Teacher Perceptions of Systems-Driven Quality Teaching Initiatives

A New Day Is Dawning

Dr. Carol Mullen, Ph. D. and Kimberlyn R. Slagle, B.A.

Recently, Governor Jeb Bush (2003) has declared that Florida is a major national leader in the school reform movement. Ironically, this stance may have currency in an era where the meaning of “reform” has been restricted to high-stakes testing—which essentially equates high-quality teaching with student test scores. Bush applauds Florida as “the State of Education”—a pioneer in the use of “innovative and commonsense reforms” that have essentially “driv[en] accountability into our schools and achievement standards up for our students” (para. 4). Striving for this vision to take root in Florida schools, the state’s legislative body has outlined the bases for quality teaching differentiation. Consequently, the BEST initiative, formalized in 2003 at the state policymaking level, was expedited for implementation within four pilot school districts.

BEST, formally known as the Better Educated Students and Teachers (BEST) Teaching Salary Career Ladder Program,¹ will have infused all K–12 public schools in Florida as of the 2004–2005 school year. This systemic initiative spearheads differentiated staffing for supporting teacher retention and instructional mentorship, requiring that instructional mentorship be aligned with a differentiated salary model so that highly qualified, exemplary teachers can be recognized and retained. This restructuring effort will likely dramatically change how schools function in Florida, with possible implications for the entire country.

The way in which quality teaching itself has been conceptualized through this policy reform initiative may itself be problematic, however. As has been shown, policymakers tend to focus on certification, qualification, and student achievement on standardized texts, at the expense of critical, democratic discourse (e.g., Mullen & Farinas, 2003). This policy initiative, then, can be construed as a mandated charge compounded by top-down decision-making that is, at least in its early stage and at the ground level, riddled with transitional weaknesses, unfair practices, and poor training.

Purpose, Rationale, and Scope

The purpose of our study is to develop insight into systems-driven quality teaching initiatives by presenting preliminary results from a Florida-based statewide case exemplar. Research questions that guided this inquiry were, broadly conceived, “What frameworks and influences are generally relevant to current systems-driven quality teaching initiatives?,” and more specifically, “What are teachers’ perception of the BEST Teaching Salary Career Ladder Program during its pilot phase in their Florida schools”?

Motivations for Investigating BEST

One reason for studying the BEST Teaching Salary Career Ladder Program (hereafter referred to as the “BEST Teaching Program” and “BEST”) is to expose the complexities encountered from the perspective of those whom it most directly impacts—Florida’s K–12 public school teachers.

The federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), reauthorized by the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001, requires that teacher quality be supported with scientifically based research (U.S. Department of Education, 2004). Accordingly, the Improving Teacher Quality State Grants Program (from the General Education Provisions Act) provides nearly $3 billion annually to states for ensuring that all teachers of core academic subjects are highly qualified no later than the 2005–2006 school year (U.S. General Accounting Office, 2003). The four Florida piloting districts under the Early Innovator School District Program are required to report their findings in ways consistent with this national legislation (Florida Department of Education, The BEST proposal, 2003a).

NCLB and the 1965 Statute are relevant to our purpose because they both connect to issues that make funding and scientifically based research synonymous. From one direction, the larger issue can be boiled down to grant funds for states. Federal monies are now contingent on a grant application, which is contingent on programs whose credibility is contingent upon scientific methods of research. Similarly, the focus of BEST—data-based administrative decision making in regard to planning and implementation—does not extend to human actors. It therefore stands to reason that our account could provide a flexible framework, complete with original instruments and preliminary results, for developing awareness of the perceptions of teachers involved in the BEST Program. This contribution could, in turn, impact the planning and evaluation of similar future programs adopted in other states.

Teachers’ stories and concerns. Relevant policy reports that Florida’s schools will prepare under the BEST jurisdiction are expected to reflect comprehensive efforts to analyze quantitative data, share findings, and outline obstacles. However, one might expect anecdotal indicators, particularly of potential challenges to the new state salary system, to be missing from these. Ultimately, we seek to enhance the academic credibility of investigations into the BEST Program by providing a storytelling component based on intimate exchanges with the targets of this change model. Such narrative understanding of teachers’ perceptions, as related to human and contextual issues, can serve to complement and even inform the process of empirically studying school reform (e.g., Connelly & Clandinin, 1990).

Attempts to empower teachers while simultaneously denying an audience for their concerns are, at worst, antithetical and, at best, contradictory. How, given the limited time of 4 to 6 weeks for the pilot’s launch within four districts,² can teacher input and leadership realistically be tapped? Accounts such as ours can put school districts and governmental bodies in a better position not only to identify salient issues that impact large-scale reform at the school level but also to incorporate teacher feedback for assessing the merits and pitfalls of comprehensive programs.

This investigation strives to hear teachers’ voices, not to systematically analyze Florida’s BEST career ladder relative to its objectives to recruit, retain, and reward quality teachers. Our inquiry stops short of addressing recruitment issues and instead examines issues of equity, retention, and reward. The scope of our discussion also aims to foster awareness of such contemporary hybrid models as the BEST Teaching Program, which combines differentiated staffing, pay for performance, and salary career ladder. We go beyond simply communicating teacher feedback to connecting such staffing hybrids to key contextual issues related to many large-school reforms, namely high-stakes testing, high-quality teaching, instructional leadership, teacher mentorship, and school culture.

Florida’s BEST Solution

Florida’s BEST Teaching Program is intended to “empower teachers in Florida’s classrooms through a program of recruitment, retention, and rewards” (Florida House of Representatives, 2004, para. 1). This act addresses a myriad of familiar teaching concerns, ranging from the financial to the instructional, including loan forgiveness programs, a minimum starting salary of $31,000, and the authority to permanently remove “uncontrollable” students from the classroom (Florida Department of Education, The BEST Proposal, 2003a). And now Florida’s legislative spotlights (i.e., standards and accountability) are shining brightly on the state’s teachers, with an aim to differentiate their proven instructional leadership capacity in concert with expectations for performance, evaluation, mentorship, and reward.

During our writing of this paper in 2004, BEST was in the process of being piloted as the Early Innovator School District Program in 4 out of Florida’s 67 districts. While teacher response has ranged from guarded optimism to blatant skepticism, what may be considered the essential element of the BEST legislation has already proven controversial. Receiving much debate is the restructured salary system that functions as a career ladder/performance pay hybrid—simultaneously categorizing and rewarding teachers progressively in relation to levels of national quality indicators and redefining the role of the instructional mentor in Florida’s K–12 public schools.

Upon the completion of this pilot, it was decided in a 2004 legislative session of the Florida Senate that the funding officially earmarked for this program would not be forthcoming. Regardless, schools and teachers have been mandated to ensure statewide implementation of the BEST program by the 2005–2006 school year, and probably without financial compensation. Nonetheless, some school leaders and mentor teachers in Florida have expressed that they would like to see the plan put into action to see if student achievement will improve as the BEST legislation suggests, and to provide support to new and less experienced teachers as a means of helping them to be successful (personal communication with a group of Florida school representatives, June 2004).

Salary Career Ladder Categories

Within the structure of the BEST salary career ladder, there exist four distinct categories—associate teacher, professional teacher, lead teacher, and mentor teacher—into which every practitioner will be slotted. At the bottom of the career ladder, so to speak, are the associate teachers, those without professional certificates or with professional certificates who have received low performance evaluations. Professional teachers encompass those with professional certificates and satisfactory (or above) performance evaluations. Lead teachers have been characterized as those with leadership experience, including roles as department chair, grade-level leader, intern coordinator, or professional development coordinator. And mentor teachers top the career ladder with individuals who have supervisory, leadership, and instructional duties, with responsibilities for mentoring other teachers, serving as a professional development coordinators, and participating in the direct instruction of low-performing students (The Florida Senate, 2003a).

Eligibility. The titles of professional and associate teacher will automatically apply to those educators satisfying the profile of those with full certification and satisfactory evaluations and those on probationary status, respectively. Eligibility for the top two teaching tiers, however, is more complicated. To qualify for the lead teacher position, one must demonstrate outstanding performance in addition to having been a professional teacher for at least 2 years, and the mentor teacher must work as a lead teacher for the same period of time.

Promotion of a teacher to a higher level on the salary career ladder is based on prescribed performance criteria, not length of service. Lead teachers interested in progressing to the mentor position must regularly attend professional development training and demonstrate outstanding performance, as well as instruct low-performing students. Evaluations, to be undertaken for each employee at least annually, must reflect sound principles and current research in effective educational practice (Florida Department of Education, The BEST Proposal, 2003a).

Compensation. Under BEST, instructional career advancement includes a correlating salary bonus. Eligibility for advancement and bonus pay are thus one and the same—both linked to quality and leadership indicators and both competitive by nature of the limited number of positions. The size of each school’s instructional faculty will dictate the number of lead and mentor positions, allocating one lead teacher for every seven professional and associate teachers, and one mentor teacher for every three lead teachers.

It is important to note, however, that the state has other opportunities for performance and merit based salary bonuses designed in support of Florida’s Senate statutes (230.23[5][c] and 231.29) (http://apps.sdhc.k12.fl.us/hrdiv). As with the BEST career ladder bonus, eligibility does not guarantee performance pay (Florida school district Human Resources’ website, 2004). Also, similar to BEST, some of these other performance pay programs are limited and, consequently, competitive, while others are contingent on such factors as school assignment or National Board certification.

BEST Career Ladder bonuses. Pending discussion with the teachers union, lead and mentor teachers will be eligible for stipends set at $5,000 and $10,000, respectively (Kilmer, n.d.). The key difference between the salary bonuses associated with the BEST career ladder and those associated with other performance indicators is the differentiated staffing status. While previous pay for performance bonuses are open to all teachers regardless of beginning, alternative certification status, or formal leadership titles, only the teachers classified within the top three tiers (professional, lead, and mentor teacher) may receive BEST career ladder bonuses (piloting district’s Pay for Performance BEST Guidelines, 2004). Given these distinctions, it is understandable that readers might be confused by the influx of new and varied terminology. In the interest of clarity, we next refer to bonus pay associated with the BEST career ladder levels as “BEST career ladder bonuses” while all bonus programs will be referred to as “performance pay bonuses.”

Case Study Methods and Research Process

BEST Early Innovator School Districts

In January 2004, funded by a $25 million grant, Florida launched the trial implementation of BEST in four school districts that “fully and most feasibly implement the spirit and intent of the BEST Florida Teaching Program, and that maximize teacher compensation by coordinating multiple fund sources” (Warford, 2003, slide #16). Because the program is still in the trial phase, the finer points of BEST that follow are based on the information available and the perceptions expressed.

School Context and Participating Teachers

We used purposeful sampling (see, e.g., Creswell, 1998) for this multisite, cross-case study as a technique for identifying teachers and schools that could provide insight into ground-level school reform development. The teacher leaders who participated in this study together represent all public school levels, specifically elementary (2), middle (1), and secondary (4). All six informants, none whom work in locations associated with our own employment, were female. Four were White American, one Jewish American, and the other Hispanic.

All six of the teacher participants performed leadership roles that (1) were formally recognized by the state, district, and school; (2) involved formal differentiation in staffing (i.e., added pay or increased flexibility of schedule), and (3) were directly linked to and evaluated using school accountability goals prior to the BEST pilot. They were considered “mentors” in the more classical sense—clinical educators, lead teachers, curriculum- and instructional-based models, and professional development support. Prior to the BEST pilot, each had been recognized for her expertise through district and school programs that provided stipends or teaching release time. The school informants agreed upfront to a case-based, intensive inquiry into their perceptions and experiences of the BEST Teaching Program on such relevant topics as teacher leadership and high-stakes testing. The participants provided interviews, follow-up conversations, and anecdotal information.

From this teacher group, two significant subgroups emerged. Group 1 consisted of two mentor teachers whose experiences sparked interest in this research. Both teachers were teaching in ethnically diverse, middle class neighborhood schools in existence for less than 10 years. Their status as teachers who exemplify the previous teacher leadership models in Florida affords them the perspective to evaluate the BEST program within the context of the state’s recent history.

The four teachers in Group 2, who together represented all three K–12 school levels, offered feedback on such pivotal BEST processes as application, interview, and in-progress experiences. As a result of their agreement to provide multiple interviews (in person and via email and phone), we were able to capture the experiential timeline of their respective site-based piloting programs. The observations occurred in three schools that were roughly comparable: Each was a “young” school, with an ethnically and academically diverse, steadily increasing student population (ranging from 1000 to 2000). All three sites self-identified as a “neighborhood school” and largely represented a middle class socioeconomic clientele.

Data Collection, Sources, and Timeframes

Multiple, ongoing data were collected vis-à-vis the six teachers and their perceptions of the BEST initiative. For the data analysis we combined insights derived primarily from multiple interviews spanning an 8–month period. The initial interviews took place from September 2003 to January 2004, and the postinterview cycle lasted from January 2004 to April 2004. Site-based, full-day observations subsequently took place at the three schools for a total of 3 days in January of 2004.

Because the teachers’ responses helped us determine who would be informed enough to warrant interviewing, the surveying occurred as the first step in our data collection cycle. Six teacher respondents then “qualified” as study participants to proceed to the interviewing stage.

Teacher Leadership Surveys

For the survey’s design (see Table 1), we largely incorporated Smylie and Brownlee-Conyers’ (1992) findings, drawing upon the teacher-researcher’s own grounded understanding of school context and teacher sensibility for formulating cognitive and speech patterns. In addition to collecting basic demographics, we elicited information on formal and informal mentoring support systems and emphasized the transition from teaching to leadership. The teacher-researcher was then permitted to shadow each teacher’s daily operations and activities within the three respective school sites. In addition, subsequent follow-up interviews occurred in the case of two of the teachers.³

The same survey questions were asked of the three teachers; however, follow-up questions were considered organic extensions of ideas expressed in the initial surveys and consequently varied based on the initial responses. All of the questions together crystallized three central issues: (1) the process of securing one’s teacher leadership position, including qualifications, application, interviewing, and sponsorship or mentoring by superiors; (2) the impact on other teaching positions in the school; and (3) the level of empowerment they received via validation or support from the school administrators.

----------------------------------------

Table 1

----------------------------------------

Leaders’ backgrounds. The demographics section of the survey outlined information related to the teacher leaders’ backgrounds, namely:

· formal position title and job description

· school and district

· educational and career history

· membership in (experience with) a collective bargaining unit

· other professional networks or collaborations

· outside interests

These preliminary questions were intended to gain a clear sense of teacher, leader, and social being. A self-assessment checklist was included as well, allowing teachers to identify which, if any, of nine statements provided accurate descriptions of their individual characteristics prior to and after their leadership roles. Finally, the survey asked teachers to specify which formal structures created and/or enabled their leadership position, given the following choices:

· career ladders

· differentiated staffing structures

· collaborative problem solving teams

· site-based management

· merit pay system

Support structures (informal/formal). The survey also provided descriptions of various formal support strategies, including socialization processes, training and/or mentoring. These items, presented in a checklist format, were intended to assess the level of formal support necessary to facilitate one’s transition from teaching to leadership. By checking all that applied, the respondents indicated which of the strategies were formally provided to them.

Immediately following was a series of seven open-ended questions (see Table 1) regarding formal and informal support systems, including administrative and collegial support. Respondents were prompted to share their experiences regarding any and all of these social phenomena and to disregard those that were irrelevant.

Principal support issues. While the issue of principal support was indirectly addressed in prior sections of the survey, the final section focused on the principal/teacher leader relationship. Here, a series of seven statements (with two additional ones intentionally left open, as in “My principal … ”) was presented in a checklist format. Respondents were asked to indicate which of the following characteristics identified their administrative supervisor’s practice before their appointment into a formal leadership role and/or after it.

· recognition for accomplishments, whether in the form of program initiatives, extracurricular activities, professional development, or committee involvement

· reward for accomplishments, whether in the form of program initiatives, extracurricular activities, professional development, or committee involvement

· support for professionalism by ensuring that teachers are afforded opportunities to exercise their abilities

· fostering of teachers’ professional growth

· display of confidence in teachers’ professional potential

· respect for teachers’ role as community members

· understanding teachers’ personal (nonprofessional) priorities

Teacher Leadership Interviews

Interviews followed the survey and analysis, framing intentionally open-ended questions (see Table 2). The goal was to foster a low-pressure, conversational exchange, without the formality of a more traditional interview process. For this reason, teachers were not given the interview questions ahead of time. The teacher-researcher felt that the teachers would be much more receptive to our research prompts if supported by nonintrusive methods. The more casual approach necessitated note taking over audiorecording in an effort to secure trust and confidence so that honest, spontaneous storytelling could ensue.

Consequently, striving to accurately record teachers’ words, the interviewer opted to use a confirmatory approach, repeating (or having repeated) key ideas. Variation in the data collection phase therefore occurred as a result of our own researcher flexibility and the choices teachers exercised. For example, while two faculty invited on-site visits to their classrooms, another opted for a home visit and telephone contact.

----------------------------------------

Table 2

----------------------------------------

Teacher Leadership Observations

During the initial data collection process, it became evident that actual trips to the school sites would aid in our more fully grasping the nuances teachers were sharing about their contexts and cultures. Consequently, Group 1’s schools were visited for observation of three teachers in formal leadership roles—resource teacher, learning specialist, and school committee leader. During a 3-day period in the fall of 2003, the researcher followed the participants through a regular teaching day, visiting a total of seven classrooms, as well as teachers’ planning areas, administrative offices, and media centers.

Despite the researcher’s initial agenda—to evaluate the impact of principal action (or inaction) on teacher leadership success—the interview and observation outcomes soon revealed school culture as having a definite influence. Consequently, the scope of our investigation expanded to include participant responses regarding school culture. These responses were driven entirely by participant agendas or desire for disclosure.

In order to analyze the data, we each highlighted meta- and subcodes within and across the survey, interview, and observational data. We next individually generated themes and compared these for authentication, applying Miles and Huberman’s (1994) qualitative scheme for data management and analysis.

Preliminary Thematic Results: Squinting at the Horizon

In this section we address the question “What are teachers’ perceptions of the BEST Teaching Salary Career Ladder Program during its piloted phase in their Florida schools”?

Although the issues that emerged from the interviews were as varied as the teachers’ individual profiles and agendas, five general areas of commonality crystallized: (1) each teacher’s position was in the process of being re-envisioned professionally by the BEST career ladder; (2) teachers expressed concern about a potential lack of actual mentoring in the mentor teacher role; (3) collegial reception was addressed in light of teacher equity norms; (4) the history with the particular school and/or district was viewed as influential in determining the teachers’ hopes and concerns for the new system; and (5) ironically, almost as an afterthought, the issue of student learner populations made an appearance.

Each theme that follows represents a synthesis of the data results we generated across multiple sources of data, supported with narration, paraphrase, and quotation. The feedback offers a behind-the-scenes vantage point, albeit from only one representative professional group.

Teacher Leadership Profiles

The survey respondents held a range of titles, including learning resource specialist, language learning specialist, school advisory committee chair, exceptional student education specialist, department head, and supervising teacher; with the exception of the latter two positions, the job descriptions required curricular and/or instructional expertise and a willingness to serve as a schoolwide resource/support system.

Excluding the supervising teacher, the respondents had master’s degrees in either subject area curriculum or educational leadership. Both the department head and supervising teacher were national board certified, and two others listed national board certification among their short-term goals. Teaching experience ranged from 4 to 27 years, and the teacher leaders indicated varied degrees of participation in professional associations. Of note was membership in the teacher union, with one respondent serving as her school’s union representative, one citing over 20 years of membership, and the remaining four, nonmembers. Outside interests included family, church, entrepreneurial efforts, and athletics.

At the time of the survey, the six teachers reported that the formal structures that had enabled their leadership positions were as follows: the BEST salary career ladder (1/6), differentiated staffing structures (2/6), collaborative problem-solving teams (1/6), site-based management (1/6), and merit pay (2/6). By April 2004, the BEST Program had reconfigured some positions, reflecting a slightly different distribution: the salary career ladder (5/6), differentiated staffing structures (1/6), collaborative problem solving teams (1/6), site based management (1/6), and merit pay (2/6) (see Table 3).

----------------------------------------

Table 3

----------------------------------------

Support Structures

Most of the teachers (4/6) reported having had no significant formal support system, while two attributed help from their district but not their school. Five of the six respondents described receiving collegial or administrative support, not both; the respondent with strong collegial support cited difficulty obtaining the same from administration, and the four who reported sound administrative support described acts of resistance from colleagues.

Relationships with Principals

All of the respondents (6/6) characterized their principals as providing recognition for accomplishments, whether in the form of program initiatives, extracurricular activities, professional development, or committee involvement, both before and after their official leadership roles/titles. However, while most reported increased rewards for accomplishments in the form of program initiatives, extracurricular activities, professional development, or committee involvement, respondents also indicated a drop in principal respect for their role as a community member (6/6 before, 4/6 after) and personal (nonprofessional) priorities (6/6 before, 3/6 after). (See Table 4.)

----------------------------------------

Table 4

----------------------------------------

Teacher Re-classification Under BEST

For the six teacher participants, their newly reclassified status provided long-overdue validation and potential empowerment. The secondary mentor teacher recalled with good humor remarks from coworkers: “People are saying, ‘Wow, you’re finally getting paid for all the crap you do!’” The elementary mentor teacher also acknowledged the benefit of salary compensation: “Now I do everything I did before, and all of the work I dreamed of doing if only I had more time. The only difference is that now I have more mobility to realize my goals and, of course, the additional money doesn’t hurt.”

However, despite these potentially positive outcomes, the teacher interviewees concurred that being reclassified under BEST had introduced serious challenges and consequences. For example, three department heads (two of whom were respondents and the third, the basis of an anecdote) had each found the career ladder model to have varied consequences for their position. In one piloting county, a person who was a department head lost her position under the new regulations of BEST and was forced to reapply for it, exclaiming in protest, “They’re cutting my position and now I have to interview for my own job!” Although she has taken steps to broaden her professional choices, this individual does not feel hopeful: “I’ve applied for the mentor position, but I’m up against someone who isn’t even at my school and doesn’t know the teachers or the kids. This is crazy.”

In contrast, the second former department head had a more positive experience. Because “lead teacher now replaces department head” as a title, she was “grandfathered” into the lead teacher position. However, while the financial rewards remain constant in her case, the 5–day contract extension comes at a cost:

For the same money I now have to work 5 extra days—oh joy! And I'm sure you can understand my frustration that new appointees will also get ‘the bonus’ at the end of this year, and for only 7 weeks of work compared with the full year that I’ve spent doing the job.

Lastly, this participant relayed a story about a media specialist who proved ineligible for reclassification after having served as head of the department before being shifted to an instructional resource position. The teacher explained, “This head media specialist not only lost the department head title and pay, but because she is not in a classroom, she disqualifies for the Career Ladder Program.”

One-third of the teacher leaders found their former positions in jeopardy, in part or entirely, due to the BEST Career Ladder program. There are those who, because of variation on the definition of instructional status, will simply not be able to find a place via BEST despite their work with students. Included among this group are resource teachers, media specialists, and Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) instructors. A learning resource specialist whose position may be rendered obsolete by the creation of mentor teaching positions at her school expressed concerns about the feasibility of limited time and multiple personnel:

Coordinating the instructional and curricular support for an entire staff isn’t something you can do for half the day while juggling teaching duties too. I’m not sure how having two mentor teachers attempting to fill my job will work out for two reasons: the job I do cannot be done part-time, and I don’t know how or if two people can share ‘one brain.’

Those for whom only a portion of their former professional identities will be rendered obsolete are still expected to face significant challenges. A concern has surfaced for an ESE (Exceptional Student Education) teacher turned mentor teacher now required to spend “half-days teaching critically low kids.” She is required to “hand over math and content” and leave delicate documentation—for which federal law holds her accountable—unprotected: “Because I’m in ESE, legal complications of documentation are a real issue. I don’t want to leave those documents vulnerable and have a responsibility to keep them.”

Concern for the future of non- or partial instructional teacher leaders led to further speculation. One teacher focused on the fate of resource teachers and learning specialists in the context of functions that now fall under the mentor teaching position job requirement: “What becomes of these instructional and curriculum specialists?” she asked. In contemplation of her own professional future, another specialist shared that “the position of learning specialist [or curriculum resource teacher] is one recognized by our county. Individual principals can choose whether or not to hire one. We have administrative duties but are still teachers in the system.”

Conversely, one mentor teacher speculated that resource teachers and learning specialists have nothing to worry about—at least not yet: “I doubt reading resource teachers will be in danger of losing their positions any time soon. Because they don’t know if BEST is going to fly, they probably don’t want to cut them just yet. It’ll take more time to know if it’s even going to work.”

However, considered purely from an administrative perspective of gains and losses, the dilemma involving instructional personnel reveals a potentially bleak future for such positions. Now that mentor teachers will teach half days, there will be a significant reduction in personnel to fill instructional units. Further, since mentor and lead teacher positions are determined by quotas linked to student population, what impact will the potential population fluctuations of school choice (also slated for the 2004–2005 school year) have on job security? At one Florida school, the issue has already come to the fore: “We just got the positions and already my principal has talked to us about unit losses and, since my school is downsizing, there’s a good chance that we’ll lose one lead teacher.”

With the good and bad, there is also the potentially ugly. Three teachers narrated sticky situations that occurred in the first 4 months of the pilot. Notably, reports were shared of a political schism resulting from the perception of unfair practices. Among these the nondemocratic practice of grandfathering, which honors authority and position over qualification and merit, was cited. One teacher expressed a view of this situational dynamic as presumptuous and power-based: “Department heads and team leaders are not necessarily curriculum leaders and were not necessarily selected under BEST for their curriculum savvy.”

Even a lead teacher who was, until recently, a department head experienced the ironic backlash of grandfathering. Prior to BEST, an assistant for a teacher who was head of a large high school department responsible for over 20 teachers had mostly handled bookkeeping tasks. Under the BEST pilot and subsequent statewide program, the assistant and the head are now reclassified as leads—positions that are equal relative to both compensation and responsibility:

My former department head is now reclassified as a lead teacher. Despite the fact that she has almost 30 years teaching and was—until yesterday—considered my supervisor, she now, technically anyway, reports to me and to the other mentor teacher in our department. At the very least, I don’t report to her anymore. Although I would never say anything, you can tell that this process is going to get complicated.

A Critical Look at Implementation Processes

A component of reclassification under BEST requires that teachers undergo an application process. Those engaged in this study viewed this process as cumbersome rather than rigorous. One teacher described being handed “a bank of questions” that were chosen for the mentors as “completely inappropriate.” Apparently, the candidates were repeatedly asked the same kinds of questions that had “nothing to do with mentoring.” This teacher provided examples, citing such prompts as “Describe some of the strategies you use to vary instruction for different learners.”

Typically, our study participants summed up their experience of the interviews in problematic terms: “The application was like a résumé, but I’d already been a trainer involved in school development and professional development.” Stated more descriptively and perhaps neutrally, one person described having experienced

… a written application and oral interview before a panel comprised of my principal and peers. They asked 10 questions using the STAR (Situation, Task, Action, Result)³ behavioral interviewing method in a session that lasted over an hour. The panel scored using a rubric that I did not see. You had to score a certain number of points to be considered for the mentor teacher position.

The panel, as described by each of the lead or mentor teachers who interviewed within the context of BEST, consisted of volunteer colleagues that “scored” the teachers on a scale of 1 to 5, 5 signifying the highest level of mastery. However, the applicants for the lead and mentor teacher positions reported that the panel scored subjectively and without any formal training. On a small scale, this perception was validated during the teacher-researcher’s school visits. Participants who had been interviewed had also served in the role of panelist for two different districts, and they proved forthcoming. Both concurred that they had had no a priori training and, for the interviews, used only a holistic scoring rubric without any concrete description of the varying levels. Further, the six women participants in our study who had been evaluated by the peer panelists for lead positions revealed highly questionable practices. Even incidences of unprofessional conduct, possible sabotage, and abuse of power had been cited:

I actually heard one of the panel members sitting in the teacher’s cafeteria and talking about how the BEST career ladder was stupid, a bunch of crap, and I thought to myself, ‘How can you be an interview panelist for this program if you don’t even believe in it?’ I mean, seriously, what is that?

One individual said that they were going to be a panelist just to block certain people from getting this role. In fact, I heard talk that I was intentionally not selected because the panelists already knew that I get a bonus from being National Board Certified. It’s as though they were going to try to even out the playing field and give the title to someone who isn’t getting a bonus.

Another mentor teacher echoed similar sentiments when she shared her experiences concerning the peer interviewing process. She spoke of panelists/ coworkers who intentionally scored applicants lower than their answers merited—a disturbing practice in and of itself—and then, adding insult to injury, cited personal events as their motivation. She claimed, “There’s been talk of people sabotaging this thing on purpose for stupid reasons—you know, unrelated to anything to do with school.”

The four district pilots were on an expedited schedule that required each to submit proposals, await selection, and implement the program between October 2003 and January 2004 (Warford, 2003). To fill the newly created roles, schools had to advertise, evaluate, and select teachers within 4 weeks (personal communication with two Human Resource employees assigned to the implementation of the BEST Program, March 2004).

Half of the teacher participants who had interviewed for their positions during the piloting program commented on the pace of the hiring. In one district, a mentor teacher recalled, “The job was only on the job line for 8 days!” While, in the other district, a fellow mentor teacher echoed, “We were given 2 weeks to complete our applications, and one of these was our Spring Break!” A lead teacher in the same district expressed similar frustration, further explaining, “I had plans for Spring Break, which was one of 2 weeks we had to prepare, so I only had 1 week to learn what was required and get my application together!”

Seemingly arbitrary interviewing panels and slighted preparation time are not the only questionable aspects relative to the qualifying process of lead and mentor teachers for the upper echelons of BEST. The teacher participants added that the new requirement of defending self-evaluations was burdensome, relaying, “We’ve now been told that if we plan to rate ourselves as outstanding on our self-evaluations, we must provide documentation to support the claim.” If this formal process of self-justification seems extreme, it is worth underscoring that once attained the position can be lost. As one newly named mentor teacher exclaimed, “This mentor title is mine until I give it up or get an unfavorable evaluation. I’ve got a binder of support for an outstanding personal evaluation. I dare them to challenge it! I videotaped myself and everything!”

Yet some educators will be exempt from the self-evaluation requirement. In one study district, those that enjoy de facto status as “outstanding teacher,” owing to their National Board for Professional Teaching Standards certification or school-based Teacher of the Year title, were excluded. Some teachers pointed out that these distinctions were considered largely uncontested and the latter, highly controversial. One lead teacher revealed, “Our district indicates that you can qualify for ‘outstanding’ for the BEST Program as Teacher of the Year. But at the school level it is nothing more than a popularity contest. I’ve gotten first runner up for Teacher of the Year 2 years running and I’m National Board certified and, let me tell you, they aren’t even close to being the same thing.” A mentor teacher at another school recalls a Teacher of the Year election: “This person got the recognition simply because we decided it was time that someone from our department got it since we had the biggest department.” After a dramatic pause, she added, “Well, let’s just say she got it!”

Disturbing warning signs involving jealousy and potential power abuse had also apparently surfaced. One lead teacher at the elementary level described her experience just days after the positions were announced,

You should see some of the power trips people are on. They’re walking around saying such things as, “Oh, this is only for mentor teachers.” Ironically, what she was referring to was training on how to approach colleagues. I’m thinking, “Sure, good luck with that one!”

After attending a district informational meeting for newly named mentor teachers, an elementary-based mentor teacher shared:

High schools/middle schools versus elementary schools have different receptions of BEST. In high and middle schools mentors call themselves educational leaders, while in elementary schools we call ourselves educational support. For us it’s all about sharing.

Collegial Selection and Reception

Once in the position, newly named lead and mentor teachers faced various receptions from colleagues. Not surprisingly, the lead teacher who was “grandfathered” did not mention any change in treatment from coworkers; after all, the move had been lateral in that qualifications were parallel and the salary increase negligible.

The three teachers who applied and interviewed for their positions reported mixed experiences. In the afterglow of being newly named mentor teacher, a jovial response from fellow teachers followed for one mentor teacher, who spoke of lighthearted teasing: “On the funny side, you have people saying ‘Hello Mentor Smith [nonidentifier]’ and asking how you now abbreviate your credentials, as in ‘Jane Smith, Mn. T.’” Later, as details of the position trickled downward, the mood turned somber. While observing one mentor teacher’s daily activities, the teacher-researcher and teacher participant visited the staffroom, continuing their conversation. Then someone caught the teacher’s eye, and she fell silent upon observing the awkward presence of the school’s reading resource teacher. One could easily sense the tension between the old guard (the reading resource teacher) and the new guard (the newly named teacher mentor). Although the mentor teacher explained that this feeling of a disquieting reception was more the minority than the norm, this moment nonetheless alluded to something larger, certainly a feeling of discontentment for some teachers.

Returning to the teacher interview panelist dynamics previously described, critical decisions were literally being left in the hands of the applicants’ professional peers. An elementary lead teacher who speculated on the influence of this peer process commented: “The more popular teachers got it—not to say that I’m not popular but they are more so.” Reflecting on the competitive status of the positions, she added, “A lot of people are up in arms because of the process.”

At another high school in this district, a mentor teacher described what amounted to the chaotic aftermath of the final selections. She stated:

The principal was in his office all day talking to some teachers. What happened is that five people from one department applied for an available mentor teacher position, and none of them got it. One of them did get the lead teacher position, however. The other four didn’t get anything and complained.

From a different vantage point as the chosen, a secondary mentor teacher’s account of the days following her selection as mentor teacher echoed this issue of entitlement. She described having to fend off overt collegial negativity, “‘Fair’ or not to all those who taught 20 years—my peers chose me—so just hush.” The constant barrage of snide remarks and unflattering innuendo began to take their toll: “I am so sick of this static, I’m just ready to be gone—away from this place. I want to tell them all [the teachers] to grow up, get over it, and go back to work.” Perhaps most disconcerting was this teacher’s final remark on the subject. She sighed, and in a tone of resignation said, “If I could, I’d take a leave.”

The idea of leaving to escape the negativity following the “award” of mentor positions was echoed by an elementary lead teacher:

I’m convinced that the BEST Salary Career Ladder will contribute to attrition because of the people who’ve been knocking themselves out for years but who are passed over. We had a case like this at my school where one mentor position went to a person who started a schoolwide innovation this year, but has done nothing before, while others have been working consistently, this year included, were not awarded. The real issue there, though, was probably popularity. I’m wondering how fair this process is and what will become of the abuses. I know teachers who say this was the final straw in their careers and that by next year they’ll be leaving.

Unfair competition. Some of the teachers shared that the BEST Program instigates unfair competition with faculty from both inside and outside their buildings. Someone wished that “everybody could qualify or have the position if they qualify. Of course I know that isn’t feasible, but it would be nice.” Outsiders posed a unique threat in the minds of the participants because they were considered ill-adapted for the particular school site: “Those who drop into a new school face the negative reception of ‘why are you here?’” Another anticipated that “there are likely to be many problems, especially since the number of teachers allowed to go for the top roles in each school will be limited.”

In one way or another, all the mentor teachers shared that the commitment to improving one’s practice as an educator has always summoned forth “internal pressure.” However, with the import of BEST, “external pressure” relative to their career aspirations has become evident. As one person clarified, “Now that people know I want to ‘move up,’ there is more pressure to make sure I’m doing it ‘right.’ The pressure to be an example becomes intense when you know that you’re being observed, emulated, judged, and so forth.”

It seems ironic that while a major stated goal of the BEST Program is to retain exemplary, highly qualified teachers that interpersonal scenarios and tensions at the site-based level could have the culminating effect of accomplishing just the opposite for many.

Attitudes Shaped By Organizational History

The history teacher participants have had with other district or statewide initiatives may have influenced their apparent cynicism of BEST. Underlying the worries about a particular component of the BEST Program may actually be suspicion of or fear involving district reform initiatives in general. It was as though they expected bureaucratic exploitation of the mentor teachers involved. One teacher asserted, as if in protest:

The guidelines state that mentors will have schoolwide responsibilities and duties as assigned by administration. What do you think that means? Mentor teachers are going to end up doing all the work that administrators don’t want to do. And the idea that mentor teachers will shape instructional decisions is a joke.

Another lead teacher pondering the future of teacher leadership reached a similar conclusion:

I’m curious to know what’s going to happen with this role of mentor teacher and what it’s going to entail. I’ve already heard talk of people saying the BEST mentors will become administrative flunkies, doing the things that the school office doesn’t want to do. That’s one use. And also there’s already been talk that they’re using the mentor teachers for school improvement process goals.

Other individuals also voiced an opinion that the mentor teacher will not be the only exploited position. Lead teachers will also have to put in more time, only without sufficient financial compensation. As typically asserted, “The BEST Program is a way of getting more work out of department heads, extending their contracts so that for those with more experience in the job it’s actually less money.”

Prior to being interviewed, one applicant made the following ominous prediction:

I hope that I get the mentor position. But I just know that they’ll end up giving it to another teacher, even though I’m more qualified according to the guidelines they’ve provided. When it comes right down to it, they’ll give it to the teacher with more experience but less training and expertise in current strategies designed to help low-level readers. It’s not fair and it’s not right according to the district’s own policy, but I bet you it’ll happen—it always does.

Problems From the Field, and a Few Possibilities

Based on triangulated results stemming from multiple sources, in addition to insights obtained from the relevant literature, we learned that the success of a mentor’s role in supporting systems-driven quality teaching initiatives may be contingent on a myriad of administrative (time, resources, structural support) and cultural (collegial reception, empowerment, history of instructional leadership) issues.

Any initial phase of an educational reform model that is mandated and systemic in nature tends to escalate existing problems for recipients with unanswered questions, personal fears, and conflicting messages (e.g., Fullan, 1993). Few teacher comments that we received cast a positive light on the BEST Program and its potential for promoting healthy school cultures. Importantly, weight was given to the school-based roles of teacher leader and mentor, largely for the access to and influence on administration. For example, one teacher mentor felt that “having leaders who are still considered teachers is powerful because it breaks down the ‘us versus them’ mentality.” Another echoed that “the key is for the lead teacher to work closely with the administration while continuing to be a teacher advocate.”

Notably, problems seemed to overshadow the premise that teacher leadership is a salient cultural practice, perhaps because of the slant that the BEST has imported. It appears to have been received by those we engaged as unfamiliar or even unwanted. The teacher participants as a group described, with individual variation, the following emergent difficulties:

· reclassification under BEST, often to one’s disadvantage

· grandfathering practices that honor authority and power over qualification and merit

· poorly managed and suspicious application and process

· unfair competition with other teachers, including outsiders

· bureaucratic exploitation of mentor teachers

· devaluing of low-achieving students’ needs

· cultural differences among school levels

· anticipated job cuts

· limited teacher leader numbers

· subject/content trade-offs due to the requirement for mentor teachers to instruct low-level learners

· extra work in the role of teacher leader, without compensation or rewards

· perceived and/or actual inequities (e.g., load distribution, recognition of certain teachers over others, unqualified competitors)

Reflections on Peer Review

A central message that surfaced is that at least one group of teachers who are objects of the BEST Program are hesitant, and even resistant, to embrace it. Another questionable practice is peer review, which appears to have lacked interrater reliability. To clarify, the career ladder pilots in the two Florida districts combined a portfolio application process with peer evaluations in an attempt to make sound hiring decisions for the lead and mentor positions. Teachers volunteered to serve on panels that generated applicant scores. However, as we learned from our case teachers, the panelists were untrained and used a faulty scoring method. This “holistic” method presumably excluded descriptions distinguishing the four levels, and one district used guidelines consisting of less than a single page, with such generic directives as—to paraphrase—“treat applicants fairly and consistently” and “make the best selection” (selection committee orientation information, 2004).

Accordingly, Kubiszyn and Borich (2003) maintain that “holistic scoring systems” can actually complicate matters. Notably, they “can be more difficult to use for performances than for products. For the former, some experience in rating the performance … may be required” (p. 167). Further, holistic scoring is considered by experts to result in low reliability, defensibility, and feedback capabilities, while assessment of attitudes and social skills are best measured by rating scales, which may have been bypassed for the BEST pilot.

Contributors to this study flagged several alarming practices violating expectations of professionalism and fair practice in the pilots. Teacher experiences as both panel members and applicants raised a number of concerns (interviews with panel members and applicants, 2004). Among these were reports of panel members who intentionally skewed results by negatively evaluating candidates, regardless of competence or expertise, and panel members who revealed “just going with my gut” as the rationale behind the scoring choices made (personal communication with BEST panel members, January 2004).

This practice could very well change for the BEST Program, however, as many Florida school districts use the preferred evaluative practice in, for example, the biannual screening of potential administrators where the peer panel members have been (1) trained as evaluators, (2) provided a rubric with text that outlines what broadly constitutes the varied levels of evaluation, and (3) once complete, apply the same standards to all candidates (e.g., by dropping the highest and lowest scores achieved) (personal communication with administrative pool applicants, January and April 2004).

Reflections on Mentorship

When mentor is used as a verb, the process refers to a master cultivating the skills and professional experience of a novice or the retraining of an experienced party. Here, expertise precedes action. Consistent with this view is Darling-Hammond’s (2003) discussion of the difference mentoring support can make, citing such districts as Rochester, New York, and Cincinnati, Columbus, and Toledo in which “attrition rates of beginning teachers” have been reduced “by more than two-thirds … by providing expert mentors with release time to coach beginners in their first year on the job” (para. 25). Qualifying these statements, Darling-Hammond adds that mentoring and induction programs must be “well designed and well supported,” “provide funding,” “on-site mentors,” and “time.”

Moreover, this teacher education researcher asserts that the most effective state induction programs adhere to “high-quality preparation” (para. 26). Up to this point, the BEST Program theoretically fits the bill. However, a closer reading of Darling-Hammond’s case for mentoring support reveals that successful mentoring programs in such states as Connecticut have preliminary frameworks in place, including state teaching standards and a portfolio assessment system through which quality is rendered tangible and accessible.

Conversely, when mentor is reduced to adjectival status—used to indicate a ranking or title, as in the classification of mentor teacher—the title precedes action. Accounts of the application and interviewing process used during the BEST Program pilot support this theory. In both districts, there were few, if any, questions that linked to actual mentoring practices in the applicant’s history. Instead, the focus centered on teacher quality issues including the applicant’s professional development, leadership, and student learning data collection and analysis. As a result, respondents reported that the link between the individual successes in their history of training and leadership and their potential for future collaborative effectiveness as a mentor remains hazy.

Further, teachers in the two study districts described the standards outlined on the application as unfamiliar (communication with interviewed applicants, January and April 2004). No teachers interviewed, either formally or informally, knew of mentor teachers being observed for practice or skill. While the need for mentoring is undeniable, it is difficult to assess mastery without concrete and commonly understood teaching standards and, perhaps more importantly, a teacher assessment system that correlates to outlined teaching standards. The mentor teacher position appears in greatest jeopardy—the absence of standards and consistent assessment systems undermines necessary perceptions of mastery, leaving the mentor teacher’s credibility in question.

Reflections on Change

In order for the BEST initiative to work as intended, staff development change theorist Dennis Sparks (e.g., Sparks & Hirsh, 1997) suggests that the site-based Florida leaders involved take into account all parts of their organizations in this restructuring effort, leaving no stone unturned. This means that school systems cannot simply expect their employees to rise to the occasion of meeting the higher expectations without first establishing coherent scaffolds. The new vision for staff development is extensive and thorough, requiring that organizational leaders perform an enabling function by examining their policies, communication processes, and decision-making to enable their employees in satisfying policy goals.

Leading change theorist Michael Fullan (1993) adds a twist to this rational view, claiming that mandated change for schools is an unpredictable, even chaotic, process. Leaders cannot always proceed as systematically as they might like. Complex and contradictory patterns underlie dynamic change, an idea that we think can be extended to systems-driven quality teaching initiatives that include Florida’s new restructuring effort. The BEST program will probably necessitate that districts work “simultaneously … incorporating centralizing and decentralizing forces; being internally cohesive, but externally oriented; and valuing personal change agentry as the route to system change” (Fullan, p. 40).

In the context of the BEST Program, it might be that our teacher respondents were experiencing core tensions characteristic of systemic change. As Fullan emphasizes and our data reinforce, dynamics of power, ownership, accountability, and agency are integral to the “journey of uncertainty” through schoolwide reform. However, follow-up study of the BEST change process is needed for testing whether the teachers’ confusion and skepticism is actually indicative of deeper tensions associated with any comprehensive change model.

Reflections on Florida Policy

Quality teaching standards and assessments. Despite state legislative policy that calls for data-driven annual teacher assessment (the Florida Senate, 2003a), educational practice renders the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT) the lone determiner of teacher quality. The FCAT, a criterion-referenced, performance-based assessment, was implemented to measure mastery of the Sunshine State Standards,⁴ which the Florida Department of Education (DOE) has designed to recount knowledge and skill requisites from kindergarten through high school (Florida Department of Education, 2003b).

Based on our comparison of the relevant policies and discussions with teachers, the critical indicators/stated goals of the FCAT and the BEST Program may only be partially aligned. Even though the BEST pilot is scheduled for statewide adoption in 2004–2005, three of the critical indicators for classifying teacher ability under BEST—“plan and delivery of instruction, including the use of technology,” “evaluate instructional needs,” and “establish and maintain a positive collaborative relationship with students’ families to increase student achievement”—are not covered by the FCAT. Nor are these critical indicators in place within the state’s school districts, according to state statute (the Florida Senate, 2003a). Given the governing powers of the FCAT, BEST’s future success is dubious.

More specifically, while the FCAT, the Florida Performance Measurement System (FPMS), and state certification cover requirements relating to student performance and teachers’ ability to maintain discipline and subject matter expertise, there is no evidence of a statewide system of comprehensive measurements relative to the BEST Program. In addition, both the FPMS and state certification, which are based on a checklist type of evaluation procedure, are minimalist in their teacher requirements.

Quality teaching and test scores. Further complicating the issue of teacher evaluation and assessment methods is the introduction of bonuses linked to what are now revealed as incomplete instruments. According to state law, student performance data—FCAT scores—are delineated for use in the “evaluation of instructional personnel,” “assignment of staff,” and “performance-based budgeting” (the Florida Senate, 2003b). Reviewers of the program might, understandably, balk at the notion that teacher evaluation, promotion, and pay are essentially determined by a solitary high-stakes test. If FCAT were the only factor in deciding teacher quality, for example, questions could be raised regarding how teachers of untested grades or subjects (including practical, performing and vocational electives, select exceptional student education classes, prekindergarten through 2nd grade, 4th through 7th grade and 11th and 12th grades) would be evaluated or, perhaps more saliently, promoted and qualified for bonuses.

Also at issue is the practice of linking teacher quality, and consequently teacher compensation, to FCAT test results (the Florida Senate, 2003b). For example, each language arts, mathematics, and science teacher in Florida currently has a 4-digit code directly linked to student identification numbers. Once the annual FCAT testing results are received, the subject area teacher generates a report that reflects student scores (the Florida Senate, 2003b). This reporting method further exacerbates competition because, under this system, only one teacher is held “accountable” for a student’s reading gains as reflected on the FCAT, despite the fact that reading strategies are included under the state standards for other disciplines and vocational courses. Such reports undermine the BEST plan because it blurs the issue of the state’s measure of teacher quality.

Given this system of reporting FCAT scores, does this then mean that language arts, mathematics, and science teachers have a distinct advantage in their ability to “prove” student FCAT scores? If so, do they have an advantage in being considered of “quality?” Conversely, do social science, physical education, and vocational teachers then have an unfair disadvantage vis-à-vis the career ladder, since no report is generated as “evidence” of their quality? These and other nagging questions that Florida teachers discourse about continue to challenge the certainty of BEST’s future.

Relevant National Policy Frameworks and Trends

The discussion that follows of national policy models and trends responds to our broad research question, “What frameworks and influences are generally relevant to current systems-driven quality teaching initiatives?”

Differentiated Staffing

Many schools consider the single-salary structure that has been used for years by most U.S. districts inadequate for compensating teachers. Yet as Protsik (1995) warns in her historical coverage of teacher pay and incentive reforms, where differentiation in salary and rank occurs to remedy teachers’ unequal performance and skills, regardless of reduced teacher retention and absenteeism serious tribulations have nonetheless resulted. Protsik cites a case involving 18 school districts that had implemented a career ladder and incentive plans, all of which experienced a significant lowering of morale, resulting from “competition, unfair evaluation practices, and the use of quotas in determining the number of teachers to receive awards” (p. 16).

Academic differentiated staffing models are not new to school contexts (Hunt, 1974). Notably, a major obstacle to administering differential staffing in schools has been faculty’s resistance toward the new role behaviors (Hunt, 1974). Tracking—which is also integral to the BEST Program—has been associated with perceptions of favoritism, which can negatively affect collegial relations (Abdal-Haqq, 1992). Change processes, including those propelled by differentiated staffing models, are primarily human events rather than technical feats (Mullen, 2002). This helps explain why substantive change, even where positively perceived, is difficult to undertake in school systems. As the thematic analysis we present suggests, where implemented differentiated staffing can actually escalate faculty dissatisfaction or low morale around the issue of equity.

Differentiated staffing typically implies employee-centered options. While the top two tiers (lead teacher and mentor teacher) of BEST fit this description, the lower two (associate teacher and professional teacher) are labels determined by the district and involve no (or arguably little) choice whatsoever. The BEST Program, then, at its roots seems to have a completely dissimilar take on “differentiated staffing.” Within the university context, it is understood to mean that there are two tracks—one with emphasis on teaching, the other on research, a choice that the individual professor makes or negotiates (Mullen, 2002). Under the BEST Program, we did not see any evidence of options for teachers to pursue, as in a leadership versus instructional track, which eliminates degrees of freedom in career advancement and selection for Florida’s teachers.

Career Ladders

Despite potential tensions resulting from differentiated staffing, some recent models and career ladders have been associated with the opportunity for professional growth, transition, and choice (Brandick, 2001; Gursky, 2000; Keiffer-Barone & Ware, 2001). Similarly, the BEST Salary Career Ladder Program shares the potential for facilitating the assimilation of new and alternative certification teachers, as well as added professional avenues for increased autonomy, leadership, and earnings.

Highly Qualified Teaching

A highly qualified teacher is constituted by full state certification or licensure, a minimum bachelors’ degree, and demonstrated subject matter competency in each of the core academic subjects in which the professional teaches (U.S. Department of Education, 2004). According to the BEST career ladder levels, highly qualified teachers and professional teachers are one and the same, resulting in a distinction between professional and associate teacher that will no doubt face intense scrutiny.

At the center of the highly qualified teacher debate are the competing quality indicators of teacher preparation, expertise, and certification. Individually and collectively, these indicators have policymakers, scholars, and practitioners weighing in on their respective merit (or lack thereof) (see Darling-Hammond, 2002; Kaplan & Owings, 2003). The BEST Program initially circumvents this debate by assigning equal value to formal teaching preparation and subject area expertise, pending full certification, by categorizing all beginning teachers as associate teachers, regardless of whether they are funneled from colleges of education or pursuing alternative certification/licensure. However, once the 3-year probationary period has expired, the issue will potentially resurface, and presumably more controversial than ever.

Beginning teachers, however, will not alone populate the BEST associate teacher category. Teachers who receive unsatisfactory evaluations—technically referred to in the language of BEST as “not highly qualified” or “low-performing”—will also be categorized as such. To transcend the associate teacher level, teachers must demonstrate expertise and attain full certification. While certification is a function of state administrative agencies, the evaluation of expertise will fall to instructional leaders, clinical supervisors, and/or mentor teachers.

As the Sun Sets—It’s Still Early in the Day

This preliminary account represents the first study of the BEST system in its highly formative stage. It anticipates many formative and summative assessments to come that will eventually incorporate a comprehensive analysis of the BEST Teaching Salary Career Ladder Program. However, we hope that teachers’ perceptions and experiences of this reform initiative will be seriously addressed and that, to this end, our paper will play a role. We are concerned that, without vigilance, teachers’ voices will be seen as nothing more than a force to be managed during the cyclic phases of the BEST Program. Consider the target for change embodied in the BEST acronym—Better Educated Students and Teachers. This legislation’s focus on better educated educators bypasses those school and district parties responsible for supervising and mentoring teachers.

We have also learned from this exploration that the combination of a career ladder salary system, which includes a performance pay component, is far more complex than administrative concerns of legislation, funding, and personnel selection would have us believe. While BEST introduces exciting new opportunities for increased teacher professionalism, leadership, and empowerment, it also reopens a host of unresolved problems that cannot be ignored if school cultures are to improve. Among these issues are fairness, equity, subjectivity, and competition associated with differentiated staffing systems of the past.

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the teachers who participated in this study for their time and insights, as well as the permission granted for the anonymous use of the assessment data. We also extend our gratitude to the readers of this paper, one a practitioner (nonparticipant) who is a teacher leader within Florida’s BEST Program, and the other, a university professor.

In accordance with the University of South Florida’s rule 6C4-10.109.B-6, the authors confirm that the opinions stated herein are our own, not the university’s.

Endnotes

¹The BEST Program’s salary career ladder highlight graduated salary bonuses for teachers at the professional (base salary schedule + $1,000 annually), lead (base salary schedule + $4,000 annually), and mentor (base salary schedule + $8,000 annually) levels. This educational statute, a legislative panacea, outlines numerous venues for reforming teachers’ work (e.g., minimum salaries, loan forgiveness programs, and the career ladder) (Florida Department of Education, 2003a).

²The anonymous sources for teacher assertion appearing throughout this paper extend to district-level Human Resource personnel, BEST teacher panelists, and administrative pool applicants.

³The STAR method is a systemic behavioral tool used in Florida for screening potential administrators for school positions (MIT Office of Career Services and Preprofessional Advising [Massachusetts Institute of Technology], Careers Handbook, 2001, http://mit.placementmanual.com/interviewing).

References

Abdal-Haqq, I. (1992). Professional development schools and educational reform: Concepts and concerns. ERIC Digest 91-2, 1-6. [Online]. Retrieved on March 5, 2004 from http://www.aacte.org.

Brandick, S. (2001, October). Paraeducator career ladders step up the teacher supply. The Education Digest, 67(2), p. 31-34.

Bush, Governor, J. (2003, November 13). The state of education in Florida. (Remarks prepared for delivery). Florida Department of Education website [Online]. Retrieved on April 23, 2004 from http://www.fldoe.org/news/ 2003_11_13-1.asp.

Connelly, F. M., & Clandinin, D. J. (1990). Stories of experience and narrative inquiry. Educational Researcher, 19(5), 2-14. Creswell, J. W. (1998). Quality inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2002, December). Defining highly qualified teachers: What does scientifically-based research actually tell us? Educational Researcher, 31(9), 13-25.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2003, May). Keeping good teachers: Why it matters what leaders can do. Educational Leadership, 60(8), 6-13. [Online]. Retrieved on February 5, 2004 from http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.proxy.usf.edu/

hww/results/results_ single.jhtml?nn=37.

Florida Department of Education. (2001). Grading Florida Public Schools 2001-2002. (Charlie Christ, Commissioner.) [Online]. Retrieved on February 5, 2004 from http://www.firn.edu/doe/schoolgrades/pdf/guide02.

Florida Department of Education. (2003a, June 17). The BEST proposal. (Jim Horne, Commissioner.) [Online]. Retrieved on March 13, 2004 from http://www.fldoe.org/meetings/June_17_03/BEST_Proposal_Item.

Florida Department of Education. (2003b). Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test. (Jim Horne, Commissioner.) [Online]. Retrieved on April 23, 2004 from http://www.firn.edu/doe/sas/fcat.

Florida House of Representatives. (2004). Public school educational instruction, HB 901 CS. (Carroll Baxley, Faye Culp & Ray Sansom, Cosponsors.) [Online]. Retrieved on April 23, 2004 from www.myfloridahouse.com.

Florida Senate, The. (2003a). The 2003 Florida Statutes. Title XLVIII, K–20 Education Code: Assessment Procedures and Criteria, F.S. 1012.34(a) and 1012.231. [Online]. Retrieved on April 24, 2004 from http://www.flsenate. gov/Statutes/index.

Florida Senate, The. (2003b). The 2003 Florida Statutes. Title XLVIII, K–20 Education Code: Student assessment program for public schools, F.S. 1008.22(5) and (6). [Online]. Retrieved on April 26, 2004 from http://www.flsenate.gov/Statutes/index.

Fullan, M. (1993). Change forces: Probing the depths of educational reform. London: Falmer.

Gursky, D. (2000, May/June). From para to teacher. American Teacher, 84(8), 8.

Hunt, L. M. (1974). A descriptive study of differentiated staffing . Saskatchewan, Canada: Saskatchewan School Trustees Association Research Center.

Kaplan, L. S., & Owings, W. A. (2003, May). No Child Left Behind: The politics of teacher quality. Phi Delta Kappan, 84(9), 687-692.

Keiffer-Barone, S., & Ware, K. (2001, May). Growing great teachers in Cincinnati. Educational Leadership, 58(8), 56-59.

Keller, B. (2004, January 14). Rigor disputed in standards for teachers. Education Week. [Online]. Retrieved on April 11, 2004 from http://www.edweek.org.

Kilmer, B., Representative. (n.d.). Better educated students and teachers: Excellent teachers in Florida classrooms. Retrieved on May 3, 2004 from http://www.leg.state.fl.us/data/house/best/index.

Kubiszyn, T., & Borich, G. (2003). Educational testing and measurement: Classroom application and practice (7^th ed.). New York: Jossey-Bass.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2^nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Mullen, C. A. (2002, Fall). Differentiated staffing—a vision for colleges of education? Voices from without. Florida Educational Leadership, 3(1), 30-36.

Mullen, C. A., & Farinas, J. (2003). What constitutes a “highly qualified” teacher? A review of teacher education standards and trends. Teacher Education and Practice, 16(4), 318-330.

Protsik, J. (1995, February). History of teacher pay and incentive reforms. Paper presented at the Conference on Teachers Compensation of the Consortium for Policy Research in Education, Washington, D.C.

Smylie, M. A., & Brownlee-Conyers, J. (1992, May). Teacher leaders and their principals: Exploring the development of new working relationships. Educational Administration Quarterly, 28(2), 150-184.

Society for the Advancement of Excellence in Education. (1999, Fall). Tracking the trends: Whole school designs. Education Analyst, 2(2), 1-3. [Online]. Retrieved on March 6, 2004 from http://www.saee.bc.ca.

Sparks, D., & Hirsh, S. (1997). A new vision for staff development. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

U.S. Department of Education. (2004, January 16). Improving Teacher Quality State Grants, Title II, Part A: Non-regulatory guidance (Revised). Academic Improvement and Teacher Quality Programs. Washington, DC: Office of Elementary and Secondary Education. [Online]. Retrieved on April 25, 2004 from http://www.ed.gov/programs/teacherqual/guidance.

U.S. General Accounting Office (2003, July). No Child Left Behind Act: More information would help states determine which teachers are highly qualified. [Report to Congressional Requesters]. [Online]. Retrieved on April 26, 2004 from http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d03631.

Warford, J. (Chancellor, Division of Public Schools). (2003, November 20). Better educated students and teachers (BEST): Florida’s Teaching Salary Career Ladder Program. [Florida Department of Education official website.] (PowerPoint slides 1 through 16]. [Online]. Retrieved on March 14, 2004 from http://www.flboe.org/gr/pdf/presentations/11-20-03_ BEST_Implementation.

Table 1

Teacher Leadership Survey (Mullen & Slagle, 2004)

Name
Position title
Job description
School
District
Level of education
Career experience (résumé)
Collective bargaining unit membership (experience)
Professional networks/collaboration
Outside interests
Other relevant information

Leadership

Directions: For the descriptors below, please indicate which of the following characteristics identified your practice (1) before receiving a formal leadership role, and/or (2) after receiving a formal leadership role.

Before	After	Characteristic
		I recognize that my choices must be based on professional judgment.
		I hold myself accountable to standards, both professional and personal, and continually assess the effect of my choices on students’ learning.
		I ask questions.
		I take initiative and act.
		I reflect on and critically question my teaching.
		I hold myself accountable for both the processes and products of my classrooms.
		I view myself as a knowledgeable professional, committed to improving my practice.
		I see my teaching as part of a communal endeavor.
		I work with others to examine the challenges we collectively face.

Your comments:

Formal Structures

I. Directions: Please identify which of the following formal structures created and/or enabled your leadership position by checking all that apply.

	Career ladders (pilot currently in one school district only).
	Differentiated staffing structures (i.e., resource teachers; administrative teachers; reading, academic, and literacy coaches).
	Collaborative problem-solving teams (e.g., grant-related leadership, testing coordinator).
	Site-based management (i.e., school improvement team chair, school advisory board chair).
	Merit Pay System (i.e., National Board Teaching related money and/or pay for performance).
	Other:

Your comments:

II. Directions: The following questions are intended to assess the level of formal support to facilitate your transition from teaching to leadership. Please indicate which of these strategies were formally provided. Simply check all that apply.

	A formal socialization process.
	A formal training program (geared toward leadership, rather than your area of expertise).
	A formal mentoring program.
	Other:

Your comments:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Informal Structures

Directions: Respond to the following questions by sharing your experiences regarding all of these social phenomena. Disregard those that are not relevant. (Your responses can be shared in written form or at the interview sessions.)

1. Do you have a professional support system? If so, of what parties is it comprised?
2. Was an informal system used to facilitate your formal transition from teaching to leadership in such areas as socialization, training, promotion, and so forth?
3. What tensions, if any, do you see in the new organizational culture and how are you or others handling them?
4. What are some of the complications you are currently facing, if any, in making the transition from peer to authority figure?
5. Prior to new systems now in place that allow for teacher leadership that is instructionally rather than administratively focused, unified salary schedules provided increments only for seniority and for increasing levels of training and proficiency. Now that teacher leaders are finally getting the opportunity for financial compensation in a variety of ways, how are the established rules of collegiality being handled? Simply put, is everything moving along as well as to be expected or is there any negative fallout from your peers or colleagues?
6. Closely linked to the issue of money is that of power. How has the recent trend of mixing teaching with leadership roles changed the nature of teaching in its role definitions, demands, and expectations?

Your comments:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Administrative Leadership

Directions: For the descriptors below, indicate which of the following characteristics identified your administrative supervisor’s (e.g., principal) practice (1) before your appointment into a formal leadership role, and/or (2) after your appointment a formal leadership role.

Before	After	Characteristic
		My principal recognizes me for my accomplishments whether in program initiatives, extracurricular activities, professional development, or committee involvement.
		My principal rewards me for my accomplishments whether in program initiatives, extracurricular activities, professional development, or committee involvement.
		My principal supports my professionalism by ensuring that I am afforded opportunities to exercise my abilities.
		My principal fosters my professional growth.
		My principal displays confidence in my professional potential.
		My principal respects my role as a community member.
		My principal respects my personal (non-professional) priorities.
		Other: My principal
		Other: My principal

Your comments:

Professional Growth—Future Career Plans

Respond to the question, “How will your current leadership position contribute to this career path?”

Table 2

Teacher Leadership Interview Protocol (Mullen & Slagle, 2004)

1. How will the new teacher classifications under the BEST Teaching Salary Career Ladder Program, currently being piloted in your school and district, impact your current position?

2. My review of the literature suggests several factors influencing teacher support including competition, fairness, and equity. Can you weigh in on any of these as emergent issues?

3. Other teachers I have casually spoken with in Florida have reflected a

disparity in the quality and quantity of information regarding the BEST salary career ladder. What has been your experience with information

from the school and/or district?

4. The BEST salary career ladder language seems to place unprecedented value on low achieving learners by availing them the highest quality teachers and requiring all teachers to prioritize measureable learning gains. Is this your “take” and, if so, how do you feel this change will impact K–12 students when put into practice?

5. The BEST salary career ladder is contingent upon master of the broad

category of “teacher quality.” Given the current teacher evaluation system in place at your school and in your district, what degree of reliability do you believe the initial selections will have?

6. You have taken courses in educational leadership and worked closely with school and/or district level administration. Given your academic and professional background, what administrative concerns, if any, you see emerging as a result of the BEST salary career ladder?

Table 3

Teacher Leadership Self-Assessment: Before and After Obtaining Leadership Roles (Mullen & Slagle, 2004)

Statement	Before	After
I recognize that my choices must be based on professional judgment.	6/6	6/6
I hold myself accountable to standards, both professional and personal, and continually assess the effect of my choices on their students’ learning.	6/6	6/6
I ask questions.	6/6	6/6
I take initiative and act.	6/6	6/6
I reflect on and critically question my teaching.	6/6	6/6
I hold myself accountable for both the processes and products of my classrooms	6/6	6/6
I view myself as a knowledgeable professional, committed to improving my practice	6/6	6/6
I see my teaching as part of a communal endeavor	5/6	6/6
I work with others to examine the challenges we face	4/6	6/6

Table 4

Teacher-Leaders’ Relationships with Principals: Before and After Obtaining Leadership Roles (Mullen & Slagle, 2004)

Statement	Before	After
My principal recognizes me for my accomplishments whether in program initiatives, extracurricular activities, professional development, or committee involvement.	6/6	6/6
My principal rewards me for my accomplishments whether in program initiatives, extracurricular activities, professional development, or committee involvement.	1/6	6/6
My principal supports my professionalism by ensuring that I am afforded opportunities to exercise my abilities.	6/6	5/6
My principal fosters my professional growth.	6/6	5/6
My principal displays confidence in my professional potential.	6/6	5/6
My principal respects my role as a community member.	6/6	4/6
My principal respects my personal (non-professional) priorities.	6/6	3/6