progressing I, ProgressingII, Proficient I, Proficient II, Proficient III, Exemplary I, Exemplary II and Master. Specific criteria for performance andstudent achievement results are established for each pay level. Higher levels require demonstrations of higher-levelmastery and results. The compensation schedule is split into two tiers:

! The “Principal Review,” which uses student achievement data plus principal observations to place and moveteachers into four initial pay levels with gradual salary differences between them, and

! The “District Review,” which combines student achievement data plus performance on district-widepriorities/goals to move a teacher along the highest five levels with dramatically greater salaries.

All teachers undergo the Principal Review; teachers who have reached the Proficient I level may request to undergothe District Review to reach one of the higher pay levels. Principals also are held accountable for their school-wideimprovement objectives and overall action plans. They must be able to prove their results with data.

Years of service play no role in the E&R model. Professional development and credential attainment only play a smallrole. A teacher’s performance can fall to lower levels if their performance does not meet the criteria of their currentlevel for three years.

19

FIGURE 6 HARRISON SCHOOL DISTRICT EFFECTIVENESS AND RESULTS MODEL

The following educators served as members of the Educator Effectiveness Steering Committee providing guidance andinput that proved essential in the development of this report:

Ekta Chabria

Jeanne Derryberry

Kyle Farmer

Diane Horvath

Dondra Maney

Chris O’Brien

Laurie Preston

Heather Reynolds

Sean Riley

Scott Shinaberry

Bonnie Ward

Melissa Wood

20

Special Thanks

Richard AbelKimbery AberConnie AcraCaroline AdamsJustin AdamsLinda AdamsPatty AkerMichael AlcockMichelle AlexanderJacob AlferioNancy AlleySusan AlleyShari AlwardCarl AndersonDeb AndersonElaine AndrewsAmanda AnsorgeChristine AnthonyDavid AnthonyDove ArnettLarry ArquilloTraci ArwayTony AshbrookTom AshbyJulie AspirasClarine AthyMichelle AubrechtChristine AultBonnie AultDavid AxnerDebra BabinNancy BaconTucker BacquetDenise BaddeleyDenis BaileyJodie BaileyDawn Bailey-CableMichael BaitLisa BakaBeverly BakerLisa BakerMichelle BakerDeb BakosPaula BallSarah BallmanRosemary BalsingerBrian BammerlinBill BanyAmy BapstLauren BarberDeborah BargerJackie BarkerWM Craig BarnardMichael BarnesChristine BarneyKevin BarrerasSusan BarteDiana BarthlowCarole BartlettMelissa BartlettDanielle BartosLaurie BatdorfKathleen BatesEric BaumannRichard BavisRonald BaylessDan BaylissJason BeaversDana BeckJohn BeckNancy BeckettAnn BeemanBonnie Begg

Anne BeharryMarc BehrendtCarrie BellDavid BellSuzanne BellBrian BelmontLisa BennettMary Lou BennettKen BeraduceBrian BergerPatrick BernotDana BerryKathy BerusDiane BethelValerie BevelhymerChristopher BianchiLoretta BibleJennifer BickleyJanet BiedenbachStephen BiharyDolores BlackGinny BlackJulianne BlackstonMark BlackstoneBarbalee BlairJack BlairDiane BlaneyJesse BlasierJames BloorJason BlueBarbara BodartCara BoettnerErin BogusTimothy BollinTeresa BombrysRobert BonishRebecca BookThomas BoothWendy BoothDavid BootheJamie BootheMelissa BorgmanFrank BosakDavid BosoNicole BouasJack BoulisChris BowerRon BowermanBethany BoydBrian BoydDoug BoydDiane BoylanColleen BoyleKathleen BradenKarin BrainWilliam BrambletteNancy BrameHeather Brandon-MetzJeff BransonKathryn BrentMichelle BrianBill BrinkmanChris BrockmeyerAngela BrooksAmy BrownJulie BrownMargaret BrownMartha BrownTammy BrownKarla Brun Holly BrundageMike BruningDonna Brunner

Hannah BuddeAnthony BudyBonny BuffingtonElizabeth BufordJohn BullochCrystal BuntsLindsay BurbridgeHenry BurkeChristopher BurkhartMarcia BurkhartNicole BurlockJeremy BurnettKristine BurnsMary BurnsAmy BurtonPeggy BurtonJodie BushDawn ButschKellie ButtermoreLaurie ButtsPaula ByersLisa ByramErin ByrneSilverio CaggianoBob CaldwellSue CalhounNicole CallahanStacey CampJennifer CampbellMaria CampbellAimee CanterKristina CaplesRyamond CapotsMike CardenMarie CarityTonya CarmackJoann CarmeanJulia CarrAnne CarusoAnissa CasciatoAmber CasePaul CaseyHeidi CaskeyLisa CassedyBrian CassidyJanet CassityWillard CastoKathleen CaughenbaughJacqueline CebulskieJason CervenecAdam CestaroRussell ChaboudyTwyla ChalkBeth ChaneyMichael ChastainDavid ChmielewskiMark ChristenberryJody ChristyScott ChronisterAnthony CiancioloSue CiceroLeeAnn CichonBrian ClarkGail ClarkThom ClarkTrista ClaxonTracie ClayCarol ClemonsDeAnn ClemonsDarrin ClineMartha ClingerKay ClymerSarah Cochrane

James CofflandConstance ColeMargie ColemanMichelle ColemanDenise CollinsFloyd CollinsG. Joseph ColucciSalena CombsJulie ComerMark ConditJohn ConeglioDenise CongletonDean ConleyEd ConnorsCindy ConstienBonnie ContrucciKathleen CooeyKathy CookKatrina CookLinda CookLinda CookeLarry CoomerJim CoonsChristine CooperDonna CooperMartha CooperSusan CorbisseroNick CoreyMary CornelyLeeAnne CornynPatricia CostelloTheresa CotmanTim CoudretMary CourtCarrie Anna CourtadCynthia CourtadNed CourtrightTheresa CraigerKathy CratesNancy CrawfordMelissa CreamerMelissa CropperJillian CrossMabelann CrossgroveLisa CrothersSonja CullingsGloria CullisonKate Curlis-WestKevin CurtisRussell CurtisKevin DaelRita DaileySheree DailyPaul DalskyAngie DanielsonPam DanklefsenJill DarlingFanny DautermannBarbara DavisBonnie DavisJeffrey DavisMark DavisSusan DavisKeith DawsonShari de WeverLea DeanAdrienne DearwesterCharles DebelakSandy DeBosAimee DeckerDana DeckerC. DeckertGreg Deegan

Michelle DeFabioSuzanne DembskiDaria DeNoiaElizabeth D’EramoJeanne DerryberryAbby DetcherJenna D’EttorreRene DeVillersJill DeWertEileen DiamondEmily DiehlJon DiligenteDeborah DilleyJerry DillingerScott DiMauroTim DimitrewFeng DingKristine DinovoShannon DippleDeborah Dirk-HalleyLynne DivisEric DolanNancy DolanKaren DombrowskiBeth DouglasGlenn DouglasTim DoveEmily DownieCathy DoyleLowell DraffenDoug DragooBryan DrostNorwood DruckShannon DrummondSharon DrummondKelly DuceyRita DudleyKerry DuganKaren DumaisRandall DunkinShelly DunnJackie DunniganMaxine DupreKimberly DuskeyTyler DuveliusNathaniel DuvuveiMartin DybiczRochelle DyerPatty EakinsDoug EckelbargerWalter EllingerJill ElliottDeborah EllisDanielle EmansCindy EmersonKatherine EssigBeth EuckerKevin EvansTracey EvansCarol EwingDeborah EwingEric EwingVickie FagertAmy FagnilliDarren FalkJames FantoneSteve FarkBrad FarmerKyle FarmerLeda FarrellValerie FarschmanDebra FedynaJoey Feichtner

Ronda FerrimanMary FichterLinda FifeDarren FillmanBrian FirstenbergerAric FiscusJim FishLisa FishAshley FisherKathy FisherMarilyn FisherMarlene FisherMatthew FisherJodi FleckDonald FlegalPaige FlemingHollie FordDoug ForrestDawn FosnaughGloria FosterLisa FosterVictoria FouseTracy FowlerBrandon FoxTammie FraleyMiranda FranckMichelle FranerMark FranklinAaron FreeChristina FreitagCarl FrieseMary FryMarie FrydaMarcia FutelCathy GaddKathy GahaganMyrtle GalajdaWendy GalluppiBob GarbeFred GarberJuna GarberTim GarrettVicki GartnerBrian GeniuszAnthony GeorgeKathy GeorgeNancy GeorgeTodd GermanMary Rose GiancolaSusan Giannetti Lon-gacreFrances GibserNatalie GilbertCynthia GildersleeveJennifer GillMatthew GingrichDona GivensBrianne GladieuxKatherine Glenn-Apple-gateMelissa GlindmeyerDavid GluntAmy GmerekMike GodfreyKristen GoellerLarry GoldEmily GoodwinMelody GoodwinJanet GordonMelaine GouldRon GrabianowskiJennifer GrahamDieter GramssJacob Grantier

21

The Steering Committee would like to thank the following Ohioans for taking the time to share their thoughts onevaluation and compensation. We are grateful for your input.

Special Thanks

Sam GravesSteve GravesPamela GrayTeresa GrayCatherine GreenKelli GreenBilly GreenbaumKip GreenhillJames GreenwaldLorine GreggArlene GregoryRebecca GriffeyJennifer GriffithShawn GrimeHeath GrissingerDon GriswoldChad GroomsAlexander GrtJoy GrubbsTony GruberDave GustafsonChris GutermuthSusan HackJulie HagamanRobin HageSharon HagerRoseanna HaleCatherine HallMindy HallStan HalpinWilliam HalterRebecca HamiltonJessica HammRoberta HamonChristy HandorfEric HansonLauren HardgrovePat HargisRandy HarmerBrian HarperDavid HarrisMike HarrisSharla HarrisTom HarrisonDeana HartmanEvan HartmanMeredith HaslamMichelle HastingsJohn HatfieldLisa HawkinsDan HayesMichael HayesTrena HaynesRobert HeadleyDonna HebdoMary HeckendornBen HegedishCarla HegyiLisa HeinrichHope HellwigJeff HendershottPat HendersonKatie HendricksonMichael HensonPatrick HerakDirk HermanceJohn HermillerLawrence HerrholtzJoe HerrmannMarcus HerzbergDori HessDorian HickeyJacqueline HickeyPatrick HickmanJoy HicksKelly HicksTim HicksJean HilbertMarjorie HildebrandtNatalie HildebrandtDavid HileJo Hill

Mark HillShannon HillTami HillPaul HiszemJodi HoffmanDeborah HoganLori HoguePaul HogueGina HohmanDebbie HoleckoShon HollandHeather HollenbacherAmy HollingsworthPam HolmanRoscoe HoltCasey HoltzmanMike HorgerLisa HornbachDebby HornyakKen HortonDiane HorvathMarla HouchinsGerald HounchellJane HouserCarol HoutlerKaren HowardDanielle HowellDeana HoytPaulette HuberCory HuelskampLisa HuelskampLynn HuenemannJulia HuffnerSusan HullLaura HumeKelly HummellEric HumphriesJason HuntKaren HuntJennifer HunterMiata HunterAaron HurshMarlene HyettMary Ann HylandAaron HylanderSusan HymanMatthew HysellJason ImbrognoRoslyn ImhoffMark IngallsMatthew InmanJean JacksonCarol JacotCandi JamesDr. Todd JamisonHeather JanesRhonda JanuszewskiRick JarrettRichard JavorekCarol JeanneretDiann JenkinsSandra JenkinsElizabeth JeppesenDebbie JesterMatt JividenAmy JohnsonCourtney JohnsonKenneth JohnsonLisa JohnsonRobert JohnsonVictor JohnsonGennie JohnstonJeffrey JohnstonTammy JohnstonBill JonesCarolyn JonesDarryl JonesDavid JonesEd JonesKristin JonesDaniel Robert Jones IIIPatricia Joseph

Kimberly JuddJennifer JulkaAndy JungkunzMichael JuniusSara JurovciikAlan KalisCathalee KankiewiczApril KantzLinda KardamisMichael KathreinBrenda KaupBrad KayataKimberly KeatonMark KefalosMaria KehresMarla KeithRichard KelchSusan KelewaeChristine Faye KellerPeggy KellyJamie KematsAnne KemmerleCynde KennedyEdward KentrupMary KerleyMelissa KershnerJim KettnerNathan KeuhnlAmanda KeyesAshley KiblerEarl KilchenmanWendy KimberleyMelissa KincaidLeslie KingMatt KingRobert KingSharon KingMartha KinkeadCraig KinsmanLori KipferKim KircherJanet KirnsKenneth KishTom KitchenLinda KittleSara KitzmillerKelly KlampeDennis KlasmeierJoyce KleinKurt KleinTerese KlucarMary KmiotekKaren KnuevenSteve KnullMichael KobylskiAmy KohmannLois KoladaMichelle KovachJean Kovarik WillGery KovatchConnie KramerAnitra KrausStan KriderMatt KrillTanya KrogerJim KubackiSteve KucinskiHeather KuruvillaLinda KurzStephanie KvalcikSara LalondeEric LaneJames LaneJenny Lang Shelley LangdonAmy LanghalsMarcia LaningHeather LashFrank LatellaMichael LauingerHolly LavenderKelly Law

Janet LawrenceJennifer LawsonVicki LazukaKaren LeachBrandy LealJoshua LeasureStacie LeathermanDaniel LeeRenee LeeSara LegaultLeslie LehnerDonna LeistGary LendakMarijo LendakRoberta LentzJanice LeutzDavid LewisMaureen LewisPatience LewisVivian LietteBarbara LindleyStephanie LindwayNancy LineburghMolly LinkenhokerRebecca LinkMolly LivengoodAshley LockhartDeborah LockwoodJohn LoGalboKristen LombardoEdward LongMike LongStephanie LongDoris LopezMary LouisCurtis LoveLinda LowryToni LucadelloMakenzie LuceDebra LuciusJames LuckLynne LuptonWilliam LutterbeinJanice MacDonaldShawna MacDonaldKrissy MachamerDavid MackeyTim MaleyJoe MallinJohn MancusoLindsay MangasGinger MangieRosalice ManloveMary ManningJennifer ManosDave MansonEd MarchWendy MarettJane MargrafAngela MarinoDan MariottiBruce MarkewiczKen MarkwardKate MarloweJames MarrasChristina MarsDonna MarshalkoChris MartinCharles MartindellAileen MartiniKristine MartzCindy MashMike MasloskiNicole MathiasMarlene MauerMike MaukJohn MaurerMike MaynardChristy MaysThomas McCarthyGeorgette McClainMichelle McCleese

Shannon McClendonJane McClishJanice McConkeyMarlon McCormickMark McCortJennifer McDonaldSteve McDonaldJoni McDonoughAngus McDougallDennis & Nancy Mc-FaddenDiane McFiggenCheryl McGrathGregory McHenryPatricia McHughCynthia McIntireKathy McIntoshKimberly McIntoshLori McKeanDon McKennyKimberly McKinneySusan McLaughlinTerri McNeelyAmanda McNichCara McPhersonGary McPhersonMichelle Means-WalkerJenny MeinersHoward MellonTisha MenchhoferDawn MericleDan MerkelJanet MerkelTina MertzDan MeshPaige MeterskyJean MetzgerJeff MetzlerMelissa MeyerKelly MialkyKelly MichalskiLeigh MichelsenMichael MikesGreg MildVictoria MilettaLinda MilikenKenneth MillardAbby MillerCheryl MillerDave MillerDebra MillerGwen MillerJanin MillerJoseph MillerJudy MillerJulia MillerKrista MillerLynette MillerMark MillerMegan MillerRoger MillerSusan MillerWilliam MillerJenniffer MillisorGeorge MiloJean MinnickJoni MintonStephanie MitrisinJeanette ModieRenee MoebiusRiaz MoinuddinElizabeth MollGregory MongoldMaureen MontgomeryTerry MoodyJames MoonMonica MooreTim MooreCindy MoormanLeanne MoormanJeanie MorelandMatt Morgan

Melissa MorganShawn MorgensenElaine MorlanMelissa MortonAmanda MulbayDiane MullenRegena MummertCharlotte MurphyJames MurrayKatherine MussellRobert Myer Brian MyersJames MyersJo Ellen MyersRachel MyersRosemary MyersKim NadolskyAnthony NaskaAlgirdas NasvytisDawn NeffAngel NegronJennie NelsonJess NelsonKendra NelsonTeresa NewlandsEric NewmanVal NewmanDan NiemanJessica Niemantsver-drietGail NiemeierDelaine NiesleyKenneth NilsenAlisha NolanMarilin NoltemeyerNathan NordineSarah NormanStephanie NorthElaine NortmanLenore NovakSharon NovakMark NusbaumValerie NutiPatty NyquistCasey OberhauserGabe Oberlin Sarah O’BryanAnthony OdenwellerMargeryann OldsElizabeth OmlorDeb OpdyckeTim OppAnna OreskovichChristina OsbornTodd OsbornJason OsborneKevin OsborneJanice OsterlohMary O’TooleCynthia OviattKaren OwenKyla OwensWilliam OxenfordBrad OyerKathleen PachinScott PachinDavid PalgutaJennifer PalgutaSusan PalliniCarolyn PalmerAmy ParkerCecily ParkerMarilyn ParkersBeth ParksDiane ParoubekLinda ParsellChristy ParsonsJessica ParthemoreSherry PatrickDebbie PatskoBarbara Paulett-LongBeth Pavkov

22

Jane PeeblesJean PeeblesSueAnn PeeteBill PekkalaJanet PennellLauran PerrillRosie PerryTeresa PeterTia PetersJennifer PetrasJill PettiboneAndrew PhelpsTraci PhillipsDavid PierceJason PierceJennifer PierceJudith PinelKim PirnatJanet PitchfordDale PittengerKristen PlagemanBryan PlemonsDavid PloenzkeMikala PolcaRob PolcaPamela PolmanDebbie PooleKay PorrGregory PorterHeather PorterJewel PorterMike PorterSusan PorterKatie PorteusPhilip PowersElizabeth PozderacShane PranskyCindy PrattNicole PrattLisa PrecourtKathy PrestonLaurie PrestonDiane PrettymanBob PriestJanice PrinceJohn ProvenzaleRay PrueittMichael RadenkovRitch RameyLynn RamsayKathy RamsdellShrider RandyDiana RankinKathryn RaposeJudy RatchfordTheresa Ratliff-DottererDennis RaySandy RazzanteNicole ReadDebra ReedMargaret ReevesKim ReicheltKevin ReidyRichard ReidyCindy ReinhardtCarol ReinhartPaul RekersGarrison RennelsHeather RepaskyEric ResnickKaren RexElaine ReynoldsShawn ReynoldsAnne RhodesMark RhodesSue RicciuttiGreg RiceShelby RiceKathryn RichardKeith RichardsLauri RichardsKelly Riley

Katy RinehartJames RinellaJessica RiniDustin RitterSherie RobargeThomas RobbinsChristine RoberChris RobertsJamie RobertsMary Jo RobertsMichele RobertsKurtis RobinsonMatthew RobinsonMartha RockwellMaryann RodinCole RogersEd RogersJennifer RogersJohn RohrsDeanna RomanoJennifer Rose Mark Rose Kevin RoseberrySteve RosenMartha RossPatricia RouseShirley RoyseChris RuaneCaitlin RudisellDarrell RudmannJessica RuehlTimothy RueseKaren RumleyDiane RunyonAllison RushleyJennifer RussLori RussellChristina RussosCheryl RutanLu RyanMichael RyanJonathan SafflesRobert SagerLaura SailerJune SalisburyKathy SalmonskiPaul SalyardsTodd SamsRebeca SandersLou SangdahlMichelle SardellaRyan SardellaNancy SauerSherri SavageJudy SawyerJon SaxtonRachael SchaeferBrian SchaffranMarilyn ScheetzJenny SchererNathan SchererHelen ScheuflerDebra SchimmoellerMelody SchlabachAndrew SchlagerMarcia SchlegelJames SchmidtMichelle SchnedlJanet SchneiderMaria SchneiderElke SchneppatEric SchoonoverWill SchuckCori SchulteRobert SchultzBeverly SchumannJan ScottJerrilyn ScottKelly ScottNancy ScottPaul ScottDeborah Scully

Belinda SeagravesLarry SeibelMike SeibertWilliam SeithDon SeveranceKaty SeymoreJanine SeymourSteve ShafferJill ShampCathy ShannonSteve ShapiroCynthia ShearerNancy ShehataShawn ShelstadJoy ShepardScott ShinaberryChristine ShipleyMark ShollRebecca ShrakeMichael ShrodekMichelle ShulerLynn ShuryanBrad SimsGrace SimsJohn SinsabaughIva SissonHeidi SiwakMarty SkilliterJoyce SkocicDaniel SlagleJoseph SloneMarilyn SlusserYvonne SlusserAndy SmithAnissa SmithChristine SmithCorey SmithHarold SmithKevin SmithKeyshaun SmithKrysten SmithLinda SmithLorraine SmithLynda SmithNikisha SmithRobert SmithRyan SmithDana SnyderSusan SnyderBarbara SobieRob SoccorsiSarah SolleyJean SommerGary SoraceLauren SpeerTami SpeicherLisa SpeillerBenjamin SperosDavid SpondikeMary SprattLisa SpriggsLinda SpurrierSylvia St. CyrKristina St. GeorgeJohn StackJoe StahlSuzanne StaleyDave StallkampAndrea StampJason StanfordSusan StanleyTyler SteeleCarolyn Stein Sarajane SteineckerSharrie StephensJessica StevensonRenee StevensonAustin StewardAndrea StewartEleanor “Lynn” StewartPhilip StewartCynthia Steyer

Matt StickleTonya StillwellCraig StinchcombNorma StocksLois StollDon StoneStephen StonebrakerSandra StoreyJennifer StrauseBrandon StreitenbergerVirgil StegnerFrank StretarCindy StricklerKrista StumpMelanie StuthardCassandra SueverMike SullivanSharon SurianoMargaret SusongMichael SustinJulie SwankGreg SwartzTamara SwartzKeith SwearingenKim SwearingenMichelle SweeneyChristine SweitzerJeremy SwiftDale SwisherMelissa SwitzerPamela SynderBryan SzuchKelly TaborJerry TackettLester TackettPeg TakachAndrea TaktakPatricia TalikkaJeffrey TallmanMichael TathamJeremy TawneyMarc TaylorMaria TaylorPamela Ann TaylorJoan TenhundfeldTimothy ThiesBrooks ThomasColene ThomasPete ThomasChris ThompsonSue ThompsonSharon ThorneJoshua ThornsberryMonica TilbertDara TimmermanLaurel TombazziDeborah TongElaine TorneroAndrea TownsendShirley TrainCrystal TrainiCeleste TrejoMark TrewNick TrivisonKari TuckerSandra TugrulDeborah TurnerMilton Alan TurnerJoel TyrrellMatthew UherJon UngerJohn UnkeferPiet van LierJill UrbaniakHeather VandenBroekAnn VanderpohlJudy VanduzenGreg VanhornCraig VasilRebecca VasilakisJohn VaskoKaren Vasko

Rebecca VaslavskyDave VecchioneTracie VeghGeln VerhoffRick VermillionJason VeseyLori VillanovaNancy VolksenCrystal Von BargenMandy VulgamoreDavid WadeFay WagnerJack WahlJoseph WahrerSherri WaldenDavid WalkerJennifer WalkerBetsy WalshJennie WalterChris WaltersErin WaltersAmie WardPeggy WardLysa WardenMyra Warne Gabe WarnerKaren WarnerStephen WasQ. WasselKathleen WatsonJames WatsonRebecca WatsonMeggan WeaverPam WeaverTom WeaverLori WebbLorna WebbLynn WechterTeresa WeidenbuschRobert WeinfurtnerValerie WeingartBruce WeirichBrian WelchMary WelchJoAnne WellerBridget WellsPaul WestMary WhalenTimothy WheelerSara WhitisRobbie WhitmerJenifer WiantEllie WiaterSean WilcoxLindsey WilleyBarbara WilliamsBillie WilliamsJennifer WilliamsJenny WilliamsMike WilliamsDeborah WilliamsonLisa WillsonBrenda WilsonKenneth WilsonSteven WilsonJoseph WintereggNancy WisniewskiPhil WitkerChristine WohlwendKatherine WojtowiczJennifer WolfBrian WolfeRandall WolfeMelissa WoodHeather Woodyard-NeigerSheri WooldridgeDebbie WrightJoe YarwoodBarbara YearleyRuthAnn YocumB Yoho

Andrea YutzyDora ZanniTamera ZelwinTony ZiehlerJackie ZielkeBob ZinnyJudy ZollarsGretchen ZunicJoAnne ZurellKaren Zutali

23