Home ::
The teacher incentive pay programs, introduced in 2006, have caused considerable anxiety for education agencies, legislators and those in the classroom. As the first cycles of the Texas Educator Excellence Grant (TEEG) program and Governor’s Educator Excellence Grant (GEEG) program come to a close, the Texas Classroom Teachers Association asked some educators to reflect on the decision-making process and distribution of funds within their respective campuses. Teachers and administrators talked about the overall process, the fairness of the criteria outlined by TEA, the potential burden of the decision-making process, the probable pitfalls and any lasting impressions of the programs.
To qualify for the TEEG program, campuses must be categorized as high-performing or improving and ranked in the top half of schools serving the highest percentage of economically disadvantaged students. The GEEG program, TEEG’s predecessor, was structured similarly, but open only to the top third of campuses serving economically disadvantaged students. Qualifying campuses are required to form committees that should be predominantly made up of teachers to determine the criteria for awarding payments to faculty. While committee members were grateful to be involved in the decision-making process, some expressed how difficult it was to make decisions regarding the amount their peers would be awarded.
Kay Follis, Slaton ISD
West Ward Elementary School (Pre- K-3) in Slaton received $75,000 as part of the TEEG program to be used as incentive pay for teachers and staff. Kay Follis, a 30-year veteran educator and grade 3 math teacher, was part of the school’s eight-member committee (including one lead teacher from each grade level and principal Charles Thompson). The committee participants agreed to allow campus staff to have a voice on whether to accept or refuse the grant money.
“We conducted a meeting with the entire faculty and explained why we were receiving the money,” Follis said. “We asked for opinions and took those into consideration when we set up the criteria standards. We never wanted it to be teacher-against-teacher; we all support each other and kept competition out as much as possible.”
The committee decided that they would set tiered standards for Part I funds, with Tier 1 earmarked for Pre-K-kindergarten teachers with 80 percent of students passing measurable learning benchmarks; grades 1-2 teachers with 80 percent of students passing the Texas Primary Reading Inventory; and grade 3 teachers with 80 percent of students passing the TAKS test. The Tier 2 standard applied to teachers with 70-79 percent of students passing the same tests. Tier 1 recipients teaching Pre-K-2 received an average of $1,300 and grade 3 teachers received an average of $2,300. Tier 2 recipients received an average of $1,200. Teachers qualifying for an award under Part I were also given an award of $250, if they missed five or fewer days of school during the school year (included at the principal’s request). Those who missed more than five days were not paid the extra amount; instead, those dollars were split and redistributed to the teachers who met the standard. “That made a lot of people aware of their attendance,” Follis said. “The whole process worked well for us mostly because we talked and met with staff and we made sure there was no room for disagreements. It also helped to have such strong leadership from our principal.”
Juan Olivares, Eagle Pass ISD
Spanish language teacher Juan Olivares, with CC Winn High School in Eagle Pass, was one of eight members in his school to serve on the standards committee. The South Texas school received $180,000 from the GEEG program to divvy up among recommended teachers and staff. “Honestly, we were really hesitant about the whole thing at first,” he said. “At our first meeting we all agreed that everyone should receive something and then read the TEA requirements. It made the process much easier when we based our decision on everyone being rewarded.”
The committee, made up of department heads from all subject areas, decided teachers in the core subjects and most involved with TAKS testing would receive a higher percentage of the grant money followed by those teaching in other subjects (foreign language, fine arts, physical education, etc.). Part I of the program required 75 percent of the incentive money to be awarded directly to teachers. Olivares explained the final 25 percent was paid to teachers in career and technology, administration and custodial staff. “It was nice receiving the money,” Olivares said. “Since everyone got a piece of the pie, everyone was happy with the results.”
Brad Willingham, Dallas ISD
Brad Willingham has taught for nearly 30 years with the last five years as the physical education teacher at Conner Elementary School in the Dallas ISD. Willingham explained his campus committee, of which he was not a member, took a very different approach to distributing the $90,000 grant received from the TEEG program. “They took an easy way out when they determined the standards,” Willingham said. “The criteria were met, but those standards created a very divisive atmosphere among the teachers. The committee made the attendance standard weigh very heavy on the amount of money people received.”
In the committee’s plan, Part I recipients received approximately $1,700 as part of the incentive pay and Part II recipients received a range of $400 to $800. Any faculty member whose attendance was perfect (0 missed days in regular school year) was given $1,500 in addition to the initial incentive amount. “There were some folks who don’t teach at all who received more money than those who do teach,” Willingham explained. “It just wasn’t organized fairly or equitably.
“When the school does poorly on test scores, everyone suffers, from the principal to the support staff. When the school gets some recognition for doing well, the same principle should apply,” he added. Willingham believes his school will most likely participate in the next round of incentive programs, but feels the process will need to be rethought.
Nancy Anderson and Stacy Smith, Brownwood ISD
Nancy Anderson of Brownwood heard about three different plans in her school district. Northwest Elementary, Brownwood Intermediate and Brownwood Middle Schools received money from the TEEG program.
“I was really blown away by how well-put together the Northwest Elementary plan was and how much thought went into it,” Anderson said. “One of the other grant plans wasn’t so well laid out. The committee members made sure the criteria were met, but it clearly valued some teachers over others.” Anderson explained she did not participate in any of the incentive pay programs in her area schools, but was fully aware of the reactions of fellow teachers who were involved with the program.
Stacy Smith, principal for Northwest Elementary School, explained how she approached her staff for committee volunteers before telling them the school qualified for the TEEG program. The grant totaled $75,000. “I had a flow chart prepared in my office when the committee first met, outlining the specifics of the criteria,” Smith explained. “I asked the teachers to try to keep all the information discussed strictly in the office. We wrote everyone’s name down and individual qualifications. They were a little concerned at first, but I told them I needed their help and they were willing,” she added.
Smith explained that Part I recipients were evaluated based on individual grade-level assessments, including reading levels and TAKS scores. Amounts varied from $500 (first-year teachers) to $2,000. Part II recipients were mostly teacher aides, who received from $200 to $600 dependent upon good ratings and years of service.
Administrative perspective
Bret Champion, assistant superintendent of administrative services for the Leander Independent School District, explained the district’s discussions had not been generally positive when incentive pay programs were debated. The Leander ISD did not qualify for the GEEG or TEEG programs. “As far as Leander participation, I wouldn’t say we’d never do it, but the rules would have to be exceedingly carefully drafted so that a well-rounded education continued to be the primary focus of teaching and learning,” he said.
Smith expressed a similar sentiment regarding the programs’ intent. “We wanted to make sure no one would think they were valued more or less than someone else. Everyone got recognized,” she said. “And we’ve already met again to line up the same criteria to use for the upcoming year, although the amounts may reshuffle a little because of teacher assignments.”
An outside evaluation
The Texas Education Agency (TEA) recently posted an independent one-year summary from Vanderbilt University’s Peabody College on its website at www.tea.state.tx.us. The study concludes that most of the campus plans focused on the required measures of student performance and teacher collaboration as criteria for distributing awards to teachers and were less inclined to use the optional measures of teacher initiative and hard-to-staff areas.
What’s next?
As the TEEG plan continues, the third incentive pay program, the District Award for Teacher Excellence (DATE), is set to roll out in the 2008-09 school year. Open to all campuses, the DATE program will use 60 percent of funds to directly reward teachers who effectively improve student achievement, with the remaining 40 percent to be used to provide stipends to mentors, teacher coaches, assignment to hard-to-staff schools, and more.
Final thoughts
TCTA has vocally opposed the idea of incentive pay programs predicated on paying teachers for student performance. TCTA rejects the argument made by proponents of teacher performance pay that teachers can be quantified into two categories: good or bad. To this date, there has not been a verifiable method developed for measuring the “teacher effect” on student performance; too many variables that the teacher cannot control affect performance.
“We believe the state should take an aggressive approach to overall teacher compensation, ensuring adequate base pay for all educators to which any other compensation would then be added,” said Holly Eaton, TCTA Director of Professional Development & Advocacy. “Because Texas still falls significantly below the national average for teacher pay, we believe compensation is directly affecting education as a whole. We’re having to replace too many teachers because of low salaries, so clearly compensation is key to retaining teachers.”
Texas Educator Excellence Grant (TEEG)
Campus eligibility
• Rank within the top half of campuses for economically disadvantaged students;
AND
• Receive a rating of exemplary or recognized; or
• Rank in top quartile of campuses in comparable improvement in reading or math.
Program requirements
• Part I: 75 percent of the grant must be used to reward classroom teachers based on improvements in student achievement and collaboration to improve student achievement on the campus.
• Part II: 25 percent of the grant may be used to reward other school personnel, provide professional development and recruitment and retention activities to improve student achievement.
Editor’s Note: As a result of rising standards, performance ratings have dropped for many campuses. More than half of the campuses receiving TEEG funds in 2006-07 will not be eligible in 2007-08.
Web posted: 08/27/07
