480 likes | 654 Views
. Pay for Performance in Texas. According to TASB/TASA surveys, 12% of Texas school districts use performance incentive plansMost based on campus-level performanceOne-third use only attendance incentivesNotable school district incentive plans targeting improved student performanceDallas ISDAldine ISDHouston ISD.
E N D
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/