Research Spotlight: AZRfR Impact on Schools,

Teachers & StudentWendy Miedel Barnard, Ph.D.

Sarah A. Polasky, Ph.D.

Hongxia Fu, M.A.

Goals of the AZ Ready for Rigor Grant

1. Increase Teacher and Principal Effectiveness

2. Increase student achievement

3. Retain highly effective educators

4. Eliminate shortages of highly effective teachers/administrators

5. Foster exemplary school culture in the highest-need communities across Arizona

Phases of Implementation

Phase 1

• Wave One Schools (Implementing TAP 2010-2011)

• 10 Schools

Phase 2

• Wave Two Schools (Implementing TAP 2011-2012)

• 34 Schools

Phase 3

• Wave Three Schools (Implementing TAP 2012-2013)

• 15 Schools

TAP Elements of Success

Instructionally Focused

Accountability

MultipleCareer Paths

Performance-Based

Compensation

Ongoing AppliedProfessional

Growth

Teacher Effectiveness

• Increase the percentage of teachers in high-need schools who have a record of effectiveness

• Increase the percentage of principals in high-need schools who have a record of effectiveness

Teacher Skills, Knowledge &

Responsibilities

50%

IndividualStudent

Value-addedAchievement

30%

School-wide Value-added

Student Achievement

20%

Measurement of Effectiveness

50%50%

School –wide, Value-added

Student Achievement

Teacher Skills, Knowledge &

Responsibilities

Increase Teacher Effectiveness

Year 1 (N=469) Year 2 (N=1669) Year 3 (N=2147)0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100% 69%62% 65%

Percentage of Teachers who Showed a "Record of Effectiveness"

Teacher Effectiveness

Wave 1 (N=333) Wave2 (N=1272) Wave 3 (N=542)0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

88%72%

54%

Percentage of Teachers who Showed a "Record of Effectiveness" in Year Three by Wave

Principal and Assistant Principal Measurement of Effectiveness

• Observation Scores– Leadership Team (Principals)– Post-Conference (Assistant Principals)

• VAL-ED Surveys*• Program Review/Program Fidelity• School-Wide Student Growth/Achievement

*This does not apply to Assistant Principals

Increase Principal Effectiveness

Year 1 (N=25) Year 2 (N=71) Year 3 (N=100)0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

8%

31%

56%

Percentage of Principals and Assistant Principals with a "Record of Effectiveness"

In Year 3, 75% of Wave 1 School Principals and Assistant Principals were “effective”

Increase Retention

Within five years, eliminate the shortage of highly effective teachers and principals in:

– remote and hard-to-staff in participating schools and partner districts,

– hard-to-staff areas/subjects (such as special education, middle/high school math and science)

Retention and Attrition

• 81% of “effective” teachers were retained

• Attrition rate of “highly effective” teachers and principals in hard to staff locations was only 10%

• Attrition rate of “highly effective” teachers in hard to staff subject areas was only 15%

Student Achievement

• Increase school-wide student achievement• Student growth on standardized tests• Median school-wide student growth percentile at or

above 61 = TAP score of “4” or higher

• Increase overall school functioning• AZ Learns A-F Letter Grades

Classroom/Teacher Level SGPs

Group

2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013Number of Teachers

Mean (Standard Deviation)

Number of Teachers

Mean (Standard Deviation)

Number of Teachers

Mean (Standard Deviation)

Wave 1 110 51.11 (14.00)

143 52.95 (13.24)

145 55.74(14.44)

Wave 2     370 47.30(14.67)

465 50.78(15.71)

Wave 3         203 56.14(16.30)

School Level SGPs

Group

2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013

Number of Teachers

Mean (Standard Deviation)

Number of Teachers

Mean (Standard Deviation)

Number of Teachers

Mean (Standard Deviation)

Wave 1 251 50.20 (6.23)

351 52.34 (7.90)

333 55.64 (8.54)

Wave 2     1008 48.91 (8.77)

1261 50.08 (9.11)

Wave 3         542 51.57 (11.65)

AZ Learns Letter GradesLetterGrade

Wave 1 Wave 2 Wave 3

2010-2011

2011-2012

2012-2013

2013-2014

2011-2012

2012-2013

2013-2014

2012-2013

2013-2014

A 0 20% (N=2)

20% (N=2)

33%(N=3)

0 6% (N=2)

6% (N=2)

13% (N=2)

0

B 50% (N=5)

20% (N=2)

40% (N=4)

33%(N=3)

29% (N=10)

32% (N=11)

24% (N=8)

33% (N=5)

41% (N=7)

C 50% (N=5)

60% (N=6)

40% (N=4)

33%(N=3)

41% (N=14)

35% (N=12)

42% (N=14)

13% (N=2)

35% (N=6)

D   21% (N=7)

27% (N=9)

27% (N=9)

40% (N=6)

24% (N=4)

F         9% (N=3)

       

Increased Positive School Functioning

• Teachers and principals in the Ready-for-Rigor TAP schools will report increased attitudes towards collaborative activities and performance based pay as measured by the yearly TAP Attitude Survey.

• Participation in Ready-for-Rigor TAP schools will increase teacher yearly reports of positive school culture as measured by the Teacher Working Conditions Survey.

Performance Based Compensation

Example questions: “The annual bonus motivates me to work harder with my current class” and “I feel comfortable with how performance-based compensation bonuses are determined”

• Year 1 69%• Year 2 72%• Year 3 74%

Time

Facili

ties a

nd R

esou

rces

Empowerm

ent

Decisi

on M

akin

g0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

38%

70%56%

21%

56%

87%79%

33%

66%

92% 87%

41%

76%

95%86%

56%

Favorable Ratings for School Environment

2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014

Thank you!For additional information, please contact:

Wendy Barnard

Wendy.barnard@asu.edu