Pay for Performance in Texas: Evaluating the First Year of the GEEG Program

1. Pay for Performance in Texas: Evaluating the First Year of the GEEG Program Lori L. Taylor October 24, 2007 A Presentation to The State of Texas Education Research Center at TAMU

3. Pay for Performance in Texas According to TASB/TASA surveys, 12% of Texas school districts use performance incentive plans Most based on campus-level performance One-third use only attendance incentives Notable school district incentive plans targeting improved student performance Dallas ISD Aldine ISD Houston ISD

4. Supplements to the Salary Schedule More Common in Texas

5. Governor’s Educator Excellence Award Program Governor’s Educator Excellence Grants Program (GEEG) $10 million per year in federal funding for high performing schools serving low income students 3-year commitment Texas Educator Excellence Grant Program (TEEG) $100 million per year in state funding for high performing schools serving low income students District Awards for Teaching Excellence (DATE) $147.5 million per year in state funding for any Texas district or independent charter school willing to provide matching funds District Awards for Teaching Excellence (D.A.T.E.). > All Texas school districts and open-enrollment charter schools are > eligible to apply for the non-competitive grant. The cash awards will > be distributed to teachers that positively impact student academic > improvement and growth during the 2008-2009 school year. > > D.A.T.E. is the final piece of a three-part $472.5 million incentive > package authorized by Gov. Rick Perry and the Texas Legislature in 2006. > Collectively, D.A.T.E. the newest program, the Governor's Educator > Excellence Award (GEEG) and the Texas Educator Excellence Award (TEEG) > programs create the largest teacher performance-based pay initiative > in the country. District Awards for Teaching Excellence (D.A.T.E.). > All Texas school districts and open-enrollment charter schools are > eligible to apply for the non-competitive grant. The cash awards will > be distributed to teachers that positively impact student academic > improvement and growth during the 2008-2009 school year. > > D.A.T.E. is the final piece of a three-part $472.5 million incentive > package authorized by Gov. Rick Perry and the Texas Legislature in 2006. > Collectively, D.A.T.E. the newest program, the Governor's Educator > Excellence Award (GEEG) and the Texas Educator Excellence Award (TEEG) > programs create the largest teacher performance-based pay initiative > in the country.

6. The GEEG Program

7. GEEG Program Guidelines Participation in GEEG is voluntary Two eligible schools opted out Incentive plans must be developed and approved by a school-based committee with significant teacher participation At least 3 teachers must write letters of support for the plan Incentive plans must be approved by both the district and the local school board

8. GEEG Funding Non-competitive, three-year grants to 99 schools First-year grants distributed last fall $60,000 to $220,000 per year, based on fall enrollments in 2004-05 Average award 5.1% of instructional payroll in 2005-06 Awards range from 2.6% to 16.5% of instructional payroll

9. The Distribution of GEEG Funding

10. Another Look at the Distribution of GEEG Funding Most schools received between 150 and 200 per pupil. Only schools with < 300 pupils received more than $200 per pupilMost schools received between 150 and 200 per pupil. Only schools with < 300 pupils received more than $200 per pupil

11. Two Parts to GEEG Funding Part 1 funds (75%) provide incentive awards for full-time teachers Part 2 funds (25%) provide incentive awards to other school personnel, or fund professional development, mentoring programs, new teacher induction, etcetera

12. Guidelines for Part 1 Incentives Part 1 incentive awards must be based on Success in improving student performance by objective measures, and Collaboration with faculty and staff that contributes to improving overall student performance at the campus Part 1 incentives can also be based on Teachers’ on-going initiative, commitment, and professional involvement in activities that have a direct impact on student achievement, or Assignment to a hard-to-staff subject area Part 1 incentives should be at least $3,000 and no more than $10,000 per teacher

13. Guidelines for Part 2 Incentives Part 2 funding may be given to any school personnel Who did not receive Part 1 awards Who contributed to improving student performance Who were not athletic coaches Part 2 funding may also be used for professional development activities signing bonuses teacher mentoring programs new teacher induction programs funding for feeder campuses any other program that directly contributes to improving student performance

14. The GEEG Schools

15. Who Was Eligible for GEEG? Eligibility based on 2004-05 school year Schools in the top third with respect to the share of economically disadvantaged students At least 81.3% for elementary schools At least 70.5% for all grade schools At least 65.4% for middle schools At least 55.8% for high schools

16. GEEG Student Demographics 2005-06

17. Two Performance Criteria High performing Rated Recognized or Exemplary, or High TAKS passing rates if it is a registered alternative education campus High improving In the top quartile of Comparable Improvement for math and reading

18. The Composition of GEEG Schools Two eligible high schools declined to participate and were replaced by other schools. One of the replacements was never funded.Two eligible high schools declined to participate and were replaced by other schools. One of the replacements was never funded.

19. GEEG Accountability Ratings

20. GEEG Student Demographics 2005-06

21. GEEG Geography Only 5 GEEG schools are rural 23 GEEG Schools are in the Houston metro area 11 GEEG schools in Houston ISD All 4 GEEG charter schools in Harris county 43 GEEG Schools are along the border with Mexico 8 GEEG schools in Brownsville ISD

22. GEEG Teacher Characteristics 2005-06 FTE weighted valuesFTE weighted values

23. The Incentive Plans

24. The Timeline for Incentive Plans Year One awards based on teacher performance in 2005-06, and granted in fall 2006 GEEG established by executive order in November 2005 Incentive plans not finalized until May 2006 Purely retroactive awards Year Two awards based on teacher performance in 2006-07 and granted in fall 2007 Schools can change plans after year one Incentive plans in place for whole year NOGA not finalized for some schools until spring Year Three awards based on teacher performance in 2007-08 and granted in fall 2008 Incentive plans in place for whole year GEEG participation confirmed for whole year

25. Plan Criteria for Teacher Awards Year 1

26. Indicators of Student Performance

27. Indicators of Student Performance First three criteria are campus based. 52 schools included some measure of campuswide performance in their plan. 15 schools used only one of these three campuswide measures of student performance in their plans. First three criteria are campus based. 52 schools included some measure of campuswide performance in their plan. 15 schools used only one of these three campuswide measures of student performance in their plans.

28. Indicators of Student Performance

29. Types of Student Assessments TAKS– Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills SDAA – State-developed alternative assessment TPRI Texas primary reading inventoryTAKS– Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills SDAA – State-developed alternative assessment TPRI Texas primary reading inventory

30. Units of Accountability for Student Performance

31. Indicators of Teacher Collaboration PDAS=professional development and appraisal systemPDAS=professional development and appraisal system

32. Indicators of Teacher Initiative and Commitment 53 schools used some measure of teacher initiative and commitment to allocate part 1 awards53 schools used some measure of teacher initiative and commitment to allocate part 1 awards

33. The Proposed Distribution of Teacher Awards GEEG schools tended to chose minimum awards between 1 and 2 thousand, and maximum awards less than $3,000. 22 schools chose maximum=minimum.GEEG schools tended to chose minimum awards between 1 and 2 thousand, and maximum awards less than $3,000. 22 schools chose maximum=minimum.

34. Proposed Allocation of Part 2 Funds The 4 schools that did not plan to spend part 2 on additional incentive awards plan to spend part 2 on professional development (2) or stipends for after-school programs (2).The 4 schools that did not plan to spend part 2 on additional incentive awards plan to spend part 2 on professional development (2) or stipends for after-school programs (2).

35. Proposed Distribution of Additional Incentive Awards

36. Plan Criteria for Additional Incentive Awards

37. Who Developed the Plans?

38. Who Voted to Approve the Plans? All schools had teachers either developed or voted to approve the plans. Principals either developed or voted to approve in all but one school. All schools had teachers either developed or voted to approve the plans. Principals either developed or voted to approve in all but one school.

39. How Did Teachers Respond?

40. Teacher’s Mid-Year Perceptions Midyear survey of early NOGA schools, after awards distributed.Midyear survey of early NOGA schools, after awards distributed.

41. Instructional Practices Midyear survey of early NOGA schools, after awards distributed.Midyear survey of early NOGA schools, after awards distributed.

42. Data-Driven Decision Making Midyear survey of early NOGA schoolsMidyear survey of early NOGA schools

43. Parent Engagement Midyear survey of early NOGA schoolsMidyear survey of early NOGA schools

44. Teacher’s Year-End Perceptions 2295 recipients, 737 non-recipients. 92 schools with at least one responding teacher. 79% response rate 2295 recipients, 737 non-recipients. 92 schools with at least one responding teacher. 79% response rate

45. Changes in Instructional Practices

46. Summarizing the Survey Results The majority of teachers in GEEG schools viewed GEEG favorably Non-recipients slightly more favorable than award recipients A large percentage of teachers in GEEG schools were shifting toward instructional practices considered to be more effective More change among non-recipients

47. Lessons Learned When left to their own devices, most schools Incorporate multiple measures of student performance Design relatively weak incentive plans There is no evidence that GEEG has had a detrimental effect on school climate GEEG appears to encourage desirable pedagogical changes

48. Further Analysis Complete analysis of year 1 data Analyze years 2 and 3 of GEEG Analyze GEEG’s impact on student performance Analyze GEEG’s impact on teacher turnover

49. For a copy of the report, go to http://www.tea.state.tx.us/opge/progeval/TeacherIncentive/