DRAFT DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT DRAFT TEC DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT Ka Piÿina A Proposal For a New Education Workforce Framework Ka Piÿina represents the continuing gentle climb, ascent or rise to excellence—both in education and educators September 1, 2009 SY 2009-2010 Pilot Version DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT Version 12 DRAFT DRAFT Contents DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT Section TEC Topic Page 1. Executive Overview Overview of Framework Recommendations 5 2. Ka Piÿina Project Overview Project Mission and Objectives 8 3. KS Education Workforce Framework Strategy Proposed Education Workforce Framework Strategy including Mission, Objectives and Design Principles 16 4. Career Opportunities Component or Blueprint Design for career opportunity including career paths for education workforce 34 5. Performance Management and Evaluation Component or Blueprint Design for performance management and evaluation 67 6. Professional Growth and Renewal Component or Blueprint Design for professional development to support performance management and career opportunity 85 7. Compensation and Reward Component or Blueprint Design for compensation and rewards (including cash and non-cash elements) 91 Version 12 2 DRAFT Contents (Continued) DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT Section TEC Topic Page 8. Gap Analysis and Readiness Assessment Assessment of readiness for transition to the new framework focused on: 1. External Market Salary Competitiveness (External Scan) 2. Employee Climate (Internal Scan) 3. Current Employee Demography (Internal Scan) 109 9. Formative and Summative Evaluation Evaluation of the new Educational Workforce Framework: 1. Formative – Is it operating as intended? 2. Summative – Are we seeing improvements in system goal achievement (including student learning) as a result of the Framework? 140 10. Pilot Work Plan Detailed work plan for piloting and transition from current systems, including communication plan. 148 11. Financial Analysis Current “AS IS” and Cost/Benefit Forecast 178 12. Summary and Next Steps High level summary of key framework concepts and next project steps to be completed. 185 Version 12 3 Appendices DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT TEC DRAFT Appendix A – Administrative and Management Career Family Evaluation Rubrics National Staff Development Council (NSDC) Appendix B – Danielson Framework Evaluation Rubrics Appendix C – Performance Evaluation Process Appendix D – Professional Development and Use of My Learning Plan Process Appendix E – Ka Piÿina Work Plan – Mind Map Appendix F – High Level Pilot Work Plan and Related Cost Estimates Appendix G – KS Organizational Competencies Appendix H – Modified Danielson Evaluation Rubrics for Educational Support Career Family Appendix I - Draft Integrated Evaluation Rubrics with Nä Honua Mauli Ola and Christian Values I-1: Administration and Management Career Family (NSDC) I-2: Faculty Career Family (Danielson) I-3: Education Support Career Family (Danielson) I-4: Counselors (Danielson) I-5: Library Media Specialists (Danielson) I-6: Administration and Management Career Family (Interstate School Leadership Licensing Consortium-ISLLC) Appendix J – Ka Pi`ina Pilot Position Classifications Appendix K – Classroom Assessment and Scoring System (CLASS) Overview Version 12 4 DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT DRAFT TEC 1. Executive Overview Version 12 5 1. Executive Overview DRAFT Kamehameha Schools’ Education Workforce Framework This proposal is the work of the Ka Piÿina Core Project Team (CPT) and recommends the implementation of a new Education Workforce Framework. The new framework aims to increase and strengthen the capacity of its education workforce while recognizing existing and supporting future, more effective levels of individual professional growth, performance, skills, attributes and contributions which ultimately result in improved student learning. The framework is comprised of four components or blueprints: DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT 1. Transparent career paths and opportunities that provide career progression and professional growth with both explicit and implicit leadership roles and functions such as coach and mentor; TEC 2. An enhanced performance management and evaluation system that focuses on continuous development of key organizational and professional core competencies with an appreciation for and sensitivity to both Hawaiian cultural and Christian values; 3. An enhanced professional growth and renewal program that links directly to career opportunities and performance management and evaluation while supporting the identification and use of daily professional growth and renewal opportunities; and 4. An integrated compensation program that will align and reward the effective delivery of educational programs and services which leads both an increase in the number of native Hawaiians served and improvements in student learning. The Ka Piÿina CPT recommends that these four framework components be piloted for at least a year before further implementation considerations are made. The following report provides detailed blueprints for each framework component, a detailed pilot work plan and detailed forecasts of the costs and benefits associated with an initial pilot, implementation and evaluation of the pilot and framework. Version 12 6 Current Challenges…Leading to the Education Case for Change DRAFT DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT In the Profession – Declining supply of teachers (e.g., K-12, early childhood, locally and nationally) – Single salary schedules based on credentials and longevity (vs. performance) – No differentiation for subject, grade, student profile, geography, etc. – A changing environment, greater expectations for both teachers (e.g., NCLB) and student achievement – In the State, there are limited early childhood education career tracks – Generational differences exist between leaders, administrators and teachers – Widening student profile diversity – Limited opportunities for graduate and post-graduate early childhood education At KS – – – – – Mid-way (2008-2009) in the strategic plan horizon (2000-2015) Three years into the Education Strategic Plan horizon (2005- Organization wide Climate Survey feedback re: Accountability and Communication Shifting role of educators beyond instruction, multiple foci • Native Hawaiian cultural integration • Standards-based instruction • Integration of instructional technology • Broader diversity of student needs Emerging and maturing system support processes • No structured, concerted, planful, integrated approach to develop staff in a variety of leadership roles - mentors, supporters, collaborators, leaders, etc. • No succession planning efforts or passing on and sharing of experiences; • Unclear career mobility • No systemic performance review and training framework or approaches • Concentrated depth of experiences and profiles in geographic and programmatic areas Because of these challenges, Kamehameha Schools embarked on a system-wide effort to institutionalize workforce capacity building. TEC Version 12 7 DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT DRAFT TEC 2. Ka Piÿina Project Overview Version 12 8 2. Ka Piÿina Project Overview DRAFT The following information about the Ka Piÿina effort is provided from the initial project charter with updates: Project Identification Project Name Ka Piÿina: Education Workforce Capacity Building Executive Sponsor DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT Dr. Rod Chamberlain, Vice President, Campus Strategies (CS) TEC Project Owners Dr. Mike Chun, President & Headmaster, KS-Kapalama (KSK) Dr. Stan Fortuna, Headmaster, KS-Hawaii (KSH) Lee Ann De Lima, Headmaster, KS-Maui (KSM) Chris Pating, Vice President, Strategic Planning & Implementation Terry Lock, Director, Community Based Early Childhood Education (CBECE) Phyllis Unebasami, Director, Literacy Instruction and Support (LIS) Dr. Juvenna Chang, Director, Extension Education Services (EES) (until 6/30/08) Anthony “Tony” LeBron, Director, Extension Education Services (EES) (effective SY 08-09) Shawn Kanaiaupuni, Director, Public Education Support (PEdS) Terry Kelly, Director of Program Support Division (PSD) Nolan Malone, Director, Research and Evaluation (R & E) Janet Na, Director, Strategic Planning & Implementation Reporting (SPI&R) Janis Kane, Director, Human Resources (HR) Project Manager Sylvia Hussey, Vice President, Educational Support Services (ESS) Version 12 9 2. Ka Piÿina Project Overview (Continued) DRAFT Project Identification DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT Core Project Team* School Year 2007 – 2008 TEC Roy Alameida – KSH Hawaiian History Teacher (until 6/30/08) Rhonda Alexander-Monkres – KSM Human Resources Manager (until 6/30/09) John Colson – KSH Middle School Principal (until 6/30/08) Mark Ewald – KSK High School Math Teacher Andrea Hajek – KSM High School Spanish Teacher** Rick Heyd – KSK High School Social Studies Teacher Denise Johnson – CBECE Regional Coordinator East Hawaii (until 6/30/08) Ronnie Kopp – KSK Elementary Vice Principal** Anthony “Tony” LeBron – EES, K Scholars Program Director; EES Director (effective SY 08-09) Miki Maeshiro – LIS, Resource Teacher Laura Noguchi – KSK High School Speech Department Chair** Laurie Seto – KSK Middle School Curriculum Coordinator** Kalani Wong – KSM Chaplain * Supported by Consultants: Alan Yue and Sandy Miyasato of Resources Global Professionals, Honolulu, Hawaii and Marc J. Wallace, Jr., Ltd of Teacher Excellence Through Compensation (TEC), Lake Bluff, Illinois. ** Pilot Support Team member effective 7/1/09 to 6/30/10. Version 12 10 2. Ka Piÿina Project Overview (Continued) DRAFT Project Identification DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT New Team Members Added During School Year 2008-2009 TEC Michelle Barte – EES, Assistant Director, K-Scholars Wendell Davis – KSH Chaplain Deidre Harris – CBECE Project Manager ** Karen Hayashida – KSH Human Resources Manager (until 6/30/09) Liana Honda – KSH Elementary Teacher Alt Kagesa – KS Human Resources, Staff Development Manager (until 6/30/09) Lois Nishikawa – KSM Middle School Principal Elaine Nuÿuhiwa – KSK Executive Administrator Edwin Otani – CS, Professional Development Coordinator Brandy Sato – KSK Curriculum, Instruction & Assessment Director Bill Speck – Research & Evaluation Michelle Yoshida – KS Human Resources, Compensation Manager (until 12/31/08) New Team Members Added During School Year 2009-2010 Kamuela Binkie, KSM Outreach Director** BJ Mau, HR, Project Manager Darrell Kim, Educational Technology Services (ETS), Senior Analyst ** Pilot Support Team member effective 7/1/09 to 6/30/10. Version 12 11 2. Ka Piÿina Project Overview (Continued) DRAFT DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT Kamehameha Schools (KS) is a statewide independent education system that provides direct service educational opportunities to approximately 1,500 pre-school students at over 30 statewide sites and 5,400 K-12 students on three campuses. In addition to these 6,900 PreK-12 students, during fiscal year ending June 30, 2008, Kamehameha Schools provided more than 1,000 preschool scholarships, delivered literacy instruction and other services through educational collaborations, reached over 7,000 students through inschool, intersession and summer programs, awarded over $14 million to over 2,000 students for post-high education and helped to support 3,300 students in Hawaiian-focused charter schools. Founded by the will of Bernice Pauahi Bishop, a descendant of Hawaiian royalty and the great-granddaughter of Kamehameha I, KS’ mission is to fulfill Pauahi’s desire to create educational opportunities in perpetuity to improve the capability and well-being of people of Hawaiian ancestry. TEC To deliver these services and programs, there are over 1,300 full time and part time and 1,400 temporary KS statewide education positions including, classroom teachers and instructors, counselors, curriculum coordinators, administrators, managers and directors, education and library assistants, student activities coordinators, librarians, program specialists, instructional technology support, resource teachers, trainers, substitutes, co-curricular staff, etc., that deliver and support education services. These positions constitute KS’ primary education work force whose responsibility is to implement educational strategies toward the mission of KS. Beginning in 2004, KS’ Education Group began to work on further articulating the education strategies of the overall KS Strategic Plan which spans the years 2000-2015. The purpose of the resultant Kamehameha Schools’ Education Strategic Plan (ESP) is “to articulate an integrated strategic focus to enhance and sustain positive educational outcomes for greater numbers of Native Hawaiian children, with a specific emphasis on young learners (ages 0-8) within the State of Hawai`i over the next 5 to 10 years. The objective of the Education Strategic Plan is to increase the capability and well being of the Native Hawaiian people by creating long-term intergenerational change via education.” The completion of the ESP in June 2005 helped to focus and channel the collective attention and commitment of the Education Group units (campus-based and community-based) toward a common strategic purpose—creating intergenerational change. Since the ESP’s approval, the Education Group initiated and completed a number of activities to enhance the effectiveness, efficiency and support for ESP actions, including completion of and/or substantial progress toward integrated program planning, tactical plan development, organizational function alignment, collaboration establishment, student learning standards development, curriculum mapping, technology systems implementation and increased operational efficiency and effectiveness. The creation of a framework to support efforts to more effectively recruit, retain and reward a qualified education work force is a logical ‘next step’. Version 12 12 2. Ka Piÿina Project Overview (Continued) DRAFT DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT In prior years, individual education units, system-wide, used separate and often disparate recruiting, programming, faculty support, professional development, performance review and compensation practices. During the 2005-2006 school year KS looked at all the different education workforce roles and recognized a need to be more intentional in support and growth of educators. During the 2006-2007 school year, an organization-wide climate survey highlighted the topics of accountability and constructive feedback. In addition to the survey, a small group of administrators reviewed KS’ many teacher performance review processes affirming that there indeed existed separate, disparate and inconsistent practices throughout the KS educational system—from campuses to pre-schools to community-based programs. In addition, this small group discovered significant dissatisfaction with these different practices. TEC Through a series of initial KS education leadership focus groups in the fall of 2007, several topics were discussed including: 1) the current “AS IS” environment and state of the KS’ education work force capacity; 2) the desired future or “TO BE” state of the work force as it related to mindsets, skills, competencies and abilities; and 3) the related challenges, strategies, activities and resources needed to address the gap between the existing “AS IS” state and the desired “TO BE” state of KS’ education work force. The results of these conversations indicated that because KS’ ESP is so mission critical, its education work force is large, distributed and varied and the current education environment is increasingly demanding, capacity building work is necessary now. The development of a new, integrated education workforce capacity building framework and model requires the alignment of a variety of elements including skills, attributes, merit, performance, compensation, succession, progression, career opportunities, leadership, core competencies, student growth and achievement, mentorship, professional development, and a system-wide, aligned faculty performance review process. The discussion of merit pay or pay for performance (e.g., P4P) was held among KS education leadership and is a part of the general education profession ‘conversation’, therefore, the framework would include merit pay and pay for performance discussions, but these topics would not be the sole focus or reason for a new framework. The capacity building framework needed to be comprehensive and congruent in order to more specifically, intentionally and effectively address all of the elements needed to build KS’ education capacity. Version 12 13 2. Ka Piÿina Project Overview (Continued) DRAFT DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT Four Education Workforce Framework components or blueprints were developed and are presented in this proposal: TEC 1. Career Opportunities – Defining career path opportunities 2. Performance Management and Evaluation – Defining expected core organizational, professional and functional competencies and describing its related levels of evaluated performance as a basis for professional and career development and rewards 3. Professional Growth and Renewal – Defining the processes, including those embedded in the job, that will be employed to support and develop core organizational, professional and functional competencies at each career level 4. Compensation and Rewards – Defining the rewards that will be in place to encourage, support and reward career growth and performance among the education workforce In addition, the Ka Piÿina Core Project Team developed recommendations for piloting and implementing the four blueprints as well as a financial cost and benefit forecast regarding the proposals. These are also presented in this document: 1. A Work Plan for Piloting – laying out the steps for conducting pre-pilot preparation activities in SY 2008-2009 and piloting three integrated strands over the next school year (SY 2009-2010) a. Career Opportunity and Performance Management and Evaluation Strand – during which new career paths and performance assessment and management procedures will be identified, tested and refined b. Professional Growth and Renewal Strand – during which existing and new professional growth and renewal opportunities and processes will be identified, tested and refined as derived from career opportunity choices and performance management and evaluation tools c. Compensation and Rewards Strand – during which new salary schedules, pay incentives, and non-cash rewards which are triggered by the actions in the previous two strands will be modeled and reviewed Version 12 14 2. Ka Piÿina Project Overview (Continued) DRAFT DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT 2. A Financial Forecast – Projecting costs and benefits associated with implementing the new Educational Workforce Framework based on variables and assumptions a. Costs associated with the pilot (SY 2009-2010) and its related strands b. Costs of the new framework over the next 5 to 10 years compared with the forecasted costs of current compensation schedules c. Positive features of the new Education Workforce Framework. TEC Version 12 15 DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT DRAFT TEC 3. KS Education Workforce Framework Strategy Version 12 16 3. KS Education Workforce Framework Strategy DRAFT The foundation of the newly drafted Education Workforce Framework links strategically to KS’ mission as follows: Mission Create educational opportunities, in perpetuity, to improve the capability and well-being of people of Hawaiian ancestry. DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT Extend and improve the reach TEC 1 Increase the number of Hawaiian learners served Constituent-Focused Strengthen the organization 2 Improve student learning Operational Management Regulatory & Societal 7 Be the best managed organization in non-profits/ education institutions 4 Be a trusting, ethical and accountable organization 14 Be the education foundation of choice in the state of Hawaiÿi for Native Hawaiians 10 Effect sustainability concepts into the facilities of the organization 5 Mitigate high risk areas within the organization 3 Strengthen the people 8 Be a leader in the use of technology in the workplace 9 Practice ÿIke and Nohona Hawaiÿi 11 Maximize endowment return 12 Maximize financial assets 13 Optimize land assets 6 Organize a strong Hawaiian lahui to improve the well-being of Hawaiians and protect Hawaiian assets Strengthen the people Strengthen the endowment Version 12 17 DRAFT 3. KS Education Workforce Framework Strategy (Continued) DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT After the launch of Ka Pi`ina as a project (in October 2007), an organization-wide effort, identified as the Total Rewards project and led by Human Resources, began. Like Ka Piÿina, the Total Rewards project also sought to find ways to “strengthen the people”. The organization-wide Total Rewards project is now known as Lawena Ulu Pono referring to the actions and choices that enhance growth an achievement and bring satisfaction throughout the life cycle of an employee. It also refers to the many benefits and wealth of resources afforded to the employees that ensure their growth and achievement throughout their employment with KS. TEC The overall organizational HR strategy is defined by three key pillars: 1. Workforce Planning – Anticipating and planning for future staffing needs throughout the organization; 2. Talent Management – Ensuring that people resources are deployed appropriately, developed for future assignments, and meet organizational goals; 3. Leadership Development - The strength of the organization is anchored in leadership excellence, needing effective leaders and clear opportunities to identify and develop leaders. As illustrated on the next page, Business strategy drives the Human Resources’ strategy which prioritizes the employee experience. The employee experience enables the Human Resources strategy which allows KS to execute mission aligned plans and strategies. The whole system is intended to support both the extension and improvement of the reach to Native Hawaiians and the improvement in Native Hawaiian student learning. The Human Resources’ strategy prioritizes the Employee experience in the following five areas or elements: attract, develop, engage, achieve and reward. Page 20 provides a comparative of elements between the Lawena Ulu Pono organization wide project and Ka Pi`ina. Version 12 18 DRAFT 3. KS Education Workforce Framework Strategy (Continued) Fulfilling our Mission External factors (e.g., economics, technology, demogaphic) influence Total Rewards Project DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT Business Strategy TEC Drives Total RewardsHR Project Strategy Prioritizes The Employee Experience KS Strategic Plan Workforce Planning Education Strategic Plan Financial Strategic Plan Attract Develop Talent Management Engage Group specific strategic or tactical plans Leadership Development Unit specific Operational plans Achieve Enables Executes Reward 19 Version 12 19 DRAFT 3. KS Education Workforce Framework Strategy (Continued) DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT Comparative Elements of the Projects TEC Lawena Ulu Pono Ka Pi`ina Attract Attract and recruit talent Attract and recruit talent Develop Career ladders/paths Professional development Career opportunities Professional growth and renewal Engage Engage our employees Engage our employees Achieve Performance mgmt Annual and mid year Performance mgmt Annual and mid year Reward Base pay Some incentive pay Pay for performance Base Pay, stipends Incentive or variable pay Pay for performance Recruit Retain Reward Version 12 20 DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT 3. KS Education Workforce Framework Strategy (Continued) TEC Kamehameha Schools is an educational institution that was begun through the will of Bernice Pauahi Bishop, a devout believer in Jesus Christ and a faithful leader of her Hawaiian people. Throughout her life, Ke Ali`i Pauahi exemplified Christian and Hawaiian values. The thirteenth and fourteenth articles of her will describes her desire to have the trustees and teachers be persons of the Protestant religion. Her charge was to have students that would be educated in “morals and in such useful knowledge as may tend to make good and industrious men and women.” Education (Philosophy of Education) Ka Pi`ina, the KS Education Workforce Framework Strategy is supported and framed within the context of three fundamental and foundational elements and the related supporting documents— Christian Values (Spiritual Guiding Principles), Hawaiian Culture (Lahui Vision) and Education (Philosophy of Education). Christian Values (Spiritual Guiding Principles) DRAFT ÿO ke kahua ma mua, ma hope ke kükulu. [The foundation comes first and then the building. Learn all you can, then practice.] The belief statements of the Philosophy of Education that follow are inspired by the example of Ke Aliÿi Pauahi and are based on sound educational principles. In a fashion similar to what the ÿÖlelo Noÿeau above suggests, the philosophy provides the foundation upon which Kamehameha Schools builds its educational practices as we implement the Strategic Plan. Hawaiian Culture (Lähui Vision) We are devoted to a successful and vibrant future for Native Hawaiians. We seek to improve the capability and well-being of people of Hawaiian ancestry through education. Our vision, therefore, is to empower Native Hawaiians in ways that ensure the vibrancy of Hawaiian society in perpetuity. Version 12 21 3. KS Education Workforce Framework Strategy (Continued) DRAFT “For I know the plans I have for you, declares the Lord, plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.” (Jeremiah 29:11) Spiritual Guiding Principles 1. There is only one God, eternally existent in three persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. We will worship God alone. DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT (Exodus 20:3-6) TEC 2. We embrace the Bible as the inspired, authoritative witness to the Word of God, and a guide for life’s experiences. (2 Timothy 3:16) 3. Prayer is the essential link of communication from mankind to God. (Ephesians 6:18) 4. All we do is dependent upon the aid of our Heavenly Father. (Psalm 62:5-8) 5. Our lives in word, thought and action should be Christ-like. Our heart, mind, attitude and behavior should reflect His love, understanding and compassion. (Galatians 5:6) 6. Demonstration of a positive spirit is renewing, refreshing and vital for a positive educational experience. (Philippians 2:14-16) 7. With Jesus Christ as our role model, we demonstrate servant leadership with respect and humility. (John 13:17) Version 12 Shared with the Core Project Team by Kahu Kalani Wong on behalf of nä Kahu (Tri-Campus Kahu) 22 3. KS Education Workforce Framework Strategy (Continued) DRAFT He Nu’ukia Lähui Hawai‘i A Native Hawaiian Vision DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT As a vibrant Hawaiian Society, that includes all people who share and actively support this vision, we… TEC 1. Live in a spiritual world of great richness and complexity. 2. Demonstrate the kuleana to mälama ‘äina for Ka Pae ‘Äina ‘o Hawai‘i and support other efforts throughout the Pacific region and the larger global community. 3. Are supported by ‘ohana that are nurtured by and contribute to a larger community network. 4. Are committed to ensuring the health and well-being of nä känaka, ka ‘ohana, ke kaiaulu, ka lähui, and kö Hawai‘i Pae ‘Äina. 5. Express ourselves in our ‘ölelo makuahine. 6. Foster various behaviors, practices, and perspectives consistent with and contributing to a Hawaiian worldview. 7. Convey our own histories in our own voices. 8. Express ourselves through our artistic traditions. This vision assumes that our vibrant future 9. Reflect our ancestral heritage daily. includes Hawaiians and non-Hawaiians. 10. Are creative, innovative, and firmly rooted in tradition. Together, we share responsibility to improve 11. Lead and control our own governance and institutions. the well-being of Native Hawaiians. Native 12. Facilitate learning that enables the highest levels of human achievement. Hawaiians have distinct kuleana in this society which derives from their ancestral heritage and the adverse circumstances of history. Hence, throughout this document, the term “our” reflects the voice of Native Hawaiians and their particular kuleana. “Our” further reflects the critical involvement of non-Hawaiians in forwarding this vision and participating in its realization. Shared with the Core Project Team by Ho`okahua, Hawaiian Cultural Development Office, subsequently adopted by the CEO Team Version 12 23 3. KS Education Workforce Framework Strategy (Continued) DRAFT Kamehameha Schools’ Philosophy of Education In order to support our education mission, KS adopted the following as its Philosophy of Education. It should be treated as a guide for the design of any organizational system including the Education Workforce Framework. The design principles to follow in the next section reflect this philosophy: DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT Kamehameha Schools’ Philosophy of Education TEC ÿÖlelo Noÿeau: Hawaiian Proverbs and Poetical Sayings #2459 Mary Kawena Pukuÿi ÿO ke kahua ma mua, ma hope ke kükulu. The foundation comes first and then the building. Kamehameha Schools Philosophy of Education The belief statements of the Philosophy of Education that follow are inspired by the example of Ke Aliÿi Pauahi and are based on sound educational principles. In a fashion similar to what the ÿÖlelo Noÿeau above suggests, the philosophy provides the foundation upon which Kamehameha Schools builds its educational practices as we implement the Strategic Plan. We believe that Kamehameha Schools as a Hawaiian institution and its learners have a responsibility to practice and perpetuate ÿIke Hawaiÿi as a source of strength and resilience for the future. Therefore, Kamehameha Schools will: foster pride in the Hawaiian culture, language, history and traditions that serves as its foundation. integrate ÿIke Hawaiÿi into its educational programs and services. strengthen the relationship and the responsibility of its learners to the ÿäina, its resources and traditions. Learn all you can, then practice. Version 12 24 3. KS Education Workforce Framework Strategy (Continued) DRAFT DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT Kamehameha Schools’ Philosophy of Education (continued) TEC We believe that every learner possesses a unique combination of talents, abilities, interests and needs and that each is able to achieve higher levels of excellence. Therefore, Kamehameha Schools will: acknowledge the uniqueness of each learner. assist each learner in achieving core understandings and skills. offer enrichment opportunities to encourage each learner to develop individual talents and interests. strive to be available and affordable to encourage broad participation of the learning community. We believe that the earliest years of a child's life are the most critical to development and set the stage for future learning. Therefore, Kamehameha Schools will assist by providing early childhood educational services that support families as the primary educators of their children We believe that positive and nurturing relationships are an essential foundation of learning. Therefore, all members of the Kamehameha community that includes learners, staff, families and alumni are role models and will demonstrate attitudes and behaviors consistent with Hawaiian culture and Christian values. all will develop and support positive connections and interactions with learners. Version 12 25 3. KS Education Workforce Framework Strategy (Continued) DRAFT DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT Kamehameha Schools’ Philosophy of Education (continued) TEC We believe that all learners create meaning by building on prior knowledge, actively using their learning in personally relevant ways and contributing positively to the global community. Therefore, Kamehameha Schools programs will: support the learning process through a diverse and integrated curriculum and a range of services that are enhanced by the use of relevant technologies, real-life connections, and authentic experiences. encourage learners to use their learning in service to their ‘ohana, the community and the world. We believe that the quality of instruction is enhanced by collaboration, professional development and the application of research based practices. Therefore, Kamehameha Schools will: -- provide time and resources for professional development and collaboration. -- support and engage in research and evaluation activities to improve the quality and effectiveness of education -- extend professional development opportunities to its learning communities. Each member of the learning community will commit to ongoing Version 12development and collaboration to optimize learner success professional 26 DRAFT 3. KS Education Workforce Framework Strategy (Continued) DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT Kamehameha Schools’ Philosophy of Education (continued) TEC We believe that education is enhanced by involvement of the learner and all members of the learner’s community. Therefore, Kamehameha Schools programs will: provide opportunities for learners to share in and assume greater responsibility for their own development. promote the active involvement of families. encourage open communication and seek input from those impacted. We believe that the effectiveness of our institution in meeting its mission is enhanced by collaboration and partnerships. Therefore, Kamehameha Schools will: recognize and encourage the good works of other programs and institutions. contribute to building a network of services to meet the life-long educational needs of Hawaiians. Version 12 27 3. KS Education Workforce Framework Strategy (Continued) DRAFT Design Principles DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT In order for the new Education Workforce Framework to achieve its goal of strengthening the people it must conform to recognized design principles. These principles are drawn directly from a number of sources (e.g., mission, vision, values, etc.), including a consideration of KS’ Philosophy of Education. They are also the product of experience and empirical research on those designs and practices that maximize student learning. The Ka Piÿina Core Project Team developed and adapted them from the various research activities conducted over the past year. We recommend that the following principles be used for two purposes: (1) as guides for developing and piloting blueprints for each of the four framework components and (2) as standards against which to evaluate and improve each component over time. TEC Framework Component #1: Career Opportunities Kamehameha Schools’ provides career opportunities for all to: 1. Grow professionally via a variety of strategies. A. Career/ladder growth across/between programs. 2. Seek and qualify for leadership opportunities. A. Create opportunities to take on leadership roles while continuing in current role (e.g. teacher leaders, mentoring). B. Increased levels of leadership (e.g., administration, teacher leadership, informal and formal opportunities). 3. Encourage ‘risk taking’ without being penalized (e.g., creation of internal internships, return rights). 4. Consider multiple career opportunities and paths. A. Within career ladder (vertical) B. In a specialized role (e.g. project work, subject matter expert, mentor, coach) C. Across a variety of education units (horizontal) Version 12 28 3. KS Education Workforce Framework Strategy (Continued) DRAFT Framework Component #2: Performance Management and Evaluation Kamehameha Schools’ performance management and evaluation process: DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT 1. TEC Is used to: A. Improve quality of instruction, achievement and services; B. Direct its work force by communicating the unit’s objectives; C. Measure professional growth and staff development; D. Measure the implementation of program curriculum; E. Implement cascaded and joint goals; F. Determine, measure and document satisfactory or unsatisfactory performance; G. Measure the level of performance of all personnel. 2. Is meaningful and manageable when: A. The process is fair to everyone; B. There is understanding and buy-in from both the evaluator and staff member; C. Evaluations are conducted by trained evaluators; D. The process is helpful, welcomed and valued. 3. Captures all relevant dimensions of performance including: A. Multiple foci on aspects and elements of the staff member’s performance (e.g., holistic approach); B. An express commitment to supporting individual performance and growth; C. Student learning and growth considerations; D. Collaborative efforts and supports; E. KS’ organization wide competencies; and F. An integration of Hawaiian cultural and Christian values and practices. Version 12 29 3. KS Education Workforce Framework Strategy (Continued) DRAFT Framework Component #2: Performance Management and Evaluation (continued) Kamehameha Schools’ performance management and evaluation process: 4. Provides multiple facets and methods for providing feedback, which may include, but not be limited to: observation (e.g., live and video), portfolio presentation, conversation, reflection, feedback from peers, supervisor, stakeholders (e.g., parents, students, etc.), mentors, direct reports and everyone (e.g., 360 degree). 5. Links to multiple career growth opportunities DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT A. Supports growth in knowledge and skill TEC B. Recognizes added responsibilities C. Links to best practices D. Supports student learning 6. Drives the professional growth and renewal process. A. Includes support for improvement (e.g., personal professional development plan) B. Includes mentoring as a critical component Version 12 30 3. KS Education Workforce Framework Strategy (Continued) DRAFT Framework Component #3: Professional Growth and Renewal Kamehameha Schools’ professional growth and renewal program: 1. Supports workforce capacity building through: A. Cascaded links (e.g., mission, strategic plan, education strategic plan, campus, department). B. Demonstrated commitment to individual professional growth, including a recognition of different career levels. DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT C. Development and support of a multi-faceted workforce (e.g., depth and breadth of expertise). TEC D. Resources that are adequate and effective. E. A meaningful and manageable process. F. Active engagement in a professional learning community. G. A combination of job embedded and beyond the work day activities as a part of the role and responsibilities of all staff members. H. Positive impacts on student learning and outcomes. 2. Is meaningful and manageable. A. Use of system-wide available tools (e.g., Success Factors, Blackboard, My Learning Plan). B. Use of common processes. 3. Integrates with the performance evaluation process and provides career opportunities. A. Driven by the performance evaluation process (e.g., personal professional growth and renewal plan). B. Provides additional career opportunities (e.g., trainer, facilitator, teacher, leader, lead, special projects). C. Supports professional recognition through certification, licensing, publication, industry and community leadership. Version 12 31 DRAFT 3. KS Education Workforce Framework Strategy (Continued) Framework Component #3: Professional Growth and Renewal(continued) Kamehameha Schools’ professional growth and renewal program: 4. Supports integrated `ike and nohona Hawaii activities (e.g., huaka`i, lokahi wheel, ho`oponopono) DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT 5. Supports a variety of opportunities, strategies, tools and mechanisms to enable effective professional growth and renewal. TEC Version 12 32 3. KS Education Workforce Framework Strategy (Continued) DRAFT Framework Component #4: Compensation and Rewards Kamehameha Schools’ compensation and reward program: 1. Is transparent and clear to understand. 2. Recognizes demonstrated cultural, indigenous knowledge and skill. 3. Supports a competitive base salary/benefits package. DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT A. Maintains competitive compensation packages. TEC B. Allows a steady, reliable lifestyle with options for increases. C. Provides a foundation for incentive or variable pay opportunities. D. Focuses on more effective and efficient recruitment and retention strategies. 4. Rewards improvements in staff performance, process efficiencies, process and program effectiveness, career growth and student learning objectives and outcomes, considering: A. A wide range of job roles and responsibilities. B. An integrated approach to recruiting and rewarding. 5. Provides a variety of options for compensation. A. Cafeteria menu of benefits-choices. B. Cash and non-cash considerations (e.g., alternate work year, flex time, etc.). C. Acknowledge “extra” expertise that is voluntarily shared (i.e., coaching, mentoring). D. Formal recognition of excellence. Version 12 33 DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT DRAFT TEC 4. Career Opportunities Component or Blueprint* * Something resembling a blueprint (as in serving as a model or providing guidance) ; especially : a detailed plan or program of action <a blueprint for victory> Version 12 34 DRAFT 4. Career Opportunities Blueprint The Education Workforce Framework – Three Career Families For the sake of design and analysis, the Ka Piÿina Core Project Team (CPT) identified three groupings or “career families” within the education workforce: DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT Career Family Description TEC Position Title Examples Administration and Management Principal, Assistant Principal, Director, Assistant Director, Curriculum Coordinator, Manager, Education Coordinator, Assistant Educational Coordinator Faculty Teacher, Librarian, Counselor, Literacy Resource Teacher, Program Specialist, Instructional Specialist Educational Support Library Assistant, Teaching Assistant, Computer Lab Coordinator, Science Lab Assistant, Literacy Support Specialist Positions grouped into each career family share common general competencies, external labor markets, advancement methodologies, and career paths. For a complete list of positions in the education workforce, refer to Appendix J. Four Education Workforce Framework Components Four framework components, comprising a workforce framework to strengthen the people in these families, are illustrated by the figure on the next slide. Version 12 35 4. Career Opportunities Blueprint (Continued) DRAFT Three Education Workforce Career Families Administration and Management Faculty Education Support DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT Four Education Workforce Framework Components or Blueprints TEC 1 Career Opportunities 2 Performance Management and Evaluation 3 Professional Growth and Renewal 4 Compensation and Rewards Version 12 36 4. Career Opportunities Blueprint (Continued) DRAFT DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT The first Education Workforce Framework blueprint outlines career opportunities for the three career families. The blueprint defines career advancement as growth in a professional career by increasing both breadth and depth of skill with related compensation and rewards. KS will provide resources for exploring and implementing best practices and encourage staff involvement in such activities as professional advancement and leadership roles. Staff routinely will engage in defining their career paths by setting and fulfilling realistic, professional goals towards improving student learning and personal professional growth and renewal. The purpose of the blueprint is to define explicit and progressive career levels or stages for staff members. The emphasis in design is to provide both depth and breadth in the progression of a career at KS as illustrated in the following chart: TEC Depth of Competency or Professional Levels Description of Breadth and Versatility Opportunities Depth Teacher, Administrator, Mentor, Evaluator, Trainer, Facilitator, Department Head, Project or Initiative Participant Advanced Professional Career Professional Professional Entry Breadth Breadth/Versatility Depth and breadth are achieved by providing staff members in each education workforce career family opportunities to grow through advancement within the occupation and/or taking on roles that create opportunities to exercise breadth and versatility skills. Version 12 37 DRAFT 4. Career Opportunities Blueprint (Continued) The following illustration shows how career opportunities might operate for the education families: Career Level Career Family Track Faculty* Administration and Management Track Primary Track Role/Specialist Track (Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment) (Research, Projects, Internships) Master Leader (organization, internal and external) Advanced Professional DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT (approx 7+ years) TEC Career Professional (approx 5+ years) Professional (approx 3 to 5 years) Entry (approx 0 to 3 years) Mentor Division Director Principal Curriculum Program Director Vice Principal Internships Educator/ Faculty Leader (unit level) Education Support Supervisor, Specialist, Coordinator, Facilitator Teacher, Librarian, Counselor, Literacy Resource Teacher, Program Specialist Technician, Designer Teacher, Librarian, Counselor, Literacy Resource Teacher, Program Specialist Assistant, Aide Internships Leading to a Career in Education Career opportunities for all three career families are arranged in a career path that encourages development through all four career levels of the profession. For example, the Entry and Professional levels in the Faculty family supports a primary focus on curriculum, instruction, and assessment. Beyond these levels, however, a number of alternative career path opportunities arise including continuing in the classroom (Primary Track), growing into a specialist and taking on a Role/Specialist Track to include a broader scope of participation outside of the classroom or making a career move into administration (Administration and Management Track). * See additional descriptors on the next slide. Version 12 38 DRAFT 4. Career Opportunities Blueprint (Continued) Career Level Faculty Primary Track (Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment) Role/Specialist Track (Research, Projects, Internships) Advanced Professional (approx 7+ years) Approximately 20% in the classroom with students Approximately 80% working with adults Master Examples: Analyzes data, creates an academic achievement plan, designs and delivers professional growth and renewal activities, leads and/or supports Mentor Teacher in professional learning communities (PLC), provides instructional coaching, team teaches, identifies researchbased instructional strategies, contributes to evaluation process of other teachers, engages in direct support of new teachers, supports mentor teachers. Leader Examples: Participates in organization wide projects, contributes to industry-related mission-aligned initiatives, organizes presentations and/or academic contributions, represents KS with local organizations (e.g., Hawaii Association of Independent Schools [HAIS], National Association of Independent Schools [NAIS], Native Hawaiian Education Council (NHEA), University of Hawaii (UH), Native Hawaiian Chamber of Commerce). Career Professional (approx 5+ years) Approximately 20% working with adults Approximately 80% in the classroom with students Mentor Examples: Analyzes data, works with Master teacher to implement academic achievement plan, leads PLC meetings with oversight and support from Master educator, coaches mentees and provides feedback on instructional practices of other educators Educator/ Faculty Leader (unit level) Examples: Participates or leads unit level project, represents the unit in organization wide initiatives. DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT Career Family and Track TEC Version 12 39 4. Career Opportunities Blueprint (Continued) DRAFT Faculty: Primary Track DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT What are the responsibilities of mentor and master educators? What are the differences between the two positions? TEC Master teachers function in a unique manner relative to the traditional teacher. Their primary role is, with the principal and/or curriculum coordinator, to analyze student data and create and institute an academic achievement plan (curriculum, instruction, and assessment) for the school. Master teachers lead cluster groups (i.e., a professional learning community) and provide demonstration lessons, coaching and team teaching to career teachers. They also spend, on average, two hours per day teaching students. Master teachers collaborate to identify research-based instructional strategies to share with career teachers during cluster group meetings. They contribute to the evaluation process of other teachers by reviewing goals, bodies of evidence, and conducting formal classroom observations. Master teachers may also partner with the principal in sharing some of the responsibility of interacting with parents. Master teachers are actively involved in enhancing/supporting the teaching experience of entry level teachers. Master teachers engage in direct support of new teachers (New Teacher Support Program). Mentor teachers, through the leadership team, participate in analyzing student data and creating the schools' academic achievement plan. With oversight and support from the master teacher, they lead cluster meetings, and as a result, mentor teachers also provide classroom-based follow-up and extensive feedback on the instructional practices of entry and professional level teachers. Planning for instruction is in partnership with other mentor teachers and entry/professional teachers, with the input and guidance of the master teacher. Mentor teachers are required to engage in professional development activities that are both self- and team-directed. Adapted from Teacher Advancement Program: Teacher Evaluation and Performance Award. Version 12 40 DRAFT 4. Career Opportunity Blueprint (Continued) Career Family: Administration and Management DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT Career opportunities in this career family are arranged in a career path that encourages development through four levels (Entry, Professional, Career Professional and Advanced Professional). Each level requires progressive levels of administrative practice with movement through the levels in most cases by promotion to a new position (e.g. Manager to Director, Vice Principal to Principal). Breadth and depth in an administrative and management career will be achieved through a series of assignments and promotions requiring progressive experience and growth in related competencies. TEC Organization wide competencies (refer to Appendix G) refers to the following six competencies: 1. ACCOUNTABILITY - Takes responsibility for decision making and accomplishing objectives. 2. CHANGE EFFECTIVENESS - Readily adjusts to and embraces changes to meet organizational needs and/or conditions. 3. COLLABORATION AND TEAMWORK - Works cooperatively and collaboratively with others throughout the organization in alignment with the organization's objectives. 4. COMMUNICATION - Interacts effectively and persuasively with others in the workplace to solicit and share both written and verbal information, and generate commitment. 5. HAWAIIAN CULTURAL COMMITMENT - Demonstrates cultural commitment by learning, promoting, and modeling, ‘Ike and Nohona Hawai`i. 6. INNOVATION - Identifies and integrates creative ideas into new or existing products/services and promotes effective problem-solving Career Level Advanced Professional Positions Qualifications Refer to the tables on the following pages Illustrative Org-Wide Competencies Refer to Appendix G Career Professional Professional Entry Version 12 41 DRAFT 4. Career Opportunity Blueprint (Continued) Career Level DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT Advanced Professional TEC Position Titles This career level is not assigned based upon position. See qualifications below for placement at this level. Qualifications Advanced degree (Masters or Doctorate), preferably within related field or educational degree as determined by job description or equivalent indigenous education or professional standing within the field or combination of education and experience to meet position expectations. Approximately 7-10+ years of progressive, related experience. Demonstrated leadership and outstanding organizational skills to direct and manage multiple tasks and meeting competing deadlines. Outstanding problem-solving skills to identify and resolve existing orVersion 12 potential problems. Qualifications Experience with managing, supervising and developing large, complex organizations, systems and resources (both financial and human). Some form of mastery as evidenced by certification such as NBCT, HAIS, DOE or comparable indigenous education credentials. Completed KS internal (yet to be developed) Level IV supervisory & leadership academy courses. Ability to collect, analyze, synthesize & use data to impact student outcomes. Excellent interpersonal (e.g., communication, counseling, motivation, development, mentoring, support), writing and change management skills. Leads by example of creating and maintaining a positive, challenging, productive and supportive work environment. Illustrative Org-Wide Competencies Refer to Appendix G 42 • DRAFT 4. Career Opportunity Blueprint (Continued) Career Level DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT Career Professional TEC Position Titles Qualifications This career level is not assigned based upon position. See qualifications below for placement at this level. Qualifications Advanced degree (Masters or Doctorate), preferably within related field or educational degree as determined by job description or equivalent indigenous education or professional standing within the field or combination of education and experience to meet position expectations. Approximately 7-10+ years of progressive related experience. Demonstrated leadership and outstanding organizational skills to direct and manage multiple tasks and meeting competing deadlines. Outstanding problem-solving skills to identify and resolve existing or potential problems. Version 12 Experience with managing, supervising and developing large, complex organizations, systems and resources (both financial and human). Some form of mastery as evidenced by certification such as NBCT, HAIS, DOE or comparable indigenous education credentials. Completed KS internal (yet to be developed) Level III supervisory & leadership academy courses. Ability to collect, analyze, synthesize & use data to impact student outcomes. Excellent interpersonal (e.g., communication, counseling, motivation, development, mentoring, support), writing and change management skills. Leads by example of creating and maintaining a positive, challenging, productive and supportive work environment. Illustrative Org-Wide Competencies Refer to Appendix G 43 • DRAFT 4. Career Opportunity Blueprint (Continued) Career Level DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT Professional TEC Position Titles Qualifications The following positions are automatically assigned at this career level or based on individual qualifications, can be placed at a higher career level. Principal Assistant Principal Division Director Director Program Services Director Medical Services Director CBECE Director Extension Education Director Literacy CBECE Educational Coordinator Dean Athletic Director Academy & Curriculum Coordinator Curriculum & Assessment Coordinator Curriculum Director Director of Curriculum Support & Dissemination Director of Instruction Director of Boarding Bachelors degree preferably within related field or educational degree as determined by job description or indigenous education equivalent Approximately 4 to 7+ years of progressive related experience Leadership and organizational skills to direct and manage multiple tasks and meeting competing deadlines. Problem-solving skills to identify and resolve existing or potential problems. Completed KS internal (yet to be developed) Level II supervisory & leadership academy courses. Ability to collect, analyze, synthesize & use data to impact student outcomes Demonstrated interpersonal (e.g., communication, counseling, motivation, development, mentoring, support), writing and change management skills. Leads by example of creating and maintaining a positive, challenging, productive and supportive work environment. Illustrative Org-Wide Competencies Refer to Appendix G Version 12 44 • DRAFT DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT 4. Career Opportunity Blueprint (Continued) TEC Career Level Position Titles Entry Vice Principal Asst CBECE Educational Coordinator Asst Director Enrichment Associate Athletic Director Asst Director of Boarding Director of Campus Outreach Program Director Director Enrichment Director Post High Counseling Director Kamehameha Scholars Virtual Strategies & DL Mgr Student Activities Coordinator Qualifications Bachelor degree preferably within related field or educational degree as determined by job description or equivalent non-western Up to approximately 3 years of progress related experience Completed KS internal (yet to be developed) Level I supervisory & leadership academy courses Leadership and organizational skills to direct and manage multiple tasks and meeting competing deadlines. Problem-solving skills to identify and resolve existing or potential problems. Ability to collect, analyze, synthesize & use data to impact student outcomes Demonstrated interpersonal (e.g., communication, counseling, motivation, development, mentoring, support), writing and change management skills. Leads by example of creating and maintaining a positive, challenging, productive and supportive work environment. Illustrative Org-Wide Competencies Refer to Appendix G Version 12 45 • DRAFT 4. Career Opportunity Blueprint (Continued) Career Level Advanced Professional Subject Matter Expert Role/Leadership Role DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT TEC Career Professional Professional Learning Community Participation Responsible for division or multiple program budget creation and maintenance. Expert with KS policies, procedures and established laws and ability to promote ethical conduct & compliance. Ensure stakeholder understanding through a variety of methods. Supervises multiple projects, departments and staff. Expert with educational pedagogy and educational leadership pedagogy. Responsible for department, division, or multiple program budget creation and maintenance. Proficient with KS policies, procedures and established laws and ability to promote ethical conduct & compliance. Anticipates stakeholder and public relations issues. Supervised and evaluated 2 or more staff Proficient up to date, research based pedagogy. Version 12 Leads, designs, develops & implements long-range plans for team. Provides structured instructional interventions and monitors progress. Facilitates team meetings. Leads in unit, regional, school, tri-campus &/or systemwide projects or initiatives. Provide peer assistance & coaching & mentoring Develops, implements, and monitors the professional growth and renewal strategies for unit/division and individuals. Contributes to design, develop & implement long-range plans for team. Leads team meetings. Involved each year in leadership as evidenced by any or all of the following: Leads meetings. Leadership role in multiple and varied aspects of school/educational setting life. Participation and/or leadership in unit, regional, school, tri-campus &/or system-wide projects or initiatives. Implements and monitors the professional development strategies for unit/division and individuals. 46 • DRAFT 4. Career Opportunity Blueprint (Continued) Career Level Professional Subject Matter Expert Role/Leadership Role DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT Entry TEC Responsible for department budget creation and maintenance. Knowledgeable with KS policies, procedures and established laws and ability to promote ethical conduct & compliance. Responds to stakeholder and public relations issues. Supervised and evaluated 2 or more staff Practices up to date, research based pedagogy. Limited budget exposure, may have had oversight of department. Seek kökua through internal and external resources to adhere to KS policies, procedures and established laws and ability to practice ethical conduct & compliance. Limited knowledge of school governance i.e. health, safety, welfare of student, faculty, staff, parent community. Responds to stakeholder and public relations issues. Occasional supervision of staff and evaluation. Familiar with up to date, research based pedagogy. Professional Learning Community Participation Implements long-range plans for team. Participation and/or leadership in unit, regional, school, tri-campus &/or system-wide projects or initiatives. Implements the professional development strategies for unit/division and individuals. Participation and/or leadership in unit, regional, school, tri-campus &/or system-wide projects or initiatives. Demonstrates understanding of the professional development strategies for unit/division and individuals. Version 12 47 4. Career Opportunity Blueprint (Continued) DRAFT Career Family: Administration and Management DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT Administrators with less than 3 years of experience would be hired at the Entry level. It is expected that Administrators would advance to the Professional level. Selected Administrator positions have been recommended for placement at the Professional level. These positions require that all Professional level criteria are met and are not eligible to start at the entry level. This aligns with the minimum qualifications within the career family description for these positions. TEC KS’ existing SR schedule will be maintained because this affirms the KS pay philosophy to assign appropriate pay based on market benchmarks and internal equity. KS conducts salary market surveys every three years to validate or adjust the position grade level placement within the SR schedule. Each benchmarked position is assigned to a grade to reflect market pay and internal equity. Non-benchmarked positions assigned to grades by Kamehameha are based upon internal equity. Job descriptions are reviewed to ensure each position was fairly evaluated based on the nature of the work performed. New hires or KS transfers to a new position at a different grade level will be placed within the grade level range based on the following and assigned an annual salary. Hiring rates are largely driven by the incumbent’s credentials relative to the position’s minimum requirements and internal policy guidelines. Market data may indirectly influence where a starting salary is set if there is evidence to suggest that the lower portion of the range is not as competitive as needed to recruit desired talent, then individual will be placed in a Ka Pi`ina career level. Ultimately, only staff who are consistently exceptional performers, should occupy the upper zone of a grade range. Initial career level placement will be affirmed or adjusted after one year performance period. Version 12 48 DRAFT 4. Career Opportunity Blueprint (Continued) Career Family: Administration and Management . Hiring in the middle of the range should be for those who are fully competent in the job; demonstrated skills, knowledge and expertise to handle all aspects of the job effectively DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT Hiring in the lower portion of the range should typically occur when the incumbent meets the minimum qualifications and expected to perform the basic duties and responsibilities of the job TEC 10% Below Midpoint 10% Above Midpoint Market Zone Developing Zone $37,500 $31,700 Entry Level Hiring in the upper portion of the range should be limited to highly qualified incumbents that demonstrate specialized skills, knowledge and expertise that far exceed normal expectations $40,400 Professional Level $43,300 Career Level $49,100 Advanced Level Market 50th percentile Version 12 49 4. Career Opportunity Blueprint (Continued) DRAFT Career Family: Administration and Management . DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT The following are recommended “rules of the road” proposed by the Core Project Team for Administrators advancing from one career level to the next in the new career opportunity model: TEC 1. Staff member submits official request to move career levels at beginning of work year (no later than Aug 15) to supervisor. This will place staff member under “full review” for the upcoming performance year. 2. Supervisor & staff member will develop and agree on measurements to be met during the career level movement year which include appropriate rubric level and list of career level qualifications. Rubric will be measured based on current Success Factors rating. Career level qualifications will not be rated on Success Factors, they will be in the Success Factors goal box and either rated as met or did not meet. 3. At end of the evaluation year, if staff member and supervisor disagree on career level movement decision then the opportunity will exist to submit review by an appeal panel (details to be developed). Make up of the appeal panel will include one administrator, one faculty member, one education support member, and a Human Resources representative. 4. We recommend provisions that would allow KS to place an Administrator coming to KS from outside of KS into the appropriate Career Level (Entry, Professional, Career Professional, Advanced Professional) on a probationary basis, based on an initial evaluation at the time of hire. A full evaluation would be made of the Administrator during the first year to confirm the initial placement. 5. Advancement for Administrators from Entry to other career levels will be based on assessment of performance and competency in the following areas: KS Organization-wide competencies (e.g., Accountability, Change Effectiveness) 3 Domains (e.g., Context, Process, Content) of the National Staff Development Council developed rubric Other supervisor/evaluator determined elements Version 12 50 4. Career Opportunity Blueprint (Continued) DRAFT Career Family: Administration and Management DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT . A detailed matrix providing thumbnail definitions of administrative and management competencies within the three domains of each of the career levels is provided in Appendix A to this proposal. It is contemplated that this work will be supplemented and infused with a Hawaiian world view and synchronized with any Kula Hawaii activities. TEC Because advancement is performance based, there is no recommended minimum or maximum number of months or years that an Administrator should stay at one level or another. However, based on experience, spending at least three years at one level before advancing to another level of administration and management increases the opportunities for success because of the foundation of experiences acquired by the Administrator. If someone within KS system transfers (not new hire) into the Administration track, an opportunity to return to the previous position, is proposed for consideration (e.g., one year return option to same position). Version 12 51 DRAFT 4. Career Opportunity Blueprint (Continued) Career Family: Administration and Management . DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT One Grade Promoted Two Grades Promoted (Rare) Career Level Change TEC Developing Zone 6% 10% 10-12% Position in New Range Prior to Increase Market Zone 3% 5% 10-12% Premium Zone 0 - 2% 0 - 2% 10-12% • General principles: Promotional increases are aligned with progressions between grades and drive appropriate pay positioning within the new range. Pay following a promotion should be in line with salaries for employees already in the job and comparative to what a new hire would be offered. Ideally, a promotional increase will result in pay consistent with the developing zone of the range. Pay at or above the market zone for a recently promoted employee should be an exception. One grade promotion, 0-6% Two or more grades, 0-10% • Transfers Team members who transfer across positions in the same role and in the same geographic structure typically are not eligible for increase; however, if Kamehameha asks them to transfer or if the move increases skill breadth, they may be eligible for a 4% increase. • Demotions Demotions include moves due to reorganization and involuntary or voluntary changes in job Team members who move from one position to a different position in a lower grade will have their pay reduced to the maximum of the new range (if needed). Version 12 52 DRAFT 4. Career Opportunities Blueprint (Continued) Career Family: Faculty DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT The career opportunities for faculty also call for four career levels beginning with Entry. Entry is proposed to be considered an “up or out” level in that all faculty would be expected to spend no more than three years at this level. A faculty member who could not qualify for promotion to the next level from Entry would not be retained and counseled to seek another career opportunity. While this type of “no-experience” direct hire from college does occur at KS, this is the exception at this point, rather than the rule. Given the industry challenges to recruit and hire qualified and effective teachers, the Core Project Team anticipates that KS will seek other sources (other than the traditional colleges of Education) to recruit and hire. TEC Career Level Advanced Professional Approximately 20% in the classroom with students Approximately 80% working with adults Instructional Practice Danielson Distinguished Professional Learning Community Participation Develops long-range plans for teams. Provides instructional interventions. Leads team initiatives, activities and meetings. Participates and/or leads unit, regional, school, tri-campus &/or system-wide projects, initiatives or activities. Team teaches w/ colleagues. Demonstrates, models lessons and/or trains. Develops and helps to implement curriculum or instructional strategies. Observes & provides peer assistance and coaching as a Master faculty member. Version 12 53 DRAFT 4. Career Opportunities Blueprint (Continued) Career Family: Faculty Career Level DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT Career Professional TEC Instructional Practice Professional Learning Community Participation Danielson Distinguished Involved each year in leadership as evidenced by any or all of the following: Lead team meetings. Promotes culture of professional inquiry, growth and renewal. Collaborate with Master or Advanced Professional Faculty members. Leadership role in at least one aspect of school life. Participation and/or leadership in unit, regional, school, tricampus &/or system-wide projects or initiatives. Professional Danielson Proficient Actively participates and volunteers making a substantial contribution; self-directed participation Entry Danielson Basic Induction; may participate as invited to do or required by the unit. Approximately 80% in the classroom with students Approximately 20% working with adults Version 12 54 DRAFT 4. Career Opportunities Blueprint (Continued) Leadership Role DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT Advanced Professional TEC Approximately 20% in the classroom with students Approximately 80% working with adults May teach one or two classes. Frequently contributes as a resource or support to administration. Represents the unit in internal or external activities, including presentations at conferences, committees or community organizations and events. Contributes to faculty evaluations. Subject Matter Expert Role Qualifications Conducts research that Minimum 7 yrs adds to the original body of experience knowledge and evidence Masters, Ph.D, or for the benefit of improving proof of contribution student learning. to profession, Disseminates knowledge. including but not limited to, research, Provides training on subject publication, post high matter content, process, (including university) strategy, methodology, etc. teaching, Some form of mastery as presentations, evidenced by certification training, community such as NBCT. work and/or awards. Indigenous credentials, professional certificate in the subject area they teach and how it relates to other disciplines. Apprenticeship Version with 12 recognized artisan or ancestral arts Work Year Org-Wide Competencies Expanded Work Year Refer to Appendix G 55 DRAFT 4. Career Opportunities Blueprint (Continued) Leadership Role DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT Career Professional TEC Approximately 80% in the classroom with students Approximately 20% working with adults Relationships w/ colleagues are characterized by mutual support & cooperation. Faculty member takes initiative in assuming leadership among the faculty through mentoring or other area/unit leadership (e.g., department, content area, geographic area) role. Subject Matter Expert Role Qualifications Role opportunity as Minimum 5 yrs subject matter expert. experience Some form of mastery as Bachelors degree + 30 evidenced by certification credits such as NBCT. Full credentials or Indigenous education alternative certificate or credentials, professional advancement process certificate in the subject (e.g., hula--> `üniki) area they teach and how it relates to other disciplines. Apprenticeship with recognized artisan or ancestral arts Brings unique life experiences and skills that can be integrated and 12 shared in theVersion KS context in particular olelo Hawaii abilities. Work Year Org-Wide Competen cies Regular Faculty Work Year Refer to Appendix G 56 DRAFT 4. Career Opportunities Blueprint (Continued) DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT Professional TEC Entry Leadership Role Subject Matter Expert Role Qualifications Work Year Org-Wide Competencies Relationships w/ colleagues are characterized by mutual peer supports and cooperation. Some form of mastery progression as evidenced by certification such as NBCT. Non-Western credentials, professional certificate in the subject area they teach and how it relates to other disciplines. Apprenticeship with recognized ancestral artisan and kumu • Minimum of 3 yrs experience • Must have met all entry level requirements • Professional certification Regular Faculty Work Year Refer to Appendix G Maintains cordial relationships w/ colleagues to fulfill duties that are • Learning from other Recent graduate subject matter experts and May have degree in content areas and subject area Version 12 contributing where No previous teaching experiences and expertise experience w/BA Regular Faculty Work Year Refer to Appendix G 57 DRAFT 4. Career Opportunities Blueprint (Continued) Career Family: Faculty Advancing in the Faculty Career Path DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT The following are recommended “rules of the road” envisioned by the Core Project Team for faculty advancing from one level to the next in the new career opportunity model: TEC 1. Teachers with no previous experience would be hired at the entry level. It is expected that a new teacher would spend at least one year and, at most, three years at this level. A “fast tracker” could advance after a minimum of one year at Entry. If a teacher could not be promoted from Entry to Career after three years, they would not be retained and counseled toward another profession or career path. While this type of “no-experience” direct hire does occur at KS, it is the exception at this point, rather than the rule. Given the industry challenges to recruit and hire qualified and effective teachers, the Core Project Team anticipates that KS will seek other sources (other than the traditional colleges of Education) to recruit and hire. 2. KS will develop provisions for bringing new faculty and internal transfers with experience into KS career levels above Entry. Such provisions would allow KS to place new faculty and internal transfers into the appropriate Career Level (Career, Career Professional, Advanced Professional) on a probationary basis, based an initial evaluation at the time of hire. A full evaluation would be made of the faculty during the first year to confirm the initial placement. 3. It is expected that most teachers will achieve the Career Professional level during their careers at KS. It is not expected that all teachers will choose to achieve the highest, Advanced Professional, level. This level reflects truly outstanding career achievement. Note: A review of current teacher placements will be a part of a ‘virtual’ pilot exercise and information gathered from the pilot will inform next steps. Version 12 58 DRAFT 4. Career Opportunities Blueprint (Continued) Career Family: Faculty DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT Advancing in the Faculty Career Path (continued) TEC 4. Advancement from one career level to the next is proposed to be based on performance and evaluated on several dimensions: a. Competencies; * Organizational core competencies * Functional competencies ** Instructional practice (defined by the Danielson Framework for Teaching) ** Administrative practice b. Achievement of personal professional development goals; and, c. Achievement of outcomes including, where appropriate, student learning results. 5. We expect that teachers would spend a minimum of one year and maximum of three years at the Entry Level, a minimum of three years at the Professional Level, and a minimum of three years at the Career Professional Level. Thus a “fast tracker” could conceivably achieve the Advanced Professional Level in 7 years at KS. 6. Each staff member will have the choice to return to a previous level or role with the appropriate and related role, responsibility and related compensation adjustments. Version 12 59 4. Career Opportunities Blueprint (Continued) DRAFT Career Family: Education Support The roles and responsibilities of Education Support staff are varied throughout KS and can generally be “clustered” into two large categories—instructional and operational. Education Support staff interact with students in an instructional setting (e.g., classroom, lab, resource centers, aina) and operational setting (e.g., playground, dining hall, performances and events). DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT The career opportunities for Education Support staff also calls for four career levels beginning with Entry. Entry would be an “up or out” level in that all Education Support would be expected to spend no more than three years at this level if their responsibilities include a majority of instructional responsibilities. Staff members who could not qualify for promotion to the next level from Entry would be counseled to consider other opportunities or focus more on operational activities. TEC For the instructional rubric, the Danielson framework domains were reviewed and modified for a more appropriate recognition of the responsibilities of Faculty members and Education Support staff in the common instructional setting. In addition, rubrics from existing KS evaluation forms and tools with regard to the performance of operational tasks (e.g., supervision, timeliness, accuracy and quality of work) were incorporated into Domain 1 – Planning and Preparation as it related to non-instructional or operational responsibilities. Appendix H provides a more detailed description of instructional and operational support evaluation rubrics as adapted from the Danielson framework. Version 12 60 4. Career Opportunities Blueprint (Continued) DRAFT Career Family: Education Support Career Levels DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT Advanced Professional TEC Instructional and Operational Professional Learning Community Participation Refer to Appendix H for modified Danielson evaluation rubrics for instructional and operational responsibilities Involved each year in leadership as evidenced by any or all of the following: • Lead team meetings • Promote culture of professional inquiry, growth and renewal • Leadership role in at least one aspect of school life • Participation and/or leadership in projects or initiatives at the Division, community, tri-campus and/or system-wide level. Career Professional Version 12 Involved each year in leadership as evidenced by any or all of the following: • Lead team meetings • Promote culture of professional inquiry, growth and renewal • Leadership role in at least one aspect of school life • Participation and/or leadership in unit level projects 61 DRAFT 4. Career Opportunities Blueprint (Continued) Career Family: Education Support DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT Advanced Professional TEC Approximately 20% in the classroom with students Approximately 80% working with adults Leadership Role Subject Matter Expert Role Qualifications Work Year May work with other unit leaders on unit level initiatives. Frequently contributes as a resource or support to administration. Leads unit level initiatives. Supervises other support staff, including contributions to or performance of evaluations. Participates in and contributes to projects or initiatives that at the unit level involve a certain process, practice or topic. Role opportunity as subject matter expert Non-Western credentials, professional certificate in the subject area they support and how it relates to other disciplines Apprenticeship with recognized ancestral artisan and kumu Minimum 7 yrs experience Bachelors degree + additional pertinent course work or training Area related experience Extended Year Org-Wide Competencies Refer to Appendix G Version 12 62 DRAFT 4. Career Opportunities Blueprint (Continued) Career Family: Education Support DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT Career Professional TEC Approximately 80% in the classroom with students Approximately 20% working with adults Leadership Role Subject Matter Expert Role Relationships w/ colleagues are characterized by mutual support & cooperation. Takes initiative or accepts assignment of leadership among peers and staff. Participates in and contributes to projects or initiatives that at the unit level involve a certain process, practice or topic. Role opportunity as subject matter expert Non-Western credentials, professional certificate in the subject area they support and how it relates to other disciplines. Apprenticeship with recognized ancestral artisan and kumu. Qualifications Minimum 3 yrs experience Bachelors degree Area related work experience Work Year Regular Faculty Teacher Work Year Org-Wide Competencies Refer to Appendix G Version 12 63 DRAFT 4. Career Opportunities Blueprint (Continued) DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT Career Family: Education Support TEC Leadership Role Subject Matter Expert Role Qualifications Work Year Org-Wide Competencies Professional Relationships w/ colleagues are characterized by mutual support & cooperation Mastery of their subject area content or operational area of responsibility • Minimum of 3 yrs experience • Must have met all entry level requirements • Professional certification Regular Faculty Teacher Work Year Refer to Appendix G Entry Maintains cordial relationships w/ colleagues to fulfill duties that the school requires No specific area of expertise expected upon entry Recent graduate May have degree in subject area No previous teaching experience w/BA Non-credentialed Regular Faculty Teacher Work Year Refer to Appendix G Version 12 64 4. Career Opportunity Blueprint (Continued) DRAFT Career Family: Education Support Advancing in the Education Support Career Path DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT Following are recommended “rules of the road” envisioned by the Core Project Team for Education Support staff advancing from one level to the next in the new career opportunity model: TEC 1. Education Support (ES) personnel with no previous experience would be hired at the entry level. It is expected that a new ES would spend at least 1 year and, at most, 3 years at this level. A “fast tracker” could promote to Career after a minimum of 1 year at Entry. Staff members who could not qualify for promotion to the next level from Entry would be counseled to consider other opportunities or focus more on an operational emphasis unless performance in an operational emphasis is also unsatisfactory. 2. We will have to develop provisions for bringing new ES personnel with experience into KS career levels above Entry. Such provisions would allow KS to place a new ES into the appropriate Career Level (Professional, Career Professional or Advanced Professional) on a probationary basis, based an initial evaluation at the time of hire. A full evaluation would be made of the ES during the first year to confirm the initial placement. 3. It is expected that most ES will achieve the Career Professional level during their careers at KS. Version 12 65 4. Career Opportunity Blueprint (Continued) DRAFT Career Family: Education Support Advancing in the Education Support Career Path (Continued) DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT 4. TEC Advancement for education support staff from Entry to Advanced Professional will be based on assessment of performance and competency in the following areas instructional and operational areas: A. Instructional and Operational Practices B. Professional Learning Communities Participation C. Leadership Role D. Subject Matter Expert Role E. Work Year F. KS Organization-wide competencies (refer to Appendix G) 5. We expect that Education Support personnel would spend a minimum of 1 year and maximum of 3 years at the Entry Level, and a minimum of 3 years at the Professional Level. Thus a “fast tracker” could conceivably achieve the Career Professional Level in 4 years at KS. Version 12 66 DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT DRAFT TEC 5. Performance Management and Evaluation Component or Blueprint Version 12 67 5. Performance Management and Evaluation Blueprint DRAFT Performance Management and Evaluation The second Education Workforce Framework component or blueprint is performance management and evaluation. It is a core KS workforce process that is designed to support the development and application of the skills and performances we need to maximize student learning. It is not just performance appraisal, but rather an ongoing process as illustrated below: DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT Goal Setting TEC Formal Evaluation & Review Step 6 Step 1 Step 2 Performance Management and Evaluation Cycle Practice & Reflection Step 5 Step 4 Mid Period Checkpoint (including a Review if appropriate) Provision of Supports Practice & Reflection Step 3 Performance Management and Evaluation Process Supports Professional Development, Growth and Renewal Coaching, Mentoring and Feedback Version 12 68 5. Performance Management and Evaluation Blueprint (Cont’d.) DRAFT Performance Dimensions Performance management and evaluation at KS will focus on three core dimensions for all educational workforce members and job families: DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT Competencies Core & Functional TEC Performance Goals/Outcomes (e.g., Related to Student Learning) Personal and/or Professional Development Goals • Functional Competencies for Administrators Use National Staff Development Council (Refer to Appendix A) • Functional Competencies for Faculty Use Danielson (Refer to Appendix B) • Functional Competencies for Education Support Use Modified Danielson (Refer to Appendix H) Version 12 69 5. Performance Management and Evaluation Blueprint (Cont’d.) DRAFT Summary of Organizational Competencies DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT Competency TEC Definition Accountability Takes responsibility for decision making and accomplishing objectives Change Effectiveness Readily adjusts to and embraces changes to meet organizational needs and/or conditions Collaboration and Teamwork Works cooperatively and collaboratively with others throughout the organization in alignment with the organization's objectives Communication Interacts effectively and persuasively with others in the workplace to solicit and share both written and verbal information, and generate commitment Hawaiian Cultural Commitment Demonstrates respect for and appreciation of ÿIke and Nohona Hawaiÿi and understanding of the implications for Kamehameha Schools and its stakeholders Innovation Identifies and integrates creative ideas into new or existing products/services and promotes effective problem-solving Refer to Appendix G for a copy of the organizational competencies along with the related descriptors. While the organizational competencies are part of the Education Workforce Framework, piloting these competencies will not be required in SY 09-10 to allow for broader messaging throughout the Education Group. Version 12 70 Competency 5. Performance Management and Evaluation Blueprint (Cont’d.) DRAFT 1. ACCOUNTABILITY Takes responsibility for decision making and accomplishing objectives Takes initiative to accomplish tasks and make decisions, using the appropriate resources Demonstrates a strong sense of commitment and timeliness in executing on goals and solving problems, while ensuring quality Recognizes linkages between actions and the organizational vision (i.e., line of sight) and uses this knowledge when making decisions SAMPLE DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT Non-Exempt TEC Exempt/Individual Contributor Manager/Supervisor Persists to achieve personal and Director/CEO Team Takes personal Takes personal responsibility Empowers the organization to responsibility for assigned tasks, asking for assistance where needed; prioritizes and systematically organizes assigned tasks while allocating own time efficiently; takes ownership of own career by continuously seeking opportunities for development Balances a sense of timeliness with a commitment to quality while working to meet goals; asks for assistance or guidance when needed Gains familiarity with the organizational vision and works to understand the linkage between own for completing assignments group objectives, maintaining and making decisions, using commitment to goals in the face of the appropriate resources obstacles; holds others responsible Acts in a timely manner to for accomplishing their objectives, solve problems/meet goals in lending support when needed the required time frame, which Commits and delivers on personal may require action/support and group goals in a timely manner outside one’s immediate area; and with a high standard of quality ensures quality standards are by monitoring group progress met toward goals and checking for Makes decisions while quality considering the alignment of Ensures that own actions/decisions actions with the organizational and actions/decisions of staff are in Refer toDescribed AppendixatGfour forlevels a copy of the organizational competencies along with the related vision alignment with the organizational vision; ensures staff is familiar with the vision and has clear line of sight between their daily actions/decisions and the organization’s strategic priorities Version 12 take initiative and follow through on commitments, emphasizing that permission is not needed to do what needs to be done; holds managers and their staff accountable for results Instills a sense of responsibility throughout the organization for honoring time commitments in the achievement of goals and for ensuring high-quality standards Ensures the organizational vision is communicated; actively works to create understanding of and commitment to the vision throughout the employee population through talk story sessions (paleo meetings, town hall meetings, brown bags, briefings, etc.) 71 5. Performance Management and Evaluation Blueprint (Cont’d.) DRAFT Performance Dimension Assessment Performance dimensions assessed for Administration and Management will be defined as follows: Competencies KS Organizational Competencies (Refer to Appendix G) DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT Administrators Rubric (Refer to Appendix A) TEC Professional Development Goals As documented in My Learning Plan (MLP) Performance Goals/Outcomes Student learning gains, process efficiencies and effectiveness, etc. Performance dimensions assessed for Faculty (e.g. teachers, librarians and counselors) and Education Support staff will be defined as follows: Competencies KS Organizational Competencies (Refer to Appendix G) Faculty: Danielson Framework’s four dimensions (Refer to Appendix B) Education Support: Modified Danielson Framework (Refer to Appendix H) CBECE Teachers and Teaching Assistants: Classroom Assessment and Scoring System (CLASS) (Refer to Appendix K) Professional Development Goals As documented in either My Learning Plan (MLP) or hard copy HR forms Performance Goals/Outcomes Results – where possible, related to student learning gains Version 12 72 5. Performance Management and Evaluation Blueprint (Cont’d.) DRAFT Performance Assessment Evidence & Tools Performance assessments in the new framework will be detailed, objective and evidence-based. The plan for faculty, for example, involves an evaluation to be conducted annually and a full evaluation to be conducted in making the decisions to promote to the next career level or once every five years at a given level – whichever comes first. DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT The artifacts or bodies of evidence to be used in the faculty annual and full evaluations are described on the next page. Similar types of bodies of evidence can be used by both the Administrator and Management and Education Support career families, ensuring the relevance of the artifacts. TEC The Ka Pi`ina framework does not prescribe the quantity or quality of the artifacts. The discussion should be held between the staff member and the evaluator/supervisor at the beginning of the evaluation period to determine the appropriate number of, types and quality indicators of the artifacts or bodies of evidence before the evaluation period begins. The Ka Pi`ina framework does prescribe for the pilot period at least the following three tools that will be used in the Performance Management and Evaluation process: 1. Success Factors – The Core Project Team created a Ka Pi`ina Support Plan to capture the staff member’s goals in the three dimensions noted earlier. This web- based, hosted application, allows staff members to enter and update their goals as needed and is the same system (different form) in use by other KS staff members. 2. Blackboard – While in current use at KS as an instructional tool, Blackboard for Ka Pi`ina’s purposes will be used as a repository for storing the artifacts and bodies of evidence used in evaluation. 3. My Learning Plan – In use by the KS Maui campus for the past five years, this professional development request, approval and recording tool has been rolled out to the KS Hawai`i campus and in some KS Kapälama campus units. All professional development efforts for the Ka Pi`ina pilot will be recorded in My Learning Plan. Version 12 73 5. Performance Management and Evaluation Blueprint (Cont’d.) DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT Example Artifacts and Bodies of Evidence for the Portfolio TEC Full Evaluation - New (first yr) Faculty, Performance Improvement Plan, Five-Year or next career level advancement (learning unit based) DRAFT Annual Evaluation (lesson based) Samples and analysis of student work As it relates to the unit As it relates to the lesson plans of the observation Capture instructional practice (formal) – observation, video, combination Minimum of 2 observations and/or videos (or 1 if using NBCT) One (1) live observation Assessment of student learning Samples of varied assessment used Samples of varied assessment used Resources/handouts Samples of instructional aids Samples of instructional aids Unit lesson plans An entire unit One or two lesson plans in support of the observation taken Personal staff development plan: Learning goals (system, campus, department, personal), selfreflection Refer to existing hard copy forms that vary from educational site. Refer to existing hard copy forms that vary from educational site. Survey or other 3rd party input: peer, parent, student input (as developmentally appropriate), Counselor, Community/Collaborator, Instructional Specialist, Site-Based Administrator, Industry Professional, Other Content Instructor, Community Professional and/or Higher Education Professional Survey results or other documents Survey results or other documents * Note: The primary reason artifacts are gathered is for evaluation, however, artifacts may also be used for training, mentoring and coaching purposes with appropriate permission. Version 12 74 DRAFT 5. Performance Management and Evaluation Blueprint (Cont’d.) Recommended Frequency of Checkpoints DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT Following is a chart describing the recommended frequency of performance review checkpoints for each education workforce career family and level: TEC Administrator Management Faculty Education Support Advanced Professional Mid-Year Advanced Professional Mid-Year Advanced Professional Mid-Year Career Professional Mid-Year Career Professional Mid-Year Career Professional Mid-Year Professional Mid-Year Professional Mid-Year Professional Mid-Year Entry No less than 3 times in a year or quarterly Entry 4 times a year Entry 4 times a year Version 12 75 5. Performance Management and Evaluation Blueprint (Cont’d.) DRAFT Performance Evaluation Rubrics Performance evaluation rubrics were adapted from foundational sources and will need to be tested in the pilot for each education workforce career family. The Core Project Team’s recommendations for performance rubrics are: DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT Career Family Description TEC Recommended Performance Rubrics in Pilot Administration and Management The National Staff Development Council’s (NSDC) developed rubrics including modified language for KS applicability, see Appendix A Faculty Charlotte Danielson’s Framework for Teaching, see Appendix B or the Classroom Assessment Scoring System (CLASS) , see Appendix K for early childhood education educators Educational Support Charlotte Danielson’s Framework for Teaching, modified for KS applicability, see Appendix H The following pages provides a high level sample of the individual rubrics and related structure (e.g., domains, components, elements): 1. The domain structure for the NSDC rubric 2. The Danielson Rubric along with a sample of the component and elements. The Framework assesses faculty on 20 standards within 4 domains of functional, instructional competencies. 3. The CLASS rubric which will be piloted by the Community Based Early Childhood Education (CBECE) unit and provides an overview of the domain and dimension structure. Version 12 76 5. Performance Management and Evaluation Blueprint (Cont’d.) DRAFT Performance Evaluation Rubric – Administrator We recommend using the National Staff Development Council’s rubric for Administrators & Management which contain the following domains—Context, Process and Content: DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT Context Domain: Learning Communities: Staff development that improves the learning of all students organizes adults into learning communities whose goals are aligned with those of the organization. Leadership: Staff development that improves the learning of all students requires skillful leaders who guide continuous instructional improvement. Resources: Staff development that improves the learning of all students requires resources to support adult learning and collaboration. TEC Hawaiian Cultural Commitment: (Addition made by Ka Pi‘ina working group): Demonstrates cultural commitment by learning, promoting, and modeling, ‘Ike and Nohona Hawai‘i. Process Domain: Data-Driven: Staff Development that improves the learning of all students uses disaggregated student data to determine adult learning priorities, monitor progress, and help sustain continuous improvement. Evaluation: Staff Development that improves the learning of all students uses multiple sources of information to guide improvement and demonstrate its impact. Researched-Based: Staff development that improves the learning of all students prepares educators to apply research to decision making. Design: Staff development that improves the learning of all students uses learning strategies appropriate to the intended goal. Learning: Staff Development that improves the learning of all students applies knowledge about human learning and change. Collaboration: Staff development that improves the learning of all students provides educators with the knowledge and skills to collaborate. Hawaiian Cultural Commitment: (Addition made by Ka Pi‘ina working group): Demonstrates cultural commitment by learning, promoting, and modeling, ‘Ike and Nohona Hawai‘i. Version 12 77 5. Performance Management and Evaluation Blueprint (Cont’d.) DRAFT Performance Evaluation Rubric – Administrator (continued) DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT We recommend using the National Staff Development Council’s rubric for Administrators & Management which contain the following additional domain: TEC Content Domain: Equity: Staff development that improves the learning of all students prepares educators to understand and appreciate all students, create safe, orderly and supportive learning environments, and hold high expectations for their academic achievement. Quality Teaching: Staff development that improves the learning of all students deepens educators’ content knowledge, provides them with research-based instructional strategies to assist students in meeting rigorous academic standards, and prepares them to use various types of classroom assessments appropriately. Family Involvement: Staff development that improves the learning of all students provides educators with knowledge and skills to involve families and other stakeholders appropriately. Hawaiian Cultural Commitment: (Addition made by Ka Pi‘ina working group): Demonstrates cultural commitment by learning, promoting, and modeling, ‘Ike and Nohona Hawai‘i. Version 12 78 5. Performance Management and Evaluation Blueprint (Cont’d.) DRAFT Performance Evaluation Rubric – Administrator (Continued) Learning Communities: Organizing adults into learning communities whose goals are aligned with the school or division and system DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT Desired Outcomes TEC PREPARES TEACHERS/ INSTRUCTORS INSTRUCTORS FOR SKILLFUL SKILLFUL COLLABORATION Just Beginning Provides support to learning learning teams and/or whole whole school or division division meetings throughout throughout the stages of group of group development by by supplying a skilled group group facilitator. Basic (Know) Provides opportunities opportunities for team team leaders to learn learn about group group process, group group dynamics, the the stages of group group development, and development, and group and group decisiondecision-making. Schedules multiple multiple sessions throughout the year as year as well as coaching coaching experiences. Proficient (Apply) Distinguished (Transfer to others; Committed; Committed; Passionate) Provides training and and support to develop develop staff members members to serve as serve as skilled facilitators who provide provide support during during whole school or school or division and division and learning learning team meetings. Proficient Outcomes + Outcomes + Ensures that Ensures that the role of role of group facilitator facilitator becomes the becomes the responsibility of everyone everyone and rotates as rotates as the skill level of level of group members members increases. SAMPLE A complete copy of the modified National Staff Development Council rubric is found at Appendix A. Version 12 79 5. Performance Management and Evaluation Blueprint (Cont’d.) DRAFT Performance Evaluation Rubric – Faculty and Education Support (Continued) TEC Adapted from: “Enhancing Professional Practice: A Framework for Teaching” by Charlotte Danielson, ASCD Pub., 2008 DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT Domain 1: PLANNING AND PREPARATION Component 1a: Demonstrating Knowledge of Content and Pedagogy Component 1b: Demonstrating Knowledge of Students Component 1c: Setting Instructional Outcomes Component 1d: Demonstrating Knowledge of Resources Component 1e: Designing Coherent Instruction Component 1f: Designing Student Assessments Domain 2: THE CLASSROOM ENVIRONMENT Component 2a: Creating an Environment of Respect and Rapport Component 2b: Establishing a Culture of Learning Component 2c: Managing Classroom Procedures Component 2d: Managing Student Behavior Component 2e: Organizing Physical Space Domain 3: INSTRUCTION Component 3a: Communicating with Students Component 3b: Using Questioning and Discussion Techniques Component 3c: Engaging Students in Learning Component 3d: Using Assessment in Instruction Component 3e: Demonstrating Flexibility and Responsiveness Domain 4: PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES Component 4a: Reflecting on Teaching Component 4b: Maintaining Accurate Records Component 4c: Communicating with Families Component 4d: Participating in a Professional Community Component 4e: Growing and Developing Professionally Component 4f: Showing Professionalism Version 12 80 5. Performance Management and Evaluation Blueprint (Cont’d.) DRAFT Performance Evaluation Rubric – Faculty and Education Support (continued) Following is an example of the rubrics for the first of five components of the first domain – Planning & Preparation DOMAIN 1: PLANNING AND PREPARATION COMPONENT 1A: DEMONSTRATING KNOWLEDGE OF CONTENT AND PEDAGOGY Elements: Knowledge of content and the structure of the discipline • Knowledge of prerequisite relationships • Knowledge of content-related pedagogy DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT L E V E L TEC O F P E R F O R M A N C E ELEMENT UNSATISFACTORY BASIC PROFICIENT DISTINGUISHED Knowledge of content and the structure of the discipline In planning and practice, teacher makes content errors or does not correct errors made by students. Teacher is familiar with the important concepts in the discipline but may display lack of awareness of how these concepts relate to one another. Teacher displays solid knowledge of the important concepts in the discipline and how these relate to one another. Teacher displays extensive knowledge of the important concepts in the discipline and how these relate both to one another and to other disciplines. Knowledge of prerequisite relationships Teacher’s plans and practice display little understanding of prerequisite relationships important to student learning of the content. Teacher’s plans and practice indicate some awareness of prerequisite relationships, although such knowledge may be inaccurate or incomplete. Teacher’s plans and practice reflect accurate understanding of prerequisite relationships among topics and concepts. Teacher’s plans and practices reflect understanding of prerequisite relationships among topics and concepts and a link to necessary cognitive structures by students to ensure understanding. Knowledge of content-related pedagogy Teacher displays little or no understanding of the range of pedagogical approaches suitable to student learning of the content. Teacher’s plans and practice reflect a limited range of pedagogical approaches or some approaches that are not suitable to the discipline or to the students. Teacher’s plans and practice reflect familiarity with a wide range of effective pedagogical approaches in the discipline. Teacher’s plans and practice reflect familiarity with a wide range of effective pedagogical approaches in the discipline, anticipating student misconceptions. Version 12 A complete copy of the Danielson Framework rubrics is attached as Appendix B at the end of this document. 81 DRAFT 5. Performance Management and Evaluation Blueprint (Cont’d.) Performance Evaluation Rubric – CBECE Faculty and CBECE Education Support DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT As work by the Core Project Team (CPT) continued on the Education Workforce Framework, early childhood educators at KS advised the CPT that review work and preliminary implementation discussions were in progress for the implementation of the Classroom Assessment and Scoring System (CLASS) in CBECE. An example of the domains and dimensions are noted below and an overview is provided at Appendix K. TEC Version 12 Adapted from CLASS Website: http://www.classobservation.com/what/dimensions.php?type=1 5. Performance Management and Evaluation Blueprint (Cont’d.) DRAFT Accountability for Performance Management DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT Accountability for performance management will be shared by the employee, peers, and supervisors. We anticipate in the case of faculty, for example, that each faculty member will actively participate in setting professional development and outcome goals. In addition the faculty member will maintain and contribute evidence and reflections to portfolios. Identified master teachers and administrators will share accountability to coach and mentor. In addition they will, along with others, conduct observations and evaluations. Consistent with the design principles stated earlier, multiple ways of gathering and providing feedback for performance management and evaluation purposes are supported. TEC Training All parties to the performance management process must be trained in the process. We will use the pilot to develop and test all training protocols. Employees will need training in how to set goals, document performance, and write reflections. Observers will need to be trained in reliable and valid observation techniques. They will need to calibrate their evaluations with others on the same subject. Master teachers, supervisors and administrators will require training on coaching and mentoring. Performance Evaluation Appeals In the case of dissatisfaction with the performance evaluation result, we envision a progressive process that considers the use of a peer review panel or process. During the pilot, a Core Project Team sub group will engage pilot participants and other interested staff to design and propose a peer review panel or process which will provide both professional review opportunities and a mechanism for an evaluation appeal process. Version 12 83 5. Performance Management and Evaluation Blueprint (Cont’d.) DRAFT Program of Assistance DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT In the case of progressively unsatisfactory performance the following steps are proposed: TEC Notify employee in writing of KS’ intent to place a staff member on Performance Improvement Plan (PIP). Formulate PIP before implementation. Develop PIP cooperatively, seeking the assistance of Human Resources or other supports and the Evaluator’s determination shall prevail. List specific deficiencies/standards not being met. State corrective steps to be taken by employee, including appropriate timeframes for the corrective steps. Document assistance to be offered, provided and/or supplied. Establish clear measurable/observable assessment techniques to determine employee success. Provide peer assistance and supports as reasonable and practicable. Conduct mid-period/plan review conference. Unsatisfactory improvement may result in a recommendation for the employee to not be retained. Satisfactory improvement will be noted in the Professional Evaluation A PIP becomes a permanent part of the employee’s personnel file. Version 12 84 DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT DRAFT TEC 6. Professional Growth and Renewal Component or Blueprint Version 12 85 DRAFT 6. Professional Growth and Renewal Blueprint Professional Growth and Renewal DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT Professional Growth and Renewal is the third blueprint in the Education Workforce Framework. It is a core process that allows KS to develop and grow the talent it will need in it’s strategy to “Strengthen the People”. As indicated in the illustration below, professional growth and renewal consists of many activities, opportunities and experiences. At the core, however is the time embedded in daily schedules to allow for development. Professional growth and renewal is not “something that happens” to people periodically – rather it is integrated into the professional practice of education. Professional growth and renewal is also considered a two-way investment: 1) KS’s investment in a staff member’s skill, ability, personal growth and career; and 2) The staff member’s investment in themselves to enhance effective professional practices and improvements in student learning, growth and achievement. TEC Cohort Mentor Groups Publication and Presentation Research and Development Professional Learning Teams Professional Growth and Renewal Expertise Development Book Studies Peer Observation and Coaching Conference Attendance Professional Coursework Version 12 86 6. Professional Growth and Renewal Blueprint DRAFT Professional Growth and Renewal Opportunities The Ka Piÿina Core Project Team developed an initial enumeration of professional development opportunities. The following list notes those opportunities that already exist as well as those which should be considered in the future: DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT Current Opportunities (“As Is”) TEC Summer school leadership Parrent fund (KSK only) WASC leadership Teacher exchange B-credits Academic club leadership Support for credit courses, advanced degrees and certifications Distance learning/classroom In-service days with national/local consultants Sabbatical Admin internship Pre-service teacher supervision Immersion school teacher Lead teacher role Peer observation National/local conferences & workshops Intra-inter grade level and department meetings Candidate support provider services (e.g., NBCT) Proposed Opportunities (“To Be”-considered) Job rotation Internship Job shadow K-credits Peer mentoring ÿAha Alakaÿi Nä Kumu (academy for KS leader growth) Teach for America Community-based mentoring Land-based, place-based Professional learning communities KS partnership with local university to offer degree cohorts for staff One week paid per year to engage in professional development or service learning opportunity Bring continent conference to Hawaiÿi Sabbatical for administrators & other non-faculty staff Support for non-exempt staff to attend continent conferences Version 12 87 6. Professional Growth and Renewal Blueprint DRAFT Professional Growth and Renewal Opportunities (Cont’d.) DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT Current Opportunities (“As Is”) TEC Proposed Opportunities (“To Be”-considered) Staff development library Critical friends Book study Nohona afternoon classes ÿIke Hawaiÿi Home Hoÿonaÿauao Huakaÿi wahi pana field trip to special cultural sites Nohona Hawaiÿi classroom (elective) & web-based (mandatory) Koa planting Online learning – KS & other Educational organization membership & attendance Student mentoring New teacher orientation day Project-based management work Professional development as one event that takes place during in-service days In-service out-sourced Hawaiian cultural committee Broker education via UHH courses on specific subject areas Service learning Leadership training Standards-based change process Team meetings: age group, etc. Version 12 88 DRAFT 6. Professional Growth and Renewal Blueprint Embedded Professional Development DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT In addition to formal training off the job, professional development at KS can be embedded as part of every working day. Following is an example of a schedule at the KSK-Elementary School showing how time is made available outside the classroom for professional learning groups (labeled ‘Release’ time): TEC v v v v v v Version 12 89 6. Professional Growth and Renewal Blueprint DRAFT Professional Development Process DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT All staff will participate in growth and renewal activities. Some of these sessions are required trainings which take place during the school day, such as planned inservice. Professional growth also includes peer and instructional coaching and collaboration opportunities which extend beyond the school day. As staff grow within the profession and move further along the Career Levels, additional growth opportunities become available, as listed in the Career Path Model (refer to Chapter 4, page 37). TEC Professional development as a process will link directly with Career Opportunities and Performance Management and Evaluation. The resulting professional development plans will be the source of information putting appropriate professional growth and renewal experience into play for the year. Finally, the resulting list of professional growth and renewal opportunities will be consulted in finalizing individual professional development plans. The process is illustrated as follows: (and improved student learning) Version 12 90 DRAFT DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT 7. Compensation and Rewards Component or Blueprint TEC Version 12 91 DRAFT 7. Compensation and Rewards Blueprint Compensation and Rewards The fourth blueprint in the Education Workforce Framework component is Compensation and Rewards. It is a core KS process that is designed to support and reward the development and application of the skills to maximize student learning. We recommend orchestrating three critical elements of compensation and rewards. DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT Recognition and Quality of Work Life TEC Most educators associate performance pay or merit pay with the variable pay descriptor on page 96 where there is some Variable pay at risk. The Core Project Team did look Pay at a bonus approach based on a number of factors, however, the majority of the work focused on the base salary reward strategy. Base Salary Variable Pay Version 12 92 7. Compensation and Rewards Blueprint (Continued) DRAFT Base Salary Schedule The compensation design principles recommended by the Ka Piÿina Core Project Team (CPT) tell us that KS’ base salary program should fulfill the following requirements: 1. Salary levels must be competitive enough to enable KS to attract new teachers and retain them throughout their careers. 2. Salaries that accelerate career earnings will be a key factor in attracting and retaining education workforce members. DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT 3. Salary progression should reward career growth and increasing levels of professional practice. TEC Ka Piÿina recommends that KS adopt a salary schedule for each Education Workforce Career Family that has salary levels throughout that are competitive with external markets and that bases upward movement in pay (raises) on progressive career level achievement and contribution. In addition we recommend the payment of stipends that do not become a part of base salary in recognition of performing roles (e.g. coaching department head, subject matter expert) while that person is in that role. Such a policy is known as Career Based Pay (CBP). Under CBP, an education workforce member earns additional compensation (in the form of a raise or stipend) as they achieve new career levels and/or take on additional roles. CBP, therefore, rewards increases in human capital value. The Ka Piÿina study has determined that KS’ current salary levels are competitive with relevant external professional markets (see Section 8: Readiness Assessment below). There are differences in benefits offered between KS and other schools, however, for purposes of the Ka Piÿina project, we recommend continuing KS’ current benefit program and adopting the following CBP salary schedules, studying specific benefit areas as needed. Further the CPT recommends continuing current salary levels in the new salary schedules. Version 12 93 DRAFT 7. Compensation and Rewards Blueprint (Continued) Base Salary Schedule (Continued) Career Family Position Examples: Principal, Assistant Principal, Director, Assistant Director, Curriculum Coordinator, Manager, Education Coordinator, Assistant Educational Coordinator Proposed Administrator/Management Schedule Entry Maximum $ Professional $ Career Professional Professional $ Advanced Professional $ DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT + Stipend TEC Minimum $ $ $ $ Close to Current Maximum SR Grade 40* Range Career Level 50.0% 12.0% Current Minimum SR Grade 34* * During the virtual pilot activity, the minimum and maximum SR grade levels will be reviewed and adjusted as needed. Major Features: 1. Follows an industry trend to move away from steps for administrators. 2. Minimum Entry column is proposed to be the minimum for the range in the current SR schedule. 3. Maximum in the Career Professional column is proposed to be close to (or a little above) the current maximum for the range in the current SR schedule and is intended to be competitive to reward sustained, satisfactory professional performance over an Educator’s career. 4. Movement between the career levels is proposed to reflect a 12.0% differential. 5. The difference between the minimum and maximum of each career level column is proposed to be 50%. An above market premium is proposed to be paid to those who fulfill the extended requirements of the Advanced Professional career level. Version 12 94 DRAFT 7. Compensation and Rewards Blueprint (Continued) Base Salary Schedule (Continued) Option #1: 20 Steps Proposed Faculty Career Family Salary Schedule DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT Step TEC 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Range Spread Step Career Level Entry $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 4.96% 2.45% 12.0% Career Level Career Professional Professional Professional $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 58.39% 58.39% Version 12 Advanced Professional Professional $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Career Family Position Examples: Teacher, Librarian, Counselor, Literacy Resource Teacher, Program Specialist, Instructional Specialist + Stipend Current Step 1 1 Salary in the the Faculty 10 10 Month Schedule Schedule 58.39% Very close to the the Step 25 (highest) salary for salary for the MA MA lane. 95 DRAFT 7. Compensation and Rewards Blueprint (Continued) Base Salary Schedule (Continued) Option #2: 15 Steps Proposed Faculty Career Family Salary Schedule DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT Step TEC 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Range Spread Spread Step Career Level Entry $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 4.96% 2.45% 12.0% Career Level Career Professional Professional Professional $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 58.39% 58.39% Version 12 Advanced Professional $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Career Family Position Examples: Teacher, Librarian, Counselor, Literacy Resource Teacher, Program Specialist, Instructional Specialist + Stipend Current Step 1 1 Salary in the the Faculty 10 10 Month Schedule Schedule 58.39% Very close to the the Step 25 (highest) salary for salary for the MA MA lane. 96 DRAFT 7. Compensation and Rewards Blueprint (Continued) DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT Base Salary Schedule (Continued) TEC Major Features of both Option #1 – 20 Steps and Option #2 – 15 Steps: 1. Step 1 salary in the Entry column is proposed to equal Step 1 BA in the current 10 month schedule. 2. Maximum in the Career Professional column is proposed to be close to Step 25 (highest) salary in the MA lane of the current 10 month schedule and is intended to be competitive to reward sustained, satisfactory professional performance over an Educator’s career. 4. Movement between the career levels is proposed to reflect a 12.0% differential. 5. Education lanes have been replaced by career levels (e.g., Entry, Professional, Career Professional and Advanced Professional). 6. An above market premium is proposed to be paid to those who fulfill the extended requirements of the Advanced Professional career level. Version 12 97 DRAFT 7. Compensation and Rewards Blueprint (Continued) Base Salary Schedule (Continued) Proposed Education Support Schedule Current SR Ranges XX to YY DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT Entry TEC Professional Career Profesional Profesional Maximum $ $ $ Minimum $ $ $ Advanced Professional + Stipend $ Current Minimum SR Grade Lowest* Range Career Level 65.0% 12.0% Career Family Position Examples: Library Assistant, Teaching Assistant, Computer Lab Coordinator, Science Lab Assistant, Literacy Support Specialist Close to Maximum SR Grade Highest* * During the virtual pilot activity, the minimum the minimum and maximum SR grade levels will grade levels will be reviewed and adjusted as needed. Major Features: 1. Minimum Entry column is proposed to be the minimum for the range in the current SR schedule. 2. Maximum in the Career Professional column is proposed to be close to (or a little above) the current maximum for the range in the current SR schedule and is intended to be competitive to reward sustained, satisfactory professional performance over a career. 4. Movement between the career levels is proposed to reflect a 12.0% differential. 5. The difference between the minimum and maximum of each career level column is proposed to be 65%. 6. Like the Faculty career family, an above market premium is proposed to be paid to those who fulfill the extended requirements of the Advanced Professional career level. Version 12 98 DRAFT 7. Compensation and Rewards Blueprint (Continued) Variable Pay Following the compensation design principles, the Ka Piÿina CPT recommends that KS complement the base salary program with variable pay. Variable pay is proposed to take the form of an incentive payment that does not roll into base pay. It would only be paid when KS performance goals are met or exceeded. Such a program is known as Student Based Performance Awards (SBPA). DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT We envision SBPA at KS having the following characteristics: TEC The payment usually is in the form of a lump sum cash award. Awards can be paid to every education workforce member in a school, campus or division based on student learning gains. The payment does not become part of base pay. It must be re-earned. SBPA is complementary to Career Based Pay (CBP) The following page provides a sample variable pay computation. Version 12 99 DRAFT 7. Compensation and Rewards Blueprint (Continued) Variable Pay (Continued) Example: Each division or campus would have a balanced scorecard that contained six key metrics and measures representing all critical areas of the unit’s operation. The following table is an illustration of such a scorecard and the related measures for variable pay purposes: DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT Critical Success Factor TEC Measure Weight Prior Year Below Threshold Actual Threshold 50% of Goal Goal 125% of Goal 0.0% 50.0% 100.0% 125.0% 25.0% Percent Accomplishment 1. Campus Academic Performance Reading Gain Math Gain 6.0% 6.0% 50.0 51.0 50.0 51.0 52.0 53.0 54.0 55.0 56.0 57.0 6.0% 6.0% 2. School Academic Performance Reading Gain Math Gain 20.0% 20.0% 50.0 51.0 50.0 51.0 52.0 53.0 54.0 55.0 56.0 57.0 20.0% 20.0% 3. Retention Rate 4. Student Satisfaction 5. Student Attendance 6. Financial Retention Rate Percent Student Satisfaction Rate Attendance Rate Expense per Student 12.0% 12.0% 12.0% 12.0% 92.0% 75.0% 96.0% $17,100 94.0% 95.0% 76.0% 78.0% 96.0% .96.5 $17,100 $17,200 96.0% 80.0% 97.0% $17,100 97.0% 82.0% 97.5% $17,000 12.0% 15.0% 12.0% 12.0% Note: Overall Performance 100% Target Incentive: Earned Incentive Salary Bonus Overall Performance must achieve at least 60% for there to be a payout 103.0% 5.0% 5.2% $70,000 $3,605 An explanation of this example is found on the next page. Version 12 100 DRAFT 7. Compensation and Rewards Blueprint (Continued) Variable Pay (Continued) DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT Following are the major features of an SBPA program: Learning improvements are measured at the various unit levels (e.g., tri-campus, campus, CEI Division, CEI Program) on all factors critical to instructional goals and objectives. TEC A possible KS wide component. The scorecard includes stakeholder and school operations measures. All education workforce members participate in the program. In fact some schools extend participation to all personnel including support and trades employees to encourage a sense of team work in achieving common educational goals. Improvement goals are set each year according to a continuous improvement over prior year actual principle. Goals are set based on value-added methodology as part of the school accountability process. Payouts are made once a year and can be expressed as a percent of base salary or in flat dollar amounts. Target incentive levels are significant in order for the incentive to be meaningful (e.g., 5% of base salary earned in the example on the previous page). Performance on each measure is tracked during the year. At the end of the year percent accomplishment is calculated for each goal by multiplying the percent of goal achieved (0% to 125%) by the weight associated with each measure. The percent accomplishment calculations are summed across all measures in the scorecard to achieve an overall measure of accomplishment against goal (103.0% in the example). Overall performance is multiplied by the target incentive (5% in our example) to derive the earned incentive (5.2% in our example – 103% times 5% rounded). The bonus earned is derived by multiplying the earned incentive times base salary earned during the year (5.2% times $70,000 = $3,605 in the example on the previous page). Version 12 101 DRAFT 7. Compensation and Rewards Blueprint (Continued) What Can KS Expect from SBPA? DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT The Ka Piÿina Core Project Team believes that SBPA can become a powerful compensation and reward element for KS by achieving the following results: 1. Focusing education workforce members on critical success factors in the strategic plan. 2. Developing insights and understanding of key measures of the enterprise. 3. Developing keen focus on both existing and destination measures. 4. Developing “line of sight” between individual education workforce members and the results we must achieve – a sense that one knows how he or she contributes to that measure in what they do and a sense that we can really make a difference through our efforts. 5. An effective incentive for increased efforts towards common goals. 6. A celebration of both individual and collective success. TEC Recommended Next Steps with SBPA The Ka Piÿina Core Project Team recommends the following steps during the pilot with SBPA (if individual pilot participants or units choose to pilot SBPA): 1. Confirm the “Scorecard.” Make sure we have the right critical success factors and measures, including the consideration of existing initiatives (e.g., TriCampus Standards Project, CBECE Positive Behavioral Supports). 2. Assure that the data on each measure is reliable and warehoused in a way that allows for timely and user-friendly retrieval. 3. Make a final determination of participation and level (e.g., Should there be a campus component and a KS wide component?). 4. Establish and pretest the goal setting process. 5. “Dry run” the program, without pay implications under all scenarios to see how the program works. 6. Establish and pretest the communication process under the program. 7. Consider next steps, including implementation, after a pilot year. Version 12 102 DRAFT 7. Compensation and Rewards Blueprint (Continued) Recognition and Quality of Work Life DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT The third pillar of the Ka Piÿina compensation and reward blueprint is non-cash recognition. The survey results reviewed in Section 8: Gap Analysis and Readiness Assessment below told us that non-cash quality of life elements such as KS’ Mission are as (if not more) important a factor in attracting, motivating and retaining talent as cash compensation. KS already is rich in recognition. The Ka Piÿina Core Project Team (CPT) recommends that we build on that strength and improve on what is already an effective reward component. The CPT’s recommendations for continuing and enhancing both recognition and quality of work life elements follow. TEC Recognition Recognition refers to a broad array of non-cash elements that are symbolic and can be very effective in celebrating and encouraging individual and group achievement. Following are recognition elements that currently exist that we recommend continuing (the list is not exhaustive and there may be many more elements operating currently): • Formal: KS-wide Service Awards (annual staff recognition), monthly management report(s), e-mailed letters of commendation; division newsletters; individual awards (national-award given by college or student), ÿAha Alakaÿi (Leadership Conference); organization-wide staff activities (e.g., May Day, Christmas Party, Year-End Party). • Informal: Nohona Hawaiÿi activities, community service activities; internal year end email of celebration and recognition, birthday cards and emails, personal internal email of acknowledgement and recognition, holiday service, service award gift cards, handwritten Christmas cards, staff retreat, leadership retreat, celebrations including food (hoÿokipa); apparel/uniforms; movie tickets; t-shirts; umbrellas; thermos; bags; candy and staff socials (especially those in which families are encouraged), weekend sports activity with families (e.g., baseball, swimming). Version 12 103 DRAFT 7. Compensation and Rewards Blueprint (Continued) DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT “As Is” Recognition TEC Staff appreciation luncheon for operations crew Logo wear Teacher appreciation (e.g., T-shirts, thermos, umbrella, bags, candy) Recognition at staff meetings Mahalo and acknowledgements of support and “good” work done in weekly bulletin Community recognition or appreciation Student and parent appreciation Accreditation celebration Recognition of teachers when they earn an advanced degree or National Board Certification Flextime, work from home Teacher appreciation day KSM Red Wagon Award Send thank you cards Academic Club Trophies (School/Individual students); TV Coverage (Song contest/Christmas concert); Staff/Teacher Appreciation Day Gifts Service Awards Certificate of recognition (e.g., teacher, team) Staff celebrations for accomplishments Päÿina Ice cream parties Staff social twice a year Version 12 104 DRAFT 7. Compensation and Rewards Blueprint (Continued) “To Be” Recognition DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT The Ka Piÿina Core Project Team identified the following additional areas of recognition that can build upon and further improve existing recognition activities: TEC Provide each department a budget for small thank you recognition gifts KS “bucks” for purchases at the school bookstore or technology Money for staff socials, including families Personal visit, email, phone call by unit leader, or senior leader sharing observations and congratulations of a job well done. Take a day off awards Day off on your birthday Flex time awards Peer recognition Version 12 105 DRAFT 7. Compensation and Rewards Blueprint (Continued) “As Is” Quality of Work Life Elements DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT Quality of Work Life encompasses a broad array of non-cash and often intangible elements that include the “touch and feel” of an institution, its culture, values, and climate. The following list of Quality of Work Life elements that currently exist that we recommend continuing (the list is not exhaustive and there may be many more elements operating currently): TEC Mission guided Great facilities and resources Funding of strategic efforts Limited class size for faculty Adequate preparation time Reduced bureaucracy and more empowerment for work/life balance Manageable schedule Supplies, coffee service, copy service Environment where conflict is addressed and people are held accountable Adoption benefits Payment for membership fees for professional organizations Professional development support, equitable access to college classes, professional subscriptions Good working environment Support for life-long learning Flextime or alternative work schedules Job security Time (work embedded) for staff development and collaboration Support (e.g., mentoring, coaching) Access to enabling technologies Hawaiian and Christian values based work environment Excellent staff Version 12 106 DRAFT 7. Compensation and Rewards Blueprint (Continued) DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT “To Be” Quality of Work Life Elements The Ka Piÿina CPT identified the following additional elements of Quality of Work Life that should be further considered: Complementary athletic event cards for staff Emergency planning for families in need Staff counselor Free lunch for staff at campuses Child care on in-service days Prayer circles for staff Adequate staffing so staff can take breaks 9.75 month/11 month/9.5 month work year for non-educators Manageable workloads Relocation for internal candidates that is advertised, promoted, and guidelines are flexible to accommodate current life cycle Work space – clean and modern and working Support of learning communities Comp-time; Improved empowerment to make decisions Childcare and/or eldercare support for last minute situations Technology (laptop, phone, wireless set-up, video conference) to support off site offices Job sharing options Leave donation program Fitness center affiliation Paid family leave Paid community service leave Job Sharing Vacation buy/sell Financial planning advisors Health and or weight loss trainers Concierge service Version 12 TEC 107 DRAFT 7. Compensation and Rewards Blueprint (Continued) DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT “To Be” Quality of Work Life Elements (Continued) TEC Automated system to secure subs (Current practice teachers have to secure their own subs) Coffee bar on site Toolkit of information to deal with childcare and eldercare Resource support for students (i.e. special needs) Additional leave time for new parents or to care for elder parents Wellness programs on-site incentives Transition into retirement – phased decrease in work hours Shuttle service between office locations Review and consideration of the above elements for “next steps” actions should be done on an organization-wide basis. Version 12 108 DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT DRAFT 8. Gap Analysis and Readiness Assessment TEC Version 12 109 DRAFT 8. Gap Analysis and Readiness Assessment The Core Project Team conducted a readiness assessment during the September 2008 design sessions which will be refined and finalized as a follow-up to the meetings. We conducted several analyses: DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT 1. 2. TEC External Scan – How competitive are our current salary levels? Internal Scan – Is the employee climate ready for change? What are the barriers? What are the enablers? Core Project Team members reviewed the following source documents to prepare for this session: Ka Piÿina Survey March 2008 results and subsequent analysis conducted by Research and Evaluation in May 2008; Any other summaries of this survey. 3. Internal Scan – Demographics – The Core Project team reviewed Human Resources prepared demographic analysis. Version 12 110 DRAFT 8. Gap Analysis and Readiness Assessment (Continued) The Case for Change Salary Schedule for School Year 2008 - 09 10.00 months 190 days DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT Change is difficult and can be threatening to many. Change will also entail financial cost. In order to build support for the Ka Piÿina Core Project Team’s (CPT) proposal for a new Education Workforce Framework a compelling case for change was needed. TEC The Ka Piÿina Core Project Team examined each of KS’ workforce framework elements (career opportunity, performance management and evaluation, professional growth and renewal and compensation and rewards). The CPT conducted a gap analysis by comparing KS’ current practice (the ‘as is’) with what is being proposed (the ‘to be’ blueprints). The results of this analysis forms the basis of the case for change. The team consulted artifacts, descriptions of current practice, anecdotal information, survey information and the four education workforce framework blueprints in forming the proposals. Following is a summary of their findings. Career Opportunities “As Is” The 25 Step Salary Schedule Version 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MA PhD BA BA + 30 BA + 60 MA + 30 MA + 45 MA + 60 1 2 3 4 5 6 46,013 47,951 49,196 50,857 52,103 53,405 47,162 49,150 50,426 52,129 53,406 54,740 48,342 50,379 51,686 53,431 54,741 56,107 49,550 51,638 52,979 54,765 56,108 57,511 51,036 53,186 54,568 56,409 57,792 59,237 52,313 54,516 55,932 57,820 59,238 60,717 53,621 55,879 57,330 59,264 60,718 62,236 54,961 57,276 58,764 60,747 62,237 63,790 56,336 58,709 60,233 62,265 63,793 65,385 58,025 60,469 62,040 64,133 65,705 67,347 61,980 63,590 65,737 67,348 69,030 63,531 65,181 67,380 69,032 70,756 65,118 66,810 69,065 70,757 72,525 66,746 68,480 70,791 72,526 74,339 68,749 70,535 72,915 74,703 76,568 72,298 74,738 76,569 78,482 74,105 76,606 78,485 80,445 75,958 78,521 80,447 82,456 77,857 80,485 82,457 84,518 80,194 82,899 84,931 87,054 82,197 84,971 87,056 89,229 84,253 87,095 89,231 91,460 86,359 89,274 91,461 93,746 88,517 91,505 93,748 96,089 91,174 94,251 96,560 98,973 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 111 DRAFT 8. Gap Analysis and Readiness Assessment (Continued) The Case for Change (Continued) Career Opportunities (Continued) DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT “As Is” Message TEC Longevity vs. accountability Stay in your position and receive steady pay growth Extra work doesn’t pay Professional development not tied to career development Career opportunities far and few in between because tied to single position rather than to several levels or layers of opportunity Community work not on equal footing as campuses and other positions No road or path to career development so have to blaze your own trail and at times end up in a ball of fire! “To Be” Message Want good people, keep you happy, give you opportunity to improve and want you to stay Value highly talented and motivated people and exceptional performance Not locked into one thing at KS. If you stay at KS, overtime you will have opportunity to serve in different positions to meet mission Don’t have to leave your job/island for other opportunities There is free exchange of career opportunities between campus and community areas of the organization You have choices Can make movements without penalties Why The Proposed Career Opportunity Blueprint is an Improvement Allows and encourages talented and motivated people to grow, “grow your own” Employees are motivated w/ different opportunities Retention - Develop bench strength in organization – larger pool of qualified candidates for single incumbent positions Retention – employees stay interested in their careers. Version 12 112 DRAFT 8. Gap Analysis and Readiness Assessment (Continued) The Case for Change (Continued) Performance Management and Evaluation “As Is” DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT TEC Some standard based assessment Danielson’s Success Factors Some attention to performance reviews Inconsistency of evaluation methods across campus Unclear criteria for a 3,4,5 rating in regards to Success Factors performance review Not all performance reviews are based on EPR’s /Job descriptions Limited opportunity for “bottom-up” feedback Lack of “coaching” component; should be more than mid year Unclear expectations Inconsistent use of evaluation for faculty across the system; Unclear on rating criteria Not all JD’s based on Essential Position Responsibilities (EPR’s) Most wait until the end of the performance year before starting Present system does not have ongoing feedback; Accountability is not enforced Version 12 113 DRAFT 8. Gap Analysis and Readiness Assessment (Continued) The Case for Change (Continued) Performance Management and Evaluation (Continued) DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT “As Is” Message TEC “To Be” Message Unclear outcomes in regards to merit increase Not a priority A- schedule; no link to performance to pay; poor performance not held accountability Create a culture to support staff who are motivated, creative etc. Express the importance of system Having clear outcomes Why The Proposed Performance Management & Evaluation Blueprint is an Improvement Measures the level of performance Inclusiveness Communicates the organization’s unit’s objectives Version 12 114 DRAFT 8. Gap Analysis and Readiness Assessment (Continued) The Case for Change (Continued) Professional Development “As Is” – Illustrative Offerings DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT Current Opportunities (“As Is”) TEC Proposed Opportunities (To Be - in addition to As Is) Summer school leadership Parent fund WASC leadership Teacher exchange B-credits Academic club leadership Support for credit courses, advanced degrees and certifications Distance learning/classroom In-service days with national/local consultants Sabbatical Admin internship Pre-service teacher supervision Immersion school teacher Lead teacher role Peer observation National/local conferences & workshops Intra-inter grade level and dept mtgs Candidate support provider services (e.g., NBCT) Job rotation Internship Job shadow K-credits Peer mentoring ÿAha Alakaÿi Nä Kumu (academy for KS leader growth) Get subs so teachers can attend staff development Teach for America Community-based mentoring Land-based, place-based Professional learning communities KS partnership with local university to offer degree cohorts for staff One week paid per year to engage in professional development or service learning opportunity Bring continent conference to Hawai’i Sabbatical for administrators & other non-faculty staff Support for non-exempt staff to attend continent conferences Version 12 115 DRAFT 8. Gap Analysis and Readiness Assessment (Continued) The Case for Change (Continued) DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT Professional Growth and Renewal TEC “As Is” Message “To Be” Message KS has lots of professional development opportunities available in a variety of ways however much of it is based on budget availability and the opportunities are not known to all. Professional development does not proactively connect to succession planning. Professional development is there to help you move across a pay schedule for A-staff. Professional development opportunities are offered during key business hours whereby faculty must leave students to attend. Professional growth and renewal is available for all and is accessible to all. We value and foster life long learning in KS staff. Supervisors are provided with clear guidelines to support succession planning and growth for their staff in multiple career paths. Professional growth and renewal is organized in a way that meets the career option needs of all. Professional growth and renewal opportunities can be imbedded into the work day. Offerings of internal workshops can be balanced and offered at optimal times so that student learning is not impacted. Why The Proposed Professional Growth and Renewal Blueprint is an Improvement Professional growth and renewal will be: Clearly organized, understood, and linked to career development and strategic initiatives. Communicated to staff and include a variety of opportunities, including career coaching services that proactively builds options and internal capacity. Version 12 Flexible to accommodate all career path options within the diverse KS organization. 116 DRAFT 8. Gap Analysis and Readiness Assessment (Continued) The Case for Change (Continued) Salary Schedule for School Year 2008 - 09 10.00 Compensation and Rewards “As Is” DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT We’re always checking to see what everyone else is doing TEC We’re reactionary to selected concerns (e.g. loud voices that may not be representative of the majority) 190 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 months days BA BA + 30 1 2 46,013 47,951 47,162 49,150 48,342 50,379 49,550 51,638 51,036 53,186 52,313 54,516 53,621 55,879 54,961 57,276 56,336 58,709 58,025 60,469 61,980 63,531 65,118 66,746 68,749 Version 12 MA PhD BA + 60 MA + 30 MA + 45 MA + 60 3 4 5 6 49,196 50,857 52,103 53,405 50,426 52,129 53,406 54,740 51,686 53,431 54,741 56,107 52,979 54,765 56,108 57,511 54,568 56,409 57,792 59,237 55,932 57,820 59,238 60,717 57,330 59,264 60,718 62,236 58,764 60,747 62,237 63,790 60,233 62,265 63,793 65,385 62,040 64,133 65,705 67,347 63,590 65,737 67,348 69,030 65,181 67,380 69,032 70,756 66,810 69,065 70,757 72,525 68,480 70,791 72,526 74,339 70,535 72,915 74,703 76,568 72,298 74,738 76,569 78,482 74,105 76,606 78,485 80,445 75,958 78,521 80,447 82,456 77,857 80,485 82,457 84,518 80,194 82,899 84,931 87,054 82,197 84,971 87,056 89,229 84,253 87,095 89,231 91,460 86,359 89,274 91,461 93,746 88,517 91,505 93,748 96,089 91,174 94,251 96,560 98,973 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 117 DRAFT 8. Gap Analysis and Readiness Assessment (Continued) The Case for Change (Continued) Compensation and Rewards (Continued) DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT “As Is” Message TEC “To Be” Message That we value people differently Longevity on the teacher’s schedule is valued We value teachers in a traditional setting – not really so in the community outreach programs We only focus on compensation as a measurement of value without considering other elements The intent is we are market-based for SR and WG, but the perception may not be that way – the different job markets may be sending messages that we value people differently Our job evaluation process has allowed the perceptions that Kamehameha’s situations are unique as opposed to focusing on skills and competencies being the foundation of job evaluation. We reward you through pay based on performance, we don’t acknowledge time in the position Job evaluation process/methodology should focus on skills and core competencies Core competencies bring a qualitative way to value positions We recognize both quality and quantity for a cross section of recognizing and rewarding Compensation isn’t the only way to reward and recognize value Why The Proposed Compensation Blueprint is an Improvement Integrate qualitative and quantitative method of tying in compensation We’re not leading with compensation (i.e. if we pay you more we’ll get better results), we present a holistic approach – leading with career opportunities, then performance management, professional development and finally reward/recognition Integrated workforce strategy that aligns and supports overall strategic goals and desired outcomes. Version 12 118 DRAFT 8. Gap Analysis and Readiness Assessment (Continued) Readiness Analysis DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT Introducing new workforce frameworks is not without risk. Research shows that, overall, the success rate for making the transition is about 60%.* That means that 40% failed over time. The major factor leading to failure is the fact that change was introduced in organizations which were not sufficiently prepared. TEC The purpose of KS’ readiness assessment is to gauge KS’ readiness for a new framework. Specifically, we want to identify any barriers to success and make plans to alleviate them. In addition we want to identify those factors that currently exist that will be serve as enablers for success. We want to take steps to maximize them. The readiness assessment is an objective, data-based analysis of an organization’s readiness for change. The analysis looks at both and external and internal scan: Assessment Element Questions Asked External Scan Market Survey Are our compensation levels sufficiently competitive with relevant external labor markets? Internal Scan Climate Do employee expectations line up with the changes we propose? Are there any cultural or organizational barriers to successful change? Demography What is the demographic makeup of our current workforce? Does that demography create any barriers to successful change? Does that demography create any enablers to successful change? * Allan Odden and Marc Wallace, How To Create world Class Teacher Compensation St. Paul: Freeload Press, 2008 Version 12 119 DRAFT 8. Gap Analysis and Readiness Assessment (Continued) External Scan - External Market Benchmarking Following are the results of data analyzed by the KS Human Resources Division. The data is effective in the 2008-2009 school year. DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT Method TEC KS faculty salary schedule was compared to Hawaii Association of Independent Schools (HAIS) consolidated data and the State Department of Education (DOE). The data is for the 2008-2009 school year. KS was compared to these benchmarks. Averages and medians were calculated for comparisons. According to accepted compensation methodology, KS’ data was kept out of the average and median calculation to allow for a clean comparison. Results Following are comparisons of KS to the market at four key points of comparison: KS 43,591 BA Entry Salary Step 1 HAIS High HAIS Low 42,654 39,533 Average KS Pct of Average 40,860 106.7% Median KS Pct of Median 40,626 107.3% DOE* 40,866 Comparison Point #1 Version 12 120 DRAFT 8. Gap Analysis and Readiness Assessment (Continued) Results (Continued) DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT KS TEC 58,774 MA Entry Salary Step 10 HAIS High HAIS Low 62,420 49,181 Average KS Pct of Average 55,178 106.5% Median KS Pct of Median 54,557 107.7% KS Highest Column Salary Step 12 HAIS High HAIS Low 67,032 68,617 52,994 Average KS Pct of Average 63,107 106.2% Median KS Pct of Median 62,216 107.7% DOE* 57,614 Comparison Point #2 DOE* 75,003 Comparison Point #3 Version 12 121 DRAFT 8. Gap Analysis and Readiness Assessment (Continued) Results (Continued) Highest Salary DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT KS TEC HAIS High 93,764 92,245 HAIS Low DOE* 76,684 75,003 Comparison Point #4 Average 80,816 KS Pct of Average 116.0% Median 78,008 KS Pct of Median 120.2% Version 12 122 DRAFT 8. Gap Analysis and Readiness Assessment (Continued) What Do We Conclude from the External Scan? 1. IS KS competitive with the market? DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT Yes, KS is competitive. Where we are not competitive is applying the “2 for 1” (years of teaching experience) rule when bringing in teachers with previous experience. TEC 2. Are we where we should be – given our compensation design principles? Yes we are on target. We need more room to grow talent, however and provide options within compensation to cover all groups of staff. 3. Will KS’ salary position, as evidenced by this data, serve as a barrier or enabler to a successful implementation of the new workforce framework? It would depend on the experience of the teacher we are trying to attract. There are two barriers: (1) the reaction from “A” Schedule staff if we move from “step and column,” and (2) the “2 for 1” rule for external candidates. Our salary position could be a barrier for those who have been with KS, but it may also be an enabler for newer teachers who want to be fast tracked and rewarded. Version 12 123 DRAFT 8. Gap Analysis and Readiness Assessment (Continued) Internal Scan - Climate DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT The Ka Piÿina Core Project Team reviewed responses to the March 2008 Ka Piÿina survey and the May 2008 analysis prepared by the Research and Evaluation Division (e.g., responses to open ended questions). The CPT analyzed the results in the context of the four framework components (Career Opportunities, Performance Management and Evaluation, Professional Growth and Renewal and Compensation and Rewards) and asked the following questions, the results of which follow in subsequent pages: TEC 1. Does the data identify any barriers to a successful implementation of that framework component? 2. Does the data identify any enablers that will help with a successful implementation of that framework component? 3. What actions would we recommend for overcoming barriers and maximizing the impact of enablers? Version 12 124 DRAFT 8. Gap Analysis and Readiness Assessment (Continued) Career Opportunities DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT 1. Barriers Clearly defining terminology (e.g. individual performance vs. team performance) Lack of trust Understanding and perception of what is “performance-based” means versus “merit” TEC 2. Enablers A large number of people (~70%) agree or strongly agree to reward based on performance but a smaller amount was agreeable if base pay is at-risk Majority of teacher staff who have worked less than 10 years may not have a mistrusting history and may be more open to change 50% of teachers are either neutral or disagree/strongly disagree to the current teacher performance evaluation system so at least have not wedded to current system; incumbents may be open to change More than half feel the retirement benefit are competitive, vast number of employees are younger and have time to save in 401K (although recent market impacts have reduced all 401K value), possibility to market benefits based on demographics 3. Overcoming Barriers/Maximizing Enablers Good communication Transparency Q&A Clear definition Well-run pilot Provide various venues for people to provide feedback Version 12 125 DRAFT 8. Gap Analysis and Readiness Assessment (Continued) DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT Performance Management and Evaluation TEC 1. Does the data identify any barriers to a successful implementation of that framework component? Demographics relationship to age and where they are in the schedule False perception Trust, fairness, and consistency Why change? Longevity not being credited anymore Prospect of “merit” pay goes against a collegial atmosphere and the KS family setting If we’re going to marry pay to performance we have to message that it is fair. Fair does not necessarily mean “equal.” Will evaluators be fair in their judgments? 2. Does the data identify any enablers that will help with a successful implementation of that framework component? Existing staff may have a choice The belief of having a career (advancement) rather than a job We already have a portfolio system in place. 3. What actions would we recommend for overcoming barriers and maximizing the impact of enablers? Leveraging the mission To educate more in a quality way Recognize the good work of employees Incremental change Version 12 126 DRAFT 8. Gap Analysis and Readiness Assessment (Continued) DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT Professional Growth and Renewal TEC 1. Does the data identify any barriers to a successful implementation of professional growth and renewal opportunities? Professional development is perceived to be only a one time event or only for degree advancement. Perception that budget restricts and/or limits participation in professional development opportunities. People compete for KS funding. Lack of budget understanding to repurpose funds to accommodate professional development opportunities. The current professional development approval process is varied and practiced differently throughout the organization. Professional development is limited to select staff only. The perception that professional growth and renewal opportunities are limited to professional development classes, workshops or off site activities. 2. Does the data identify any enablers that will help with a successful implementation of the professional growth and renewal blueprint? High interest with professional growth and renewal opportunities and using this as a means for career advancement Web based professional development sites which allows staff to have a one-stop shop to answer many common professional development questions Communicate the use of and allow access to Hawaiian miles to subsidize travel costs for education units Version 12 127 DRAFT 8. Gap Analysis and Readiness Assessment (Continued) DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT Professional Growth and Renewal (continued) TEC 3. What actions would we recommend for overcoming barriers and maximizing the impact of enablers? Create career coaches within system to help guide staff and supervisor/administrators through the process Create or identify opportunities within the system that is job embedded Create system that clearly connects opportunities to career ladders or options Organize professional growth and renewal opportunities in a format that recognizes a variety of settings including those that are job embedded such as projects, professional learning communities, etc. Create budgetary guidelines that are clear, understood, and flexible in support of professional growth, renewal and life long learning Gather information to determine if KS per person professional growth and renewal investments are comparable to other organizations Develop a set of clear criteria for prioritizing professional development, growth and renewal opportunities in the education unit Develop a system plan to provide professional development, growth and renewal opportunities in support of strategic outcomes (e.g., student learning, extending the reach) Version 12 128 DRAFT 8. Gap Analysis and Readiness Assessment (Continued) DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT Compensation and Rewards TEC 1. Does the data identify any barriers to a successful implementation of the compensation and rewards component? Insufficient awareness and/or information and understanding about performance at team and school/unit level – what would it look like? Strong satisfaction with current salary range and benefits could be a barrier if we move dramatically away from the current process. Although 70% of the respondents were faculty, nearly 44% are staff with longevity of 5 years or less so that may put a different perspective on things. Negative perceptions of the performance management system could be a potential barrier to a successful reward and recognition program The existing perceptions about the compensation system may be a potential barrier. Within the Extension Education Services it seems that there is no room to grow from a Program Specialist up a career ladder. Once you reach the end, there is no place to go. The expectation for those who are in Extension, who are in teaching or counselor positions, that there are disparities in pay between those in “A” schedule and themselves. Why does “meets expectation” as a performance increment count as a percentage of a raise? Teachers wonder why the “step” is also considered a cost of living allowance (COLA). Does it (pay for performance) work? A pay raise should be based on employees performance throughout the year, not just one judgment once a year, but on a series of judgments made throughout the year. Version 12 129 DRAFT 8. Gap Analysis and Readiness Assessment (Continued) Compensation DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT 1. Does the data identify any barriers to a successful implementation of the compensation and rewards component? (continued) Performance should be rated based on results for the year time period rather than on one or two incidences. Pay is correct. Zero errors on paycheck. Errors erode trust in the system. There is a basic expectation that the paycheck is going to be accurate, that questions can be answered, and that errors don’t reoccur. No pay for performance. Fairness in the process. TEC 2. Does the data identify any enablers that will help with a successful implementation of the compensation component? Strong satisfaction with current salary range and benefits could be an enabler (nearly 70%) Advancement based on doing job better. 64.5% of the response group were Faculty which is encouraging that they are interested in what’s going on. 3. What actions would we recommend for overcoming barriers and maximizing the impact of enablers? Layered communication approach to message in increments and layers up to the point of pilot and implementation so people are afforded time and opportunity to get comfortable with information. Integrate Ka Piÿina with the Total Rewards concepts so the focus is on the holistic approach Version 12 130 DRAFT 8. Gap Analysis and Readiness Assessment (Continued) Internal Scan - Demography The following pages include data that describe various demographics of each major grouping of the education workforce (e.g., administration/management, faculty and education support). The Ka Piÿina Core Project Team examined the following data for implications relating to workforce challenges over the next several years: 1. The distribution of employees by years of service to KS; DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT 2. The distribution of employees by age; TEC 3. Turnover rates. The source of the data is the March 2008 survey conducted by the Core Project Team. Version 12 131 DRAFT 8. Gap Analysis and Readiness Assessment (Continued) Distribution of Faculty By Years of Service to KS 400 356 350 DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT 300 TEC 250 172 200 150 100 49 52 39 50 15 23 26 to 30 31 Plus 0 0 to 5 6 to 10 11 to 15 16 to 20 21 to 25 Version 12 132 DRAFT 8. Gap Analysis and Readiness Assessment (Continued) Distribution of Faculty By Age 234 250 188 DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT 200 TEC 149 150 84 100 51 50 0 20 to 30 31 to 40 41 to 50 51 to 60 60 Plus Version 12 133 DRAFT 8. Gap Analysis and Readiness Assessment (Continued) Distribution of Administrators By Years of Service to KS 25 25 22 DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT 20 TEC 15 9 9 9 10 7 5 5 0 0 to 5 6 to 10 11 to 15 16 to 20 21 to 25 25 to 30 30 Plus Version 12 134 DRAFT 8. Gap Analysis and Readiness Assessment (Continued) Distribution of Administrators By Age 30 30 25 DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT 20 TEC 18 20 17 15 10 5 1 0 20 to 30 31 to 40 41 to 50 51 to 60 60 Plus Version 12 135 DRAFT 8. Gap Analysis and Readiness Assessment (Continued) Distribution of Educational Support By Years of Service to KS 120 107 DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT 100 TEC 80 59 60 26 40 17 20 17 3 5 0 0 to 5 6 to 10 11 to 15 16 to 20 21 to 25 26 to 30 31 Plus Version 12 136 DRAFT 8. Gap Analysis and Readiness Assessment (Continued) Distribution of Educational Support By Age 64 70 57 53 DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT 60 TEC 50 40 33 27 30 20 10 0 20 to 30 31 to 40 41 to 50 51 to 60 60 Plus Version 12 137 DRAFT 8. Gap Analysis and Readiness Assessment (Continued) DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT Turnover Rates TEC FY 2006 - 2007 Terminations Number Pct Trn Vol 123 6.6% Invol 15 0.8% Total 138 7.4% FY 2007 - 2008 Terminations Number Pct Trn Vol 132 6.9% Invol 12 0.6% Total 144 7.6% FY 2005- 2006 Terminations Number Pct Trn Vol 152 8.5% Invol 12 0.7% Total 164 9.1% Comparative Turnover Data U.S. Department of Education Elementary Secondary Urban Fringe Rural 8.6% 8.5% 8.2% 8.8% Version 12 138 DRAFT 8. Gap Analysis and Readiness Assessment (Continued) What Do We Conclude from the Demographic Data? DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT The Ka Piÿina Core Project Team drew the following implications from the data analysis: 1. Is distribution of KS’ education workforce by years service skewed in any direction? Overall, the faculty is relatively new to KS. Almost 75% of the faculty, for example, have less than 10 years service. 50% have 5 years or less service. The same pattern is true of administrators and educational support personnel. However, further analysis by unit, indicated that most of the new faculty were in the community-based units (vs. campus-based) primarily because of the recent rapid growth in new hires in the Extension Education Services (EES), Community Based Early Childhood Education (CBECE), Public Education Support (PES) and Literacy Instruction and Support (LIS) Divisions. TEC 2. Is the distribution of KS’ education workforce by age skewed in any direction? As in the case of years service, the faculty is age of the respondents tended to be less than 40 years of age. 45% of the faculty are 40 years of age or less. 22% of administrators and 37% of educational support employees are 40 years of age or less. However, as noted above, a more detailed analysis by unit will yield pockets of staff member experience and ages. 3. Do you predict that KS will experience a crunch in replacing education workforce members in the near future? Given expected growth in students served, especially in EES, LIS, CBECE, PES, KS needs to be concerned with strengthening its ability to attract and retain highly talented professionals for an entire career. Also, given the relative number of faculty, administrators, and education support employees who fit into the “Boomer” category (28% of faculty, 55% of Administrators and 36% of educational support employees) and will be retiring in a few years, KS should be aware of and engaged in more plan-ful succession planning and staffing efforts. 4. Should turnover be a concern? The data turnover rates in all three education workforce families is very low at 7.6%. KS turnover rates compare favorably with benchmark data from the U.S. Department of Education. Never the less, turnover at any level will put pressure on KS for effective staffing and succession planning. Version 12 139 DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT DRAFT TEC 9. Formative and Summative Evaluation Version 12 140 9. Formative and Summative Evaluation DRAFT Reaping the Benefits of the New Education Workforce Framework The Ka Piÿina project represents an enormous investment by Kamehameha Schools. Tracking and evaluating results along the way will be essential in order to capitalize on the potential of this investment. Failure to do so may result in a lost opportunity to optimize the positive impact of the new Education Workforce Framework on KS’ over-all mission and objectives. DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT Following is the Ka Piÿina Core Project Team’s recommendation for tracking and assessing the new framework. Specifically, we recommend that KS adopt both a formative and summative evaluation model as follows: TEC 1. Formative Evaluation - Formative evaluation asks – “Is it working the way it’s supposed to?” It aims to assess and improve the operation and administration of a new education workforce framework such as standards - based assessment or career-based pay. research and experience suggest that periodic formative evaluation (in the pilot and ongoing after full implementation) is necessary to keep a program functioning as it was designed. We know that programs that go unattended, year after year, lose effectiveness and degenerate into entitlements. 2. Summative Evaluation – Summative evaluation asks, “Are we getting the bottom line results we expected – and if not, what do we need to fix?” It asks program impact questions, for example: a. Have participant skills improved as a result of the career-based pay program? b. Are we recruiting and retaining the adequate numbers of educators with the skills we desire? c. Have student learning gains increased and can we attribute those gains to the new education workforce framework program (e.g., embedded professional development)? The following evaluation model incorporates both formative and summative evaluation of the new Education Workforce Framework. Version 12 141 DRAFT 9. Formative and Summative Evaluation Formative Evaluation DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT Pilot (Mid 2009 - Mid 2010) TEC Summative Evaluation Near Term (1 to 2 years out from pilot) A. Career Opportunities & Performance Management and Evaluation Teacher (and other) Recruitment Teacher (and Other) Retention B. Professional Growth and Renewal Skills and Competencies Longer Term (2 to 3 years out and beyond) Student Learning Gains Improvement C. Compensation & Rewards 1. Piloted and ready to implement in KS? 2. Reactions and readiness for broader implementation? D. Statistical Data, Qualitative Research and Anecdotal data Leading Indicators Have we seen improvements in recruitment and retention of highly qualified personnel? Have students affected by the pilot achieved higher learning gains than those who were not affected by the pilot? Statistical and Survey Data Statistical data and Multivariate Analysis Mid Term Indicators Long Term Indicators Version 12 142 9. Formative and Summative Evaluation DRAFT Leading Indicators – Questions in the Formative Review of the Ka Piÿina Pilot Ultimately, the test of the proposed Education Workforce Framework will be the degree to which KS has realized significant increases in workforce skills, having highly competent educators in the classroom and long term improvements in student learning gains. In order to get to the answer to these questions we need to address the following formative questions mid-way through and at the end of the Pilot Implementation: DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT Assessment Area TEC What We Must Do 1. Implementation Issues Our experience is that new education workforce framework programs encounter numerous unforeseen implementation problems ranging from overly optimistic timelines to performance measures that turn out to be hard to apply in practice. Many participants may not experience the system as the designers intended because of these problems. Therefore, it is important to investigate how teachers, administrators, and assessors experience the system during the pilot so that implementation problems can be identified and modifications to the system made before it is scaled up. 2. Participant Reactions We have found that employee reactions to the system should be systematically assessed because these help to forecast whether the system will be accepted when it is scaled up and whether it will have the motivational impacts desired. An understanding and acceptance of the teaching standards in a new career based pay system, for example, a perception that the assessment system is fair, and a perception that the process has a positive impact on teaching are all likely to be necessary for the long-term viability of the new program as a vehicle for attracting and retaining quality teachers and encouraging professional growth. It is also important to find out if the participating employees felt prepared to take on the challenge of classroom practice assessment. Participants need to be prepared to avoid feeling overwhelmed by the process. TEC’s model assesses teacher perceptions and attitudes in each of these areas. Version 12 143 9. Formative and Summative Evaluation DRAFT DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT Leading Indicators – Questions in the Formative Review of the Ka Piÿina Pilot (Continued) TEC Assessment Area What We Must Do 3. Pre-requisites for Quality Assessments Prerequisites for Quality Assessments - At the pilot stage, we need to insure that the prerequisites for quality assessments (reliability and validity) are in place. They include clear standards, appropriate assessment procedures, trained assessors, and methods of promoting a consistent assessor frame of reference. We must assure, for example, that assessors agree in their evaluations of the same staff member. In addition, we must ensure that assessors’ attitudes and motivations don’t compromise the validity of their observations. Our experience shows that for assessors to be motivated to make, and to succeed in making, accurate and reliable evaluations, they need to: (a) Understand the teaching standards, (b) Have the time and opportunity to collect evidence and apply the standards, (c) Accept the standards as an adequate representation of good teaching, and (d) Perceive that the consequences of accurate evaluation are desirable. Version 12 144 DRAFT 9. Formative and Summative Evaluation Leading Indicators – Questions in the Formative Review of the Ka Piÿina Pilot (Continued) In order to address the implementation and employee issues just discussed, we will ask the following questions: DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT Pilot TEC Question Assessment Timing 1. How was the assessment and other components of the career enhancement program actually Implemented? Review of actual accomplishment against project timelines Interviews/Focus Groups 2. How did participants react to the new program? Interviews/Focus Groups Regularly (e.g., monthly) throughout the pilot implementation period (including mid-term) 3. How effective was the orientation to the new program? Interviews/Focus Groups 4. How effective was the training provided? Interviews/Focus Groups 5. Where requirements for reliable (error free) and valid (relevant) observations and measurements present? Review of procedures Interviews/Focus Groups Version 12 145 9. Formative and Summative Evaluation DRAFT Summative Evaluation – Mid and Long Term Assessment Questions - Ongoing Effective education workforce frameworks require on-going evaluation both formative and summative, after the pilot. Periodic formative evaluation (as just described) will lead to continuous improvement in such programs over the long term. DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT Summative evaluation goes beyond formative evaluation by asking program impact questions that we raised earlier (p. 113): TEC 1. Have participant skills improved as a result of the career-based pay program? 2. Are we recruiting and retaining the adequate numbers of educators with the skills we desire? 3. Have student learning gains increased and can we attribute those gains to the new framework (e.g., embedded professional development)? Version 12 146 DRAFT 9. Formative and Summative Evaluation Summative Evaluation – Mid and Long Term Assessment Questions – Ongoing (Continued) Summative evaluation requires longitudinal research. Student learning gains must be tracked over time and related statistically to teacher performance assessments. Such an evaluation requires that we address the following questions: Post Pilot – On-Going DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT Question TEC Assessment Timing 1. Is KS able to recruit and retain quality educators, overall, and in areas where there have been shortages? Salary Levels Staffing Data Turnover Data On-going annually 2. Has sufficient professional development been provided for Faculty to learn and adopt instructional strategies embodied in the new vision for instruction and new evaluation system? Can we conclude the same for Administrator and Education Support employees? Review of schedules Interview/Focus Groups On-going annually 3. Are Faculty, Administrators and Management and Education Support employees pleased with the operation of the new systems? Interview/Focus Groups On-going annually 4. Have student learning gains improved, in sufficient magnitude, for all groups of students? Longitudinal value-added assessments of student learning gains On-going annually Interviews/Focus Groups On-going annually Version 12 5. Are KS education leadership and policy makers, faculty association leadership and parents satisfied with the 147 DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT DRAFT TEC 10. Pilot Work Plan Version 12 148 Questions For An Education Workforce Framework Pilot DRAFT DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT In formulating the work plan for piloting the new Education Workforce Framework, the following questions were considered: TEC 1. Why a pilot? 2. What will governance for the pilot look like? Will there be a Pilot Support Team like the Ka Piÿina Core Project Team? If so, describe the various roles and responsibilities. 3. What blueprints will we pilot (e.g. performance management/evaluation, professional growth and renewal, career opportunities, compensation/rewards)? 4. What education units will participate in the pilot? 5. What positions in the education workforce matrix (e.g., administrator, faculty, education support and other) will be included in the pilot? 6. What are the detailed work plan steps for the pilot, including an established timeline and any related dependencies? Version 12 149 DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT Questions For An Education Workforce Framework Pilot TEC 7. Will there be a formative assessment of the pilot? If yes, what will it cover and how will it be conducted? 8. Will there be a summative assessment of the pilot? If yes, what will be evaluated and how will the evaluation be conducted. 9. What resources, both in terms of time, people and dollars, will be required to complete the pilot, including the following elements? a. Pilot participants b. Evaluators c. Administrative costs associated with conducting the pilot d. Tools (e.g., electronic systems, manual processes) needed for the pilot e. Communication f. Supports (e.g., consultants, in-house subject matter experts, etc.) 10. DRAFT Will KS require external expertise to facilitate the pilot? If yes, what kinds of expertise will KS need and what will be their roles? Version 12 150 DRAFT Question #1: Why a Pilot? DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT It is important to pilot the education workforce framework elements to: TEC Test design theories, elements and features. Gather authentic experience and reactions. Inform and broaden knowledge and understanding of Ka Piÿina. Identify unknown, unconsidered and/or unintended consequences. Raise awareness of and determine acceptance for concerns of or hesitation toward various design elements and features. Mitigate operational implementation risks. Allow exploration of new ideas and risk taking. Version 12 151 Question #2: What will governance for the pilot look like? Will there be a Pilot Support Team like the Ka Piÿina Core Project Team? If so, describe the various roles and responsibilities. DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT Area TEC Project Sponsor Project Owners Project Manager Core Project Team [1] 1. Value Case Defines the Represents the Leads and Leads the organizational project sponsor & supports the delivery of a value of the can make delivery of a high- specific function project & executive level value project with or process on a champions the decisions to help a high degree of project with a high project to the ensure project success. degree of success. organization, success. Maintains detail Develops detail including work plan and work plan and developing the Develops and activities achieve activities to “long view” of the maintains the the project’s value achieve the project’s value and “long view” of the and objectives in project’s value and [1] Refer to pages 9 and 10 for Core Project Team members objectives value the Noguchi contextandofLaurie the Seto objectives in the [2] Kamuela Binkie, Deidre Harris, Sylvia Hussey, Darrellproject’s Kim, Ronnie Kopp, and BJ Mau, Laura objectives. “long view”. context of the “long view”. DRAFT Pilot Support Team [2] Leads the delivery of a specific function or process in the pilot with a high degree of success. Develops detail work plan and activities and manages key processes to achieve the project’s value and objectives in the context of the pilot. Version 12 152 Question #2: What will governance for the pilot look like? Will there be a Pilot Support Team like the Ka Piÿina Core Project Team? If so, describe the various roles and responsibilities. Area DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT 2. Description TEC Project Sponsor Executive or management level member who requests & initiates the project. DRAFT Project Owners Project Manager Core Project Team Pilot Support Team Represents the project sponsor on a day-to-day basis. Assigned or invited in consultation with the Sponsor and Owners to achieve the project objectives & manage the day-to-day activities of the Core Project Team. Assigned or invited in consultation with the Sponsor and Owners to achieve the project objectives & execute the day-to-day activities of the Core Project Team. Assigned or invited in consultation with the Sponsor, Owners, Project Manager and Core Project Team to achieve the pilot objectives & execute the dayto-day activities of the Pilot Support Team. Version 12 153 Question #2: What will governance for the pilot look like? Will there be a Pilot Support Team like the Ka Piÿina Core Project Team? If so, describe the various roles and responsibilities. Area DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT 3. Leadership and Execution TEC Project Sponsor Project Owners Project Manager Core Project Team Provides financial, strategic & organizational direction throughout the project. Ensures allocation of all project resources, both human & financial, to ensure project success. Represents the project to the senior management or executive team. Accepts & ensure adoption of the overall project product or services. Provides leadership, direction & guidance to the project team to ensure successful completion of project objectives. Accepts & ensures adoption of the overall project product or services. Leads the project core team in the successful completion & delivery of the project objectives. Leads development & execution of the project plan including project objectives, scope, schedule, resource & costs. Performs change & risk management for project success. Motivates and supports the project core team. Follows standard KS PM practices. Manages the process of the project product or services’ acceptance. Acquires resources external to KS to Brings resources, experiences and perspectives to the project. Identifies and organizes subject matter experts (SME). Coordinates & assigns resources, ensures quality & timely completion of assigned project deliverables & tasks in a proactive manner for their function. Motivates team members and others involved. Contributes knowledge & experience in the best interest of KS & project success. Supports and assists with the acceptance & Version 12 DRAFT Pilot Support Team Brings resources, experiences and perspectives to the pilot Identifies and organizes subject matter experts (SME). Coordinates & assigns resources, ensures quality & timely completion of assigned project deliverables & tasks in a proactive manner for their function. Motivates pilot team members and others involved. Contributes knowledge & experience in the best interest of KS & pilot success. Supports and assists 154 with the acceptance & Question #2: What will governance for the pilot look like? Will there be a Pilot Support Team like the Ka Piÿina Core Project Team? If so, describe the various roles and responsibilities. DRAFT Project Sponsor Project Owners Project Manager Core Project Team Pilot Support Team 4. Communications Communicates with key project & program stakeholders. Communicates with key program stakeholders & supplements project communication s, as needed. Communicates regularly with project sponsor. Helps develop & utilizes the project communication matrix & management plan. Communicates with KS & project stakeholders. Develops & utilizes the communications matrix. Leads regularlyscheduled project status meetings. Manages &, as appropriate, escalates issues & identifies solutions. Communicates project status to their respective organization, division or functional management. Attends & participates in project team meetings such as status, steering committee, etc. Escalates decisions on issues that need to be addressed. Communicates pilot status to the Core Project Team Attends & participates in project team meetings such as status, steering committee, etc. Escalates decisions on issues that need to be addressed. Drafts and deploys various communication pieces, utilizing pilot communication tools DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT Area TEC Version 12 155 Question #2: What will governance for the pilot look like? Will there be a Pilot Support Team like the Ka Piÿina Core Project Team? If so, describe the various roles and responsibilities. Area 5. Decision Making Project Sponsor DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT TEC Ultimate authority for the program & project. Resolves major project issues & removes obstacles to ensure project success. Project Owners Empowered to make decisions in the best interest of KS, the project sponsor & other groups, divisions & stakeholders. Identifies & acquires appropriate resources for the project. Project Manager Empowered to make project related decisions that are in the best interest of KS & the successful completion of the project. Manages & resolves project-related issues. Resolves deviations from the project plan. Core Project Team Identifies problems & issues & helps to resolve them. Empowered to make project-related decisions that are in the best interest of KS & impacts the successful completion & delivery of assigned deliverables. DRAFT Pilot Support Team Identifies problems & issues & helps to resolve them. Empowered to make pilot related decisions that are in the best interest of KS & impacts the successful completion & delivery of the pilot outcomes. Version 12 156 Question #2: What will governance for the pilot look like? Will there be a Pilot Support Team like the Ka Piÿina Core Project Team? If so, describe the various roles and responsibilities. Area DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT 6. Accountability & Authority TEC Project Sponsor Determines & acquires appropriate allocation of resources (financial & people) at the organizational level. Supports & represents the project to the organization. Project Owners Responsible for successful completion of the project at the organizational/proje ct sponsor level. Supports the project to the organization. Project Manager Responsible for the successful completion of the project objectives. Core Project Team Ensures high quality deliverables that are accurate & complete for their division or department. DRAFT Pilot Support Team Ensures high quality deliverables that are accurate & complete for the pilot. Version 12 157 Question #2: What will governance for the pilot look like? Will there be a Pilot Support Team like the Ka Piÿina Core Project Team? If so, describe the various roles and responsibilities. Area DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT 7. Other TEC Project Sponsor Provides organization & institutional knowledge, guidance and support. Project Owners Provides organization & institutional knowledge & guidance. Project Manager Utilizes leadership & general management skills to successfully complete the project in a satisfactory manner. Effectively practices project management tools & techniques to lead project core team. Provides training on project management concepts, terminology and practices. Core Project Team Coordinates participation of the SME at appropriate times in the project, such as development, pilots, etc. DRAFT Pilot Support Team Coordinates participation of the SME at appropriate times in the pilot, such as training, communication, evaluation. Version 12 158 Question #2: What will governance for the pilot look like? Will there be a Pilot Support Team like the Ka Piÿina Core Project Team? If so, describe the various roles and responsibilities. DRAFT Pilot Participants DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT • TEC • • • • • • • • • • • Engage in the various processes (e.g., goal setting, evaluation, professional development, process improvement, risk taking, etc.) with supervisor’s support and participation. Test design theories, elements and features of the framework. Provide feedback on the framework’s efficiency and effectiveness. Provide feedback on the framework’s meaningfulness and manageability. Participate in established training. Travel as needed for training, focus groups, etc. Explore new ideas and take risks. Provide alternate solutions, processes or “work arounds”. Participate in established kick off, feedback, assessment and wrap up meetings. Participate in formative and summative assessments. Participate in pre and post evaluation activities (e.g., survey, questionnaire, focus group, etc.). Share experiences with co-pilot participants, leadership, other faculty and staff. Version 12 159 Question #3: What blueprints will we pilot (e.g., career opportunities, performance management/evaluation, professional development or compensation/rewards)? DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT Blueprint DRAFT Description 1. Career Opportunities Explicitly articulated career paths that will enhance KS’s ability to recruit, retain, motivate and develop the workforce necessary to execute KS’s mission and strategy. 2. Performance Management and Evaluation Powerful tool for evaluating, developing and managing those competencies, skills, abilities and behaviors most critical to both serving more Native Hawaiians (quantity) and increasing positive student outcomes (quality). 3. Professional Growth and Renewal Integrated professional growth and renewal planning identifies the supports needed to develop and solidify the identified competencies, skills, knowledge, abilities and behaviors needed to be a successful mission-driven organization. 4. Compensation and Rewards Appropriately aligned and fiscally responsible rewards, including compensation, to better recruit, retain and reward a mission driven workforce. TEC Version 12 160 Question #3: What blueprints will we pilot (e.g., performance management/evaluation, professional development, career opportunities or compensation/rewards)? System DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT 1. Career Opportunities TEC 2. Performance Management & Evaluation DRAFT What do you see as the major challenges in piloting? Limits on numbers of positions in different levels. Assigning all positions into four buckets. Backfilling for project work or temporary assignments. Initial placement determination. Sufficient time for evidence to “test” someone moving between career levels Training sufficient staff to be evaluators Evaluations (identify evaluators, shifting responsibilities, prioritizing time, etc.) Acceptance of new system, new roles Including all the design elements and keeping the process simple Use of technology across the board Initial costs to outsource or train internal staff to assess video/portfolio Maintenance issue to “operationalize” the process Resistance to doing more/a parallel process Ability to get a valid sampling that will enable us to test the different systems for the various groups and levels (be strategic on who/how we pilot) Managing what people “make up” (controlling rumors/urban legends) Critical member of a pilot team who does not want to participate vs. member who wants to participate Version 12 161 Question #3: What blueprints will we pilot (e.g., career opportunities, performance management and evaluation, professional growth and renewal or compensation and rewards)? System DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT 3. Professional Growth and Renewal TEC 4. Compensation & Rewards DRAFT What do you see as the major challenges in piloting? When is there going to be time to do this? Changing rules of game – “I’m already at the end of salary schedule, why do I have to do this?” Timing of the offerings, job imbedded time Implementing MLP for non-users Timing of professional development pilot to align w/ performance management or compensation pilot Changing Master Schedule to accommodate the new staff professional growth and renewal requirements Existing perceptions of “pay for performance” Potential rub against collegial culture of education No at-risk penalty Difference in pay must be significant (greater than 2%); rewards of value Trustees on board to pay? One salary schedule Version 12 162 Question #4: Which Education Units Will Participate in the Pilot? Summary of As Is Position Classifications (Including Vacancies & FY 08-09 New TAP) Division KS KAPALAMA Classification Administrator/Management DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT Faculty Education Support Job Cluster A - Campus A - On Site B - Centralized Support B - Community C - Miscellaneous A - Instruction Cluster Cluster Cluster Cluster Cluster B - Librarians C - Counselors D - Other A - Instructional Support B - Community Cluster Cluster Cluster Cluster A A B A Cluster Cluster Cluster Cluster B - Librarians C - Counselors A - Instructional Support B - Community Cluster Cluster Cluster Cluster A A B A Cluster Cluster Cluster Cluster B - Librarians C - Counselors A - Instructional Support B - Community Unit Campus Community KS KAPALAMA Total KS MAUI Administrator/Management Faculty Education Support - Campus On Site Community Instruction KS HAWAII Administrator/Management Faculty Education Support - Version 12 Campus On Site Community Instruction Education 26 1 2 240 9 10 16 4 51 6 365 11 Campus Community KS MAUI Total KS HAWAII Total TEC Cluster Cluster Cluster Cluster Cluster Cluster DRAFT 1 86 3 3 7 17 1 129 11 Campus Community 1 102 5 3 6 20 1 149 163 Question #4: Which Education Units Will Participate in the Pilot? Summary of As Is Position Classifications (Including Vacancies & FY 08-09 New TAP) Division CEI Classification Administrator/Management Faculty DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT Education Support TEC Job Cluster Cluster B - Centralized Support Cluster B - Community Cluster A - Instruction Cluster C - Counselors Cluster D - Other Cluster A - Instructional Support Cluster B - Community CEI Total Education Family Total Unit Community DRAFT Education 32 204 21 3 96 70 426 1,069 SUMMARY BY POSITION CLASSIFICATION: Administrator/Management Faculty Education Support Total Education Family Positions TAP SUMMARY BY POSITION CLASSIFICATION Administrator/Management Faculty Education Support Total Education Family TAP FTEs 85 722 262 1,069 85.0 706.4 241.1 1,032.5 Version 12 164 Question #4: Which Education Units will Participate in the Pilot? DRAFT The following elements were considered by the team: leadership support, change readiness, size, complexity, other (e.g., strategic projects ‘in flight’, etc.) before making the following recommendations: Unit NOTES Considerations and Recommendations Kapälama – Total Approximate Population Subject to Pilot (365) DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT •10% of the education population considered a minimum amount for a meaningful pilot. TEC • 20% considered a recommended maximum for a manageable pilot. • Work group % (10/70/20) based on estimated work force distribution • Participating units have the option to have a number of pilot participants that exceed the recommended maximum. Admin (10%) Faculty (70%) Ed Supp (20%) Total (100%) Min (10%) 4 26 7 37 Max (20%) 8 52 13 73 Maui – Total Approximate Population Subject to Pilot (129) Min (10%) Max (20%) Admin (10%) 1 2 Faculty (70%) 9 18 Ed Supp (20%) 3 6 Total (100%) 13 26 Hawaiÿi - Total Approximate Population Subject to Pilot (149) Min (10%) Max (20%) Admin (10%) 1 2 Faculty (70%) 11 22 Ed Supp (20%) 3 6 Total (100%) 15 30 Community Education & Implementation – Total Approximate Population Subject to Pilot (426) Min (10%) Max (20%) Admin (10%) 4 8 Faculty (70%) 31 62 Ed Supp (20%) 8 16 Total (100%) 43 86 Total Suggested Pilot Participant Size (Organization Wide) With Total Approximate Population Subject to Pilot (1,069) Min (10%) Max (20%) Admin (10%) 10 20 Faculty (70%) 77 154 Ed Supp (20%) 21 41 Total (100%) 108 215 Version 12 165 Question #5: What positions in the education workforce matrix (e.g., Administrators/Management, Faulty, Education Support and Operations/Other) will be included in the pilot? DRAFT The Core Project Team initially classified all Education Group positions into the following four categories based on common general competencies, external labor markets, advancement methodologies, and career paths: 1. 2. 3. 4. Administrator/Management Faculty Education Support Other DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT A complete list of positions considered by the Core Project Team is found in Appendix J. TEC Un-highlighted positions (in Appendix J) were subsequently considered a part of the organization wide Total Rewards workforce capacity building efforts. Version 12 166 Question #6: What are the detailed work plan steps for the pilot, including an established timeline and any related dependencies? DRAFT Following is the high level timetable for the pilot… Jan 2009 Feb 2009 Mar 2009 Apr 2009 May 2009 Jun 2009 Jul 2009 DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT Pilot Preparation (January to June 2009) Core Project Team TEC Jan 2010 Feb 2010 Mar 2010 Apr 2010 Aug 2009 Sep 2009 Oct 2009 Nov 2009 Dec 2009 Pilot (July 2009 to June 2010) Pilot Support Team and Core Project Team May 2010 Jun 2010 Jul 2010 Pilot (July 2009 to June 2010) Pilot Support Team and Core Project Team Aug 2010 Sep 2010 Oct 2010 Nov 2010 Dec 2010 Next Steps* (July 2010 Formative Assessment, Evaluation and Prepare Next Steps (January 2010 to June 2010) Pilot Support Team and Core Project Team * Next steps may include re-pilot, pilot expansion, “operationalize”, hybrid and/or other approaches. Version 12 167 Question #6: What are the detailed work plan steps for the pilot, including an established timeline and any related dependencies? Steps DRAFT The Intent of this Pilot Work Plan Step is to I. PROJECT AND PILOT MANAGEMENT – No later than January 2009 DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT A. Establish Project and Pilot Management Structure B. Establish Roles and Responsibilities TEC Establish the project and pilot management structure and related roles and responsibilities ensuring appropriate understanding, supports and clarity for project team members. II. HUMAN RESOURCES – No later than February 2009 A. Identify Pilot Participants (e.g., Administration, Faculty, Education Support) B. Establish Pilot Participant Role and Responsibilities C. Identify External Subject Matter Experts Establish the participants, support team and external subject matter experts ensuring appropriate understanding supports and clarity for all involved in the pilot. III. BLUE PRINTS – GENERAL – No later than February 2009 A. Establish foundation of the pilot (e.g., blueprints, instructional philosophy, etc.). B. Document unit readiness assessment. C. Determine pilot barriers and/or supports and document impact on each pilot unit. Translate the blue print designs into tangible, operating processes, tools, forms, systems, etc. for use by pilot participants. Version 12 168 Question #6: What are the detailed work plan steps for the pilot, including an established timeline and any related dependencies? Steps DRAFT The Intent of this Pilot Work Plan Step is to: III. BLUE PRINTS – CAREER OPPORTUNITIES – No later than February 2009 DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT A. Draft and document career opportunities and related pay matrix. TEC ‘Translate’ the career opportunities blue print design into a tangible and transparent career ladder, with associated proposed pay matrices III. BLUE PRINTS – PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT - No later than March 2009 A. Document performance management process, tools, forms, systems, timeframe etc. B. Review key organization wide documents (e.g., strategic plan, education strategic plan, philosophy of education, annual report, CEO Team goals, etc.) to ensure alignment of process. C. Document competencies (organizational and functional) D. Draft examples of performance goals and outcomes related to improved student learning (e.g., goal bank, examples, professional learning communities, action research, etc.) E. Draft examples of professional development goals. F. Enter competencies, goals and other management documents or information into the pilot/test system of record. Ensure the iterative performance management process is efficient, effective, tangible, transparent, meaningful and manageable. Refer to Appendix C for the draft Performance Evaluation process. Version 12 169 Question #6: What are the detailed work plan steps for the pilot, including an established timeline and any related dependencies? Steps DRAFT The Intent of this Pilot Work Plan Step is to: DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT III. BLUE PRINTS – EVALUATION - No later than March 2009 TEC A. Document performance evaluation process (including performance improvement and appeal processes) and related tools, forms, systems, time frame, etc. B. Enter performance evaluation rubrics into the system. C. Develop collection vessels for the bodies of evidence used in the evaluation process. Ensure the iterative evaluation process is efficient, effective, tangible, transparent, meaningful and manageable and meets the establish design criteria. III. BLUE PRINTS – PROFESSIONAL GROWTH AND RENEWAL- No later than March 2009 A. Document professional development process and related tools, forms, systems, time frame, etc. B. Consolidate and enter professional growth and renewal offerings into the system (My Learning Plan). C. Track, evaluate and link professional development engagement to goals and performance. Ensure the iterative professional development process efficient, effective, tangible, transparent, meaningful and manageable and meets the established design criteria. Refer to Appendix D for the draft professional development process and the Use of My Learning Plan process. III. BLUE PRINTS – COMPENSATION AND REWARDS - No later than March 2009 A. Draft and document career opportunities and related pay matrix. B. Conduct virtual pilot for all positions (not just pilot participants). Version 12 C. Draft ‘opt in’ considerations A. Document the compensation and reward actions as a result of satisfactorily evaluated performance and achievement; B. Ascertain any potential issues when mapping existing schedule placement to the new proposed career ladder and 170 Question #6: What are the detailed work plan steps for the pilot, including an established timeline and any related dependencies? Steps DRAFT The Intent of this Pilot Work Plan Step is to: DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT IV. COMMUNICATION – On going TEC A. Establish electronic communication tools and frequency (e.g., blogs, emails, web page) B. Establish project and pilot communication tools and frequency (e.g., pilot participants, meeting notes, bi-weekly status reports) C. Establish stakeholder communication tools and frequency (e.g., Education Group, KSFA, Leadership, etc.) Ensure effective and efficient communication tools and frequencies are utilized throughout the pilot. V. TRAINING – June 2009 and July 2009 Initial A. Identify all content or subject matter topics (e.g., overview of framework, Charlotte Danielson, evaluation rubrics, etc.) B. Identify frequency and location of content or subject matter training sessions. C. Identify training sessions related to tools (e.g., Success Factors, My Learning Plan, etc.) D. Develop all training materials, including evaluation of the training materials and methods. E. Establish training site and/or test instances (for systems) for pilot participant use. F. Identify external subject matter experts needed for training. Ensure appropriate training supports are provided for the pilot participants. Version 12 171 Question #6: What are the detailed work plan steps for the pilot, including an established timeline and any related dependencies? DRAFT Steps The Intent of this Pilot Work Plan Step is to: A. Determine and estimate travel needs for pilot participants, pilot support team, core project team and external subject matter experts. Identify and provide resources to support pilot participant travel to enhance communication among pilot participants and to ensure a unified start and end to the pilot. VI. TRAVEL – On going DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT VII. TOOLS – No later than January 2009 TEC A. Identify all tools (e.g., paper, electronic) needed for the pilot. B. Ensure adequate training is provided for pilot tools. Identify tools needed to execute the education framework elements in accordance with the established design principles, blue prints and related processes, forms and tools. VIII. CHANGE MANAGEMENT – On going A. Identify and address change elements by unit (e.g., resistors, early adopters, frustration, organization wide understanding and support, active engagement, leadership engagement). Ensure change management elements are identified and addressed by the project leadership and team to increase pilot success and preparation to “operationalize” the framework elements. Version 12 172 Question #6: What are the detailed work plan steps for the pilot, including an established timeline and any related dependencies? Steps DRAFT The Intent of this Pilot Work Plan Step is to: DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT IX. ASSESSMENTS AND EVALUATION – No later than June 2009 (pre-pilot measures) and June 2010 (for formative assessments) TEC A. Clarify and document formative and summative assessments, ensuring appropriate baseline or front end data is gathered before the pilot’s inception. B. Document evaluation of the pilot, including any ‘next step’ recommendations. C. Determine ‘next steps’ recommendations after analysis of the assessment and evaluation data. Ensure formative assessments and evaluation of the pilot are completed for determination of appropriate ‘next steps’. Draft preliminary summative assessment and evaluation process. X. FINANCIAL PROJECTIONS – Ongoing but no later than June 2010 A. Refine ‘AS IS’ projections. B. Update, iteratively, ‘TO BE’ projections based on pilot ‘lessons learned’. C. Draft ‘opt out’ considerations. Clarify the fiscal impact of the “AS IS” projections and proposed “TO BE” education framework elements and provide a range of options for staff members to consider, respectively. Refer to Appendix E for a draft of the mind map for Ka Piÿina pilot work plan. Version 12 173 Question #7: Will there be a formative assessment of the pilot? If yes, what will it cover and how will it be conducted? DRAFT DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT A pilot formative assessment will consider the following essential question: “Is it [Education Workforce Framework] operating as intended? TEC Planned activities associated with the formative assessment include: 1. Identification and establishment of baseline pre-pilot formative assessment activities (e.g., survey, focus group, etc.), including data collection. 2. Completion of post-pilot formative assessment activities (e.g., survey, focus group, etc.), including data collection. 3. Synthesize and analyze pre- and post-pilot formative assessment data, including consideration of design principles. 4. Identify any unknown, unconsidered and/or unintended consequences of the pilot. 5. Provide evaluation observations, insights and “next steps” recommendations. Version 12 174 Question #8: Will there be a summative assessment of the pilot? If yes, what will it cover and how will it be conducted? DRAFT DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT A pilot summative assessment will consider the following essential question: “Are we seeing improvements in system goal achievement (including student learning) as a result of the framework?” TEC Planned activities associated with the summative assessment include: 1. Identification and establishment of baseline pre-pilot summative assessment activities (e.g., survey, focus group, etc.), including data collection. 2. Completion of post-pilot summative assessment activities (e.g., survey, focus group, etc.), including data collection. 3. Synthesize and analyze pre- and post-pilot summative assessment data, including consideration of design principles. 4. Identify any unknown, unconsidered and/or unintended consequences of the pilot. 5. Provide evaluation observations, insights and “next steps” recommendations. Version 12 175 Question #9: What resources, both in terms of time, people and dollars, will be required to complete the pilot? DRAFT DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT Refer to Appendix F for Details of the Projected Pilot Costs: $1.6 Million (Current Estimate) TEC Version 12 176 DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT Question #10: Will KS require external expertise to facilitate the pilot? If so what kinds of expertise will KS need and what will be their roles? DRAFT During the “discovery” phase of Ka Piÿina (roughly November 2007 to April 2008), contacts were made with a number of reference organizations as related to the “pay for performance” topic in Education. These included, but was not limited to: Denver Public Schools Milton Hershey School West Denver Preparatory School Benchmark Research Independent School Management National Center for Performance Incentives (Vanderbilt University, Peabody College of Education) TEC Version 12 177 DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT DRAFT TEC 11. Financial Analysis Version 12 178 11. Financial Analysis DRAFT Financial Forecast Marc Wallace, TEC Consultant, worked with the Ka Piÿina Core Project Team Analyst in adapting the financial model described in Chapter 7 of the Operation Public Education (OPE) book by John Deasy and his work at Ohio State in adapting Charlotte Danielson’s work for Administrators. Following is a summary of the core of that chapter describing the methodology at a high level: DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT In summary, “we recommend that you follow these steps in developing a cost forecast in your district”: TEC Step1: Develop a teacher and administrator population database that contains the following information for each faculty member: Name Age Years service in current position Years in teaching/administration Current base salary Step and lane placement in current salary schedule Stipends paid this year Educational Degree Step 2: Develop the current percentage distribution of teachers and administrators in the current salary schedule. to estimate the distribution of teachers/administrators in the schedule in each of the forecast years (as we did in our example). Alternatively, you may want to estimate these distributions at a more micro level – using unique information that you have regarding retirements, replacements, attainment of educational credentials, etc. Version 12 179 11. Financial Analysis (continued) DRAFT Financial Forecast (Continued) DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT Step 3: Develop the current schedule in each of the five forecast years using this year’s schedule as the base year (0). You may want to make annual across-the-board cost of living adjustments to the schedule. Use the percentage distribution developed previously. TEC Step 4: Develop the new Career Ladder Schedule and adapt to your district. Estimate the percentage distribution across levels (Apprentice, Career, Advanced and Distinguished) that you would expect in each year of the forecast. You have a choice here. We recommend that you use the percentage estimates we have used in our example. They are based on the expert judgments of a number of people close to the evaluation of teacher skill levels and performance. Alternatively you may choose to develop your own estimates based on factors unique to your district. Step 5: Develop a forecast of incentive program costs and stipend costs in each year of the forecast under the new Model. Step 6: Build the spreadsheet model that allows you to calculate the total compensation cost of the current salary schedule with the total cost of the OPE Career Ladder Schedule in each year of the forecast and across all years of the forecast. Spreadsheet models in Excel will be available to you at no cost on the teachercomp.com web site. Step 6: Adjust parameters in the forecast (e.g., across-the-board annual adjustments, steps within Career Ladder Levels, Career Level adjustments, stipends, bonus levels) until an affordable result is found. Step 7: Test the model against actual experience and revise. Version 12 180 11. Financial Analysis (continued) DRAFT Financial Forecast (Continued) What benefits can we expect from the new framework? DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT So far we have examined models that forecast the expected cost of new compensation systems. Districts should pay attention to the economic benefits to be derived from the OPE model (including new compensation methods). Odden and Wallace point out that the following benefits are associated with new compensation programs (Odden and Wallace, 2008): TEC Higher levels of teacher productivity Lower teacher vacancy rates, especially in hard to staff areas Lower turnover rates, especially in hard to staff areas Ability to attract and retain teachers of higher caliber, and, ultimately Significant gains in student learning and achievement. Admittedly, such benefits, although critical, are more difficult to quantify. Odden and Wallace cites the work of Bill Sanders that show that effective and highly effective teachers create more student learning than ineffective teachers. The effect of teachers’ instructional practice, in addition, far outweighs other factor such as years of experience, degree, credit attainment, student characteristics and classroom characteristics (see, for example, Sanders, 1998;Sanders and Horn, 1994; Sanders and Rivers, 1996). Version 12 181 DRAFT 11. Financial Analysis (Continued) Understanding the current “AS IS” projected payroll commitment is important to establishing a baseline data point for comparison of the related projections that will be part of the “TO BE” future payroll commitment. As-Is Projections of Payroll Commitment DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT (Education Career Families Only) Div Desc Administrator/Management Salary Expense Faculty Salary Expense Education Support Salary Expense Other Salary Expense Overtime Athletics (TEMP) Summer & Comm Outreach (TEMP) Extension Education Svcs (TEMP) KS Campuses - Academic stipends (TEMP) Sabbatical Substitute Temps - KS Payroll (TEMP) Benefits Grand Total 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 Comp Exp Comp Exp Comp Exp Comp Exp Comp Exp Comp Exp Comp Exp Comp Exp Comp Exp Comp Exp Comp Exp ($M) ($M) ($M) ($M) ($M) ($M) ($M) ($M) ($M) ($M) ($M) $7.7 $8.0 $8.3 $8.6 $9.0 $9.3 $9.7 $10.1 $10.5 $10.9 $11.3 $44.2 $46.2 $48.2 $50.3 $52.4 $54.6 $56.8 $59.1 $61.3 $63.6 $66.0 $8.2 $8.5 $8.9 $9.2 $9.6 $10.0 $10.4 $10.8 $11.2 $11.6 $12.1 $.4 $.9 $1.7 $1.6 $.4 $.3 $.9 $1.1 $20.7 $88.1 $.4 $1.1 $1.8 $1.6 $.5 $.3 $.9 $1.1 $21.5 $91.9 $.4 $1.1 $1.8 $1.7 $.5 $.3 $.9 $1.1 $22.4 $95.6 $.4 $1.2 $1.8 $1.7 $.5 $.3 $.9 $1.2 $23.4 $99.6 $.5 $1.2 $1.9 $1.7 $.5 $.3 $1.0 $1.2 $24.3 $103.6 $.5 $1.2 $1.9 $1.8 $.5 $.4 $1.0 $1.2 $25.3 $107.6 $.5 $1.3 $2.0 $1.8 $.5 $.4 $1.0 $1.4 $26.4 $112.0 $.5 $1.3 $2.0 $1.9 $.5 $.4 $1.0 $1.4 $27.4 $116.4 $.5 $1.3 $2.1 $1.9 $.5 $.4 $1.1 $1.4 $28.5 $120.7 $.5 $1.4 $2.1 $2.0 $.6 $.5 $1.1 $1.5 $29.5 $125.3 $.6 $1.4 $2.2 $2.0 $.6 $.5 $1.1 $1.5 $30.7 $130.0 The assumptions used to construct the ‘AS IS’ Projections above are noted on the following slide. TEC Version 12 182 DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT 11. Financial Analysis (Continued) TEC DRAFT Version 12 183 DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT 11. Financial Analysis (Continued) TEC DRAFT Version 12 184 DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT DRAFT TEC 12. Summary and Next Steps Version 12 185 Summary DRAFT A high level summary of key framework concepts are listed below and on the next page: 1 – ”Piÿina” refers to a climb, ascent or rise. The project was named Ka Piÿina to represent the gentle climb, ascent or rise to excellence—both in education and educators. DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT 2 - Ka Piÿina is TEC A way to recruit, retain and reward quality educators. A way to elevate and support educators and quality education throughout KS. In response to the KS climate survey feedback regarding accountability, constructive feedback and appreciation. Working toward a framework where there are options and choices for career enhancement and advancement Focusing on skills, attributes and attitudes that can be recruited, developed, supported and rewarded. “Non-partisan”—both “management” and “rank and file”; “union” and “non-union”; “campus” and “community”; “Oÿahu” and “Neighbor Island”. * Under the umbrella of Total Rewards – an HR led, organization wide initiative to also look at strengthening the people throughout KS. 3 – Related Career Families Administration & Management Faculty Education Support 4 – Framework Components or Blueprints With Design Principles Career Opportunities Performance Evaluation and Management Professional Growth and Renewal Compensation & Rewards Version 12 186 Summary DRAFT 5 - Career Opportunities - Develop breadth and depth of competencies and capabilities Design Principles: Grow professionally, seek and qualify for leadership opportunities, encourage ‘risk taking’, consider multiple career opportunities and paths. Career Levels: Entry, Professional, Career Professional, Advanced Professional 6 - Performance Evaluation and Management DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT TEC Design Principles: Improve quality of instruction, achievement and services; documents performance; is meaningful and manageable; captures all relevant dimensions of performance; provides multiple facets and methods to provide feedback, links to multiple career growth and opportunities; drives the professional development process. 7 - Professional Growth and Renewal Design Principles: Supports workforce capacity building; is meaningful and manageable; integrates with the performance evaluation process and proves career opportunities; links to the further development and strengthening of the Native Hawaiian community through ÿIke and Nohona Hawaiÿi initiatives; supports a variety of opportunities, ways, strategies, tools and mechanisms to enable effective experiences. 8 - Compensation & Rewards Design Principles: Transparent and clear to understand; recognizes demonstrated cultural, indigeneous knowledge and skill; supports a competitive base salary/benefits package; rewards improvements in staff performance, process efficiencies, process and program effectiveness, career growth and student learning objectives and outcomes; provides a variety of options for compensation (both cash and non-cash). 9 – Pilot - SY 09-10; all four blueprints to be piloted; voluntary; 100 system wide participants recommended; actual details of the pilot customized for each pilot group; supported by a Pilot Support Team; formative and summative assessments planned. Version 12 187 Next Steps DRAFT DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT From October 2008 to December 2008, meetings held beginning with the Education Group Executives (EGE) and CEO/Trustees, cascading down to the leadership of individual education units to discuss the framework in detail. Subsequently, during the months of January and early February 2009, meetings were held with faculty and staff at large and the following questions were also posed to them: TEC 1. What is your reaction to the design principles and guidelines (e.g., too many, too little, missing any, duplicative, transparent, simple)? 2. What is your reaction to the four cornerstone elements of design: 1) performance evaluation; 2) professional development; 3) career opportunities and 4) compensation (e.g., makes sense, see the integration, understand the basis and tools, etc.)? 3. What is your reaction to the pilot implementation plan (e.g., identification and parameters of participation, measurement, timing, evaluation, etc.) for SY 2009-10 (e.g., can it be supported, what does “support” look like, etc.)? 4. What is your reaction to the transition to operational elements (e.g., Human Resources, education unit, roles and responsibilities) for the purpose of affirming or altering the draft workforce framework toward a final deliverable plan for phased implementation beginning in SY 2010-11 (e.g., is it clear, are the units prepared, what transition steps are needed, etc.)? Pilot participant application, determination, selection and preparation began in mid-February 2009 through the end of the fiscal year in June 2009 in preparation for the August 2009 kickoff of the pilot year. Version 12 188 Next Steps DRAFT The next high level steps are summarized below for the SY 09-10 pilot year: Jul 2009 DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT For pilot participants TEC Aug 2009 Sep 2009 Q1: Focus on Training & 0910 Goal Setting Tools Training (Success Factors, My Learning Plan, Blackboard, SM-A-R-T goals) Danielson and CLASS Instructional Framework Training Cascaded goal setting process Initial evaluator and participant conversations regarding 09-10 Provide feedback to Core Project Team and Research & Evaluation Division For Core Project Team Oct 2009 Nov 2009 Dec 2009 Q2: Focus on Collection of Artifacts and Bodies of Evidence Jan 2010 Feb 2010 Mar 2010 Q3: Focus on Collection of Artifacts and Bodies of Evidence Review training Practice and reflect Gather artifacts and bodies of evidence Conduct classroom observations Attend, hold and/or participate in professional growth and renewal activities (e.g., workshops, action research, book study, projects) Hold mid year or period updates with evaluator for affirmation and support of direction in 09-10 Provide feedback to Core Project Team and Research & Evaluation Division Apr 2010 May 2010 Jun 2009 Q1: Focus on Evaluation Review artifacts and bodies of evidence Prepare evaluation Provide feedback to Core Project Team and Research & Evaluation Division Monitor and support pilot participant activities (e.g., training, update meetings, goal setting), prepare pilot evaluation plans (e.g., formative and summative) and formulate framework recommendations for consideration. Version 12 189 Appendices DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT TEC DRAFT Appendix A – Administrative and Management Career Family Evaluation Rubrics National Staff Development Council (NSDC) Appendix B – Danielson Framework Evaluation Rubrics Appendix C – Performance Evaluation Process Appendix D – Professional Development and Use of My Learning Plan Process Appendix E – Ka Piÿina Work Plan – Mind Map Appendix F – High Level Pilot Work Plan and Related Cost Estimates Appendix G – KS Organizational Competencies Appendix H – Modified Danielson Evaluation Rubrics for Educational Support Career Family Appendix I - Draft Integrated Evaluation Rubrics with Nä Honua Mauli Ola and Christian Values I-1: Administration and Management Career Family (NSDC) I-2: Faculty Career Family (Danielson) I-3: Education Support Career Family (Danielson) I-4: Counselors (Danielson) I-5: Library Media Specialists (Danielson) I-6: Administration and Management Career Family (Interstate School Leadership Licensing Consortium-ISLLC) Appendix J – Ka Pi`ina Pilot Position Classifications Appendix K – Classroom Assessment and Scoring System (CLASS) Overview Version 12 190 Appendix I – Integrated Rubrics DRAFT During the 2008-2009 school year, the Core Project Team worked on ensuring the alignment of the Ka Pi`ina framework with three foundational elements and documents: Education (Philosophy of Education), Christian Values (Spiritual Guiding Principles) and Hawaiian Culture (Lähui Vision). As a result, the instructional evaluation rubrics were integrated with these documents resulting in the integrated rubrics contained in Appendix I. DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT Pilot participants may consider utilizing the integrated evaluation rubrics during the SY 09-10 Ka Pi`ina pilot in consultation with their evaluator/supervisor. Appendix I - Draft Integrated Evaluation Rubrics with Nä Honua Mauli Ola and Christian Values I-1: Administration and Management Career Family (NSDC) I-2: Faculty Career Family (Danielson) I-3: Education Support Career Family (Danielson) I-4: Counselors (Danielson) I-5: Library Media Specialists (Danielson) I-6: Administration and Management Career Family (Interstate School Leadership Licensing Consortium-ISLLC) TEC Version 12 191