Aligning the Human Capital Management System to Support STEM Master Teachers

Transcription

1 Aligning the Human Capital Management System to Support STEM Master Teachers January 2014 Anthony Milanowski Westat NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION

2 Aligning the Human Capital Management System to Support STEM Master Teachers The work described in this paper was supported by the U.S. Department of Education through the Teacher Incentive Fund. The opinions expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the view of the U.S. Department of Education or the institutional partners. Comments and suggestions are welcome. In 2012, the U.S. Department of Education awarded the Teacher Incentive Fund STEM Technical Assistance contract to Westat and Horizon Research. The primary purpose of the Teacher Incentive Fund (TIF) is to support TIF grantees in their implementation efforts through provision of sustained technical assistance and development and dissemination of timely resources. This work was produced in whole or in part by Westat and Horizon Research with funds from the U.S. Department of Education under contract number GS-23F-8144H/ED-ESE-12-O The content does not necessarily reflect the position or policy of TIF or the Department of Education, nor does mention or visual representation of trade names, commercial products, or organizations imply endorsement by TIF or the federal government. Joy Frechtling, Project Director Aligning the Human Capital Management System to Support STEM Master Teachers ii

3 Aligning the Human Capital Management System to Support STEM Master Teachers Contents Chapter Page Introduction... 1 What Is a Human Capital Management System?... 2 Why Think Systematically About Human Capital Management?...4 A Framework for Aligning the HCMS With the STEM Master Teacher Initiative... 5 Identifying Competencies...5 Assessing Vertical Alignment...6 Assessing Horizontal Alignment...8 Redesign Practices to Improve Alignment...9 Identifying and Tracking Key HCM Outcomes...9 Preparing and Supporting Principals to Implement HCM Practices for STEM Master Teachers at the School Level Helping Principals Understand the Theory of Action...11 Including STEM Education Improvement in Principals School Performance Expectations...12 The Principal s Role in Selecting STEM Master Teachers...12 Training Principals and STEM Master Teachers for Cooperation...12 The Principal s Role in Evaluating STEM Master Teachers...12 Encouraging Principals to Use Rewards and Recognition to Motivate STEM Master Teachers...13 Encouraging Principals to Create Positive Working Conditions for STEM Master Teachers...14 Collective Bargaining Implications of HCM Systems Supporting the STEM Master Teacher Initiative Recruitment and Selection Criteria...15 Permanence of Master Teacher Status and Compensation...15 How STEM Master Teachers Will Be Affected by Layoffs or Reductions in Force Evaluation and Dismissal Processes...16 STEM Master Teacher Involvement in the Teacher Evaluation Process...16 Conclusion References Aligning the Human Capital Management System to Support STEM Master Teachers iii

4 Aligning the Human Capital Management System to Support STEM Master Teachers Contents Page Figure 1. Conceptual framework for designing a STEM Master Teacher human capital management system...3 Tables 1. Vertical alignment questions about human capital management practices Examples of key linkages between HCM practices for STEM Master Teachers Human capital management process and results metrics relevant to STEM Master Teachers...10 Aligning the Human Capital Management System to Support STEM Master Teachers iv

5 Aligning the Human Capital Management System to Support STEM Master Teachers Introduction In 2012, as part of its Teacher Incentive Fund (TIF) program, the U.S. Department of Education funded six projects focused on improving science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education by developing career ladders for effective STEM teachers to become school-based STEM instructional leaders, i.e., STEM Master Teachers. Known as the TIF STEM projects, these initiatives are charged with identifying, training, deploying, evaluating, and compensating STEM Master Teachers as part of their broader efforts to improve STEM education. 1 This brief is about how to design a coherent human capital management system (HCMS) to support STEM Master Teachers. The first absolute priority of the 2012 TIF program is a local education agency (LEA)- wide HCMS with educator evaluation systems at the center. The TIF priority envisions using assessments of educator effectiveness drawn from the performance evaluation system to make compensation and professional development decisions. Given this absolute priority, it makes sense to continue building out the HCMS to support the vision of instructional improvement implicit in the performance evaluation design. To maximize the effectiveness of the STEM Master Teacher initiative, TIF program designers should consider how all aspects of the education human resource system, including but not limited to, recruitment, professional development, teacher and principal evaluation, compensation, career advancement, and retention can be coordinated to support attracting, developing, 1 Many of the ideas expressed in this brief are drawn from the author s work with Prof. Herbert Heneman of the University of Wisconsin- Madison. Though Prof. Heneman is not responsible for how they are expressed here, his inspiration and leadership are gratefully acknowledged motivating, and retaining STEM Master Teachers who can help improve STEM instruction. While each of the human resource functions could be addressed individually, research and case studies underscore the importance of recognizing the interrelated nature of these human resource system components in order that all parts of the HCMS work together to support the STEM Master Teacher initiative. This brief presents an overview of the components of the HCMS and how they relate to STEM Master Teachers. It covers the following topics: The concept of a HCMS; Why building a coherent system might benefit the STEM Master Teacher initiative; A framework for aligning the components of the HCMS with the STEM Master Teacher initiative and identifying and tracking key human capital management (HCM) outcomes; Preparing and supporting principals to implement the HCM practices for STEM Master Teachers at the school level; and Collective bargaining/labor relations issues that could affect the initiative This brief is intended to be used in conjunction with its companions, Guide for Incorporating STEM Master Teachers as Leaders of STEM Education Improvement; Identifying, Preparing, and Supporting STEM Master Teachers; and Using Career Ladders to Support STEM Master Teachers, which provide information and guidance on specific HCM practices, including selection, development, performance evaluation, and compensation. Aligning the Human Capital Management System to Support STEM Master Teachers 1

6 Aligning the Human Capital Management System to Support STEM Master Teachers What Is a Human Capital Management System? A HCMS is a coherent set of policies and practices that work together to attract, develop, deploy, motivate, and retain people who have the competencies needed to achieve the organization s goals. There are four key parts of this definition: 1. Organizational goals, which in the case of the STEM Master Teacher initiative are improvements in STEM instruction and student learning in STEM subjects. 2. Competencies, which are the skills, knowledge, and behaviors STEM Master Teachers need to carry out the organization s strategies for improving STEM instruction. 3. Human resource policies and practices, which include job design, recruitment, selection, induction, deployment, professional development, performance management, compensation, and retention. 4. The intermediate outcomes the human resource policies and practices are intended to accomplish, which include the organization s actual success in attracting, deploying, motivating, and retaining STEM Master Teachers with the competencies needed to help STEM teachers improve their instruction. In order to design a coherent HCMS for STEM Master Teachers, grantees need to begin with their goals, then work downward from these to identify the competencies STEM Master Teachers need to help meet them, design the HCM practices around these competencies, and identify HCMS outcomes that should be tracked to see if the system is succeeding in supporting the initiative. Figure 1 (following page) illustrates the logic of the design process. Aligning the Human Capital Management System to Support STEM Master Teachers 2

7 Figure 1. Conceptual framework for designing a STEM Master Teacher human capital management system LEA goals for improved STEM learning (student achievement) LEA strategies for improving STEM instruction that improves STEM learning STEM Master Teacher roles (what these teachers are expected to do to improve STEM instruction) Competencies needed by STEM Master Teachers (knowledge, skills, abilities, behaviors) Human capital outcomes Acquisition/deployment Development Motivation Retention of STEM Master Teachers with the desired competencies Context State policies and laws Teacher associations External labor market Colleges and universities Design and execution of HCM practices at LEA and school levels Recruitment Selection Placement/deployment Induction/mentoring Performance management Professional development Compensation Retention Figure 1 also shows that a variety of factors outside of the LEA influence the design of specific HCM practices. Designers obviously need to be aware of constraints and opportunities such as licensing regulations, professional development or partnership opportunities available at local universities, and the supply of potential STEM Master Teachers in the local labor market. Where teachers are represented by an association or union, the content or impact of many HCM practices may need to be negotiated. (See Chapter 5, Collective Bargaining Implications of HCM Systems Supporting STEM Master Teachers.) Aligning the Human Capital Management System to Support STEM Master Teachers 3

8 Why Think Systematically About Human Capital Management? Figure 1 also postulates that if LEAs succeed in hiring, developing, motivating, and retaining competent STEM Master Teachers, it will help them attain their goals toward improved student STEM learning. This link is discussed further in the companion brief Guide for Incorporating STEM Master Teachers as Leaders of STEM Education Improvement and provides the underlying rationale for the entire design process.... employing multiple human resource practices seems especially effective where individual employee discretion and initiative are important... There has been a growing consensus that HCMS matter to attract, retain, and develop effective teachers and that the various components of the system, e.g., the human resource (HR) policies and practices, need to work together to accomplish these ends. Researchers and reform advocates have pointed out that a systematic approach helps support innovations like performance-based compensation, more rigorous performance evaluation, or job-embedded professional development by ensuring that these reforms all send the same message and that practices that provide consequences are coupled with practices that provide support (see, for example, Almy & Tooley, 2012; Curtis, 2010; Darling-Hammond, 2012; Heneman & Milanowski, 2004; Odden, 2011; Wurtzel & Curtis, 2008). Research on HCM in the private sector has provided evidence that a coherent HCMS affects organizational performance (e.g., Gerhart, 2007; Huselid, 1995; Subramony, 2009; Wright, Gardner, Moynihan, & Allen, 2005). Multiple complementary practices have generally been found to be more effective than applying one or two so-called best practices in isolation. In particular, employing multiple human resource practices seems especially effective where individual employee discretion and initiative are important, which is likely to be the case in STEM education. Aligning the Human Capital Management System to Support STEM Master Teachers 4

9 Aligning the Human Capital Management System to Support STEM Master Teachers A Framework for Aligning the HCMS With the STEM Master Teacher Initiative This chapter presents five steps that TIF grantees and others designing HCMS for STEM Master Teachers may want to take to promote coherence in the HCM practices for STEM Master Teachers: 1. Identifying the competencies needed by STEM Master Teachers; 2. Assessing the alignment between the competencies and individual HCM practices (vertical alignment); 3. Examining whether the practices support one another (horizontal alignment); and 4. Identifying changes in practices that would improve alignment and redesigning practices as appropriate; 5. Identifying and tracking key HCM outcomes to ensure the redesigned practices are actually supporting the attraction, development, motivation, and retention of STEM Master Teachers. Note that one could also think about the alignment of the STEM Master Teacher initiative with other HCM practices for STEM teachers (for example, how feedback and coaching provided after formative observations by STEM Master Teachers is incorporated into professional development planning for STEM teachers). While this focus for alignment is not covered in this brief, many of the ideas presented below can be used to think about it as well. Identifying Competencies Identifying the specific competencies STEM Master Teachers should possess is the first step in designing a coherent HCMS. This step should build upon the grantee s theory of action for how STEM Master Teachers will improve STEM instruction and student STEM learning and the defined roles of STEM Master Teachers. 2 As mentioned above, competencies include skills, knowledge, abilities, attitudes, and performance capabilities. These competencies might include the following: Disciplinary content knowledge; Knowledge of practices and applications of STEM disciplines; Pedagogical content knowledge; General knowledge of effective teaching practices; Interpersonal and communication skills; Ability to build trust with colleagues; Ability to handle conflict, negotiate, and mediate; Credibility with other teachers; and An understanding of adult learning. 2 The companion briefs, Guide for Incorporating STEM Master Teachers as Leaders of STEM Education Improvement and Practical Resource Guide for Evaluating STEM Master Teacher Programs provide guidance on how to identify a theory of action and how to begin thinking about structuring STEM Master Teacher roles. Aligning the Human Capital Management System to Support STEM Master Teachers 5

10 While LEAs can start from these or from other sources of potential competencies, what is essential is that the final list includes the key competencies that STEM Master Teachers are likely to need to effectively carry out their role. This may require a systematic review of the tasks and results expected of STEM Master Teachers in various identified roles. A completed competency list (often called a competency model) should focus on the 10 to 20 most essential drivers of effective performance. Note that there is no reason to try to identify every ability or skill needed; that would result in a list too long to use and contain many elements that all or most teachers already have. Competency identification is the foundation for designing or reviewing the HCMS because competencies provide the central reference point for ensuring that HCMS components are coherent. Each HCM practice should be assessed on how it contributes to attracting, developing, motivating, and retaining STEM Master Teachers with the competencies needed to meet the goals of the STEM Master Teacher initiative. Assessing Vertical Alignment Once competencies are identified, the next step is to examine each of the LEA s current HCM practices, or proposed practices for STEM Master Teachers, in light of the competency list. The goal is to determine how well each individual practice supports the acquisition, development, motivation, and retention of STEM Master Teachers with the competencies. Examples of the kinds of questions program designers might want to ask about HCM practices for STEM Master Teachers, with reference to the competencies they have identified, are shown in Table 1 (following page). Aligning the Human Capital Management System to Support STEM Master Teachers 6

11 Table 1. Vertical alignment questions about human capital management practices Practice area Alignment questions Recruitment 1. Are the potential candidates for STEM Master Teacher positions informed of the competencies they are expected to have? 2. Are active recruitment efforts targeted toward teachers who are likely to have the competencies? 3. Are the potential candidates for STEM Master Teacher positions informed about the incentives for developing and demonstrating the competencies? Selection 4. Are those who will be interviewing and recommending the hiring of STEM Master Teachers familiar with the competencies and how to recognize evidence that candidates have them, or will they be trained to be? 5. Do initial screening criteria reflect the competencies and will applicants be asked to provide evidence that they have acquired the competencies? 6. Do interview questions and reference checks collect information about the competencies? 7. Are candidates asked to demonstrate the competencies through teaching sample lessons, engaging in sample coaching sessions, or providing descriptions of prior training or experience? 8. Is evidence about all the key competencies collected by one or another means during the hiring process? 9. Is there a systematic way to score applicants on the degree to which they possess the competencies, and to use the scores in making hiring recommendations or decisions? Initial training/induction 10. Do newly hired STEM Master Teachers receive initial training or an orientation that helps them understand how they can apply the competencies to their new roles? Assignment/ deployment 11. Are individual STEM Master Teachers competency profiles considered in deciding where to assign or deploy them? Professional development 12. Are professional development opportunities available or provided to STEM Master Teachers to help them attain or strengthen the competencies? 13. Is the professional development informed by teacher evaluation results and tailored to address areas of apparent weakness? Performance evaluation 14. Does the performance evaluation system used for STEM Master Teachers focus on whether they demonstrate competencies? 15. Does the performance evaluation process provide STEM Master Teachers with feedback they can use to identify which of the competencies they need to further develop? Compensation 16. Is the compensation sufficient to motivate teachers with the competencies to apply to be STEM Master Teachers? 17. Are STEM Master Teachers working conditions desirable enough to attract and retain teachers with the competencies? 18. Does the compensation system reward STEM Master Teachers for developing or demonstrating the competencies? 19. Are STEM Master Teachers who demonstrate effectiveness recognized for this at their schools or in the district? Retention/layoff 20. Are decisions to retain STEM Master Teachers in their roles based on how well they demonstrate the competencies? 21. Is the degree to which STEM Master Teachers demonstrate the competencies considered in determining their priority in layoffs or reductions in force? SOURCE: Adapted from Heneman and Milanowski (2011a). Aligning the Human Capital Management System to Support STEM Master Teachers 7

12 The more of the above questions that can be answered yes, the more closely the HCMS as a whole is aligned with the competencies. LEAs may want to redesign those practices where the questions are answered no. Assessing Horizontal Alignment While alignment of the HCM practices to the competencies goes a long way to bringing coherence to the HCMS, it does not always guarantee that the potential links between the practices are made so they can be mutually supportive. Horizontal alignment involves making the linkages between the HCM practices explicit so it is clear that the practices will work together. For example, TIF 4 program requirements emphasize two specific horizontal linkages: educator evaluation results need to be used to inform decisions about performance pay, and they also need to inform decisions about educator professional development. Key horizontal linkages among the HCM practices applying to STEM Master Teachers are shown in Table 2. Table 2. Examples of key linkages between HCM practices for STEM Master Teachers HCM practice Recruitment and performance evaluation Selection and compensation Selection and performance evaluation Selection and initial training/induction Initial training/induction and performance evaluation Initial training/induction and professional development Performance evaluation and professional development Performance evaluation and compensation Performance evaluation and retention/layoff procedures Compensation and deployment Professional development and compensation Linkage 1. Are potential candidates for STEM Master Teacher positions given information about how their performance will be evaluated during the recruitment or hiring process? 2. Are performance evaluation results from current STEM Master Teachers used to identify where the most effective Master Teachers were recruited, and are subsequent recruitment efforts aimed at this group? 3. Are the incentives (financial and other) offered to become a STEM Master Teacher sufficient to attract a large number of applicants so that hiring can be selective? 4. Are prior performance evaluation results for STEM Master Teacher candidates used as a factor in hiring decisions? 5. Do initial training or induction programs for new STEM Master Teachers build on the competencies assessed in the hiring process, focusing on competencies deemed less than adequate? 6. Does the initial training or induction process for new STEM Master Teachers include information about how their performance will be evaluated? 7. Does the initial training or induction process for new STEM Master Teachers include information on ongoing professional development opportunities? 8. Are performance evaluation results used to plan professional development for STEM Master Teachers? 9. Are professional development opportunities available to address all dimensions of performance on which STEM Master Teachers are evaluated? 10. Are STEM Master Teachers and their supervisors provided with an explicit mapping of how PD opportunities are related to the competencies evaluated in the performance evaluation process? 11. Are performance evaluation results a significant factor in determining the level of performance-based compensation? 12. Are performance evaluation results used to determine whether a STEM Master Teacher is retained at a school or in the role? 13. Are performance evaluation results a significant factor in determining a STEM Master Teacher s rights in layoffs or reductions in force? 14. Are STEM Master Teachers eligible for any incentives for working in hard-to-staff or disadvantaged schools? 15. Does the performance-based compensation system provide incentives for potential STEM Master Teacher candidates to develop some of the competencies they would need if selected? Aligning the Human Capital Management System to Support STEM Master Teachers 8

13 Redesign Practices to Improve Alignment The fourth step is to identify ways to improve vertical or horizontal alignment and prioritize changes in HCM practices that increase alignment. Some common changes might include: Developing interview guides with questions that will help interviewers tell if candidates for STEM Master Teacher positions understand adult learning or have successful prior experience developing fellow teachers; Redesigning PD content to provide for more coverage of pedagogical content knowledge; Modifying the performance evaluation rubrics to include performance in modeling instruction or designing school-based professional development; and Changing layoff processes to protect high-performing STEM Master teachers from being bumped out by lower performers or less qualified but more senior teachers. One promising way to develop recommendations for designing or redesigning HCM practices is to have a study group including HR department staff, LEA STEM education experts, and users of the practices (e.g., principals, STEM Master Teachers) use the vertical and horizontal alignment questions above as a guide to reviewing current practices, then brainstorm potential modifications to the less aligned practices. Heneman and Milanowski (2011b) found that such a study group could be productive in developing directions for better alignment that can be refined by the technical experts. The companion briefs, Identifying, Preparing, and Supporting STEM Master Teachers and Using Career Ladders to Support STEM Master Teachers can also provide some ideas on HCM practices that support STEM Master Teachers. Proposed modifications can be prioritized based on a combination of how quickly they can be implemented and their potential impact. 3 To the extent the competencies accurately reflect what STEM Master Teachers need to know and be able to do, HCM practices with a high degree of vertical and horizontal alignment will increase the likelihood that the HCMS supports the theory of action for the STEM Master Teacher initiative. (For more information about assessing vertical and horizontal alignment, see Heneman and Milanowski (2007, 2011a).) Identifying and Tracking Key HCM Outcomes The conceptual model shown in Figure 1 included a link between the design and execution of HCM practices and human capital outcomes such as attracting, retaining, developing, and motivating STEM Master Teachers with the desired competencies. In turn, these outcomes are expected to be related to the achievement of the LEA s goals for student learning. To assess the degree to which the HCM practices are succeeding, LEAs may want to develop and track a set of success measures. Table 3 (following page) provides examples of such HCM process and results metrics. Some of these metrics may also be useful in evaluating the STEM Master Teacher initiative, either as measures of program outputs or outcomes. See the companion brief, Practical Resource Guide for Evaluating STEM Master Teacher Programs for more information and other potential measures. 3 TIF grantees considering major changes to their performance-based compensation system should consult with their U.S. Department of Education Program Officer. Aligning the Human Capital Management System to Support STEM Master Teachers 9

14 Table 3. Human capital management process and results metrics relevant to STEM Master Teachers HCM practice Process Results Acquisition and deployment Number of applicants per available STEM Master Teacher position, by quality level Percent of STEM Master Teachers hired who are considered fully competent Development Motivation Retention Percent of STEM Master Teacher candidates who completed the selection process as designed Percent of STEM Master Teacher positions filled by the end of the first week of school Percent of STEM Master Teachers participating in required and optional professional development activities Percent of STEM Master Teachers who were evaluated within the required time period Percent of STEM Master Teachers who report they received useful feedback from their performance evaluation Percent of STEM Master Teachers receiving performance bonuses or incentives, overall and by school Competitiveness of STEM Master Teacher compensation with average salaries for STEM teachers in the labor market Percent of STEM Master Teachers who report that their contributions are recognized and appreciated by school administrators Percent of principals who report they are satisfied with the quality of STEM Master Teacher candidates they interviewed or who were assigned to their school Low-performing or disadvantaged schools have the same proportion of effective STEM Master Teachers as other schools Percent of STEM teachers who, when surveyed, respond that the Master Teacher they worked with was knowledgeable and provided useful assistance Percent of STEM Master Teachers who improved their performance rating Percent of STEM Master Teachers who, when surveyed, respond that they find the rewards and working conditions associated with their work motivating, by school and level of performance Percent of STEM Master Teachers retained, by school and level of performance Percent of STEM Master Teachers who report they are satisfied with their working conditions, by school and level of performance NOTE: For more information on human capital metrics, see Becker, Huselid, and Ulrich (2001). Tracking the levels of these metrics over time can give LEAs useful information on whether individual HCM practices, or related groups of practices, are working as intended. For example, a low retention rate of highperforming STEM Master Teachers, coupled with a competitive compensation level and low percentages of satisfaction with working conditions and recognition by school administrators could suggest that HCM processes are breaking down at the school level. The next chapter discusses how to support principals as they implement HCM for STEM Master Teachers at the school level. Aligning the Human Capital Management System to Support STEM Master Teachers 10

15 Aligning the Human Capital Management System to Support STEM Master Teachers Preparing and Supporting Principals to Implement HCM Practices for STEM Master Teachers at the School Level In order to ensure fidelity of implementation of a coherent HCMS, TIF grantees should consider HCM at the school level as well as design and implementation at the district level. Poor implementation in schools can reduce the effectiveness of even the best designed district-level policies and practices. Since principals are typically the chief human capital managers at the school level, program designers should consider whether principals have the information, motivation, and capacity to carry out their roles in the HCMS. In addition, the relationship between principals and STEM Master Teachers can be crucial to success. Key considerations for supporting principals HCM include the following: Providing principals with an understanding of the LEA s theory of action for STEM Master Teachers and their intended roles; Ensuring that principals include the STEM education improvement effort in their overall performance expectations for the school; Giving principals a clear role in selecting STEM Master Teachers for the school and training in the selection process; Training for both principals and STEM Master Teachers on how to work together; Establishing an appropriate role for the principal or other school administrators in evaluating STEM Master Teacher performance and training on the performance evaluation process; Encouraging principals to use rewards and recognition to reinforce positive performance by STEM Master Teachers; and Encouraging principals to help create schoollevel working conditions that help retain STEM Master Teachers. Helping Principals Understand the Theory of Action Supporting principals might start with providing them a comprehensive and detailed description of the LEAs theory of action for improving STEM education and the intended role of the STEM Master Teachers. Principals should be able to see how having STEM Master Teachers in the roles the district has designed will help them meet their schools goals. Involving principals in program design, communicating the objectives of the initiative, and explaining how STEM Master Teachers improve instruction are all likely to increase principals motivation to implement the program as designed. Program designers should also consider how much discretion to allow principals in modifying or adapting the roles of STEM Master Teachers to specific school needs. While allowing some modification of responsibilities to help customize the STEM Master Teacher role to the school may be appropriate, principals might also be tempted to redeploy extra hours or time released from normal student instruction to activities not directly related to STEM instruction. This can be discouraged by establishing clear descriptions of STEM Master Teacher responsibilities, having these teachers keep activity logs or asking them about time use on surveys, and holding principals accountable for intended uses of STEM Master Teacher time in their performance evaluations. Aligning the Human Capital Management System to Support STEM Master Teachers 11

16 Including STEM Education Improvement in Principals School Performance Expectations Helping principals see the benefits of having STEM Master Teachers in their school will be more difficult when their school performance expectations are not focused on student achievement in STEM subjects. Because the focus of state accountability systems, principal evaluation processes, and TIF performance-based compensation systems is mostly likely to be on reading and mathematics achievement, improving or maintaining student achievement in those subjects are the goals principals are likely to prioritize. TIF STEM projects may want to review the messages being sent to principals by these systems and consider whether reinforcement of STEM education improvement goals is needed. For example, it would seem advisable to include student achievement in STEM subjects in the student growth components of the principal evaluation and performance-based compensation systems. The Principal s Role in Selecting STEM Master Teachers There are good reasons for principals to have a role in selecting the STEM Master Teachers who will work in their schools. Principals are more likely to be committed to the success of someone they had a say in hiring, and the principal may be a better judge of who will best fit with the school s culture and be credible with its teachers than a central hiring authority. For example, principals (who are likely not STEM experts) might be allowed to select from a prescreened pool of qualified STEM Master Teachers. This approach allows for substantive screening of competencies by experts who are more likely to be good judges of whether candidates have STEM competencies, while still allowing principals to select candidates who best fit the school culture and with whom they are comfortable working. Another approach (probably most applicable in middle and high schools) might be to have STEM teachers in the school participate in the hiring process and be specifically charged with assessing STEM competencies. 4 If principals (and teachers) are going to have a role in hiring STEM Master Teachers for their schools, they will need training in the selection process. This training should include both a review of the competencies to be assessed and the use of any tools such as interview protocols or scoring guides. Training Principals and STEM Master Teachers for Cooperation Research on teacher leadership suggests that even though both parties may be well intentioned and dedicated to improving student learning, the principal and STEM Master Teacher might have difficulty working cooperatively (Anderson, 2003; Silva, Gimbert, & Nolan, 2000; Smylie & Brownlee-Conyers, 1992). The principal may be reluctant to share influence and authority with the STEM Master Teacher, and the STEM Master Teacher may be reluctant to use coaching and mentoring to further the principal s agenda for the school or to help the principal remove low-performing STEM teachers. Just as some districts have found it useful to train principals to work collaboratively with instructional coaches (Knight, 2006), such training might be an appropriate part of a STEM Master Teacher initiative. The Principal s Role in Evaluating STEM Master Teachers Program designers should consider carefully the role of principals in evaluating the performance of STEM Master Teachers. On one hand, principals are likely to feel that their accountability for school performance requires they have a substantial role in evaluation of STEM Master Teachers working in their schools. This is consistent with current thinking that principals are to be held accountable for developing the instructional capacity of the school. 4 This approach is likely to work best in schools that already have competent STEM teachers. Schools that need the most help from a STEM Master Teacher may be unlikely to have teachers qualified to assess STEM competencies, so it may be necessary to borrow expert STEM teachers to participate in the selection process or rely on a centralized prescreening. Aligning the Human Capital Management System to Support STEM Master Teachers 12

17 Since the STEM Master Teacher is an important resource for increasing the instructional capacity of the school s STEM teachers, it makes sense for the principal to have a strong role in evaluation. On the other hand, principals may not have the time or STEM education expertise to conduct quality evaluations and especially to provide feedback and coaching. While principals cannot be expected to be experts in the competencies needed by STEM Master Teachers, given appropriate training and a good evaluation system (including rubrics for observable aspects of both STEM teaching and teacher leadership competencies), principals should be able to assess most of the competencies that do not involve deep STEM content knowledge or contentspecific pedagogy. Principals should be able to assess performance competencies such as having the ability to influence other teachers, working cooperatively with other teachers, and being effective in communicating the district s vision of STEM education improvement to teachers and other key stakeholders. One model might be to have principals evaluate those performance dimensions that do not require deep STEM knowledge, then have STEM content experts, perhaps from the district office or local teacher training programs, evaluate dimensions that do. The overall evaluation could then be based on a formula that combines the different dimension ratings into an overall rating. Encouraging Principals to Use Rewards and Recognition to Motivate STEM Master Teachers Principals can also have an important role in motivating STEM Master Teachers, even without control over their pay. Research suggests that recognition and positive feedback are important rewards that can motivate maintaining or improving performance (Luthans, 2000; Peterson & Luthans, 2006; Stajkovic & Luthans, 1997). School administrators can motivate STEM Master Teachers by recognizing their successes within and outside of the formal performance evaluation process. STEM Master Teachers are likely to appreciate acknowledgment when teachers they have worked with improve their practice or when they exert extra effort to help colleagues. Acknowledgment of efforts and successes can be done at staff meetings, by verbal thanks, with a short note, or even by perks like the opportunity to attend an additional conference or workshop. Since the value placed on different forms of recognition is likely to vary from teacher to teacher, it makes sense for school administrators to get to know teachers preferences and try a variety of ideas. The point is not to provide a big incentive at any one time, but by consistent recognition to establish the principle that good performance is valued at the school. Mone and London (2009) provide a good introduction to using recognition and feedback to engage people in the context of a systematic performance management process. Motivation of STEM Master Teachers might also be influenced at the school level by principals understanding of and attempts to correct working conditions that frustrate and demotivate teachers, including STEM Master Teachers. These conditions could include too much paperwork, poor facility maintenance, lack of materials, or insufficient time for teachers to collaborate. Where principals control the school schedule, they can remove a major potential impediment to STEM Master Teachers work by arranging schedules to provide time for STEM teachers to work individually or in groups with a STEM Master Teacher. Aligning the Human Capital Management System to Support STEM Master Teachers 13

18 Encouraging Principals to Create Positive Working Conditions for STEM Master Teachers Research on teacher retention suggests that principals are also likely to be key influences on the retention of STEM Master Teachers (Boyd et al., 2011; Grissom, 2011). Principals provide resources and support, ranging from money to buy curriculum materials to encouraging STEM teachers to work with the STEM Master Teacher. Positive working conditions, such as respect and recognition by the principal and the establishment of a collegial relationship, are likely to help retain effective STEM Master Teachers. Principals also help provide a strategic direction and sense of mission for the school that engages teachers and promotes commitment to the school. If STEM Master Teachers are included in mission planning, they are more likely to feel they are a key part of the school team. STEM Master Teachers who are integrated into a school leadership team with a positive vision and coherent strategy for improving instruction and student achievement are probably more likely to stay as well as to be motivated to apply their competencies than those who are not. To summarize, setting the stage for effective use of STEM Master Teachers and for effective HCM at the school level may require human capital practices for principals (and perhaps other school administrators) to be reviewed and modified. Principals and other school administrators should be held accountable for using STEM Master Teachers as intended and for the human capital practices for which they are responsible. This can be done through the formal principal performance evaluation process and through day-to-day interactions between principals and their supervisors. For more on HCM at the school level, see Donaldson (2011), Milanowski and Kimball (2010), and Schargel (2010). See also the companion brief, Identifying, Preparing, and Supporting STEM Master Teachers for more on the relationship between school administrators and the STEM Master Teachers. Aligning the Human Capital Management System to Support STEM Master Teachers 14

19 Aligning the Human Capital Management System to Support STEM Master Teachers Collective Bargaining Implications of HCM Systems Supporting the STEM Master Teacher Initiative As mentioned above, where teachers are represented by an association or union, aspects of the HCMS for STEM Master Teachers may be subject to collective bargaining. While compensation provisions affecting STEM Master Teachers are usually subjects of bargaining and are reflected in the collective bargaining agreement, the union s concerns are likely to go beyond compensation to touch on several aspects of the design and administration of a STEM Master Teacher initiative. This chapter discusses several of these issues. Since some of them (e.g., relating to layoff or reduction in force) may also arise in LEAs without collective bargaining, it may be worthwhile for those LEAs to review this information as well. Recruitment and Selection Criteria While in most cases the criteria used to recruit and select for teacher leader positions such as STEM Master Teachers is considered a management prerogative, associations or unions might have legitimate concerns if the selection process is not organized and administered in a way that teachers perceive as fair. Giving principals the authority to recruit and select Master Teachers for their schools without training or guidance may result in favoritism or the selection of less qualified individuals. The more arbitrary selection decisions appear to be, the more likely unions are to press for seniority as a major consideration in selection. Unionized districts that have developed teacher leader programs have taken a variety of approaches to involving unions in selection for teacher leader positions. These range from involving the union, or a group of teachers suggested by the union, in the design of the process to having a joint union-management committee interview and select candidates for a pool of teacher leaders from which building principals can choose. Permanence of Master Teacher Status and Compensation Unions are likely to want clarity about how long teachers can hold STEM Master Teacher roles and receive additional compensation, if any. Some may want to limit the time a teacher can fill the role, both to provide other teachers with the opportunity to benefit from the extra pay and experience and to prevent STEM Master Teachers from developing into a subgroup with different interests from the rank and file. Unions are also likely to have an interest in whether STEM Master Teachers are given separate job titles or classifications, which imply a permanent status, or whether the role is defined only in terms of additional responsibilities within the same teacher job title, like the extra duties of sports coaching or extracurricular activity supervision, which seem more temporary. The use of a separate title or classification will likely affect layoff and transfer rights and procedures, how STEM Master Teachers can be removed from their positions, and imply that they will receive additional compensation for so long as they hold the job title. Unionized districts with extensive teacher leader programs often negotiate about these concerns and codify procedures in the contract or a memorandum of understanding. An example of a memorandum of understanding can be found in appendix D of the contract between the Cincinnati Public Schools and Cincinnati Federation of Teachers at Aligning the Human Capital Management System to Support STEM Master Teachers 15

20 How STEM Master Teachers Will Be Affected by Layoffs or Reductions in Force Layoff rights are typically based on seniority, certification, and job title and defined in the collective bargaining agreement, and program designers should consider how existing provisions could affect STEM Master Teachers. For example, if the STEM Master Teachers do not have a separate job title, or are not explicitly treated differently in the agreement, they could be bumped out of their positions by other teachers with more seniority and the same certification whose positions are being eliminated. The individual who moves into the position may or may not have the competencies needed to be a successful STEM Master Teacher. STEM Master Teacher positions may also be eliminated over time as needs change and schools are downsized or consolidated. The issue is then what rights these teachers have in a layoff. If STEM Master Teacher is defined as a separate job title, existing contract language may provide that the only rights the teachers holding those jobs have are to bump out other STEM Master Teachers. They may have no rights back to their previous classroom position, which not only can make the STEM Master Teacher role less attractive but also could waste the expertise that the teacher has developed if the layoff process results in termination. In both cases, program designers will want to analyze the layoff rules in their contracts (and in district or state regulation as well) to see how STEM Master Teachers could be affected. Where STEM Master Teachers are defined as a having a separate job title, provisions might be added to allow these teachers to move back into STEM teaching positions, perhaps even displacing higher seniority but lower performing teachers. Similarly, if the role is not defined as a separate job title, it may be advantageous to define a layoff process that protects STEM Master Teachers or ensures that they are replaced only with another teacher who has met or can meet the selection criteria. Evaluation and Dismissal Processes Unions will be concerned that performance evaluations of STEM Master Teachers and procedures for dismissing them from the positions for poor performance are fair and defined in the contract or a memorandum of understanding. The evaluation process is more likely to be perceived as fair if STEM Master Teachers are evaluated using a rubric that includes performance indicators specific to their roles rather than just those that apply to all classroom teachers. For example, if the Master Teachers spend substantial time coaching others or leading professional development, those responsibilities should be reflected in their evaluation. Program designers might also want to consider explicitly defining what happens to STEM Master Teachers whose performance does not meet expectations. Will these teachers be given the opportunity to improve their performance before being removed from the role or losing their additional compensation? If so, timelines and process for assistance and reevaluation will need to be spelled out. If STEM Master Teachers have a separate job title or classification, will it be necessary to move through a complete just-cause dismissal process? And if they are dismissed, can they return to a position comparable to the one they left or must they leave the district? STEM Master Teacher Involvement in the Teacher Evaluation Process One common use of teacher leaders such as STEM Master Teachers is to have them participate in the performance evaluation process. Given the limited STEM content expertise of most school administrators, STEM Master Teachers could play an important role in evaluation of STEM teachers. Union positions on involving teachers who are members of the bargaining unit in evaluation of their peers vary from supportive to strong opposition. Union opposition is often founded on concerns that having teachers evaluate peers reduces the solidarity of the teacher group and makes teachers responsible for a management function. It could also put the union in the difficult position of defending teachers evaluated as poor performers by other teachers whom it also represents. Aligning the Human Capital Management System to Support STEM Master Teachers 16