Teacher Compensation Models and Advanced Teaching Roles

To what extent does ATR increase student academic outcomes?

• ATR had a statistically significant impact on school-wide academic growth in math, but not in ELA. These results are largely driven by the first cohort of ATR PSUs and schools with several years of implementation. Although estimates of impact are positive in science, they are not statistically significant. Moreover, ATR had no impact on school-wide ELA scores.
• Citing a range of formative and summative assessment data, administrators and Advanced Teachers reported positive impacts on academic outcomes. In addition, the majority of the teachers that receive support from Advanced Teachers reported improvements in academic achievement for students in their classes (81%), on their team (83%), and in their school (82%).
• Administrators and teachers attributed academic growth to Advanced Teachers and recognized their help in mitigating the impacts of COVID. Educators cited a wide variety of assessment data as evidence of ATR’s positive impact on student learning and frequently shared that Advanced Teachers have been instrumental in addressing COVID-related learning interruptions.

How, and to what extent, does ATR improve the quality of classroom instruction?

• Teachers in ATR schools have significantly higher average teacher value-added scores. The findings suggest that teachers in ATR schools tend to have higher average Education Value-Added Assessment System (EVAAS) scores than comparison schools, mostly driven by value-added scores among math teachers. However, there are no differences in administrator evaluations (i.e., observation scores) of teachers in ATR schools relative to comparison schools.
• ATR is growing teachers’ understandings of what and how to teach more effectively. Educators across the career spectrum cited multiple approaches Advanced Teachers have used to improve the quality of classroom instruction, such as facilitating Professional Learning Communities and co-teaching.

How, and to what extent, does ATR support the recruitment, recognition, development, and retention of high-quality classroom teachers?

• Educators viewed ATR as a tool to support the recruitment of new teachers. School administrators and teachers noted how ATR supported their ability to recruit new teachers, and teachers recruited for ATR schools were also more likely to have higher average EVAAS scores.
• The presence of an ATR program did not affect overall teacher retention for schools as a whole. Although ATR has become a tool used by PSUs to recruit and retain teachers, administrators and Advanced Teachers emphasized that ATR by itself does not solve workforce challenges.
• Advanced Teachers overwhelmingly reported that ATR contributes to being recognized and valued for their expertise. The majority (92%) of Advanced Teachers agree the role is an opportunity to be recognized for their expertise and that their role is valued by other educators (85%).

How, and to what extent, does ATR improve school culture?

• Educators noted how Advanced Teachers fostered “togetherness” and provided teachers both academic and social-emotional support. Advanced Teachers took on several leadership roles in schools, including coaching and mentoring other teachers. As a result, teachers across PSUs noted how they did not feel alone in their classrooms.
• ATR programs emphasized a culture of continuous improvement. A culture of continuous improvement was not only observed by evaluators and reported by educators at the school level but also highlighted as an important characteristic of teachers’ work in their classrooms.
• Teacher Working Conditions survey estimates suggest potential positive associations between ATR and teacher perceptions of their school. Although not statistically significant, analyses suggest that ATR may be improving perceptions of the professional development and support teachers receive, and teachers see these improvements as leading to stronger instructional practice in the school.

What are the similarities and differences in approaches to models and programs among PSUs, and what components differentiate those that have demonstrated significant impacts?

• Opportunity Culture (OC) is the most common ATR model in North Carolina. Among ATR grant recipients, 13 out of 17 PSUs currently partner with (or launched their initial ATR work via partnership with) Public Impact, a third-party vendor for ATR programs. However, PSUs not using OC produced larger positive effects on End-of-Grade/Course assessments than PSUs using OC.
• There is extensive variation in implementation of ATR programs at the school level. Even within PSUs that adopted a common model like OC, there is extensive variation at the school level with respect to ATR job titles, roles, responsibilities, release time, and compensation. Across the districts, administrators reported at least 23 unique job titles, and salary supplements ranged from $1,500 to $20,750 annually.
• While hiring protocols for Advanced Teachers were clear, evaluation protocols are still evolving. Eligibility for the role is routinely informed by a combination of factors but unclear roster verification processes and/or missing EVAAS data pose a perennial challenge to administrators for effectively evaluating an Advanced Teacher’s impact.

What school, district, and state-level conditions support or impede compensation models and ATR program efforts?

• District- and school-level leadership have been instrumental in advocating for and shaping the design of ATR programs. At the PSU level, it was common for one person to be responsible for coordinating ATR program design, implementation, and monitoring efforts with school administrators.
• Some district and school administrators indicated that class-size flexibility is critical to implementation. However, administrators also noted that even if PSUs no longer need the grant money to sustain the program, they may still need the class-size waiver affiliated with the ATR grant.
• Variable funding structures and ongoing teacher turnover limit the sustainability and impact of ATR. School administrators see value in sustaining and scaling their ATR programs; however, under current funding structures there are often consequential trade-offs for staffing programs. In addition, Advanced Teachers sometimes need to provide emergency coverage, limiting the impact of ATR efforts.

How can the design of ATR models and programs be improved to better address educational disparities among staff and students?

• ATR schools tend to serve larger proportions of racially minoritized and economically disadvantaged students than the rest of the state. ATR schools serve larger proportions of Black (48%) and Latino/a/x (19%) students relative to the average across the rest of the state (24% and 15% respectively). ATR schools also serve more economically disadvantaged and multilingual students.
• Educators reported that ATR has improved access to highly effective teachers for students attending Title I and/or historically hard-to-staff schools. Administrators and teachers also believe that having access to Advanced Teachers at their school has led to improvement in academic achievement for educationally disadvantaged students.
• Administrators reported that ATR was a human resource strategy that supported PSU equity goals. However, educators indicated a need for school-wide strategies to prioritize students most impacted by educational disparities and for PSUs to be more intentional and expansive in hiring practices.

• Clearly define and communicate the roles, responsibilities, and evaluation methods associated with ATR positions. Educators in several PSUs expressed a need for clear definitions and expectations regarding the roles and responsibilities of Advanced Teachers. Updated legislation and explicit policies that specify an appropriate range of competencies, responsibilities, and performance indicators for the primary types of Advanced Teachers could help to address this issue.
• Consider restructuring Advanced Teacher workloads and eliminating non-essential duties. To help ensure that those in ATR roles can effectively carry out their responsibilities without feeling overwhelmed, consider designating a fixed percentage of the instructional day or week for ATR tasks; eliminating non-essential duties such as administrative support; and providing Advanced Teachers with tools, resources, and support to manage essential duties more efficiently.
• Foster collaboration and ongoing professional development. Advanced Teachers expressed challenges such as lack of time, resources, and structured opportunities for effective collaboration and professional growth. PSUs, the NCDPI, and third-party groups should consider exploring new programs or expanding existing ones that facilitate regular collaboration among teachers and are tailored to complement advanced teaching roles.
• Reevaluate compensation and funding approaches to ATR. Both administrators and teachers shared several challenges around funding and compensation for ATR, as well as consequential staffing “tradeoffs.” PSUs and the NCDPI should consider reviewing the compensation models and stipends for those in advanced teaching roles and investigate ways to provide teacher compensation funding for the ATR program to ensure its successful implementation and sustainability.
• Explore approaches that support equitable access to ATR for students and staff. Specifically, consider convening an equity advisory board; exploring ways that Multi-Tiered System of Support and ATR might work in tandem; making pathways available, attractive, and accessible for teachers from underrepresented groups; enhancing hiring protocols to include specific equity competencies; and leveraging District Equity Plans and School Improvement Plans to monitor ATR.

• Systematize and stipulate common data reporting requirements across PSU grantees. Moving forward, the evaluation team recommends requiring the collection and reporting of critical data points related to ATR implementation and using a standard data protocol to minimize errors and assist PSUs in data collection. The evaluation team also recommends that the NCDPI partner with the SAS EVAAS team and education researchers to develop a quantitative measure of Advanced Teacher effectiveness.
• Conduct in-depth case studies of select ATR schools to further investigate program outcomes. The intent of this evaluation was to provide a comprehensive assessment of ATR implementation and impact across all PSU grantees and was therefore broad in scope. Evaluation efforts moving forward should shift towards in-depth comparative case studies of ATR programs to better understand why some ATR schools have had the anticipated impacts on student and teacher outcomes while others have not.