Successfully reported this slideshow.
You’ve unlocked unlimited downloads on SlideShare!
The Myths and Facts of Roseville’s ATPPS (Alternative Teacher Professional Pay System, sometimes known as QComp)
Myth:: This is a Republican/DemocratIC Conspiracy.
<ul><li>Fact: Originally this may have been the case but in Minnesota there was strong input from both Democrats and Republican on the final bill that became statute. Both President Obama and Secretary Duncan are now promoting merit pay and Minnesota was frequently mentioned in Obama’s campaign speeches as a national model (even though he got some of the facts wrong early on). </li></ul>
<ul><li>Myth: This will alter how much the district is willing to put into salaries on the salary schedule. </li></ul>
<ul><li>Fact: </li></ul><ul><li>ATPPS is negotiated completely separate from any salary/benefits discussions. Funding comes form an entirely different funding source (tax levy/state aid) that can only be used for ATPPS. It has no bearing whatsoever on the negotiated salary schedule and both EM-R and the district have strongly avoided tying the two together. </li></ul>
<ul><li>Myth: This will result in a huge number of additional meetings: </li></ul>
<ul><li>Fact : </li></ul><ul><li>Here are examples from around the district: </li></ul><ul><li>Edgerton – converted a second staff meeting a month into a team meeting. One extra 30 minute meeting per month is devoted to ATPPS. </li></ul><ul><li>Falcon Heights - one 30-45 minute meeting per month with PLC and lead teacher </li></ul><ul><li>Central Park – PLC meeting each week with 10 – 15 minutes devoted to ATPPS </li></ul><ul><li>LC - converted a second monthly staff meeting into team meeting. Onc extra 30 minute meeting per month with lead teacher. Use three half days of staff development for ATPPS. </li></ul><ul><li>EDW - one 30 minute meeting per month with PLC and lead teacher. </li></ul><ul><li>Most of the schools use part of the first staff development day for PDP preparation. A post observation meeting with whoever you’ve designated to observe is also held after the three observations. </li></ul>
<ul><li>Myth: This is being forced on us by EM-R and/or the district and we will vote until we ge t it right. </li></ul>
<ul><li>Fact: Of all the districts in the state doing ATPPS, EM-R’s approach has shown the most restrain of any. The only “ fo rcing” your union has undertaken has been one or two emails, a short meeting for information/questions, and then a thirty second vote. There has been little or no follow up after the vote for the remainder of the school year. Also, Roseville is the only district in the state implementing the program on a voluntary, school by school basis. For every other district if it’s approved the entire district must participate. Additionally, we were sure to negotiate a high voting threshold to pass it (70%) and we’ve also negotiated that every building votes at the end of the first year whether to continue the program or not - truly making it a no-penalty option for schools to withdraw after a trial year if they deem it isn’t a good fit for their site. We vote every year because building staff changes every year, administrative staff changes and new information becomes available every year. </li></ul>
<ul><li>Myth: This is an intrusive evaluation system that requires three separate evaluations/observations from a non-administrator per year. </li></ul>
<ul><li>Fact : ATPPS observations are not evaluative – only an administrator can evaluate you. For ATPPS you decide who will observe you (colleague, lead teacher, administrator, etc) and what they will observe. Examples of topics for observation might include student engagement, higher level questioning, instructional groupings, etc. The feedback you receive is shared only between you and your observer and is based on objective criteria. There is no evaluatory language used during the process. The only exception would be for probationary teachers who choose to use the three observations as their evaluations, thereby killing two birds with a single stone. </li></ul>
<ul><li>Half Myth: There is no proven long term value for ATPPS. </li></ul>
<ul><li>Fact: While our own union reported in a recent Educator article how three separate studies have shown that so far ATPPS has not increased student achievement (largely due to insufficient data), Roseville conducted a survey of all participating QComp teachers last year and found the following: </li></ul><ul><li>106 strongly agreed, 68 agreed, 1 disagreed and 1 strongly disagreed to the statement “Th e students I teach, who were the focus of our team’s achievement goal, were more successful as a result of ATPPS development work.” </li></ul><ul><li>75 strongly agreed, 97 agreed, 3 disagreed and 1 strongly disagree to the statement “ As a result of this professional development activity, the instructional decisions I make in the future, particularly in the area of focus for this PDP, will help me perform at the levels of proficient to distinguished.” </li></ul>
<ul><li>Site Goals Attained: 6/6 </li></ul><ul><li>Team Goals Attained: 44/44 </li></ul><ul><li>Added pay to base salary: 185/185 </li></ul><ul><li>Received the full $2000: 148/185 </li></ul><ul><li>Received only partial pay as result of performance: 5/185 </li></ul>
<ul><li>Myth: It’s only two thousand dollars a year, which isn’t much for all of the extra work. </li></ul>
<ul><li>Fact: As shown above , the amount of extra work really isn’t excessive and has been judged by most current Roseville participants to be beneficial or highly beneficial to their professional practice. As for the money, consider the following: </li></ul><ul><li>Teachers at Edgerton have already earned an additional $6000, mostly for doing what a lot of you are already doing. </li></ul>
<ul><li>The following chart shows additional earning potential for ATPPS participants. </li></ul><ul><li>Assumptions </li></ul><ul><li>1. The teacher has: </li></ul><ul><li>*35 years of service at retirement </li></ul><ul><li>*No reduction of benefit due to early retirement </li></ul><ul><li>*Selected a Life Plan A-1 annuity at retirement </li></ul><ul><li>*A retirement that lasts 20 years </li></ul><ul><li>*An ATPPS salary of $2000 per year in the remaining years to retirement </li></ul><ul><li>*Earned an ATPPS salary in each of the teacher’s “high 5” years </li></ul><ul><li>2. Therefore, the high five average salary of the teacher is $2,000 more than if there was no ATPPS salary. </li></ul><ul><li>3. The TRA benefit increases 2.5% per year after retirement (current law). </li></ul>
$41,215 $10,000 $31,215 $1,222/year 5 30 $51,726 $20,000 $31,726 $1,242/year 10 25 $62,237 $30,000 $32,237 $1,262/year 15 20 $72,728 $40,000 $32,728 $1,282/year 20 15 $83,259 $50,000 $33,259 $1,302/year 25 10 $93,770 $60,000 $33,770 $1,322/year 30 5 Total of ATPPS Salary and Additional 20 Year TRA Benefit ATPPS Salary Earned in Years to Retirement Additional TRA Benefit Over 20 Years (Includes Annual 2.5% Increase) Additional TRA Benefit at Retirement Years to Retirement Years of Experience Prior to 2009-10