SlideShare verwendet Cookies, um die Funktionalität und Leistungsfähigkeit der Webseite zu verbessern und Ihnen relevante Werbung bereitzustellen. Wenn Sie diese Webseite weiter besuchen, erklären Sie sich mit der Verwendung von Cookies auf dieser Seite einverstanden. Lesen Sie bitte unsere Nutzervereinbarung und die Datenschutzrichtlinie.
SlideShare verwendet Cookies, um die Funktionalität und Leistungsfähigkeit der Webseite zu verbessern und Ihnen relevante Werbung bereitzustellen. Wenn Sie diese Webseite weiter besuchen, erklären Sie sich mit der Verwendung von Cookies auf dieser Seite einverstanden. Lesen Sie bitte unsere unsere Datenschutzrichtlinie und die Nutzervereinbarung.
Sheila Armstrong, Director of Strategic Compensation
Shirene Douglas, Director of Talent Acquisition
In preparing for this evening’s work session, we utilized feedback we had received from Board members to direct our presentation to respond to your questions.
There are two main goals we want to accomplish for this session. First, how is Human Capital different from Human Resources. Why the change in name? Is it more than a name change? AND Secondly, where does our human capital strategy fit within the context of the district’s strategy? We will share with you some of the data points we have gathered, so you will know what information we are using to drive our work. Please note, we are a work in progress. As you know, once you start looking at data and trying to make sense of what it is telling you it almost always raises more questions than there may be answers at the time. This is not untrue of the work we have been doing in HC. This evening we will be able to address where we are, what has changed, what needs to change and where we are in the process.
To begin… A significant factor in transforming HR to HC can be found in the work of the transformational leadership group ASSET. ASSET’s recommendations have been a driving force in the rethinking of the functions of the HC division.
Last week during our National Advisory Panel, leaders in the field validated our thinking regarding the direction we were taking. Both Carrie Leana and Andy Hargreaves have published articles and books examining the field and gave us valuable feedback.
As this chart depicts the evolution of HR departments have gone from a transactional function to become much more transformational. As you can see from the slide HR was primarily focused on operations: employee relations, benefits, substitutes, processes and compensation.
With the move to a more transformational function human capital expands the scope of work to include key areas of focus for acquiring, retaining and developing highly effective educators.
So, as we expand this scope of work you can see by our organizational chart we have included Talent Strategy as well as Leadership and Professional development to be moved under the HC umbrella.
Through the years many of the HR functions had been performed in other departments (such as principal, assistant principal selection, and staffing). Through the reorganization these functions are being pulled back in to HC. A critical outcome of the reorganization is also the increased collaboration that is occurring across divisions, especially with the work of HC…because HC touches every aspect.
What’s different – what we are focusing on is no longer just transactional – it’s transformational. The bulk of our presentation will be centered around Talent Strategy since this is the work that is probably the most visible. Therefore, more attention has been given to that part of the division and we will share the theory of action directly related to that work. As I had mentioned we are a work in progress. Tomorrow our division will meet together to address the necessary changes and the strategies to move forward from HR to HC.
Present the theory of change
There were 5 key areas in the MNPS strategic plan aligned to RTTT. Of those 5 key areas, building a pipeline of great teachers and leaders is a primary focus of HC. Knowing that 1 and 2 play a significant part as well.
There are two major building blocks that support the foundation of what we do everyday---a culture of support and efficient systems. These components drive how we attract, select, evaluate, develop, grow and retain high quality educators and staff.
When we refer to a culture of support we are talking about the way we do business. It is focused on quality performance at all levels…both internally and externally. We are the first impression of MNPS and we want that impression to be one that exemplifies the absolute best…the best place to pursue a career, the best place to educate our children and we feel it begins with us.
Secondly, to ensure we have high quality performance we know we need to have efficient systems for attracting, onboarding and retaining the most effective educators and staff.
These two strategies are ongoing, embedded in everything we do and ensure we are able to accomplish our goals.
As this slide shows…these three strategies are critical. We will address them in more detail in a moment.
What’s different – what we are focusing on is no longer just transactional – it’s transformational
Focus on our customers – shift from reactive to proactive Focus on talent we attract and services we provide We are all recruiters…not just HC, but everyone at MNPS.
What’s different – what we are focusing on is no longer just transactional – it’s transformational
Determine days to fill Decrease days to fill Turnover rates Going green Dashboard – re: processes
Our work around talent acquisition really took off last year with the hire of our Director of Talent Acquisition, Shirene Douglas. She and her team have begun implementing a strategic recruitment effort based on our data and needs. The team began looking at who is teaching in MNPS now and where we are getting our best talent, and built their strategy off of the data.
First, recognizing our diverse student population, we have looked at the ethnicities of our educators and notice significant differences, particularly in the virtual absence of Latino educators. In response, we are beginning to build out recruitment efforts at Hispanic-Serving Institutions, focusing primarily on institutions in TX and FL.
Taking a look at our hires – this slide shows where we received a significant portion of our educators last year. Our contracts with Teach for America and Nashville Teaching Fellows provided roughly 22% of all of our new teachers. Another roughly 40% come from our area preparation institutions.
This year we began using the Tennessee Higher Education Commission report card on preparation programs to inform our recruitment strategy. According to the report, when comparing program completers to other beginning teachers, Teach for America and UT Knoxville have a tendency to produce teachers with higher gains in student achievement data. Some programs are producing teachers that are not performing as well other beginning teachers in the state according to the report, and one of those programs is MTSU.
Based on these data, we have increased our focus on UT Knoxville, and have begun regular meetings with our area preparation institutions to learn from each other and align our needs with their efforts. We have also increased the number of early agreements we offer high quality candidates from these and other institutions, and have expanded our recruiting efforts beyond our typical feeders to increase diverse and highly qualified applicants.
Our strategic recruitment efforts really include three main strategies – creating a cohesive employment brand for the district (calling all role models, twitter feed, new website), identifying and targeting top-tier sources for talent, and streamlining the application, selection and hiring processes, which includes making it much easier for educators to and communicate with the district and making it easier for principals to identify and locate screened teachers and staff for their buildings.
The next big strategy of the Human Capital Theory of Action is focused on making data-informed human capital decisions.
As a reminder, the state teacher evaluation model – called TEAM – that rolled out in 2011-2012 includes three main components – 50% of the rating comes from observation scores, 35% comes from growth scores – which are individual teacher effect scores for those teachers in tested subjects and grades and schoolwide TVAAS scores for all other educators, and 15% comes from an additional student achievement measure that teachers select from a menu of options in collaboration with their principals.
When we look out our evaluation distributions for the composite scores – that is all three components together – we find that the majority of our educators are receiving 4s and 5s, and only around 3% of our educators are receiving 1s. Though these data tell us that we are skewing high and we need to do something about that, we really want to start with looking at the part that we are over the most control – that is the observation component.
1s – 195 2s – 1071 3s – 1431 4s – 1611 5s - 1756
When you look at observations alone, we begin to see a slightly more normal distribution but are still skewing high, with close to 50% of our educators receiving 4s and almost 70% of our educators receiving either 4s or 5s. Only 22 of our 6, 029 educators received an average observation score.
So let’s look at the growth component for those educators who are not in tested subjects and grades. Almost 3/4s of our educators receive either a 1 or a 5 on schoolwide TVAAS. We have discussed the criteria for TVAAS ratings with the state and will continue to do so, that we want to look a little deeper at what these data are telling us and how we can begin shifting those schools receiving a 1 up in their ratings.
When you isolate growth scores just to those teachers who have individual teacher effect scores – those teachers in tested subjects and grades, we get a little more even distribution but still far from normal.
And finally when you look at that 15% other achievement measure, you see a significant percentage – nearly 50% - are receiving a 5 on this component. The common measures selected were DIBELS (720 educators), graduation rate (679), Math TCAP (465), Reading TCAP (453) and School-wide numeracy or literacy or school wide TVAAS. We’ll be looking at each measure and its correlation with a particular score and are also looking into whether we should limit the number of options teachers and principals can select from.
This slide shows the correlation or not between MNPS teachers’ individual teacher effect scores and their observations, and you can see that we have some areas that aren’t that correlated. However, I want note that though we are going to be working on the fidelity of observations as a whole across the district, we do have some bright spots that are worth noting. Several of our schools had close correlations and we’ll be looking at those schools in particular as models for implementation fidelity.
So what does that mean for our strategies. First, we’ll be consolidating all the evaluation work under one person – the Director of Talent Management – who will be responsible for implementing standard operating procedures for TEAM, running analytics to identify trends and patterns, reviewing the distribution of educator quality across the district, and working closely with our Leadership and Learning division to norm principals in the observations of teachers. We’re also reviewing the approach we have taken re: training principals to provide high-quality feedback to their teachers and will begin tracking all human capital decisions that principals are making in response to the evaluation system. We’ll also be working to ensure the right supports are in place for educators directly aligned to areas of need based on their evaluation results.
In terms of our retention strategy, we’re taking a look at our data to see where retention issues lie. We know that the majority of the teachers who leave the district do so in their first 4 years, and that the average age of all teachers who leave is in the early 40s. We also know that many teachers leave the profession because of a lack of leadership or career opportunities.
With that in mind, we’re beginning to look at several things, including an entirely new approach to the way we induct our new teachers, to implementing career pathways that highlight differentiated roles and responsibilities, to providing strategic compensation based on those roles.
Human Capital Board Work Session
Human Capital Board Work
Goals for the Session
• Explain the move from HR to HC
• Articulate our human capital strategy and how
it fits into the district’s strategy
– Profile of MNPS educators
– Data-informed strategies
Evolution of HR – Why Human Capital?
Payroll and Benefits
From transactional… …to transformational
Acquisition Evaluation Benefits Employee
Human Capital Theory of Change
If MNPS recognizes, values and increases highly
effective educators and staff, then student
achievement will improve.
HC Theory of Change and MNPS
1. Focus on high student achievement
2. Graduate all students college- and career-
3. Build a pipeline of great teachers and leaders
4. Provide effective data to guide decision-
5. Turn around low-achieving schools
Culture of Support
HC Theory of Action
HC Theory of Action: Two Foundational
• Build a culture focused on
quality performance at all
• Implement efficient systems
for attracting, onboarding
and retaining effective
educators and staff
HC Theory of Action: Three
• Attract the best teachers and leaders
• Make data-informed decisions regarding
• Retain the best teachers and leaders
Actions: Make Data-Informed
Decisions Regarding Talent
• Enhance observer training
• Review leadership development strengths and
areas for development
• Up Next:
Educators’ Years of Experience
<1 year 1-5 years 6-10 years 11-20 years >20 years
Draft Timeline – Year 1
(January 2013 - December 2013)
Area of focus
Quality of data
New teacher induction