teacher advancement program lewis c. solmon president national institute for excellence in teaching...
TRANSCRIPT
Teacher Advancement Program
Lewis C. Solmon
President
National Institute for Excellence in Teaching
February 22, 2007
Teacher Advancement Program
Lewis C. Solmon
President
National Institute for Excellence in Teaching
February 22, 2007
© 2007. National Institute for Excellence in Teaching. All rights reserved.© 2007. National Institute for Excellence in Teaching. All rights reserved.
National Institute for Excellence in TeachingNational Institute for Excellence in Teaching
Percentage of Variance inStudent Achievement Accountedfor by Various Factors
Percentage of Variance inStudent Achievement Accountedfor by Various Factors
SOURCE: Ferguson, 1991
Evidence on Teacher QualityEvidence on Teacher Quality
Magnitude of quality effects (TX)- 10X class size reduction
- 5 years of effective teacher = SES gap
Magnitude of quality effects (Gary, IN)- Effective Ineffective equals 1 year achievement
Magnitude of quality effects (TX)- 10X class size reduction
- 5 years of effective teacher = SES gap
Magnitude of quality effects (Gary, IN)- Effective Ineffective equals 1 year achievement
Source: Hanushek, 2003Source: Hanushek, 2003
The Human Capital ChallengeThe Human Capital Challenge
There are many effective teachers—just not enough
Percent of teachers scoring in top decile of high school achievement test:
1971-74 24%
2000 11%
Out of field teaching is rampant:
61% of physical science teachers in high poverty schools are not prepared in the subject they teach
Too many pedagogy classes; too few in subject areas and pedagogy not research based
Attrition: 1/3 of teachers leave after 3 years of teaching; 1/2 by fifth year
Those with high test scores more likely to leave
The most inexperienced teachers teach in high poverty schools
There are many effective teachers—just not enough
Percent of teachers scoring in top decile of high school achievement test:
1971-74 24%
2000 11%
Out of field teaching is rampant:
61% of physical science teachers in high poverty schools are not prepared in the subject they teach
Too many pedagogy classes; too few in subject areas and pedagogy not research based
Attrition: 1/3 of teachers leave after 3 years of teaching; 1/2 by fifth year
Those with high test scores more likely to leave
The most inexperienced teachers teach in high poverty schools
Why Don’t People Choose Teaching?Why Don’t People Choose Teaching?
Salaries not competitive Costs of training not warranted by salary Everyone with same experience and credits gets same pay Difficult to support families on one teaching income Start career and retire with same title and job description Rarely do supervisors try to see how effective you are Little collegiality Few opportunities to get better at what you do Women have more career opportunities now Often unpleasant, dangerous environment Sometimes little respect from community
Salaries not competitive Costs of training not warranted by salary Everyone with same experience and credits gets same pay Difficult to support families on one teaching income Start career and retire with same title and job description Rarely do supervisors try to see how effective you are Little collegiality Few opportunities to get better at what you do Women have more career opportunities now Often unpleasant, dangerous environment Sometimes little respect from community
A comprehensive research-based reform, TAP improves student learning by improving teacher effectiveness. Teachers have powerful opportunities for career advancement, professional growth, fair accountability and competitive compensation.
TAP is a structure for operating a school
TAP institutionalizes instructional excellence and professionalizes the teaching profession
A comprehensive research-based reform, TAP improves student learning by improving teacher effectiveness. Teachers have powerful opportunities for career advancement, professional growth, fair accountability and competitive compensation.
TAP is a structure for operating a school
TAP institutionalizes instructional excellence and professionalizes the teaching profession
What is TAP?What is TAP?
TAP is a research-based school improvement model designed to attract, develop, retain and motivate the best talent to the teaching profession, with the ultimate goal of increasing student achievement and reducing the achievement gap.
TAP is a research-based school improvement model designed to attract, develop, retain and motivate the best talent to the teaching profession, with the ultimate goal of increasing student achievement and reducing the achievement gap.
What is TAP?What is TAP?
The comprehensive TAP system is built on four elements: 1. Multiple Career Paths 2. Instructionally Focused Accountability 3. Ongoing Applied Professional Growth4. Performance-based Compensation
The comprehensive TAP system is built on four elements: 1. Multiple Career Paths 2. Instructionally Focused Accountability 3. Ongoing Applied Professional Growth4. Performance-based Compensation
To Some:TAP is a professional development program that makes successful hard work pay off.
To Others:TAP is a performance pay program that provides a great deal of support to teachers.
Message:Do not implement performance pay in a vacuum – please!
To Some:TAP is a professional development program that makes successful hard work pay off.
To Others:TAP is a performance pay program that provides a great deal of support to teachers.
Message:Do not implement performance pay in a vacuum – please!
What is TAP?What is TAP?
Why Do Performance Pay Plans Fail?Why Do Performance Pay Plans Fail?
Imposed on teachers
Do not provide mechanism for poorly performing teachers to get better
Teachers not prepared to be assessed
Fear of bias, nepotism of evaluators, don’t trust the principal—feel many are not competent to evaluate
Evaluation criteria not fair (student test scores vs. value added) or justified by research
Imposed on teachers
Do not provide mechanism for poorly performing teachers to get better
Teachers not prepared to be assessed
Fear of bias, nepotism of evaluators, don’t trust the principal—feel many are not competent to evaluate
Evaluation criteria not fair (student test scores vs. value added) or justified by research
Process adds work for teachers and bonuses too small to justify the extra effort
Some teachers lose money
Zero-sum game causes competition
Fear that the program will not be sustainable
Process adds work for teachers and bonuses too small to justify the extra effort
Some teachers lose money
Zero-sum game causes competition
Fear that the program will not be sustainable
Why Do Performance Pay Plans Fail?Why Do Performance Pay Plans Fail?
Performance pay alone is not enough
Must be supported by strong, transparent and fair teacher evaluation system
Need professional development to deal with areas of improvement
Teachers are willing to be evaluated if they are prepared for it
Bonuses keep them willing to do extra work
Performance pay alone is not enough
Must be supported by strong, transparent and fair teacher evaluation system
Need professional development to deal with areas of improvement
Teachers are willing to be evaluated if they are prepared for it
Bonuses keep them willing to do extra work
Our Conclusions Regarding Performance PayOur Conclusions Regarding Performance Pay
Career continuum for teacher
Compensation commensurate with qualifications, roles and responsibilities
Excellent teachers remain connected to the classroom
Career continuum for teacher
Compensation commensurate with qualifications, roles and responsibilities
Excellent teachers remain connected to the classroom
TAP: Multiple Career PathsTAP: Multiple Career Paths
TAP: Instructionally Focused AccountabilityTAP: Instructionally Focused Accountability
Comprehensive system for evaluating teachers
Based on clearly defined instructional standards and rubrics
Multiple evaluations by more than one trained, certified evaluator
Teachers held accountable for their classroom instructional practice, and achievement growth of students in classroom and school
Comprehensive system for evaluating teachers
Based on clearly defined instructional standards and rubrics
Multiple evaluations by more than one trained, certified evaluator
Teachers held accountable for their classroom instructional practice, and achievement growth of students in classroom and school
We have found that professional development in what we call cluster groups is extremely effective in improving teacher skills and practices that result in greater student achievement and growth. We also see that all teachers can get better, many poor teachers can become competent, and good teachers can become great.
Restructures school schedule so teachers can meet regularly during the school day
Focus on improving instruction
Uses student data to identify instructional needs
We have found that professional development in what we call cluster groups is extremely effective in improving teacher skills and practices that result in greater student achievement and growth. We also see that all teachers can get better, many poor teachers can become competent, and good teachers can become great.
Restructures school schedule so teachers can meet regularly during the school day
Focus on improving instruction
Uses student data to identify instructional needs
TAP: Ongoing Applied Professional GrowthTAP: Ongoing Applied Professional Growth
Higher pay is granted for: Excellent teacher performance, as judged by
experts
Student achievement gains (value-added)
Different functions/additional duties
Our model would support higher pay: If the teacher’s primary field is difficult to staff, or
if the teacher is in a hard-to-staff school
For relevant teacher training and degrees, and National Board Certification
Higher pay is granted for: Excellent teacher performance, as judged by
experts
Student achievement gains (value-added)
Different functions/additional duties
Our model would support higher pay: If the teacher’s primary field is difficult to staff, or
if the teacher is in a hard-to-staff school
For relevant teacher training and degrees, and National Board Certification
TAP: Performance-based CompensationTAP: Performance-based Compensation
All teachers can get bonus of some amount
Everyone meeting a standard gets bonus
Eliminates “zero sum game” mentality and competition
Teachers who score well on skills can earn bonuses even if student scores do not improve, and vice versa
All teachers can get bonus of some amount
Everyone meeting a standard gets bonus
Eliminates “zero sum game” mentality and competition
Teachers who score well on skills can earn bonuses even if student scores do not improve, and vice versa
Performance AwardsPerformance Awards
50% of bonus for skills and knowledge
Can get over nepotism/favoritism worry with clear evaluation system and multiple classroom visits with multiple trained/certified evaluators
Followed up by efforts to help get better
Must deal with the possibility of creeping grade inflation
50% of bonus for skills and knowledge
Can get over nepotism/favoritism worry with clear evaluation system and multiple classroom visits with multiple trained/certified evaluators
Followed up by efforts to help get better
Must deal with the possibility of creeping grade inflation
Skills and KnowledgeSkills and Knowledge
50% of bonus is based on student achievement growth
20-30% school-wide for all teachers (gives incentive to help others get better)
20-30% based on achievement of individual teacher’s students
Value-added assessment
Statistical model to measure growth in student achievement from pre-to-post-testing
Eliminates problem of having students with different levels of ability
50% of bonus is based on student achievement growth
20-30% school-wide for all teachers (gives incentive to help others get better)
20-30% based on achievement of individual teacher’s students
Value-added assessment
Statistical model to measure growth in student achievement from pre-to-post-testing
Eliminates problem of having students with different levels of ability
Student AchievementStudent Achievement
State and District Level:
Based on TAP’s success, $86 million for teacher quality through Q-Comp in Minnesota in 2005
$147.5 million for STAR as a performance pay option for districts in Florida in 2006
$100 million proposed for teacher performance pay in Texas
State and District Level:
Based on TAP’s success, $86 million for teacher quality through Q-Comp in Minnesota in 2005
$147.5 million for STAR as a performance pay option for districts in Florida in 2006
$100 million proposed for teacher performance pay in Texas
Growing MomentumGrowing Momentum
Growing MomentumGrowing Momentum
State and District Level:
State proviso in South Carolina allowing technical assistance funds to pay for performance pay programs, specifically TAP
More than 20 Governors have proposed initiatives in teacher compensation reform
Large urban districts implementing various performance pay models including Chicago, Denver, Minneapolis, Cincinnati, Columbus, Cleveland, Dallas, Houston, Philadelphia, Memphis and Washington D.C.
State and District Level:
State proviso in South Carolina allowing technical assistance funds to pay for performance pay programs, specifically TAP
More than 20 Governors have proposed initiatives in teacher compensation reform
Large urban districts implementing various performance pay models including Chicago, Denver, Minneapolis, Cincinnati, Columbus, Cleveland, Dallas, Houston, Philadelphia, Memphis and Washington D.C.
Federal Level: Bipartisan
Teacher Incentive Fund (Bush Administration)
TEACH Act (Kennedy, Miller)
Innovation Districts Act (Obama)
NCLB reauthorization teacher quality provisions (Title II - $3 billion annually)
Federal Level: Bipartisan
Teacher Incentive Fund (Bush Administration)
TEACH Act (Kennedy, Miller)
Innovation Districts Act (Obama)
NCLB reauthorization teacher quality provisions (Title II - $3 billion annually)
Growing MomentumGrowing Momentum
What’s Happening in the States?What’s Happening in the States?
TAP in Louisiana
The number of schools implementing TAP has gone from 6 in the fall of 2004 to 37 in the fall of 2006.
In JFK Elementary, where 97% of students receive free/reduced price lunch, the percent of students at the Mastery level increased from 6% (2004-05) to 25% (2005-06).
Forest Hill Elementary was voted as LA Title 1 School of the Year for the 2005-06 school year.
The first 6 schools to reopen in New Orleans Parish after the hurricane are TAP schools.
TAP in Louisiana
The number of schools implementing TAP has gone from 6 in the fall of 2004 to 37 in the fall of 2006.
In JFK Elementary, where 97% of students receive free/reduced price lunch, the percent of students at the Mastery level increased from 6% (2004-05) to 25% (2005-06).
Forest Hill Elementary was voted as LA Title 1 School of the Year for the 2005-06 school year.
The first 6 schools to reopen in New Orleans Parish after the hurricane are TAP schools.
What’s Happening in the States?What’s Happening in the States?
TAP in Florida
In 2005-06 Stewart Street Elementary in Gadsden County ranked #15 of the top 100 elementary schools in the state (a gain of 88 pts from the previous year). Similar elementary schools in Gadsden County gained or decreased from 44 points to -15 points, respectively. The school grade increased from an “F” to a “C” on the state’s A+ plan.
Gray Middle School in Lake County ranked #18 of the top 75 middle schools in the state, gaining 71 points. Similar middle schools in Lake County gained from 57 points to 4 points. Gray Middle School from a “C” to an “A” on Governor Bush’s A+ plan.
TAP in Florida
In 2005-06 Stewart Street Elementary in Gadsden County ranked #15 of the top 100 elementary schools in the state (a gain of 88 pts from the previous year). Similar elementary schools in Gadsden County gained or decreased from 44 points to -15 points, respectively. The school grade increased from an “F” to a “C” on the state’s A+ plan.
Gray Middle School in Lake County ranked #18 of the top 75 middle schools in the state, gaining 71 points. Similar middle schools in Lake County gained from 57 points to 4 points. Gray Middle School from a “C” to an “A” on Governor Bush’s A+ plan.
Columbus, Ohio (NEA)
Lake County, Florida (AFT)
Minneapolis, Minnesota (AFT)
Cincinnati, Ohio (AFT)
Columbus, Ohio (NEA)
Lake County, Florida (AFT)
Minneapolis, Minnesota (AFT)
Cincinnati, Ohio (AFT)
Union Support for TAPUnion Support for TAP
The Growth of TAPThe Growth of TAP
2000-01Arizona
2001-02South Carolina
2002-03Arkansas
Colorado (Eagle)Florida
Indianapolis Archdiocese
2003-04Louisiana
2004-05Minnesota
2000-01Arizona
2001-02South Carolina
2002-03Arkansas
Colorado (Eagle)Florida
Indianapolis Archdiocese
2003-04Louisiana
2004-05Minnesota
2005-06Ohio
TexasWashington, D.C.
2006-07Wyoming
Knoxville, TNColorado Springs
Six of eight new schools in Algiers section of New Orleans, LA
Charter School in Las Vegas, NV
NextChicago, IL
2005-06Ohio
TexasWashington, D.C.
2006-07Wyoming
Knoxville, TNColorado Springs
Six of eight new schools in Algiers section of New Orleans, LA
Charter School in Las Vegas, NV
NextChicago, IL
Sources of Funds for TAPSources of Funds for TAP
Current district/school budgets
Van Buren Calcasieu Parish, LA Louisiana
State legislative appropriations
Wyoming Florida Minnesota--QComp
State DOE efforts SC Proviso re Title I Allocations in TX, SC, OH,
FL, AZ
Current district/school budgets
Van Buren Calcasieu Parish, LA Louisiana
State legislative appropriations
Wyoming Florida Minnesota--QComp
State DOE efforts SC Proviso re Title I Allocations in TX, SC, OH,
FL, AZ
Ballot initiatives Eagle Co., CO Arizona NOT TAP but take note of
Pro Comp in DENVER
Private foundations Walton for AR Lilly for ArchIndy Broad for Minneapolis
Federal funds FIE grant Approps for states Teacher Incentive
Fund
Ballot initiatives Eagle Co., CO Arizona NOT TAP but take note of
Pro Comp in DENVER
Private foundations Walton for AR Lilly for ArchIndy Broad for Minneapolis
Federal funds FIE grant Approps for states Teacher Incentive
Fund
RESULTS!RESULTS!
Teacher Support for TAP Elements: 2004-05 and 2005-06 School Years
22.136.6
40.134.4
29.1
25.937.0
42.140.5
71.752.6
23.615.3
59.449.3
66.249.8
37.031.4
33.9
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
2006Collegiality 2005
2006Performance-based Compensation 2005
2006Accountability 2005
2006Professional Growth 2005
2006Multiple Career Path 2005
Percent
Average Support / Strongly Support
Collegiality is very strong in TAP schools
Cluster groups facilitate collegiality
Rewards for school wide gains also inspire collegiality
Not a zero sum game
Collegiality is very strong in TAP schools
Cluster groups facilitate collegiality
Rewards for school wide gains also inspire collegiality
Not a zero sum game
CollegialityCollegiality
36 36 36 31
31 3318
47
0102030405060708090
Attracted moreinquires
Attracting betterapplicants
Increased quantity ofapplicants
Easier to hire goodteachers
Neutral Agree/Highly Agree
RecruitmentRecruitment
Principals report that TAP positively impacts recruiting for open positions. Forty-seven percent of principals say it is easier to hire good teachers.
Principals report that TAP positively impacts recruiting for open positions. Forty-seven percent of principals say it is easier to hire good teachers.
One of the most costly challenges facing schools is high teacher turnover. Nationally, more than 50% of new teachers leave before they have been teaching five years. High turnover presents a drain on dollars which could be otherwise allocated, and negatively impacts student learning as new teachers must be trained each year.
Improved recruitment and retention of effective teachers in TAP schools, especially high need schools. At Bell Street Middle School in South Carolina, teacher turnover was a serious problem with approximately 40% of teachers leaving in the 1999-2000 school year, and 32% the next year. TAP was introduced in the 2001-2002 school year, and since the 2003-04 school year this rate has consistently been below 10%.
One of the most costly challenges facing schools is high teacher turnover. Nationally, more than 50% of new teachers leave before they have been teaching five years. High turnover presents a drain on dollars which could be otherwise allocated, and negatively impacts student learning as new teachers must be trained each year.
Improved recruitment and retention of effective teachers in TAP schools, especially high need schools. At Bell Street Middle School in South Carolina, teacher turnover was a serious problem with approximately 40% of teachers leaving in the 1999-2000 school year, and 32% the next year. TAP was introduced in the 2001-2002 school year, and since the 2003-04 school year this rate has consistently been below 10%.
Reducing Teacher TurnoverReducing Teacher Turnover
RetentionRetention
When TAP begins implementation the attrition rate is approximately 12%—usually people we would want to leave
In established TAP schools the attrition rate is approximately 6%
Since there are more new schools every year, teacher retention in TAP schools was similar to national figures on average (8-9%)
When TAP begins implementation the attrition rate is approximately 12%—usually people we would want to leave
In established TAP schools the attrition rate is approximately 6%
Since there are more new schools every year, teacher retention in TAP schools was similar to national figures on average (8-9%)
Attracting effective teachers to high need schools. TAP has drawn highly effective teachers from high SES schools to lower SES schools implementing TAP – reversing the traditional flow of more effective teachers to higher SES schools.
In Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana, at least 75% of the teachers assuming the 60 master teacher positions in TAP schools, transferred from a higher SES school to one with a lower SES.
Similar patterns were seen in South Carolina TAP schools.
Attracting effective teachers to high need schools. TAP has drawn highly effective teachers from high SES schools to lower SES schools implementing TAP – reversing the traditional flow of more effective teachers to higher SES schools.
In Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana, at least 75% of the teachers assuming the 60 master teacher positions in TAP schools, transferred from a higher SES school to one with a lower SES.
Similar patterns were seen in South Carolina TAP schools.
Attracting Talented Teachers to High Poverty SchoolsAttracting Talented Teachers to High Poverty Schools
Increased Student AchievementIncreased Student Achievement
TAP teachers get significantly better results than the average teacher in regular public schools. More TAP teachers are above average in terms of student achievement gains. Fewer are far below. Sixty-four percent of TAP schools nationwide increased their percent of students at proficient or above in Math and English from 2003-2004 to the 2004-2005 school year.
High Poverty Schools
64% of TAP schools are schools with 30% or more receiving free/reduced price lunch. 54% of these schools increased their percent of students at proficient or above from 2003-2004 to the 2004-2005 school years.
Rural Schools
In rural TAP schools, 55% of schools increase their percent of students at proficient or above from 2003-2004 to the 2004-2005 school years.
TAP teachers get significantly better results than the average teacher in regular public schools. More TAP teachers are above average in terms of student achievement gains. Fewer are far below. Sixty-four percent of TAP schools nationwide increased their percent of students at proficient or above in Math and English from 2003-2004 to the 2004-2005 school year.
High Poverty Schools
64% of TAP schools are schools with 30% or more receiving free/reduced price lunch. 54% of these schools increased their percent of students at proficient or above from 2003-2004 to the 2004-2005 school years.
Rural Schools
In rural TAP schools, 55% of schools increase their percent of students at proficient or above from 2003-2004 to the 2004-2005 school years.
Effectiveness of TAP: Results From Our Evaluation ReportEffectiveness of TAP: Results From Our Evaluation Report
On average, TAP teachers produce higher student achievement growth than non-TAP teachers.
On average, more TAP schools outperformed similar non-TAP schools in producing an average year’s growth or more in both reading and math achievement.
In most comparisons between TAP schools’ AYP results and statewide AYP averages, TAP schools compare favorably with the state as a whole when considering TAP schools’ higher share of students on free or reduced-price lunch.
TAP teachers compared to non-TAP teachers experience higher quality professional development, more opportunities for collaboration and collegiality, and more ways to improve their effectiveness in the classroom.
On average, TAP teachers produce higher student achievement growth than non-TAP teachers.
On average, more TAP schools outperformed similar non-TAP schools in producing an average year’s growth or more in both reading and math achievement.
In most comparisons between TAP schools’ AYP results and statewide AYP averages, TAP schools compare favorably with the state as a whole when considering TAP schools’ higher share of students on free or reduced-price lunch.
TAP teachers compared to non-TAP teachers experience higher quality professional development, more opportunities for collaboration and collegiality, and more ways to improve their effectiveness in the classroom.
Evaluating TAP Using Value-Added GainsEvaluating TAP Using Value-Added Gains
In evaluating TAP teachers and similarly TAP schools, SAS EVAAS calculates the effect of each teacher on student progress as assessed by the difference between the growth scores of the teacher’s students and the average growth scores of the control group, which defines a year’s growth. We then place each teacher (TAP and control) in one of five categories.
Teachers in categories “1” and “2” produced less than an average year’s growth with their students, and teachers in categories “3”, “4”, and “5” produced a year’s growth or more with their students.
In evaluating TAP teachers and similarly TAP schools, SAS EVAAS calculates the effect of each teacher on student progress as assessed by the difference between the growth scores of the teacher’s students and the average growth scores of the control group, which defines a year’s growth. We then place each teacher (TAP and control) in one of five categories.
Teachers in categories “1” and “2” produced less than an average year’s growth with their students, and teachers in categories “3”, “4”, and “5” produced a year’s growth or more with their students.
Evaluating TAP Using Value-Added GainsEvaluating TAP Using Value-Added Gains
Under each of the five categories, we noted which of the two groups, TAP or control, outperformed the other in each state. In categories “1 and 2” the “outperforming” group is the one with the smaller of the two percentages, meaning that fewer teachers produced less than an average year’s growth. In categories “3, 4, and 5” we noted which group had the higher of the two percentages, meaning that more teachers produced an average year’s growth or more in their students’ achievement. This is documented in the following summary charts.
Under each of the five categories, we noted which of the two groups, TAP or control, outperformed the other in each state. In categories “1 and 2” the “outperforming” group is the one with the smaller of the two percentages, meaning that fewer teachers produced less than an average year’s growth. In categories “3, 4, and 5” we noted which group had the higher of the two percentages, meaning that more teachers produced an average year’s growth or more in their students’ achievement. This is documented in the following summary charts.
Percent of Comparisons in which TAP Teachers Outperform ControlsPercent of Comparisons in which TAP Teachers Outperform Controls
100% 100%
63%
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
1 & 2 3, 4 & 5 1 - 5
Value-Added Score
TAP Teachers vs Control TeachersNational Aggregated Teacher EffectTAP Teachers vs Control TeachersNational Aggregated Teacher Effect
National Aggregated Teacher EffectNational Aggregated Teacher Effect
38%
26% 25%
14%
0%
15%
30%
45%
TAP Control TAP Control
Percent of Teachers Achieving More thanONE Standard Error Above an Average
Year's Growth
Percent of Teachers Achieving More thanTWO Standard Errors Above an Average
Year's Growth
Percent of Comparisons in which TAP Schools Outperform ControlsPercent of Comparisons in which TAP Schools Outperform Controls
67% 67%
57%
100% 100%
67%
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
1 & 2 3, 4 & 5 1 - 5
Value-Added Score
Math
Reading
TAP Schools vs Control SchoolsNational Aggregated School EffectTAP Schools vs Control SchoolsNational Aggregated School Effect
National Aggregated School EffectNational Aggregated School Effect
40%
32%
26%
18%
0%
15%
30%
45%
TAP Control TAP Control
Percent of Schools Achieving More thanONE Standard Error Above an Average
Year's Growth
Percent of Schools Achieving More thanTWO Standard Errors Above an Average
Year's Growth
© 2007. National Institute for Excellence in Teaching. All rights reserved.
© 2007. National Institute for Excellence in Teaching. All rights reserved.