2014–2015 Budget 5:00 p.m.

2014–2015 Budget  5:00 p.m.
2014–2015
Budget
Citizens’ Budget Review Commission Meeting
Monday, Jan. 27, 2014 n 5:00 p.m.
CBRC Agenda: Focus on TEI
Monday, January 27th
Time: 5-7pm
Intro
Topic
Presenters/ Facilitators
Gilbert Prado
Time
5:00 – 5:05
Duration
5 min
TEI Overview & Context
Milan Sevak
5:05 – 5:10
5 min
Component #1: Defining Excellence
(evaluation)
Milan Sevak
5:10 – 5:35
25 min
Component #2: Supporting Excellence
(PD/supports)
Milan Sevak
5:35 – 5:55
20 min
Component #3: Rewarding Excellence
(compensation)
Carmen Darville
5:55 – 6:25
30 min
Budget Implications & Sustainability
Jim Terry
6:25 –6:55
30 min
Closing/Future Agendas
Gilbert Prado
6:55 – 7:00
5 min
Teacher Excellence Initiative
DRAFT
Revised January 10, 2014
1
Board of Trustees
Elizabeth Jones
District 1: Northwest Dallas
Eric Cowan
President
District 7: North Central
Oak Cliff and portions of
West Dallas
Lew Blackburn, Ph.D.
First Vice President
District 5: Oak Lawn,
West Dallas, Wilmer,
Hutchins, and portions
of East Oak Cliff
Carla Ranger
Second Vice President
District 6: Southwest Dallas
Dan Micciche
Secretary
District 3: Northeast Dallas
Mike Morath
District 2: North and
Near East Dallas
Nancy Bingham
District 4: Southeast Dallas,
Seagoville, Balch Springs
Miguel Solis
District 8: Love Field,
Northwest Dallas, and
Central Dallas
Bernadette Nutall
District 9: South Dallas and
portions of Downtown
Dallas, Pleasant Grove,
Deep Ellum, Uptown,
and East Dallas
Mike Miles
Superintendent of Schools
The Dallas Independent School District, as an equal opportunity educational provider and
employer, does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin,
age, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, genetic information,
or any other basis prohibited by law in educational programs or activities that it operates
or in employment decisions. The district is required by Title VI and Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, Section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Age Discrimination
Act of 1975, as amended, as well as board policy not to discriminate in such a manner. (Not
all prohibited bases apply to all programs.)
If you suspect discrimination please contact: Mary McCants, Title VII or Title IX, at
(972) 925-3250; Daphne LaMontagne, Section 504, at (972) 581-4238; Diedrae Bell-Hunter,
Americans with Disabilities Act, at (972) 925-4287; or Employee Relations at (972) 925-4200.
General questions about the district should be directed to Customer Service at (972) 925-5555.
3700 Ross Avenue • Dallas, TX 75204-5491 • (972) 925-3700 • www.dallasisd.org
12/16/13
2
Teacher Excellence Initiative
Contents
INTRODUCTION: ENSURING TEACHER EXCELLENCE
REWARDING EXCELLENCE
An Integrated Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Aligning Evaluation and Compensation . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Parents’ Views on Teacher Compensation . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Dallas ISD: Teacher Excellence Initiative . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Defining Excellence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Supporting Excellence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Rewarding Excellence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Principles and Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Staff and Community Engagement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
DEFINING EXCELLENCE
Current State of Teacher Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Purpose of Teacher Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Components of Effective Teacher Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . 11
The Measures of Effective Teaching (MET) Project . . . . . . . 11
Classroom Observation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Student Achievement Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Student Surveys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
A Balanced Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Parents’ Views on Teacher Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
DEFINITIONS
Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
DALLAS ISD’S PLAN FOR TEACHER EVALUATION
Nine Effectiveness Levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Evaluation Rating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Performance: 50 points . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Performance Rubric . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Student Survey: 15 points . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Achievement: 35 points . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
The Achievement Template . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Why a Strategic Compensation System? . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Dallas ISD’s Strategic Compensation Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Adjustment for Inflation and Cost-of-Living . . . . . . . . . . 34
Significantly Differentiating Salaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Receiving a Significant Raise When Promoted,
But Not Being Promoted Every Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Key Implementation Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
BUDGET IMPLICATIONS AND SUSTAINING TEI
Sustaining TEI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Teacher Salaries, 2014-2015 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Teacher Compensation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Target Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Current Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Normal Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Target Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
APPENDICES
Appendix A
Draft Performance Rubric . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Appendix B
Individual Student Achievement Goal Rubric . . . . . . . . . 56
Appendix C
Distinguished Teacher Review (DTR) Process . . . . . . . . . 57
Appendix D
Distinguished Teacher Review Rubric . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
The Weights: W1 through W7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Appendix E
Principal Input for the DTR Review Process . . . . . . . . . . 61
Status versus Relative Growth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Relative Growth Measurements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Appendix F
Teacher Compensation Calculations and Notes . . . . . . . . 63
Assessments and Cut-Points . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Target Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Appendix G
Congruence Metric in Principal Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . 75
Overall Effectiveness Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Appendix H
2015-2016 TEI Cost Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
Evaluation of Distinguished Teachers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Working in Tier One Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Exemplary II and Master Teacher . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Appendix I
2016-2017 TEI Cost Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
SUPPORTING EXCELLENCE
Research on Professional Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Dallas ISD Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Dallas ISD’s Plan for Supporting Excellence . . . . . . . . . . 28
Contents • 3
4
Teacher Excellence Initiative
Introduction: Ensuring
Teacher Excellence
AN INTEGRATED APPROACH
How to improve public education is a recurring topic in America. Recently, however, there seems to be a
greater sense of urgency around changing public education in fundamental ways. The recently released report
by the Equity and Excellence Commission called the situation dire and agenda urgent.1 The report notes that
even top-performing students in the United States do not compare well to those in many other countries. Even
more concerning is that low-income students and students of color are at a far higher risk of being unprepared
for work and life in an increasingly global economy.
It comes as no surprise that the same report identified effective teachers as a crucial ingredient to the
solution, noting that districts “need to improve teachers’ capacity to teach all children well and, in particular,
to ensure that there is a stable supply of excellent teachers and school leaders in our highest-need schools.”2
This report and other research support changing the way the school districts evaluate, support, and compensate teachers.
As districts work to increase teacher effectiveness, many are discovering the inaccurate and unhelpful
nature of their current teacher evaluation systems. Many teacher evaluation systems include neither a rigorous assessment of the quality of instruction nor student achievement results. In 2011, the National Council for
Teacher Quality gave states an average “D+” grade in identifying effective teachers.3 Similarly, a 2009 report
about teacher effectiveness by The New Teacher Project revealed that less than 1 percent of all teachers are rated
unsatisfactory on their evaluations.4 Without the ability to distinguish differences in teacher performance, current systems are unable to either recognize effective teachers or help teachers who need support.
While many states and districts have sought to reform their evaluation systems, particularly as a result of
U.S. Department of Education initiatives, many have found that doing so in isolation does not yield intended
results. The Aspen Institute noted: “School systems across the country are working hard to fix broken teacher
evaluation systems….While this represents a significant advance, it is one part of a bigger picture: a teacher
performance management system that links accountability, support, ongoing feedback, compensation, and career advancement.”5 The Equity and Excellence Commission also calls for a comprehensive approach to ensuring teacher excellence: “…states must re-examine and align their systems for recruiting, retaining, preparing,
licensing, evaluating, developing and compensating effective teachers.”6 And the National Council for Teacher
Quality recently highlighted the need for states and districts to “connect the dots” and use more accurate
evaluation information to inform a variety of decisions including professional development, compensation,
dismissal, and advancement.7 Thus, while an improved evaluation system is an essential component on the path
U.S. Department of Education, For Each and Every Child—A Strategy for Education Equity and Excellence, Washington, D.C., 2013
Ibid, p. 21
2011 State Teacher Policy Yearbook, The National Council for Teacher Quality, p. 2
Daniel Weisberg, Susan Sexton, Jennifer Mulhern, David Keeling, The Widget Effect, Our National Failure to Acknowledge and Act on
Differences in Teacher Effectiveness (Brooklyn, N.Y.: The New Teacher Project, 2009), p. 6. The reader can find this report at The New
Teacher Project website at www.tntp.org
5From Building Teacher Evaluation Systems: Learning from Leading Efforts (Rachel Curtis, Aspen Institute, March 2011)
6 U.S. Department of Education, For Each and Every Child—A Strategy for Education Equity and Excellence, Washington, D.C., 2013, p. 21
7 National Council on Teacher Quality, Connect the Dots: Using Evaluations of Teacher Effectiveness to Inform Policy and Practice, October 2013.
1
2
3
4
Introduction: Ensuring Teacher Excellence • 5
Teacher Excellence Initiative
to improve teacher quality, an integrated approach is necessary if the district is going to have the desired impact
on student learning.
DALLAS ISD: TEACHER EXCELLENCE INITIATIVE
In Dallas ISD, our Destination 2020 plan focuses on improving the quality of instruction and placing an
effective teacher in front of every child. Without a comprehensive teacher effectiveness system, the district will
not be able to accomplish our goals and transform the district—and, ultimately, the lives of students. In this
regard, the Teacher Excellence Initiative (TEI) was established with one primary objective: Improve student
learning by improving teacher effectiveness.
With TEI, the district is building on research and emerging models to establish a three-pronged approach
to ensuring teacher excellence that requires us to answer three corollary questions:
• Defining Excellence: What is our vision for effective teaching and how do we evaluate it?
• Supporting Excellence: How do we most effectively support and differentiate teachers’ professional
­learning?
• Rewarding Excellence: How do we reward teachers for their professional growth and impact on student
learning?
Defining Excellence
Defining effective teaching is an obvious starting point as it is the information resulting from a robust
evaluation system that will inform how the district differentially supports and rewards excellence. Evaluating teachers fairly, accurately, and rigorously is difficult and complex. Numerous systemic, philosophical, and
logistical obstacles await any district thinking about changing the evaluation system that is currently in place.
While the traditional approach has been to primarily use observation data, this approach has been found to be
deeply flawed when used in isolation of other approaches to defining and evaluating effective teaching. Thus, a
research-based perspective suggests defining and evaluating excellence through three lenses: teachers’ performance assessed using carefully designed and field-tested rubrics, student achievement assessed using multiple
measures of student achievement and growth, and student perceptions assessed using well-researched student
surveys.
Pending approval by the Board of Trustees, the district will implement the new evaluation system described here beginning in the fall of the 2014-2015 school year.
Supporting Excellence
Defining a clear vision of teaching excellence must involve establishing a clear plan to support teachers
as they strive for excellence. A fair, accurate, and rigorous evaluation system that uses data from classroom
observations, student perceptions, and student achievement to assess teachers must also serve the purpose of
pinpointing for teachers and those who support teachers the next steps for professional growth. In this way,
an effective evaluation system creates the potential for providing teachers with support that is tailored to their
unique professional learning needs. Such a system is essential for supporting the full spectrum: from our novice
teachers, who require substantial support, to our “irreplaceables”—the top 20 percent of teachers who seek
leadership and professional learning opportunities.8 School and district leaders must ensure a robust, systemic,
and individualized support system is in place in order to provide the opportunity for teachers to reach their
potential in enhancing student learning.
8 The Irreplaceables: Understanding the Real Retention Crisis in America’s Public Schools. TNTP, 2012.
6 • Introduction: Ensuring Teacher Excellence
Teacher Excellence Initiative
To build an effective support system for teachers, the district will provide supports across multiple professional learning contexts, leverage technology for professional learning and collaboration, and provide differentiated professional development options based on data and tailored to teachers’ needs. Dallas ISD will focus on
enhancing job-embedded professional development while also identifying strategic professional development
initiatives that leverage the district’s size and its diversity of school contexts.
Rewarding Excellence
A district could implement a rigorous teacher evaluation system without having a strategic compensation
plan. However, it is unlikely to be able to implement an effective pay-for-performance plan without a fair, accurate, and rigorous evaluation system. An organization is similarly unlikely to maximize the effectiveness of its
employees if the compensation system is disconnected from what the organization values most.
During the summer of 2015, at the end of the first year of implementation of the TEI plan, the district proposes to eliminate the traditional teacher salary schedule for classroom teachers on the plan. Thus, these teachers will no longer be directly paid for years of experience or college degrees or credits.9 The TEI plan, pending
board approval, replaces the traditional salary schedule with nine effectiveness levels. Teacher salaries would be
associated with the relevant effectiveness level.
PRINCIPLES AND PARAMETERS
There are numerous ways to design a teacher evaluation system that is tied to strategic compensation. Still,
the plan should be designed to help achieve the goals of the organization. Similar to the notion of form following function, the key elements of the system should also be tied to core principles and operational parameters.
While the devil may be in the details, the real debate should center on the principles that will guide
development of the plan and that will help decide conflicts during implementation. The Dallas ISD’s guiding
principles and parameters were debated and established early in the development of the Teacher Excellence
Initiative and include:
Student academic achievement results will count for 35 to 50 percent of a teacher’s evaluation.
• This principle was established based on the guidance of the MET study. After much discussion and ultimately staff voting, student achievement will count for 35 percent of a teacher’s evaluation for those with
appropriate metrics, as the next section discusses in more depth.
The Dallas ISD plan must focus on results.
• There is a difference between “process” indicators and “results.” This principle applies even on the performance side of the equation. A process indicator is a teacher behavior that is observable and that generally
can be assessed. However, it does not necessarily contribute directly to improved instruction or student
achievement. For example, turning in lesson plans is a process indicator. While designing effective lesson
plans is important and part of the teacher evaluation rubric, the ability to write lesson plans is not as important as the execution of the lesson plan and the delivery of effective instruction. Similarly, portfolios
of student work (process indicator) hold less weight than on-demand demonstrations of student learning
(outcome of effective teaching).
9 Degrees and coursework are considered under the “lifelong learning” portion of the Distinguished Teacher Review process.
Introduction: Ensuring Teacher Excellence • 7
Teacher Excellence Initiative
The plan must include individual accountability.
• A district could derive a teacher’s student achievement score based on the achievement scores of students
the teacher actually instructs (individual accountability), or based on the aggregate scores of a larger group
of students, such as students in the same grade, discipline, school, or district (group accountability).
• The predominant part of a teacher’s student achievement score should be tied to the achievement scores
of students the teacher actually instructs (individual accountability).
The plan must be fair, accurate, and rigorous; it may not always be equal.
• While the district strives for equality in a number of areas—class size, availability of textbooks, amount of
instructional time—it recognizes that schools have some degree of autonomy and that there will always
be differences. The Dallas ISD plan does not attempt to take into account differences in class size, the
number of English language learners in a class, the number of minutes devoted to teaching reading in a
school, etc.
The plan must include all classroom teachers and must be equally rigorous for all grades and disciplines.
• In order for the plan to be fair, the chance of a high school math teacher achieving a distinguished evaluation must be similar to the chance of an elementary art teacher receiving a distinguished evaluation.
• It is the acceptance of this principle that requires the district to assess what students have learned for all
grades and disciplines.
The Dallas ISD plan will differentiate professional learning supports based on data from the evaluation system.
• One of the greatest opportunities of a more accurate evaluation system is the ability to more effectively
identify professional development needs for those in need to support - as well as leverage the identified
strengths of proficient teachers in mentoring others.
The Dallas ISD plan will compensate teachers based on their overall effectiveness and that compensation
should be markedly differentiated.
• The plan should be a true pay-for-performance plan, not an incentive pay plan. Teachers who are more
effective should earn significantly more money than a less effective teacher.
The implementation of the plan must be standardized.
• The development, administration, and scoring of assessments, for example, should be standardized across
the district.
Dallas ISD will start “version one,” knowing that there will have to be revisions.
• Our plan will be comprehensive, and it will attempt to strike the right balance between complexity and
fairness. Like a computer operating system, the plan is to continue improving the evaluation system
every year. As Chip Heath and Dan Heath note in Switch, the key is to “look for a strong beginning and a
strong ending and get moving.”10
STAFF & COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
Hundreds of teachers and principals have contributed to the development of the TEI plan. Since the start
of this effort in the summer of 2011, engaging staff and community stakeholders has been critical to ensuring
the district develops a strong plan that is based on the Dallas ISD context. Stakeholders have been engaged in
10 Chip Heath and Dan Heath, Switch (New York, New York: Broadway Books, 2010), p. 93.
8 • Introduction: Ensuring Teacher Excellence
Teacher Excellence Initiative
much of the design of the evaluation system, including the design of the performance rubric and the selection
of student achievement measures. In recent months, each campus received a presentation by their assistant
superintendent or executive director outlining the essentials of the plan. The presenters fielded questions and
suggestions to inform system design and implementation planning. In addition, feeder pattern-based teacher
focus groups that meet on a monthly basis have provided input on the plan and will continue to inform how the
district moves forward. The district also relies on the TEI Implementation Committee for input and suggestions.
This committee consists of teachers, principals, parents, community members, representatives of teacher organizations, and central office staff.
More formally, a beta group of 25 principals from across the district are engaged in field-testing performance, achievement, and survey components of the evaluation framework. They also are providing input into
the professional development vision and needs. Each principal engages a small group of teachers in the school
to provide extensive feedback as they test the various components.
Lastly, the district has also held meetings with more than 100 community, education, civic, and business
organizations as well as held open community and staff meetings for anyone interested. Throughout the 20132014 school year, the district will continue to gather input from staff and community in order to refine and
revise the plan.
The subsequent sections of this document provide an in-depth review of each of these three components—
defining excellence, supporting excellence, and rewarding excellence—and our preliminary answers to these
key questions. Each section considers the relevant research, the district context, and a proposed plan for moving forward. As the district continues to obtain and incorporate feedback from a variety of stakeholders, this
document may be updated in the coming months. Thus, this document serves to lay the foundation for deeper
engagement as we collectively work to improve teacher effectiveness and student learning.
Introduction: Ensuring Teacher Excellence • 9
Teacher Excellence Initiative
Defining Excellence
Aligning on a vision of great teaching
reflected in a robust evaluation system
Research has consistently identified the quality of a teacher as being the single most important schoolbased influence on a student’s academic achievement.11 Increasing teacher quality has a greater impact than any
other educational investment, including reducing class size.12 Rivkin, Hanusheck, and Kain found that “Having
a high-quality teacher throughout elementary school can substantially offset or even eliminate the disadvantage
of low socio-economic background.”13 With the growing recognition of the direct impact of teachers, there has
been an increased focus on understanding what constitutes effective teaching and how effective teaching can be
measured. Just as the teacher plans a lesson with the end in mind and pre-identifies how students will demonstrate their learning at the end of a lesson or unit, districts must anchor definitions of excellence in meaningful
evaluation systems. This section takes a deep look at the current state of teacher evaluation, reviews research
that creates a path forward, and describes the proposed teacher evaluation plan for Dallas ISD.
CURRENT STATE OF TEACHER EVALUATION
Across the country, most teacher evaluations are often a single, scheduled observation conducted annually
(though sometimes as infrequently as every five years).14 Observers, typically administrators with varying levels
of training in effective evaluation, record a teacher’s compliance with preset standards that had limited influence on student achievement. Scoring is frequently binary (satisfactory/unsatisfactory), resulting in little variance between evaluations.15 In a review of districts using a binary system, 99 percent of teachers received the
satisfactory rating.16 However, even in districts with more rating options, over 94 percent of teachers received
the two highest ratings and less than 1 percent received an unsatisfactory rating, illustrating the failure of existing evaluation tools to accurately differentiate among educators. Teacher evaluations in Dallas ISD mirror the
national trend. In the 2010–2011 school year, 98 percent of classroom teachers received a satisfactory (“meets
expectations”) evaluation. In 2011–2012, 97 percent of classroom teachers received a satisfactory evaluation.
The inadequacy of historical and current evaluation systems to differentiate among educators, especially
between teachers teaching the same content to similar students, has prevented districts from being able to
determine the development needs of their teachers and resulted in professional development that does not
help teachers grow and develop. In a large scale study, 73 percent of teachers surveyed reported that there were
no areas for development identified on their most recent evaluation.17 Because teacher evaluation systems do
not distinguish between teachers’ effectiveness at raising student achievement, districts do not provide the
meaningful development and support to help low and moderately performing teachers grow as well as fail to
recognize exemplary educators.18 The inability to effectively evaluate educators has also meant that far too many
low-performing teachers have been entrusted with students without anyone, students, parents, administrators,
even the teachers themselves, knowing the quality of education those students are receiving.
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Darling-Hammond (2000), Rockoff (2004), Rivkin, Hanushek, and Kane (2005), Sanders and Rivers (1996)
Goldhaber, 2009
Rivkin, Hanushek, and Kane (2002)
Rush to Judgment: Teacher Evaluation in Public Education. Education Sector Reports, 2008.
ibid
The Widget Effect: Our National Failure to Acknowledge and Act on Differences in Teacher Effectiveness. The New Teacher Project, 2009.
ibid
ibid
10 • Defining Excellence
Teacher Excellence Initiative
PURPOSE OF TEACHER EVALUATION
The primary goal of teacher evaluations must be to improve the instructional practice of classroom teachers. As the New Teacher Project report, The Widget Effect, stated: “The core purpose of evaluation must be
maximizing teacher growth and effectiveness, not just documenting poor performance as a prelude to dismissal.” The Equity and Excellence Commission echoes this purpose in asserting “an evaluation system must
serve two central purposes: It must identify strengths and weaknesses so that all teachers can get the necessary
supports to improve their practice, and it must meet the standards of practice that would allow them to remain
in the classroom.”19 These reports suggest that a district’s teacher evaluation system must be tied to the professional development and human resource functions so that there is an integrated, data-based approach to the
evaluation, development, retention, and compensation of educators. With this common understanding of the
core purpose of a teacher evaluation system, what does the research suggest to achieve these purposes?
RESEARCH
Components of Effective Teacher Evaluation
Given the diversity of students, courses, and school settings found in today’s public education system,
developing a fair, accurate, and rigorous evaluation system is complex. Numerous systemic, philosophical, and
logistical challenges exist that must be taken into account by districts as they develop a new system. However, studies conducted in the past two decades show that systems can be developed that consistently assess
a teacher’s performance in the classroom, fairly determines the impact of the teacher on his or her students’
academic achievement, and accurately reflects a teacher’s effectiveness in relation to other teachers. Over the
years, various systems have been developed, implemented, and evaluated, and from these efforts, a convergent
understanding of what should be included in effective teacher evaluation systems has emerged.
Evaluation systems must include multiple measures of teacher performance.20 A solitary focus on just
teacher actions in the classroom (historical approach) or just student achievement scores (advocated by some in
the education reform community), does not present an accurate picture of teacher performance, while ignoring either the actual impact of the teacher on student achievement (observation only) or failing to recognize the
wide variance in student, district, and resource characteristics between classrooms (data only). By incorporating
both quantitative measures of student achievement (test scores) along with observations of teacher performance,
a much more accurate understanding of a teacher’s effectiveness can be determined.21 This mix of measurements
also provides validation of results as research has shown that educators who perform well on an instrument that
identifies and evaluates high-quality instructional practices, also receive high marks based on the achievement
of their students on standardized tests.22 The measures of teacher performance must include clear standards,
frequent feedback, and continual monitoring, as well a number of rating options (not just two or three).23
The Measures of Effective Teaching (MET) Project
While much academic research has focused on various aspects of evaluating educators, The Measures of
Effective Teaching (MET)24 study conducted by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is perhaps the most
comprehensive and thorough investigation into which measures most accurately and consistently identify
19 U.S. Department of Education, For Each and Every Child—A Strategy for Education Equity and Excellence, Washington, D.C., 2013
20See: Teacher Evaluation 2.0. The New Teacher Project, 2010; Recommendations for the Next Generation of Teaching Policy in Texas. Texas
Teaching Commission, 2012; and Rush to Judgment: Teacher Evaluation in Public Education. Education Sector Reports, 2008.
21 Rush to Judgment: Teacher Evaluation in Public Education. Education Sector Reports, 2008.
22 Ibid.
23 Ibid.
24 Ensuring Fair and Reliable Measures of Effective Teaching: Culminating Findings from the MET Project’s Three-Year Study. Bill and
­Melinda Gates Foundation, 2013.
Defining Excellence • 11
Teacher Excellence Initiative
effective teachers. The MET study confirmed much of the findings of prior research as well as provided new
insights. Conducted over three years, the MET study included more than 3,000 teachers teaching in six different districts across the country. During the study, researchers looked at a number of evaluative tools (classroom
observation frameworks, student assessments, etc.) for determining teacher effectiveness and compared the
results of these evaluations with the academic achievement of students. While many education professionals
have recommended a combination of tools to evaluate teachers, the MET study provided clear evidence that an
approach to teacher evaluation that incorporates multiple measures will consistently identify effective teachers.
MET study researchers identified three specific measures that provided the clearest picture of teacher effectiveness: classroom observations, student achievement data, and student survey data.
Classroom Observation
Classroom observations have long been the primary means of evaluating teachers. MET researchers found
that the use of observations alone do not provide an accurate picture of a teacher’s impact on student achievement. In the study, evaluators were trained and tested for accuracy in using several evaluation models and
participating teachers were observed by multiple evaluators, a level of implementation that is not routinely seen
in districts. While there was some correlation between the ratings given by observers and a teacher’s student
achievement scores, the ratings themselves could not consistently predict a teacher’s impact on student learning
in the future.25 Nonetheless, the research did find that having multiple, shorter observations is a powerful way
to increase reliability of classroom observation ratings. In addition, the study noted that observation data can
be helpful to teachers as a tool to providing useful feedback.
Student Achievement Data
The most accurate single measure for identifying teacher effectiveness is a value-added analysis of an educator’s students’ achievement.26 In doing so, it is critically important to account for differences among students
and past performance levels. The state assessment scores of a teacher’s students can be used to identify strong
teachers who have a lasting positive impact on students.27 However, as previously noted, no single measure
alone is a better indicator of teacher effectiveness than a combination of three measures. After testing various
weights for each measure, MET researchers found that including student achievement as 33 to 50 percent of
a teacher’s overall evaluation, along with classroom observations and student surveys, resulted in a consistent (low year-to-year volatility) and strong predictors of the achievement of students in a particular teacher’s
classroom.28 It is important to note that researchers found that teachers with higher value-added scores did not
narrow their instructional practice in an effort to raise test scores; to the contrary, students of teachers with
high value-added scores demonstrated an increase in higher-level thinking skills.29
Student Surveys
The MET study found that student surveys of teacher performance had a higher correlation with a
teacher’s success with students than classroom observations.30 The study used the Tripod survey system which
differentiates questions for grade spans and structures questions to assess instructional practice and learning
environment, not a teacher’s popularity. When conducted using this proven methodology and survey system,
25 Gathering Feedback for Teaching: Combining High Quality Observations with Student Surveys and Achievement Gains. Bill and Melinda
Gates Foundation, 2012.
26 Ibid.
27 Ensuring Fair and Reliable Measures of Effective Teaching: Culminating Findings from the MET Project’s Three-Year Study. Bill and
­Melinda Gates Foundation, 2013. Also see: The Long Term Impacts of Teachers: Teacher Value Added and Student Outcomes in Adulthood. Chetty et. al. 2011.
28 Ibid.
29 Gathering Feedback for Teaching: Combining High Quality Observations with Student Surveys and Achievement Gains. Bill and Melinda
Gates Foundation, 2012.
30 Ibid.
12 • Defining Excellence
Teacher Excellence Initiative
student surveys not only provided an accurate picture of teacher performance that confirmed the results of
observations and student assessment results, but also provided a source of helpful feedback that teachers can
use to improve their instructional practice.31
A Balanced Approach
While high-quality classroom observations, student achievement data, and student surveys have been
shown to individually positively correlate with teacher effectiveness, the three measures combined provide the
most accurate picture of a teacher’s impact on student achievement.32
Parents’ Views on Teacher Evaluation
The importance of reliable, valid, and differentiating teacher evaluations goes beyond how school districts
structure their professional development and compensation programs. Parents are keenly interested in the
quality of teaching in their child’s classroom. In a parent survey about public education in America, 96 percent
of respondents cited teacher quality as a very or extremely important factor in a child’s education.33 Additionally, in determining the quality and performance of a school, 73 percent of parents said knowing a teacher’s
ability to improve student achievement would be very or extremely helpful.34
Parents agree that teacher evaluations must include multiple measures. The majority of parents surveyed
across the country said they believed that teacher evaluations should be a combination of classroom observations and state achievement test scores.35 A little less than half also supported including parent and student
surveys into teacher evaluations.
31
32
33
34
35
Learning about Teaching: Initial Findings From the Measures of Effective Teaching Project. Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, 2010.
‘MET’ Made Simple. The New Teacher Project, January 2012.
Parents’ Attitudes on the Quality of Education in the United States. The Associate Press–NORC Center for Public Affairs Research, 2013.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Defining Excellence • 13
Teacher Excellence Initiative
Definitions
The following definitions will be useful in understanding this document:
TEI (Teacher Excellence Initiative): the district’s name for the evaluation system.
Metrics: performance measurements or measurable outcomes used to assess teacher effectiveness. There are
three types of evaluation metrics used in the TEI plan:
• Performance metrics: those measureable indicators that describe how well a teacher does his or her job.
They focus on instructional practice, planning and preparation, classroom management, and professionalism. For most teachers, 50 percent of a teacher’s annual evaluation is based on performance metrics; 35
percent is based on student achievement results; and 15 percent is tied to student survey results.
• Student achievement metrics: measurements of student performance on district and state assessments.
• Student survey metrics: survey results obtained from a teacher’s or school’s students regarding the
learning environment.
Progress-monitoring metrics: other performance measurements that are assessed during the year and that
are aligned with the evaluation metrics. These metrics provide feedback to teachers and help them gauge
their progress.
Overall effectiveness level: the effectiveness level on the TEI scale to which a teacher will be assigned based
on the average of two years’ annual evaluation ratings. The overall effectiveness level also determines the
salary. There are nine effectiveness levels (see figure on page 16). For Dallas ISD’s TEI plan, the levels
denote varying degrees of effectiveness. The goal for “progressing” teachers is to reach proficiency. The
overall effectiveness level is unlikely to change annually.
Annual evaluation rating: the overall assessment of a teacher’s effectiveness based on the teacher’s performance, achievement, and student survey metrics during one year. A teacher receives an evaluation rating
annually. It is possible for an evaluation rating to be lower than the overall effectiveness level.
Teacher performance rubric: the evaluation instrument that outlines teacher performance standards.
Teacher performance evaluation score: the overall performance rating on the evaluation rubric.
Student achievement data score: the overall rating derived from the student achievement template.
Achievement template: a chart of the various student achievement metrics that are used to calculate a
teacher’s achievement score.
Student survey score: the average score of a teacher’s students on a research-based survey selected for the
TEI.
Distinguished teacher: a teacher who attains an effectiveness level of Proficient II or higher.
14 • Definitions
Teacher Excellence Initiative
Dallas ISD’s Plan for
Teacher Evaluation
The research suggests a new paradigm for defining excellence and teacher evaluation. Thus, the Dallas ISD
plan proposes to define and evaluate excellence through three lenses: teachers’ performance assessed using
carefully designed and field-tested rubrics, student achievement assessed using multiple measures of student
achievement and growth, and student perceptions assessed using well-researched student surveys. The district
plans to use the information with one goal: improve teacher effectiveness. To accomplish this, the district needs
a new evaluation system to:
• Assess teachers fairly, accurately, and rigorously
• Assess a teacher’s ability to deliver high-quality instruction and raise student achievement
• Equitably distribute highly-effective and well-qualified teachers across the District, and identify the most
effective teachers and encourage them to serve the students who are most at-risk
• Target support and professional development in order to improve the overall capacity of our teachers to
provide high-quality instruction
• Raise expectations for teaching and increase accountability for effective teaching
• Recruit, recognize, and reward effective teachers; remove teachers who are not effective after support has
been provided
• Support career pathways for teachers
NINE EFFECTIVENESS LEVELS
The TEI plan eliminates the traditional teacher salary schedule and replaces that schedule with nine levels
of effectiveness. The levels range from “Unsatisfactory” to “Master” teacher. [First-year teachers who are new to
teaching are “novice” teachers and do not have an effectiveness rating until the beginning of their second year.]
All teachers move to the next level if they meet the criteria for performance, student surveys, and student
achievement results. Each succeeding level requires a higher degree of performance, student survey, and demonstrated student achievement results. For example, a first year, “novice” teacher need only receive a satisfactory evaluation and progressing levels of achievement to advance to the next level (Progressing I). Advancement
to all other levels requires the teacher to be stronger in a combination of performance, student survey, and
student achievement. Expectations become more rigorous as the teacher attains proficiency and then mastery
of effective teaching.
Compensation is significantly higher at each succeeding level. Years of service play no role in the TEI
compensation system. Graduate degrees and/or continuing education credits may be considered as evidence
of “life-long learning,” which are part of the criteria for becoming a distinguished teacher (“Proficient II” or
higher-level teacher).
Dallas ISD’s Plan for Teacher Evaluation • 15
Teacher Excellence Initiative
DISTRICT REVIEW
PRINCIPAL REVIEW
Unsat
$45K
Progressing
Proficient
Exemplary
Master
I
II
I
II
III
I
II
$49K
$51K
$54K
$59K
$65K
$74K
$82K
$90K
Novice ($47K)
EVALUATION RATING: PERFORMANCE + STUDENT SURVEY + ACHIEVEMENT
Teachers are placed at an effectiveness level based on their annual evaluation rating or, for teachers new to
the district, on a review of their past achievement data and an estimation of their entering proficiency. [Teachers new to the profession and who are first-year teachers are placed at the “novice” level.]
The proposed annual evaluation comprises teacher performance, multiple measures of student achievement,
and the results of a researched-based student survey. Given the research-based parameters from the MET Project
and after much input from teachers and principals, the district finalized the various weights of each of the evaluation metrics. For most teachers, 50 percent of the evaluation is based on performance, 35 percent on student
achievement results, and 15 percent on student survey results. However, for those teachers for whom student
survey results are not available (e.g., prekindergarten students) and/or who will not have enough measures for
the full 35 percent for student achievement, proportions will be different. The evaluation is based on a 100-point
scale. The following table describes the different TEI categories:
TEI Category
Teacher
Performance
Student
Achievement
Student
Survey
Category A. All three components available (most
teachers)
50%
35%
15%
Category B. Reduced availability of achievement
measures (e.g., CATE teachers)
65%
20%
15%
Category C. Reduced availability of achievement
measures and no student surveys (e.g., pre-K teachers)
80%
20%
0%
The following section outlines how the three components of the TEI work using a “Category A” teacher
example. For Categories B and C teachers, the points would be adjusted according to the table above.
16 • Dallas ISD’s Plan for Teacher Evaluation
Teacher Excellence Initiative
PERFORMANCE: 50 POINTS
Teachers receive up to 50 points on the evaluation of their performance, especially as it relates to the delivery of high-quality instruction.
Performance Rubric
The performance score is determined by the evaluators (principal and assistant principal) using the teacher
evaluation rubric. The current draft teacher evaluation rubric was developed by the Teacher Evaluation Task
Force, with the help of the district’s consultants, the District Management Council (DMC). The goal has been
to develop a robust descriptive rubric that describes in detail the teacher and student behaviors of excellent
teachers as well as the performance levels along the continuum for each indicator in the rubric. The rubric
is currently being field-tested by a group of 25 schools and will be updated in the coming months based on
feedback (see Appendix A for the current draft performance rubric). The instrument includes four overarching
performance areas:
• Domain 1: Instructional practice (e.g., establishes clear and rigorous lesson objectives, encourages
higher-order thinking skills)
• Domain 2: Planning and preparation (e.g., demonstrates content knowledge, develops objective-based
lesson plans)
• Domain 3: Classroom management (e.g., maximizes instructional time, maintains a welcoming
­environment)
• Domain 4: Professionalism and commitment (e.g., engages in professional community, establishes
relationships with families)
School leaders conduct at least one formal observation and a written summative on every teacher each
year. In order to build a culture of instructional feedback, school leaders also conduct six spot observations (or
walkthroughs) per semester for each teacher, resulting in 12 spot observations per year. These 10- to 15-minute
observations result in a written spot observation form, through which the principal or assistant principal provides effective instructional feedback to the teacher. Information from the spot observations contributes to the
summative performance evaluation. While for practical considerations summative evaluations may be finalized
prior to all 12 spot observations being completed, each teacher will receive at least eight spot observations for
the year prior to receiving a summative evaluation.36 Teachers who qualify for and undergo the distinguished
teacher review process (discussed later in this section) will receive a minimum of five spot observations (plus
the formal observation) that will inform the summative evaluation.37
STUDENT SURVEY: 15 POINTS
In alignment with the research, the district will procure a research-based student survey that will provide
feedback to teachers and input for the teacher’s evaluation. The survey will be administered to students in kindergarten through 12th grade and be available in English and Spanish.
36 Teachers with special circumstances, such as being hired and starting the school year later than usual, may receive less spot observations on a pro-rated basis.
37 While these teachers will still receive at least 12 spot observations for the year, a slightly lower amount provides for practical constraints
in scheduling and allowing for teachers to undergo the DTR process. Per law, principals can evaluate these or any such teachers again
later in the year if needed.
Dallas ISD’s Plan for Teacher Evaluation • 17
Teacher Excellence Initiative
ACHIEVEMENT: 35 POINTS
Similar to the performance part of the equation, the achievement part reflects the principles discussed earlier. The teacher’s student achievement data score includes individual accountability and is focused on results.
The score makes up 35 percent of the total evaluation and is equally rigorous across grades, disciplines, and
student populations.
A teacher’s achievement score comprises multiple measures of student achievement. In order to keep the
assessment of achievement comparable across disciplines, every teacher’s achievement score consists of seven
parts or “weights.” Dallas ISD uses W1 through W7 to identify these parts. Each part is worth five points for a
subtotal of 35 points. Using a simple proportion, the district then calculates the number of points the teacher
receives under a 35-point plan.
The following sample pie charts provide a quick overview of the multiple measures of student achievement
included in the achievement scores of teachers in different disciplines or grades:
ELEMENTARY ART
GRADE 5 RLA
Student Achievement 35%
Student Achievement 35%
Performance Tasks
School G5 STAAR R/M/SC
10%
10%
ACP Semester 2
5%
ACP Semester 2
5%
STAAR 5
5%
ACP Semester 1
10%
ACP Semester 1 5%
Performance
50%
Individual Goal 5%
School STAAR
Performance
50%
Individual Goal 5%
5%
School STAAR
5%
Student
Survey
15%
Student
Survey
15%
HIGH SCHOOL ALGEBRA I
Student Achievement 35%
School STAAR EOC Algebra I
5%
STAAR EOC
10%
ACP Semester 1
10%
Performance
50%
Individual Goal 5%
School STAAR
5%
Student
Survey
15%
18 • Dallas ISD’s Plan for Teacher Evaluation
Teacher Excellence Initiative
THE ACHIEVEMENT TEMPLATE
The central feature of the achievement part of the evaluation is the student achievement data template
(achievement template) for each teacher. The achievement template describes in detail the multiple measures
that are used to assess the teacher’s effectiveness in improving student academic proficiency. The template also
outlines the cut-points that are used to determine a teacher’s score for each part or weight.
Every teacher will have an achievement template. Some teachers might have a partial achievement template at implementation for lack of appropriate assessments but will have the achievement section reduced in
weight - resulting in the performance section being weighted more. The district expects to develop achievement
templates at the elementary, middle, and high school levels. There will likely be more achievement templates at
the secondary level because of the number of different subjects taught.
To understand one’s achievement template, a teacher must first understand the various measurements and
weights for which he or she will be held accountable. Then, teachers must become familiar with the methods
the district uses to measure student academic performance. Finally, the teacher should understand the various
cut-points and how the district establishes cut-points.
THE WEIGHTS: W1 THROUGH W7
Each achievement template has seven parts or weights. The weights differ depending on the grade, discipline, or specialty. For example, measurements for a fourth-grade teacher include the state assessment (STAAR)
results for the students in the teacher’s class, results of the two district semester exams (ACPs) for the teacher’s
students, and results of the school’s STAAR exams in reading and math. The measurements for an elementary
art teacher include the students’ performance on the spring art project and the results of the teacher’s students
on the two district art exams.
There are two weights that are the same for all teachers. First, every teacher has one part (W6) that is
tied to the school’s state assessment, or STAAR, results. In this way, every teacher is partly accountable for his
school’s high-stakes test and state accountability rating. This measurement also supports collaboration among
grade levels and among core and non-core teachers.
Second, every achievement template also includes one part (W7) that is based on the teacher’s accomplishment of his individual student achievement goal. The purpose of this measure is to capture data on student
learning growth on assessments that are important and meaningful but not a standardized measure that is already
another weight in the achievement template. In this way, the intent is to focus professional conversation on student learning in order to support teachers in reaching the learning targets. This goal is established at the beginning
of the year with the approval of the principal and is assessed at the end of the year using a rubric (see Appendix B
for a draft). This is one of the components that is being field-tested this year by principals and teachers.
During the development of the TEI plan, template summaries provide a starting point for discussion about
which achievement data should be included in a teacher’s evaluation. Focus groups met to discuss the proposed
parts and to make revisions. The following sample template summaries describe the achievement measurements for a fourth grade teacher and an elementary art teacher:
Dallas ISD’s Plan for Teacher Evaluation • 19
Teacher Excellence Initiative
Student Achievement Measures for a
4th Grade Teacher
Student Achievement Measures for an
Elementary Art Teacher
Weight
Type
Tested subjects
Weight
Type
Tested subjects
W1, W2
Classroom performance
on STAAR
Reading, writing,
math
W1
District art project
(­performance task)
Art
W3, W4
Classroom performance
on district semester
exams (first sem.)
Reading, writing,
math, science
W2, W3
Classroom performance
on district semester
exams (first sem.)
Art
W5
Classroom performance
on district semester
exams (second sem.)
Reading, writing,
math
W4, W5
Classroom performance
on district semester
exams (second sem.)
Art
W6
Schoolwide performance on STAAR
Reading, writing,
math, science
W6
Schoolwide performance on STAAR
Reading, writing,
math, science
W7
Teacher’s goal for
­student achievement
W7
Teacher’s goal for
­student achievement
STATUS VERSUS RELATIVE GROWTH
The various measures of student achievement in the achievement templates include (where possible) two
types of metrics: “status” and “relative growth.” The percentage of students who were proficient on an exam is
an example of a status measure. No allowance is made for students’ academic achievement levels at the start of
the school year. This measurement is traditional and easy to compute, but for students who are not yet at the
proficient level, it does not provide evidence that students are improving toward proficiency.
A second type of metric is one that measures “relative growth.” These measures compare students’ scores to
scores of other students who were at the same academic level in the prior year. When a teacher has high values
for “relative growth” metrics, the teacher’s students have generally higher scores than other district students
who started the school year at about the same academic level.
For some measures, such as the STAAR and ACP results, the achievement template includes a status measurement and two relative-growth measurements, and the teacher is awarded points based on the highest of
the three outcomes. In this way, the TEI plan is designed to reward significant academic improvement even if a
teacher’s students are not yet proficient.
Relative Growth Measurements
CEI & SEI—The district has used one relative growth metric, Classroom or School Effectiveness Indices
for some years, and it will be used in TEI as one method of quantifying students’ academic improvement.
Classroom Effectiveness Indices, or CEIs, evaluate a student’s performance on select summative tests by
comparing his performance to that of all other similar students in the district. The value-added model used
to compute CEIs addresses outside influences over which the teacher has no control by evaluating a student’s
progress only in relation to similar students. The characteristics that determine similarity include prior-year
test scores, gender, English language proficiency level, socio-economic status, special education (SPED) status,
talented and gifted (TAG) status, and neighborhood variables such as educational level and poverty index. A
high value for the CEI indicates that the teacher’s students generally outperformed students in the district who
20 • Dallas ISD’s Plan for Teacher Evaluation
Teacher Excellence Initiative
have similar backgrounds and who started the school year at the same academic level, even if the students are
not yet achieving proficient, or “passing,” scores. SEIs are calculated similarly but at the school level.38
Academic Peer Groups—A second method for measuring improvement will be added to the TEI. In this
metric, students are placed in an “academic peer group” based on their scores from a STAAR, ITBS/Logramos,
or ACP taken in the previous year. (The test scores available depend on the student’s grade-level and the subject
of interest.) Students in grades one and above are placed in one of four peer groups, which are determined for
each test so that each peer group has approximately the same number of students.
For every assessment for which peer groups can be constructed, the average score achieved in the current year by the students in a peer group is calculated. Each student can then be labeled as having scored “at or
above” or “below” his or her group’s average. The final metric value of the teacher is the percentage of his or her
students who scored at or above their peer group averages. As with the CEI, a student can outperform similar
students (in this case, the students in the academic peer group) even if the student has yet to reach a level of
proficiency, and this “relative growth” is rewarded by the metric. As a result, teachers of students who begin the
school year at far below proficiency can be credited with moving the students toward proficiency.
ASSESSMENTS AND CUT-POINTS
In order for the district to evaluate teachers based on student achievement results and to hold teachers
individually accountable for higher proficiency levels in each grade and discipline, the district has developed
and will continue to develop end-of-semester exams in both the core and non-core areas. Students in every
grade and discipline will take district-developed semester exams each year, which amounts to approximately
one exam each semester for each subject. Dallas ISD will develop more than 250 different semester exams, and
these assessments will impact a teacher’s student achievement data score.
With more than 250 different assessments and dozens of different subjects and disciplines, one can imagine the difficulty of designing a plan that would be equally rigorous for all teachers. Put another way, the evaluation system must assess a student’s proficiency in art class and then it must ensure that the assessment of art
proficiency would be no harder or easier than the assessment of the student’s math proficiency. The evaluation
system has to give very similar chances of success for all teachers regardless of grade or discipline. The system
would not be fair if only elementary specials teachers could become distinguished or if very few math teachers
could ever hope to reach that designation.
The method of linking cut-points to a “target distribution” is an elegant solution to this problem of ensuring equal rigor across the system. The first step is to establish a target distribution of teacher effectiveness with
regard to improving student achievement.
Dallas ISD’s premise is that a high percentage of proficient or distinguished teachers should be correlated
to significant improvements in student achievement. While district leaders hope to have more than 80 percent
of the staff at the proficient level or higher someday, current student achievement data suggest that the percentage of proficient and distinguished teachers is much lower. A target distribution was created to reflect where
leaders hope staff proficiency levels will be by the end of the 2015–2016 school year with regard to getting
student achievement results. The TEI plan envisions the following target distribution of teacher proficiency:
38 For more information on the CEI and SEI, please visit: http://mydata.dallasisd.org/SL/SLindex.jsp
Dallas ISD’s Plan for Teacher Evaluation • 21
Teacher Excellence Initiative
Target Distribution
50
Note that the target distribution is skewed positively, with the bulk of the values lying to the left of
the mean. The bar chart and distribution curve show
that with regard to student achievement the district
expects 60 percent of the teachers to be proficient or
higher by the end of the third year of implementation;
40 percent are expected to be less than proficient.
40
30
20
After establishing the target distribution, the district may then set the cut-points on achievement templates so that the actual distribution of teacher scores
0
will approximate the target distribution.39 Note the
Unsat Prog I Prog II Prof I Prof II Prof III
chart below left, which represents one measurement
of a typical achievement template. The cut-points
are outlined in the left-hand column. In this case, with the district semester exam, if 65 percent of a teacher’s
students scored above the average score of their academic peers, the teacher would achieve the Proficient I level
for this weight and receive three out of six points.
10
But are these the “right” cut-points? Are they too hard? Too easy? Will anyone be able meet the “Proficient
III” criteria? Equally important: how do you set cut-points for courses with new assessments when there are
little (if any) prior year data to use?
The district will establish the initial cut-points after an assessment is administered the first time. Cut points
will be adjusted after the second administration of an assessment. Cut-point adjustment is necessary in order to
ensure that not only are the assessments across grades and disciplines similarly rigorous but they are also correlated with the state assessments and cut-points move with the increasing rigor of the state assessments. It will
ensure that no assessment is “too easy” or “too hard” relative to other exams or to the state exam. This process
is key to making the assessments and the entire plan more fair, accurate, and valid.
50
50
40
40
30
30
20
ACTUAL
20
10
TARGET
10
0
Unsat
Prog I
Prog II
Prof I
Prof II
Prof III
0
TARGET
WITH NEW CUT-POINTS
Unsat
Prog I
Prog II
Prof I
Prof II
Prof III
The graph on the left depicts what could happen if cut-points are not adjusted to a target distribution.
As an example, the red line in the graph represents the actual distribution of teacher proficiency based on a
39 After the first two years of the TEI plan, the cut-points will remain the same (and the number of teachers at any given effectiveness level
will be allowed to float) until reviewed by the TEI task force convened for this purpose.
22 • Dallas ISD’s Plan for Teacher Evaluation
Teacher Excellence Initiative
district’s best estimate of where the cut-points should be on a particular assessment. The graph shows that
the cut-points were set too high at the lower end of the scale as too many teachers (35 percent) scored at the
Unsatisfactory or Progressing I level. The cut-points at the higher levels were too generous as too many teachers
(31 percent) achieved the Proficient II or Proficient III level. The district should adjust the cut-points to achieve
a fairer distribution. When the cut-points are adjusted, the distribution of scores for this one measurement will
approximate the green line in the graph to the right, which is very close to the target distribution.
The distribution of all of the measurements used in the achievement templates is thus compared with the
target distribution. The cut-points are adjusted so that the actual distribution approximates the target distribution. In this way, all assessments and measurements are made equally rigorous and all teachers have a similar
chance of reaching a particular proficiency level regardless of grade or discipline.40
OVERALL EFFECTIVENESS LEVEL
A teacher receives up to 50 points for performance, up to 15 points for the student survey, and up to 35
points for student achievement data. The scores from these three areas are added to get the teacher evaluation
rating or annual summative. Draft scores equate to the following proposed effectiveness levels:
Unsat
10–18
Progressing
Proficient
Exemplary
I
II
I
II
III
I
19–29
30–42
43–57
58–71
72–85
86–100
Master
II
(Exemplary II and Master teachers are discussed in the next section)
The teacher evaluation rating and overall effectiveness level are synonymous for most teachers; however,
they are not entirely the same. Teachers are placed at an effectiveness level based on their annual evaluation
rating or, for teachers new to the district, on a review of their past achievement data and an estimation of their
entering proficiency. The evaluation rating could change every year. First-year teachers who are new to teaching
are novice teachers and do not have an effectiveness rating until the end of their first year.
The overall effectiveness level, which is tied to compensation (as discussed in the next section), is based on
the average of the teacher’s last two evaluation ratings. For the first year of the TEI plan, as there will only be
one evaluation rating under the new system, a teacher’s overall effectiveness level will be based on just one year.
When the average of two evaluation ratings equates to a higher level of proficiency, the teacher will be moved
to the next level on the overall effectiveness scale. For example, if a teacher finished the 2014-2015 school year
with an evaluation rating of 52 points (Proficient I), his or her effectiveness level would also be Proficient I.
If the teacher then received an evaluation rating of 68 points (Proficient II) in the 2015-2016 school year, he
or she would have an average of 60 points and the effectiveness level (and compensation) would be raised to
Proficient II.41
While the district will use an average of two years to move a teacher to the next higher level, it will use an
average of three years before it moves a person down to the next lower level.42
40 The distribution of teachers in each category described on Page 22 will approximate the target distribution.
41 Attaining Proficient II or higher is dependent upon the distinguished teacher review process; points referenced here are illustrative
examples.
42 The district reserves the right to non-renew a teacher for poor performance per district policy and Texas law.
Dallas ISD’s Plan for Teacher Evaluation • 23
Teacher Excellence Initiative
EVALUATION OF DISTINGUISHED TEACHERS
Distinguished teachers are those whose overall effectiveness level is Proficient II or higher. A distinguished
teacher has to be distinguished in performance and distinguished in overall effectiveness (performance plus
student achievement plus student survey). The equation for attaining the distinguished levels is still based on
performance, student surveys, and achievement results. Just as with other teachers, achievement counts for
35 percent and is calculated using the same achievement templates. However, on the performance side of the
equation, distinguished teachers have to meet additional criteria.
First, a principal follows the same performance procedures as with all of the other teachers. In other
words, the principal uses the spot observations and the teacher evaluation rubric to assess and rate the teacher’s
performance. The scores from the student surveys and achievement template are added. If the teacher scores at
least 40 points on the performance evaluation and at least 25 points from a combination of the student survey
score and the achievement template score, the teacher is eligible for a Distinguished Teacher Review (DTR).
The district conducts the DTR.
If a teacher is eligible for a Distinguished Teacher Review, the teacher must then apply to become a distinguished teacher, or, if already at the distinguished level, he or she must apply to advance to the next higher
effectiveness level. Teachers do not have to apply, but may not attain distinguished status or advance to the next
higher distinguished level unless they undergo a DTR.
The DTR is conducted by the School Leadership Department, assisted by Human Capital Management, principals, and other instructional leaders.43 A team of administrators and instructional coordinators observe the teacher’s
classroom instruction and assess his or her leadership, lifelong learning, and contributions to the profession.44
Performance
+
Student Surveys
+
Achievement
+
DTR
• Quality of
instruction (district
review)
•Leadership
• Lifelong learning
• Contribution to
the profession
• Service in Tier 1
school
43 See Appendix C: Distinguished Teacher Review Process.
44 See Appendix D for draft DTR rubric.
24 • Dallas ISD’s Plan for Teacher Evaluation
•Measures
of student
achievement
(STAAR, district
semester exams,
constructed
responses, etc.)
•School
performances on
STAAR
•Teacher’s
individual student
achievement goal
=
Highly Effective
Teacher Excellence Initiative
Teachers can earn up to 20 additional performance points through the DTR. Those who undergo a DTR
have their original performance score capped at 40 points in order to protect against any inflation. Based on the
distinguished teacher review rubric, the team assigns more weight to “actual instruction” and “leadership” and
then calculates a score up to 20 points. This DTR score is added to the principal-based performance score of
40 points, the achievement template score, and the student survey score to get the evaluation rating and overall
effectiveness level.
WORKING IN TIER ONE SCHOOLS
A school will be designated a Tier 1 school if it receives an “improvement required” rating on the state
accountability system, designation as a federal “priority” or “focus” school, or if it is among the five lowest performing high schools, eight lowest performing middle schools, or 20 lowest performing elementary schools in
the district with regard to the school effectiveness index (SEI). The district will use the average SEI for the last
three years in order to identify the lowest performing schools.45
Tier 1 schools have the lowest proficiency levels and are most in need of effective teachers and administrators. In order to encourage our most effective teachers to teach at Tier 1 schools, the district will award points
in the DTR process for service in Tier 1 schools. Teachers applying for distinguished effectiveness levels, and
who will therefore undergo a district review, will receive three points for the first year they served in a Tier One
school starting in the 2014-2015 school year. They will receive an additional point for the second year and one
for the third year for a total of five points. These points are awarded only to the teachers who are undergoing a
DTR. A teacher must work in a Tier One school in order to earn these points.
EXEMPLARY II AND MASTER TEACHER
A teacher who receives an Exemplary II rating from the DTR review team and whose achievement template results in an Exemplary rating (at least 30 points out of 35 on the achievement scale) is placed at the Exemplary II effectiveness level. A teacher must have served as an Exemplary I teacher for at least one year before
being placed at the Exemplary II level.
A teacher will be considered a “Master” teacher if he or she has been rated at the Exemplary II level for
at least two years in a row and has taught in a Tier One School as a distinguished teacher for a minimum of
four years.46
45 Teachers at a Tier One school that no longer meets the criteria for Tier One schools will still be eligible to get points for two more years
when they undergo DTR.
46 The year of the DTR may count as one of those four years.
Dallas ISD’s Plan for Teacher Evaluation • 25
Teacher Excellence Initiative
Supporting Excellence
Differentiating teachers’ professional learning
Defining a clear vision of teaching excellence must involve establishing a clear plan to support teachers
as they strive for excellence. A fair, accurate, and rigorous evaluation system that uses data from classroom
observations, student perceptions, and student achievement to assess teachers must also serve the purpose of
pinpointing for teachers and those who support teachers the next steps for professional growth. In this way,
an effective evaluation system creates the potential for providing teachers with support that is tailored to their
unique professional learning needs. Such a system is essential for supporting the full spectrum: from our novice
teachers, who require substantial support, to our “irreplaceables”—the roughly top 20 percent of teachers who
also seek to continue to grow through leadership and professional learning opportunities.47 School and district
leaders must ensure a robust, systemic, and individualized support system is in place in order to provide the
opportunity for teachers to reach their potential in enhancing student learning.
RESEARCH ON PROFESSIONAL LEARNING
Research on the subject of supporting teachers in their professional growth has identified several key
features that have impact on teaching practice and student achievement. In a comprehensive review of the
literature, the National Staff Development Council (now Learning Forward) identified four principles to guide
effective professional learning for teachers. Professional learning should:
• Be intensive, ongoing, and connected to practice;
• Focus on student learning and address the teaching of specific curriculum content;
• Align with school improvement priorities and goals; and
• Build strong working relationships among teachers.48
Professional learning is most effective when it requires teachers to apply new knowledge to their planning
and instruction. The research found that intensive professional development efforts that average approximately
49 hours in a year—in the form of ongoing one-on-one coaching as well as working collaboratively with colleagues—boosted student achievement by 21 percentile points.
According to research on teaching specific curriculum content, an effective approach was for teams of
teachers to analyze student performance data and student work samples in order to identify common student
misunderstandings, build a common understanding of what mastery of a skill means in a concrete way, and
assess the impact of different teaching strategies attempted.
Aligning teacher professional learning with a school’s priorities has also proved to be an effective strategy
in supporting teachers’ growth. When a school has an intentional action plan and aligns professional learning to
that plan, professional learning is supported and reinforced from the perspective of teachers. This method has
proven to be more effective than teachers participating in series of isolated professional development activities.
47 The Irreplaceables: Understanding the Real Retention Crisis in America’s Public Schools. TNTP, 2012.
48 Darling-Hammond et al (2009). Professional Learning in the Profession: A Status Report on Teacher Development in the United States and
Abroad. National Staff Development Council.
26 • Supporting Excellence
Teacher Excellence Initiative
The NSDC study also highlighted the value of supporting strong working relationships among teachers.
Research has demonstrated that schools with strong teacher working relationships are associated with increased
student achievement, narrowing of achievement gaps, deepening of teachers’ knowledge, and improvements in
instruction. Some key levers to promote these kinds of relationships include structuring teacher teams, providing
space and time for teachers to collaborate, and promoting peer observation (live or through video).
Other research has also defined many of the above practices as “job-embedded professional development.”
Job-embedded professional learning refers to “teacher learning that is grounded in day-to-day teaching practice
and is designed to enhance teachers’ content-specific instructional practices with the intent of improving student learning.”49 Thus, the research suggests district and school leaders are tasked with providing teachers with
multiple opportunities to learn throughout the year in ongoing ways.
In order to establish professional learning cultures and supports, the research also highlights the key role
of the principal. In a landmark study of the impact of principals as instructional leaders, the Wallace Foundation found that instructional leadership practices have significant effects on student achievement. In exploring
the source of this effect, the authors note that this impact is “largely because leadership strengthens professional
community; teachers’ engagement in professional community, in turn, fosters the use of instructional practices
that are associated with student achievement.”50 Principals are critical in fostering the kind of supportive environments in which teachers can achieve instructional excellence, and in turn, increase student learning.
DALLAS ISD CONTEXT
Any significant reform has to be systemic. Since the summer of 2012, Dallas ISD began an intentional
effort to strengthen the foundation of support for teachers’ professional learning by working to establish an
environment with the following elements:
1. school leaders who understand what good instruction looks like and who are held accountable for improving the quality of instruction,
2. a culture of instructional feedback in which classroom instruction is observed and effective feedback is
given regularly and consistently,
3. processes to collect and analyze student achievement data and teachers who use those data to improve
instruction,
4. significant support and professional development that helps both administrators and teachers improve
instruction,
5. an aligned curriculum and a pervasive understanding of how to implement a standards-based curriculum.
This work has led to an increase in instructional leadership by principals as they have built new habits
and routines for coaching teachers through 12 spot observations for every teacher each year. They continue to
engage in coaching conversations with their executive directors, role-play exercises with principal-colleagues,
and participate in deeper professional development sessions to improve the quality and impact of their feedback. In addition, a new instructional coaching model has been put in place to increase the number of instructional coaches on campuses and their effectiveness. These coaches receive ongoing training from central office
academic facilitators in order to enhance their one-on-one coaching of teachers, support for teacher teams, and
leading of whole group professional development. Lastly, schools have been working on building their data-
49 Croft et al (2010). Job-Embedded Professional Development: What it is, who is responsible, and how to get it done well. National
­Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality, Mid-Atlantic Comprehensive Center, and NSDC.
50 Wahlstrom et al (2010). Investigating the Links to Improved Student Learning: Executive Summary of Research Findings. Wallace
­Foundation.
Supporting Excellence • 27
Teacher Excellence Initiative
driven instruction systems using locally-developed assessments to ensure curriculum alignment and effective
instruction. All of this recent work has served as a foundation that will be leveraged with the implementation of
a new evaluation system and will allow us to continue to expand and deepen professional learning supports.
Dallas ISD has also implemented a new principal evaluation system that is specifically designed to hold
principals accountable for teachers’ growth in multiple ways. First, the principal evaluation rubric provides specific expectations for the quality of principals’ instructional leadership - including their coaching of teachers,
developing teacher leadership, and providing high-quality professional development. Second, principals have
a measure in their evaluation that provides them with more points for teachers’ growth in the evaluation. In
order to guard against inflation, there’s a corollary measure in their evaluation that focuses on congruence - the
degree to which principals’ ratings are correlated with student achievement results. Thus, through the principal
evaluation system, the district has aligned incentives for principals to focus on teachers’ professional growth.
DALLAS ISD’S PLAN FOR SUPPORTING EXCELLENCE
To build an effective support system for teachers, the district will provide supports across multiple professional learning contexts, leverage technology to support professional learning and collaboration, and provide
differentiated professional development options based on data and tailored to teachers’ needs. Dallas ISD will
focus on enhancing job-embedded professional development while also identifying strategic professional development initiatives that leverage the district’s size and its diversity of school contexts.
Research has shown that teachers reflect on and improve their practice on four primary contexts—selfreflection, one-on-one coaching, learning in teams, and large group professional development sessions. The
Dallas ISD’s plan over the next three years includes a focus on these four contexts as well as other integrated
and strategic supports:
Fostering Self-Facilitated Learning Opportunities
• Create short exemplar videos of Dallas ISD teachers representing each indicator of the new performance
rubric in various content areas
• Customize a user-friendly technology platform that facilitates data analysis and reflection as well as tools
to incorporate insights into planning
• Develop district training modules for effective use of digital video cameras; invest in digital video cameras for teacher use
Enhancing One-on-One Coaching Supports
• Develop extensive calibration modules for school leaders and instructional coaches to ensure a common
vision of excellence
• Create an online resource bank with videos and modules for school leaders and instructional coaches on
developing effective coaching relationships and providing effective feedback
• Develop a more structured mentoring program for novice teachers that leverages campus expertise
Empowering Teacher Teams
• Provide tools and resources for teacher teams (e.g., toolkits, videos of effective team practices)
• Create virtual PLC modules that facilitate collaboration among role-alike teachers within and across campuses
• Develop live and online modules for team leaders
• Support school leaders and coaches in effectively supporting teams (e.g., scheduling logistics, coaching
teams)
28 • Supporting Excellence
Teacher Excellence Initiative
Increasing Whole-Group Training Offerings
• Develop a series of 1-hour model PD modules with facilitator guides aligned to rubric indicators to support campus leaders in facilitating whole-group PD sessions (e.g., when introducing a topic)
• Create modules to support principals in developing a comprehensive framework for job-embedded PD
on campus, including work on deepening content knowledge
Developing Summer School Learning Labs
• Pair proficient and above teachers with progressing teachers in teaching summer school in order to build
instructional capacity
Building Robust District Content Workshops
• Build and provide a set of workshops (e.g., Tuesdays and Saturdays) that are designed to build campus
and content expertise in areas of need
Creating Differentiated PD Academies (year-long)
• Develop a set of academies for select teachers that targets:
m Progressing II teachers in order to support them in becoming proficient teachers
m Proficient I teachers in order to support them in becoming distinguished teachers
m Distinguished teachers in order to continue to grow their teacher leadership capacities
• Academies would include a summer session with ongoing PD during the year in order to support jobembedded professional learning
Supporting Excellence • 29
Teacher Excellence Initiative
Rewarding Excellence
Developing a sustainable strategic compensation system
A reliable and accurate evaluation system provides the opportunity to align teacher compensation with
student learning and growth. In doing so, districts improve their ability to attract, develop, and retain effective
teachers.
RESEARCH
Aligning Evaluation and Compensation
Teacher compensation has long been a subject of both public and academic discussion. As early as the
1950s, education leaders and policymakers were calling for changes in the way that educators are compensated,
aligning pay more closely with the actual impact of a teacher on student learning. However, today across the
country, teacher compensation systems operate in isolation, independent of teacher evaluations or student
achievement. Most teachers are compensated based on their years of experience and the number of degrees that
they hold. While this approach to compensation was an appropriate response to the unfair and inequitable system that it replaced after the turn of the last century, it is disconnected from the primary purpose of educators
(student achievement) and has had unintended consequences on the profession, including wage-compression.
The factors that are considered in teacher compensation have been shown to have no influence on student
achievement. Over the last 20 years, studies have consistently found that teachers with master’s degrees are
no more effective (and in some cases less effective) than teachers who hold only bachelor’s degrees. Additionally, research has shown that most increases in a teacher’s effectiveness occur in the first three years of teaching. Most compensation systems give substantially larger year to year raises for teachers with more experience
(where the least year to year growth in effectiveness is occurring) than are given to less experienced teachers
who are showing the greatest increases in effectiveness. This results in a system that emphasizes endurance over
improvement and effectiveness.
Districts have recognized the need to improve their teacher compensation systems as a means to improving their recruitment and retention of high-performing educators and have begun designing and implementing
new systems. Several systems, including the ASPIRE program in Houston, DATE programs in several districts
in Texas, the POINT system in Nashville, and the IMPACT system in Washington, D.C., provide incentives
(bonuses) for teachers whose students show significant growth and achievement. Studies of these systems have
found mixed results on their effectiveness. While there seems to be some improvement in the recruitment
and retention of teachers linked to the systems, there has not been a measurable impact on increasing student
achievement. Another problem with these incentive systems is that because they are in addition to a teacher’s
regular salary, they pose a significant cost to the district. These systems require additional sources of revenue
(special tax, government grant, private donations) which are unavailable and/or unsustainable over time.
Denver Public Schools has taken an even bigger step in transforming the way it compensates teachers.
DPS’s ProComp system includes a number of different incentives that compensate staff members for work and
performance in a number of areas, including student achievement on state tests, attainment of personal goals,
and completion of personal areas of study related to instructional practice. A study on the first four years of
implementation of ProComp showed mixed results. It was found that the new system was motivating to staff
members, but there was limited, if any, impact, on student achievement, student growth, and staff motivation,
30 • Rewarding Excellence
Teacher Excellence Initiative
retention, and recruitment. However, like other incentive programs, ProComp was implemented only after voters approved a tax increase to fund the system.
Based on reviews of historical and current compensation systems, as well as efforts to improve compensation systems, several recommendations have been made. The Texas Teaching Commission recommends that
with the exception of cost of living adjustments, all raises should be tied to a teacher’s effectiveness.TNTP, in
their report on the retention of high-quality educators, recommends that phasing out “quality-blind pay structures in favor of more flexible compensation systems that offer greater earnings potential for high-performing
teachers early in their careers.”
Parents’ Views on Teacher Compensation
Parents showed similar attitudes toward factors that should be considered when determining a teachers
pay. Half of respondents said they would base teacher pay on a mix of tests and classroom observations; 28
percent would base teacher pay only on classroom observations while 15 percent would base teacher pay solely
on standardized test results.
WHY A STRATEGIC COMPENSATION SYSTEM?
One could have a rigorous teacher evaluation system without attaching compensation to the results of the
evaluation. However, it is doubtful that any organization could maximize the effectiveness of its employees if
the compensation system is disconnected from what the organization values most. In order for any system to
maximize its effectiveness, the major parts of the system must be aligned. In the case of school systems, how
employees are compensated is one such area that should be aligned with the rest of the district’s human capital
management processes.
The traditional teacher salary schedule, used almost exclusively in most states, aggravates the problems with
evaluation. Over time, our profession settled on an advancement and reward system based not on rigorous assessments of performance, but on two simple measures: years of service and hours of college coursework. While
these two factors are objective and easy to measure, they are not the best measures of teacher effectiveness.
In a system in which teachers are rewarded based on years of service, advancement with regard to compensation is automatic and made with little regard to teacher performance and student outcomes. In such a system,
teacher evaluations have very little meaning apart from removing the one teacher out of a hundred who is the
poorest performer.51 The teacher salary schedule at its core is not designed to promote teacher competency or
to support student academic proficiency, but to provide for automatic salary increases and to reward longevity
in the system.
A well-designed strategic compensation system would clearly outline for the employees what the organization values and incentivize behaviors that would help the organization accomplish its primary goals. Inextricably
linked to the evaluation system, an effective compensation system would support the evaluation system’s focus
on effective teacher performance. It would also tie compensation to student achievement results. If our primary
job is to prepare college- and career-ready students, then a key measure of success has to be student achievement.
An effective system would place a premium on results and reward teachers accordingly. Additionally, strategic
compensation would:
51 Daniel Weisberg, Susan Sexton, Jennifer Mulhern, David Keeling, The Widget Effect: Our National Failure to Acknowledge and Act on
Differences in Teacher Effectiveness (Brooklyn, N.Y.: The New Teacher Project, 2009).
Rewarding Excellence • 31
Teacher Excellence Initiative
• Support the recruitment and retention of highly motivated and effective teachers
• Differentiate salaries to reward teachers who perform well and raise student achievement results
• Enable the organization to shift compensation from factors that have not helped to raise student achievement or the quality of instruction to those that do
• Reward professionalism and leadership
DALLAS ISD’S STRATEGIC COMPENSATION PLAN
Dallas ISD also has an opportunity to significantly increase teacher salaries overall and especially for effective teachers. Under a strategic compensation plan, the district would eliminate the traditional teacher salary
schedule for classroom teachers. The traditional salary schedule would be replaced with nine effectiveness levels.
DISTRICT REVIEW
PRINCIPAL REVIEW
Unsat
$45K
Progressing
Proficient
Exemplary
Master
I
II
I
II
III
I
II
$49K
$51K
$54K
$59K
$65K
$74K
$82K
$90K
Novice ($47K)
The salaries under the proposed new system are significantly higher than career-path-equivalent ones
in other local districts. Moreover, the main benefit of the new plan with regard to compensation is the earning potential over several years. For example, currently it takes a new teacher (on the bachelor’s degree salary
schedule) 10 years to earn a salary of $51,307. Under the new evaluation and compensation system, a new
teacher can begin earning that amount after only two years. Additionally, a teacher under the new evaluation
system would earn considerably more over their career than a teacher under the current evaluation system and
salary schedule.
The chart on the following page illustrates the difference in earning potential between the current system
and the proposed compensation plan. The columns under the current salary schedule heading show the annual
salary and total earnings for a teacher who works in the district for 15 years.52 The salaries used in this example
are from the 2013-2014 salary schedule for a teacher with a master’s degree. The columns on the right show one
possible and probable progression of an average teacher under the proposed new system.
52 This example does not take into account any possible increases to the salary schedule or wage freezes. It also assumes no adjustment to
the compensation associated with the proposed effectiveness levels.
32 • Rewarding Excellence
Teacher Excellence Initiative
CYS53
CURRENT SALARY SCHEDULE
POTENTIAL STRATEGIC COMPENSATION
Salary
Effectiveness Level
Salary
0
47,022
Novice
47,000
1
47,022
Progressing I
49,000
2
47,022
Progressing II
51,000
3
47,277
Progressing II
51,000
4
47,992
Proficient I
54,000
5
48,859
Proficient I
54,000
6
48,859
Proficient I
54,000
7
49,726
Proficient I
54,000
8
50,593
Proficient II
59,000
9
51,460
Proficient II
59,000
10
52,327
Proficient II
59,000
11
53,194
Proficient II
59,000
12
54,061
Proficient II
59,000
13
54,061
Proficient III
65,000
14
56,265
Proficient III
65,000
$755,740
$839,000
Under the current salary schedule, a teacher would earn approximately $755,740 over 15 years. With the
new, proposed compensation plan, the average teacher would earn approximately $839,000 over 15 years. This
amounts to a difference of $83,260, or approximately $5,550 each year. More effective teachers would earn
much more; less effective teachers would earn less.
With strategic compensation, the salary is tied to teacher performance, student achievement results and
student survey results. Teachers will no longer be paid for years of experience or college degrees or credits.54
And while there may be some additional stipends for certain hard-to-fill areas (which still needs to be determined) and certain other additional duties, teachers, generally, will receive very little other compensation.55
The basic concept of the proposed Dallas ISD system is to pay an effective teacher a significantly higher
salary (than that of peers in other districts) and set high expectations for professional behavior and practice. In
a professional organization, leaders and team members mentor the new person in order to improve the organization’s chances of meeting its goals. In a professional organization, people take the initiative to lead and move
the organization forward. This notion of professionalism will add to a positive culture-shift in Dallas ISD.
53 Creditable Years of Service
54 Graduate degrees and/or continuing education credits may be considered as evidence of life-long learning, which are part of the criteria
for becoming a distinguished teacher (Proficient II or higher-level teacher)
55 Stipends for department chairs, team leaders, and mentors will continue through 2015-16 and will be phased-out in subsequent years.
Rewarding Excellence • 33
Teacher Excellence Initiative
ADJUSTMENT FOR INFLATION OR COST-OF-LIVING
The compensation tied to the effectiveness levels is not adjusted every year to account for inflation. However, the compensation scale will be reviewed at least once every three years by the Human Capital Management
compensation team to determine if the scale is competitive and to make a recommendation to adjust it if necessary. The next regular review and possible adjustment of the salary levels will be in the 2016-2017 school year.
SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENTIATING SALARIES
With an effective evaluation system, not all teachers are going to be equally effective. Evaluations will be
differentiated as will compensation. Indeed, a strategic compensation system cannot be sustainable if the plan is
designed simply to provide teachers with more money.
Teachers in the education profession are used to getting the same raises as everyone else in the school. It
takes a shift in culture to move to a system in which, in a given year, some teachers will receive a significant
raise and others will receive no additional money.
RECEIVING A SIGNIFICANT RAISE WHEN PROMOTED, BUT NOT BEING PROMOTED EVERY YEAR
While this is common in other professions, not getting a raise or a step every year (except in particularly
bad economic times) is a foreign concept to most teachers. Through the TEI, the district has decided to truly
differentiate salaries and to design a system that rewards people handsomely (relative to their peers in education), but not every year. Under the TEI plan, in any given year, the district can give a significant increase (up
to $8,000) to a teacher who advances one effectiveness level because teachers are not getting an annual increase
and, in a given year, the majority of teachers will not be advanced to the next level.
The plan is designed for teachers to move almost yearly until they reach the Proficient I level and then to
be much harder to advance yearly through the other levels. Under the TEI plan, and not counting the novice
teachers (who are automatically moved to the next level if they are asked to return to the district), approximately 20 percent of the staff are expected to meet the criteria to move to the next effectiveness level annually.
The Dallas TEI plan was designed with these three concepts in mind. As long as the plan stays rigorous,
with no more than 20 to 25 percent of teachers promoted each year, the plan will be sustainable. Currently,
prior to the implementation of the pay-for-performance plan, the district spends approximately 48 percent of
the general fund on classroom teacher salaries. The plan is designed to use approximately the same percentage
of the general fund. The stability of the percentage of the general fund being used for classroom teacher salaries
will be an indication of the sustainability of the plan.
Still, over time, the district plans for the teaching staff ’s ability to get higher achievement results to improve
significantly. This will mean that more teachers will attain the higher levels of effectiveness, and the district will
be paying out more in salaries. Of course, paying out more in salaries can only happen when student achievement results significantly improve—a nice tradeoff to have to face. With moderate academic progress, using
conservative predictions for the various funding variables that might impact strategic compensation, Dallas
ISD estimates that it will be able to sustain the strategic compensation plan for at least the next six years (until
the 2020-2021 school year) without a significant increase in revenue.
Beyond the 2020-2021 school year, and conservatively assuming the district will receive very little extra
revenue from the state, the district could take steps to sustain strategic compensation well into the future. For
example, it could increase the proportion of the maintenance and operation budget being used for teacher
34 • Rewarding Excellence
Teacher Excellence Initiative
salaries (currently at about 48 percent). It could also pass a tax ratification election to support higher teacher
salaries. Keep in mind that significantly raising teacher salaries in any system would require the district to take
similar steps.
KEY IMPLEMENTATION PARAMETERS
The following implementation parameters are critical to the success and sustainability of the plan during
the transition.
Based on SY14-15 ratings, all classroom teachers would be assigned an overall effectiveness level. The new
salary would start in SY15-16.
All classroom teachers would receive salaries based on the new compensation system beginning in the fall
of 2015.
Teacher salaries will not go below 2014-2015 level.
Changing compensation systems requires careful consideration of the employees’ context. For this reason,
even though some teachers initial placement on the new system would suggest a lower salary based on their
overall levels of effectiveness, the District will allow these teachers to maintain their 2014-15 salary for as long
as they are continuously employed by Dallas ISD as a teacher.
For first two years of TEI implementation, maximum salary increase in a single year will be capped at $5,000
for an individual teacher.
In order to ensure sustainability of the system during the transition from one compensation system to
another, salary increases will be capped at $5,000 for teachers.
Proficient I teachers have a minimum of three years of teaching experience.
While this parameter is inevitably the case by the structure of the plan for novice teachers that start on the
new plan and progress through successive effectiveness levels, it requires mentioning during a transition to the
new plan since current teachers will not have had to move through Novice, Progressing I, and Progressing II
levels in order to reach Proficient I status.
Rewarding Excellence • 35
Teacher Excellence Initiative
Budget Implications and
Sustaining TEI
One often hears that implementing a rigorous teacher evaluation system or a strategic compensation plan
is too costly. While it certainly can be costly, the costs depend on how the plan is developed and implemented.
For detailed information on the budget implications and information related to sustaining TEI, see Appendix F.
SUSTAINING TEI
One of the largest concerns for any strategic compensation plan is its sustainability. In order to successfully
pay teachers for performance and achievement while keeping the Dallas ISD financially secure, the district will
take a fundamentally different approach to teacher compensation. The changed paradigm involves two central
financial concepts: (1) the plan is designed to consume approximately the same amount of the budget (M&O)
as the current, traditional salary schedule, and (2) the plan is based on a “target distribution” of effectiveness
levels. Adherence to these two concepts gives TEI its viability.
TEI is not an incentive plan in which the District would have to fund over and above the amount it pays in
salaries. TEI takes approximately the same amount of money spent in classroom teacher salaries and distributes
it based on effectiveness rather than years of experience and college credits.
Currently Dallas ISD spends $539,345,000 or 46.6 percent of its M&O budget on classroom teacher salaries. Essentially, the district takes $539,345,000 and divides up that amount among approximately 10,052 teachers. The district uses years of service and college credits earned to determine who should be paid more.
But dividing up the total amount of money by years of service and college credit is only one way to differentiate the individual payments. What if the district took the same amount of money ($539,345,000) and
divided it up among the same 10,052 teachers. However, this time imagine the District using teacher effectiveness to determine who should be paid more. Instead of the graph on the left, the new plan is based on the graph
on the right.
Teacher Salaries, 2014–2015
Teacher Compensation
70000
80000
60000
70000
60000
Salary
Salaries
50000
40000
30000
50000
40000
30000
$539,500,000
20000
20000
10000
10000
0
0
5
10
15
20
25
Years of Service
30
36 • Budget Implications and Sustaining TEI
35
40
0
Unsat
Prog I
Prog II
Prof I
Prof II
Effectiveness
Prof III Exemp +
Teacher Excellence Initiative
Essentially, TEI uses the same amount of money as the district would spend under the traditional salary
schedule. Because it is not an incentive pay plan, it does not start with the traditional salary schedule and then
add more dollars to the budget. The key to having a sustainable strategic compensation plan is to take the same
amount of money used to pay for classroom teacher salaries, but to use performance and achievement criteria
to differentiate salaries.
More precisely, the TEI plan first identifies the percentage of the M&O that the district uses to pay for
classroom teacher salaries. It then allows for some growth of that percentage over the next several years (for example, in Dallas ISD’s case the total amount for classroom teacher salaries could reach 51 percent of the M&O
budget in order for the district to continue to maintain a strong financial position and a healthy fund balance).
In order to be sustainable, the total amount for classroom teacher salaries should remain below the ceiling
described by the district (in the example provided, 47 percent).
TARGET DISTRIBUTION
The other essential concept needed for a sustainable strategic compensation plan is a target distribution.
First, some background.
The amount of money the district spends annually on classroom teacher salaries depends on the distribution of teachers with regard to years of service and college degrees. For example, the less experienced the staff,
the less the district spends on salaries overall. Because on average, teachers leave before their fifth year in the
profession and mobility hovers between 15 and 20 percent in an average year, the district has traditionally been
able to use a lower percentage of the M&O budget for classroom teacher salaries than it would with a more
experienced and more stable staff. [The instructional quality has probably suffered as a result of these savings.]
3000
The graph to the left shows the current distribution of teachers with regard to salaries. It reflects the
low experience levels and low salaries for a large part
of the staff.
2,588
No. of Teachers
2500
2000
1500
1,573
1,583 1,536
Current Distribution
This type of compensation arrangement ensures
1000
829
725
720
that teachers with little experience receive the lowest
salaries regardless of their effectiveness or their abil500
125
ity to get student achievement results or perform well
0
instructionally. While a compensation plan based
< 47 47-49 49-51 51-54 54-59 59-65 65-74 > 74
Salary Range
on a teacher’s years of experience and college degree,
instead of being based on teacher effectiveness, may
not seem fair to many, it does have the advantage of being objective, meaning that there is very little subjectivity to determining years of experience and college degree. There are two other huge advantages to the traditional
salary schedule: the salary expenditures from year to year are highly predictable and the total amount can be
easily controlled (with salary freezes or step increases). Since the salaries are not tied to evaluations, the inflation of evaluations makes virtually no difference with regard to total expenditures. Thus, across the country and
in Dallas ISD, 98 percent of all teachers have satisfactory or higher evaluations.
There is a different way. By using a target distribution, the district’s salary expenditures would be fairly
predictable and the total amount of the M&O can still be controlled (however, not as easily as with a salary
schedule). The target distribution would approximate a normal distribution, allowing for significantly more
teachers to receive higher salaries earlier in their careers—but only if they demonstrate effectiveness.
Budget Implications and Sustaining TEI • 37
Teacher Excellence Initiative
In effect, the district would create a distribution of teacher salaries based on overall effectiveness. Currently,
the district places teachers into the skewed and uneven distribution portrayed on the chart on page 37. Under the
new compensation plan, teachers would be placed into a target distribution.
The question then becomes: what should the target distribution be and what distribution is sustainable?
The graph below shows one example of a fairly normal distribution.
45
Percentage of Teachers
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
Normal Distribution
In this example, approximately 30 percent of
the teachers would be placed in Proficient I category.
Nineteen percent would be Progressing II and 19 percent would be Proficient II. The district could tie each
level of effectiveness with a salary such that the combined salaries equaled the total amount of the budget
currently set aside for classroom teacher salaries.
Indeed, for any distribution, the district simply
has to assign to each level of effectiveness a salary
Unsat Prog I Prog II Prof I
Prof II Prof III Exemp
amount that, when added together, equals the total
Effectiveness
budgeted amount. Thus there are hundreds of reasonable combinations of distributions and salary amounts associated with each level of effectiveness. The ultimate
choice has more to do with philosophy than finances.
5
0
What distribution makes the most sense? What sort of system would we design if we were starting from
scratch? What makes sense is a compensation system that is extremely competitive and that rewards effectiveness rather than years of service. It also makes sense to have a salary distribution that approaches a normal distribution, in which the majority of teachers are Proficient or just below or above Proficient and in which there
are fewer teachers at either extreme. It also makes sense to have a distribution that allows the district to grow
into normal or average (at present the district is significantly below the state average on most state exams).
Given the above considerations, the following target distribution makes sense for Dallas ISD at this time.
Notice that it approximates a normal distribution, but is skewed positively in order to allow the staff to progress
and in order to maintain our financial stability well into the future.
Target Distribution
Using this distribution and the salaries tied to the effectiveness levels, the total amount of money the
district would pay out in classroom salaries for the first year of compensation under the TEI plan (2015-2016)
would be approximately $553,000,000. This amount is less than the $568,000,000 the district would expect to
pay under the traditional salary schedule in 2015-2016. The district can lower (or increase) the total amount
by changing the compensation associated with each effectiveness rating. The problem with inflation is mostly
mitigated by the use of the target distribution.
COSTS
While the TEI plan is designed to be sustainable over the long term, there are several important start-up
and ongoing projected costs.
38 • Budget Implications and Sustaining TEI
Teacher Excellence Initiative
1. Data management system. The system to manage all of the data for students and teachers has to be comprehensive and designed to support the Dallas TEI plan. A comprehensive data management system will cost
the District approximately $1,000,000 each year.
2. Assessment development, scoring, and data analysis. This component of TEI will require $1.86 million and
an addition of 13 staff. Specifically:
a. The creation of over 250 assessments over the course of three years will require an initial investment. The
district estimates the costs for the creation and scoring of assessments to be approximately $1.5 million
annually. This amount includes consultation services in order to outsource the creation of some of the
more specialized assessments and the salaries of additional nine staff members, who will join the assessment department.
b. A tremendous amount of data will be processed and must have many quality control processes in place.
Also an explanation of the results will need to be communicated. The district estimates the cost for additional four staff members to be approximately $360,000.
3. Student surveys. Student surveys account for 15% of the teacher’s overall effectiveness. The survey will be
conducted by an independent company that has experience in this area. The district estimates the cost of
administering research-based, student surveys to be approximately $1,250,000 each year.
4. TEI implementation team and Distinguished Teacher Reviews. Carrying out the TEI plan will entail considerable data collection and management, cross-department coordination, integration of various processes,
internal and external communications, and the implementation of new practices and paradigms. During the
first year of the TEI plan, the District will have to conduct close to 2500 distinguished reviews. This number
will decrease considerably in the second year of the plan and thereafter. The Human Capital Management
department will work with School Leadership to coordinate and conduct the reviews. The district estimates
an additional ten positions would be needed to effectively guide the implementation of the plan and manage
the distinguished reviews. The cost of this team will be approximately $800,000.
5. Initial, and on-going training for appraisers and teachers. Every appraiser will need to be trained and
pass a calibration assessment on the performance rubric prior to appraising teachers in the new system. In
addition, all teachers will need a formal orientation to the system, how it works, and what their rights and
responsibilities are under the new system. Staff will either need to develop or outsource the development of
the training and provide for delivery to all principals, assistant principals, academic facilitators, and teachers. Delivery will be both in person and web-based and there will not be a stipend for personnel to attend
the training. Estimated cost for development and delivery of initial training is approximately $250,000.
6. Teacher professional development. In order to implement the vision of supporting excellence, the District
will need to invest in designing and implementing each of the components outlined earlier. The combined
personnel and contracted costs will be approximately $3,000,000.
Budget Implications and Sustaining TEI • 39
Teacher Excellence Initiative
Costs
2014-15
2015-16
2016-17
Data management system
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
Assessment development, scoring, and data analysis
$1,860,000
$1,860,000
$1,860,000
Student surveys
$1,250,000
$1,250,000
$1,250,000
TEI implementation team & Distinguished reviews
$ 800,000
$ 725,000
$ 650,000
Training for appraisers and teachers
$ 250,000
$ 50,000
$ 50,000
$3,000,000
$3,000,000
$3,000,000
$8,160,000
$7,885,000
$7,810,000
Professional Development
Total
Overall, the projected costs average about $800 per teacher per year, the largest portion dedicated to
providing professional development supports for teachers. As a result, the District believes TEI to be a highleverage and efficient investment in our goals for improving the quality of teachers and, ultimately, student
achievement and growth.
40 • Budget Implications and Sustaining TEI
Little to no evidence of a lesson
objective.
Indicator 1:
Establishes
clear and
rigorous lesson
objective(s)
But, the teacher does not effectively
convey the objective so half of the
students cannot articulate:
• Why it is important or
• What mastery looks like
Focuses students at the beginning
and throughout the lesson, so most
of the students can articulate:
• What they are learning
Posts lesson objectives, but some are
not aligned to district curriculum
maps & assessments or may not be
2
outcomes-based .
PROGRESSING Without exception, effectively
6
establishes clear, rigorous , and
7
outcomes-based objectives aligned to
district curriculum maps &
assessments. Focuses students at the beginning and
throughout the lesson so that all or
nearly all students can clearly explain:
• What they are learning beyond
simply repeating back the
stated or posted objective
• Why it is important beyond
simply repeating the teacher’s
explanation
• What mastery looks like
• How to connect it to prior
knowledge and their own lives
• How the objective fits into the
8
broader unit and course goals
Focuses students at the beginning
and throughout the lesson, by
clearly stating and explaining to
students:
• What they are learning
• Why it is important
4
• What mastery looks like
• How to connect it to prior
knowledge and their own
5
lives
Most students can demonstrate
through their actions or comments
that they understand each of the
above.
EXEMPLARY Consistently and effectively
establishes clear and rigorous, and
3
outcomes-based lesson objectives,
aligned to district curriculum maps
& assessments.
PROFICIENT 2
Revised: 9/27/2013
1
This may be indicated by students retelling the objective nearly verbatim or by copying.
Objectives at the progressing level often appear as a description of the activities for the lesson (e.g. students will complete a graphic organizer) rather than a description of the learning that is expected as a
result of the activities (e.g. students will be able to articulate the differences and similarities between__________ and ___________using a graphic organizer).
3
Objectives at the proficient level describe what students will be able to know and do on their path towards standards mastery. Objectives are not a description of the lesson activities.
4
Examples of this might include using a referencing a scale or rubric, sharing exemplars of high quality work when engaging students in the lesson, modeling effective strategies/thinking required to master
the objective, asking students to state what they think mastery would look like and clarifying expectations through Q & A, and teaching students to use peer review or backward checking.
5
The teacher actively and effectively engages students in the process of connecting the lesson to their prior knowledge. For example, the teacher might ask students to connect concepts to their own
experiences or to what they have learned in other courses.
6
Rigor is defined by level of cognition required by learning goal(s). This can be quantified using Bloom’s Taxonomy.
7
In all classes, objectives should be written in a student-friendly manner, using developmentally appropriate language. In early childhood classes, posting a written objective is not necessary. In some
lessons (for example, center time in an early childhood or elementary class), different groups of students might be working toward a variety of different objectives. In these cases, it is not always necessary
to have distinct objectives posted for each center or different activity. However, observers should assess whether each center or activity is designed intentionally to move students toward mastery of an
objective. Similarly, in lessons like these, different groups of students might be working on a variety of activities that do not clearly build on each other or on what happened previously in the lesson. In
these cases, observers should assess the extent to which these activities are themselves well-organized.
8
For example, this might be shown through an effective teacher explanation of how the lesson connects to the unit’s essential questions or structure, or reflected in students demonstrating through their
comments that they understand how the lesson fits into the broader goals of the unit.
1
Less than half of the students
can articulate:
1
• What they are learning
• Why it is important, or
• What mastery looks like
UNSATISFACTORY INDICATOR Domain 1: Instructional Practice Performance Rubric - DRAFT Teacher Excellence Initiative
Appendix A
DRAFT PERFORMANCE RUBRIC
Appendix A • 41
42 • Appendix A
Teacher does not use the data to
10
guide instructional decisions .
Less than half of the students
demonstrate mastery.
DOL can be completed
independently by few students.
If a DOL is evident, it is not
aligned with the posted objective
or DOL does not rigorously
measure mastery.
Teacher sometimes uses the data to
guide instructional decisions.
Half of the students demonstrate
proficiency on the DOL.
DOL can be completed
independently by half of the
students.
Does not quickly assess student
growth or evidence of mastery (over
10 minutes).
Sometimes develops a DOL to
measure student mastery of the
posted objective.
PROGRESSING Without exception, effectively
develops a clear, understandable, and
rigorous DOL to measure student
mastery or growth in knowledge and
skill relative to standards of the posted
objective.
DOL can quickly identify mastery in 510 minutes.
DOL can be completed independently
by all or nearly all students.
All or nearly all students demonstrate
a high level of mastery.
Teacher consistently and effectively
uses data to guide instructional
decisions.
DOL can quickly identify mastery
in 5-10 minutes.
DOL can be completed
independently by most students.
Most students demonstrate a high
level of mastery on the DOL.
Teacher consistently uses data to
guide instructional decisions.
EXEMPLARY Consistently and effectively
develops a clear, understandable,
and rigorous DOL to measure
student mastery or growth in
knowledge and skill relative to
standards of the posted objective.
PROFICIENT Performance Rubric - DRAFT
Revised: 9/27/2013
2
9
Examples might include describing how lesson objectives connect to overall unit (e.g. how the daily objectives will help students accomplish overall unit goals) at the beginning of the lesson, asking
students to describe the relevant objective(s) they are working on during the lesson and how their task/strategy will help them accomplish the objectives, asking students to evaluate whether or not they met
each objective at the end of the lesson, asking students what questions they still have related to each objective during or at the end of the lesson.
10
Instructional decisions may include using student performance data on the DOL as a bell-ringer, referencing DOL to re-teach or address instructional misinformation, using DOL to form interventions or
instructional groups, or further advance learning or increase the pace of learning if students shown mastery.
Little to no evidence of a
9
DOL .
Indicator 2:
Measures
student mastery
through a
demonstration of
learning (DOL)
OR
UNSATISFACTORY INDICATOR Domain 1: Instructional Practice
Teacher Excellence Initiative
Instructions and procedures for
participating in activities are clear
to most students.
Most students demonstrate that
they understand the content at an
13
appropriate level of rigor .
Uses multiple strategies and
academic language to emphasize
key concepts with little to no
irrelevant information.
Consistently presents the content
and purpose:
• Correctly in a logical,
coherent fashion
• To support the learning
of the posted objective(s)
PROFICIENT Instructions and procedures for
participating in activities are clear to all
or nearly all students.
All or nearly all students demonstrate
that they understand the content, and
most understand it at a high level of
16
rigor .
15
Uses multiple, effective strategies
and academic language to emphasize
key concepts with no irrelevant
information.
Consistently and effectively presents
the content and purpose:
• Correctly in a logical,
coherent fashion
• To support the learning of the
posted objective(s)
• Building on content
14
previously mastered
EXEMPLARY Performance Rubric - DRAFT
13
12
Revised: 9/27/2013
3
Examples might include students do worksheets or read textbooks.
If the teacher presents information with any mistake that would leave students with a significant misunderstanding at the end of the lesson, the teacher should be scored unsatisfactory for this indicator. Students ask relatively few clarifying questions because they understand the explanations. However, they may ask a number of extension questions because they are engaged in the content and eager to
learn more about it.
14
Teacher engages students in activities that help them link what they already know to the new content about to be addressed and facilitates these linkages. Examples might include using a preview question
before reading, asking or reminding students what they already know about the topic, provide an advanced organizer (e.g. outline or graphic organizer), having students brainstorm, using motivational
hook/launching activity (e.g. anecdote, short selection from video), using word splash activity to connect vocabulary to upcoming content.
15
Strategies to emphasize key concepts may include using verbal or nonverbal techniques such as changing the tone of voice, body position, level of excitement, pacing, saying “this is important” or “write
this down”, and effectively using PowerPoint and other technology.
16
When appropriate, the teacher explains concepts in a way that actively involves students in the learning process, such as by facilitating opportunities for students to explain concepts to each other.
Students ask higher-order questions and make connections independently, demonstrating that they understand the content at a higher level.
11
Instructions and procedures for
participating in activities are clear
to less than half of the students.
Instructions and procedures for
participating in activities are clear
to half of the students.
Most of the students may
demonstrate that they understand
the content, but at a low level of
rigor.
Uses limited verbal and nonverbal
techniques to convey concepts with
some irrelevant information or with
some non-academic language.
Uses limited verbal and nonverbal
techniques to convey concepts
with some irrelevant or
12
inaccurate information and with
non-academic language.
Fewer than half of the students
demonstrate that they understand
the content, and/or most
understand it at a low level of
rigor.
Presents content and purpose
generally in a coherent fashion, but:
• Some parts are unclear or
developmentally
inappropriate
• May not effectively
support the learning of the
posted objective(s)
Presents content and purpose:
• In a confusing way,
using unclear or
incoherent language
• With little to no
evidence of instruction
in support of the posted
11
objective(s)
Indicator 3:
Clearly presents
instructional
content PROGRESSING UNSATISFACTORY INDICATOR Domain 1: Instructional Practice
Teacher Excellence Initiative
Appendix A • 43
44 • Appendix A
Adjustments that are made do not
meet student needs, and misses
many opportunities to make
adjustments. Makes some necessary adjustments
using information gathered from
checks, but misses some
opportunities for needed
adjustments to reach other students.
Gets an accurate reading of the
class’s understanding from most
checks.
Sometimes checks for academic
understanding, but misses several
key moments and/or mostly checks
for understanding of directions.
PROGRESSING
Consistently and effectively makes
adjustments using information
gathered from checks to meet
student needs, without taking away
from the flow of the lesson or
losing engagement.
Effectively makes adjustments
using information gathered from
checks, but may miss a few
opportunities for needed
adjustments to reach other students. 19
Gets an accurate reading of the
class’s understanding from every
21
check .
Gets an accurate reading of the
class’s understanding from almost
every check.
18
Checks for academic understanding
are seamlessly embedded in the
20
lesson to determine pace and
whether or not key steps or concepts
need to be discussed further before
moving on.
EXEMPLARY
Consistently checks for academic
understanding at almost all key
moments to determine pace of the
lesson and whether or not key steps
or concepts need to be discussed
further before moving on.
PROFICIENT
Performance Rubric - DRAFT
18
Revised: 9/27/2013
4
For example, teacher might neglect some students or ask very general questions that do not effectively assess student academic understanding.
In order to be credited as an effective check for understanding, the technique must be appropriate to the objective and yield information that can inform instruction and thus succeed in getting an accurate
reading of the class’s understanding. 19
Examples include, but are not limited to: scaffolding, adjusting time allotments, using new examples of information, explaining concepts in a different way, regrouping students, using “think-alouds”,
providing models or manipulatives, connecting to prior knowledge, and providing auditory or visual clues.
20
Examples include, but are not limited to: asking clarifying questions, asking students to rephrase material, having students respond on white boards, using “exit slips”, using “think-pair-share”, having
students vote on answer choices, response cards, response chaining, thumbs-up-thumbs-down, do-now’s, scanning progress of students working independently, drawing upon peer
conversations/explanations, conferencing with individual students, using role-playing, using constructed responses, observing student work in a structured manner. For some lessons, checking for
understanding of the class may not be an appropriate standard. For example, if students are spending the majority of the period working on individual essays and the teacher is conferencing with a few
students, it may not be necessary for the teacher to check the understanding of the entire class. In these cases, the teacher should be judged based on how deeply and effectively s/he checks for the
understanding of the students with whom s/he is working.
21
A teacher does not necessarily have to check with every student in order to gauge the understanding of the class. As long as the teacher calls both on students who raise their hands and on those who do
not, a series of questions posed to the entire class can enable a teacher to get a reading of the class. Or, if the teacher checks the understanding of a number of students, finds that most of them did not
understand some part of the lesson, and immediately re-teaches that part to the entire class, this should count as effectively getting a reading of the class because the teacher gained enough information to be
able to adjust subsequent instruction. 17
Little to no evidence of checks for
academic understanding, missing
nearly all key moments, and/or
only checks for understanding of
directions.
Indicator 4:
Checks for
academic
understanding Does not get an accurate reading of
the class’s understanding from most
checks17.
UNSATISFACTORY INDICATOR
Domain 1: Instructional Practice
Teacher Excellence Initiative
Uses a limited repertoire of
response strategies and instructional
strategies that:
• Engage only half of the
22
students in the content,
but may not be tightly
linked to the lesson
objective(s)
• Sometimes promotes
student mastery of the
objective(s)
Little to no evidence of using
response strategies and instructional
strategies:
• Less than half of the
students are engaged with
the content, but may not
support the lesson
objective(s)
• Seldom promotes student
mastery of the objective(s)
Consistently uses more than one
response strategy and instructional
strategy that:
• Engages most students in
the content to support the
lesson objective(s)
• Promotes student mastery
of the objective(s)
Consistently adapts the content and
process of instruction based on
general performance levels,
interests, learning styles, and
diverse cultures so that most
students can access the content at an
appropriate level of rigor.
PROFICIENT Purposefully and effectively uses
multiple response strategies and
24
instructional strategies that:
• Engage all or nearly all
students in the content to
support the lesson
objective(s),
• Promote student mastery
of the objective(s), and
• Promote positive and
active involvement in the
work.
Consistently and effectively adapts
the content and process of
23
instruction based on specific
performance levels, interests,
learning styles, and diverse cultures
to ensure that most students can
access the content at a high level of
rigor. EXEMPLARY Performance Rubric - DRAFT
23
Revised: 9/27/2013
5
For example, a teacher should not receive credit for providing a way of engaging with content if the teacher shows a visual illustration but most students are not paying attention, or if the teacher asks
students to model parallel and perpendicular lines with their arms but most students do not participate. This does not mean that 25 different lesson plans should be developed for 25 different learners in a class. Rather, individual student data is used to inform decisions such as, but not limited to, grouping
decisions, choices of texts provided for students, and options for solving problems. The difference between Exemplary and Proficient for this indicator is that individualized data is being used in Exemplary
whereas more general, aggregated data is being used in Proficient.
24
An exemplary teacher may give students multiple ways of engaging with content even when all of the ways target the same modality or intelligence. For example, a teacher may show a short video clip,
and then use a graphic organizer. Though both of these target the visual learning modality, they provide students with different ways of engaging with the same content. An exemplary teacher provides
students with multiple ways of engaging with content that include, but are not limited to, targeting different learning modalities (auditory, visual, kinesthetic/tactile) or multiple intelligences (spatial,
linguistic, logical-mathematical, kinesthetic, musical, interpersonal, intrapersonal, naturalistic).
22
Adapts the content and process of
instruction based on assumptions
rather than data so half of the
students can access with the content
at an appropriate level of rigor.
Little to no evidence of
differentiation, providing less than
half of the students with access to
the content at an appropriate level of
rigor.
Indicator 5:
Differentiates to
meet the needs
of all students
PROGRESSING UNSATISFACTORY INDICATOR Domain 1: Instructional Practice
Teacher Excellence Initiative
Appendix A • 45
46 • Appendix A
Uses primarily low-level
questions, which are not used
25
appropriately and/or do not
push students beyond initial
26
thinking or help them to
understand the content at all.
Indicator 6:
Encourages
higher-order
thinking skills
Sometimes provides helpful or
positive suggestions to encourage
students to use appropriate
responses, but misses many
opportunities.
Half of the students are asking
themselves and others appropriate
questions while others ask questions
on recall or comprehension.
Appropriately uses a variety of
questions that help push student
understanding of the content, but not
beyond initial thinking.
PROGRESSING Generally provides helpful and
positive suggestions that
encourage students to use
30
appropriate responses .
Most students are asking
themselves and others appropriate
questions, and synthesizing the
content.
Appropriately , consistently,
28
and equitably uses a variety of
high quality questions that pushes
29
students beyond initial thinking .
27
PROFICIENT Frequently provides helpful and
positive suggestions to encourage
appropriate responses.
All or nearly all students are asking
themselves and others appropriate
questions, and evaluating diverse
perspectives.
Appropriately, consistently, and
equitably uses a variety of high quality
questions that pushes students well
beyond initial thinking, and
consistently provides multiple
opportunities to extend learning.
EXEMPLARY Performance Rubric - DRAFT
Revised: 9/27/2013
6
25
Examples of inappropriate use of questions includes, but is not limited to: questions asked randomly, sporadically, or as an afterthought, asking “gotcha” type questions more for management than
developing knowledge, or singling students out based on lack of participation. 26
Low-level questions include knowledge, recall, and comprehension level questions.
27
Appropriate questions are aligned to level of rigor required by lesson objective and/or scaffold to and beyond lesson objectives.
28
Note that the same students are not always called upon to answer questions.
29
Questioning to promote higher-level understanding should be present in every lesson. The frequency with which a teacher should use questions to develop higher-level understanding will vary depending
on the topic and type of lesson. Higher quality questions often require students to apply a new skill or content in a new context. Examples of types of questions that can develop higher-order thinking skills:
•
Activating higher levels of inquiry on Bloom’s taxonomy (using words such as “analyze,” “classify,” “compare,” “decide,” “evaluate,”, “explain,” or “represent”)
•
Asking students to explain their reasoning,
•
Asking students to explain why they are learning something or to summarize the main idea
•
Asking students to apply a new skill or concept in a different context
•
Asking students higher-level questions in response to students’ correct answers
•
Posing a question that increases the rigor of the lesson content
•
Prompting students to make connections to previous material or prior knowledge
•
Setting up a more challenging task (even if this is not necessarily phrased as questions)
30
Examples of appropriate responses include, but are not limited to, students using complete sentences to fully answer questions at the level of rigor in which they are asked, students asking for clarification
of the questions posed to them and then answering the question, students stating that they do not know the answer and thinking out loud about what they may need to do to discover the answer.
Does not provide helpful or
positive suggestions to
encourage students to use
appropriate responses.
More than half of the students
are not asking themselves and
others appropriate questions.
Questions primarily focus on
recall or comprehension.
UNSATISFACTORY INDICATOR Domain 1: Instructional Practice
Teacher Excellence Initiative
Obtains this knowledge through
passive means, on an as needed
basis.
Unit objectives and lesson plans
indicate the importance of
respecting student’s skills,
language, backgrounds, cultures,
interests, learning styles, and
special needs, and attains this
knowledge for the class as a
whole.
Unit objectives and lesson plans
seamlessly reflect knowledge of each
individual student’s skills, language
proficiency, backgrounds, cultures,
interests, learning styles, and special
needs.
Actively seeks and obtains this
knowledge from a variety of sources,
including parents, students, and
colleagues.
Seeks and obtains this knowledge from a
variety of sources, including parents,
students, and colleagues, on an as
needed basis.
Consistently and effectively uses
content-specific language and tools to
convey critical information at a high
level of rigor.
Unit objectives and lesson plans show
respect for and seeks knowledge of
student’s skills, language proficiency,
backgrounds, cultures, interests, learning
styles, and special needs, and attains this
knowledge for groups of students.
Consistently uses content-specific
language and tools to convey critical
information at an appropriate level of
rigor.
Most of the time, uses contentspecific language and tools to
convey critical information, but
sometimes at a low level of rigor.
Demonstrates extensive content
expertise by effectively and
accurately identifying and explaining
prerequisite knowledge, key concepts,
32
skills , and intra- and interdisciplinary content relationships to
students.
EXEMPLARY If the teacher presents information with any mistake that would leave students with a significant misunderstanding at the end of the lesson, the teacher should be scored unsatisfactory for this indicator. Obtains this knowledge through
passive means and/or only at the
beginning of the year.
Unit objectives and lesson plans
do not appropriately show
respect and understanding for
individual student’s skills,
language, backgrounds, cultures,
interests, learning styles, and
special needs.
Demonstrates solid content expertise by
accurately identifying and explaining
prerequisite knowledge, key concepts,
skills, and intra-disciplinary content
relationships to students.
PROFICIENT Demonstrates familiarity with the
content. Is aware of prerequisite
knowledge, key concepts, and
skills, and can accurately convey
information to students.
PROGRESSING Revised: 9/27/2013
Teacher proactively builds on prerequisite knowledge, concepts, and skills and/or uncovers and addresses causes of student misunderstanding/misconceptions before proceeding. To uncover prerequisite
knowledge, the teacher may begin the lesson with a brief review of content or use specific strategies to review information, including summarizing a problem that must be solved using prerequisite
knowledge, questions requiring a review of previous content, a demonstration, or a brief practice test or exercise.
32
31
Indicator 2:
Demonstrates
knowledge of
students
Demonstrates limited knowledge
of content. Displays little to no
understanding of prerequisite
knowledge, key concepts, and
skills. Sometimes conveys
inaccurate information or fails to
correct errors made by students31.
Indicator 1:
Demonstrates
knowledge of
content,
concepts, and
skills
Limited use of content-specific
language and tools to convey
information, usually at a lowlevel of rigor.
UNSATISFACTORY INDICATOR Domain 2: Planning and Preparation 7
Performance Rubric - DRAFT Teacher Excellence Initiative
Appendix A • 47
48 • Appendix A
35
34
33
Develops more than 1 type of
assessment to measure student
learning.
Develops multiple types of assessments
to measure student learning.
Almost always, formative assessments
are generally aligned to lesson
objectives and scaffold toward
summative assessments.
Almost always, summative assessments
are generally aligned to unit goals and
developed prior to formative
assessments.
Nearly all assessments and
corresponding standard(s) are tightly
aligned in rigor, and the assessment
34
method is at an appropriate level of
rigor.
Nearly all assessments are planned or
selected prior to designing instructional
activities. PROFICIENT Revised: 9/27/2013
Rigor is defined by level of cognition required by learning goal(s). This can be quantified using Bloom’s Taxonomy.
Assessment methods include, among others, selected response, short answer, extended response, performance assessment, and personal communication.
Assessments include common assessments created by teacher teams as well as other assessments used by individual teachers in their classrooms.
Often relies on the same
assessment type to measure
student learning.
Summative assessments are
somewhat aligned to unit goals
and developed prior to formative
assessments.
Little to no evidence that
summative assessments are
aligned to unit goals. They are
sometimes not developed before
formative assessments.
Little to no evidence that
formative assessments are
aligned to lesson objectives. It is
generally unclear how they
align to summative assessments.
Most assessments and
corresponding standard(s) are
aligned in rigor, and/or the
assessment method is sometimes at
a low level of rigor.
Minimal evidence of alignment
of rigor between assessments
and corresponding standard(s),
and/or the assessment method is
33
often at a low level of rigor .
Formative assessments are
somewhat aligned to lesson
objectives and to summative
assessments.
Most assessments are planned or
selected prior to designing
instructional activities.
Some assessments are planned
or selected prior to designing
instructional activities.
Indicator 3:
Plans or selects
aligned
formative and
summative
assessments
PROGRESSING UNSATISFACTORY INDICATOR Domain 2: Planning and Preparation
Develops multiple types of assessments
to measure student learning. Students
actively participate in the development
of assessments when appropriate.
Without exception, formative
assessments are tightly aligned to lesson
objectives and clearly scaffold toward
summative assessments.
Without exception, summative
assessments are tightly aligned to unit
goals and designed prior to formative
assessments.
All assessments and the corresponding
standard(s) are tightly aligned in rigor,
and the assessment method demonstrates
a high level of rigor.
All assessments are planned or
selected prior to designing instructional
activities.
35
EXEMPLARY Performance Rubric - DRAFT
8
Teacher Excellence Initiative
Can describe and provide
evidence for half of the students
relative to interim and annual
goals. Less than half of the
students know their progress
toward mastery. Can describe and provide evidence
for most of the students relative to
interim and annual goals. Half of the students know their
progress toward mastery. Passively analyzes and reflects on
quantitative and qualitative data as
a member of a team.
Can describe and provide evidence for
where most students are relative to
interim and annual goals. Most students know their progress
toward mastery. Can describe and provide evidence for
where all or nearly all students are
relative to interim and annual goals. All
or nearly all students know their progress
toward mastery.
Revised: 9/27/2013
9
36
“Data” is about information, which can be gleaned from many sources. Teachers and teacher teams utilize all types of assessments – such as common quizzes/tests, essays, lab reports, and student
projects – that can inform changes in practice. Examples of activities include: (1) teacher analyzes timely and relevant student performance data and concretely identifies and tracks continuing student
misconceptions or gaps in knowledge and skills relevant to identified learning goals, (2) teacher uses analysis of student data to identify student habits and actions that contribute to student performance
(e.g. lack of engagement during lesson, performs with scaffolding but not independently, misconduct, incomplete homework), (3) teacher reflects on practice to identify teacher actions that contributed to
student performance (e.g. class work not at same level of rigor as assessment, limited opportunities for structured academic talk, ineffective procedures for group work, and classroom management), and (4)
teacher collaborates with colleagues in teacher teams in order to increase student achievement and teacher effectiveness in doing the above. These activities can occur in a variety of team formats/names,
including teacher teams, data teams, PLCs, and lesson study. 37
For example, gradebooks, spreadsheets, charts
Leads and models for others how to
effectively analyze and reflect on
quantitative and qualitative data as part of
a team and independently.
Actively analyzes and reflects on
quantitative and qualitative data as a
member of a team and independently.
As required, participates in
team analysis and reflection on
data, but may not contribute.
Frequently and routinely, records
student progress gathered from Indicator
2 and 3, using a system that allows for
meaningful and useful analyses of
student progress towards mastery.
At least monthly, records student
progress gathered from Indicator 2 and
3, using a system37 that allows for
useful analyses of student progress
towards proficiency.
At least quarterly, records student
progress gathered from Indicator 2
and 3. Analyses of student
progress are somewhat useful.
Once or twice a year, records
student progress gathered from
Indicator 2 and 3. Analyses of
student progress are limited and
not useful.
Consistently and effectively identifies
student deficiencies and acts on data
through re-teaching and adjusting lesson
design and learning goals until students
reach mastery and beyond.
Consistently able to identify student
deficiencies and act on data through reteaching and adjusting lesson design
and learning goals until students reach
proficiency.
Sometimes able to identify
student deficiencies and but
struggles to act on data through reteaching and adjusting lesson
design and learning goals.
EXEMPLARY Limited ability to both identify
student deficiencies and act on
36
data through re-teaching and
adjusting lesson design and
learning goals.
PROFICIENT Indicator 4:
Integrates
monitoring of
student data into
instruction
PROGRESSING UNSATISFACTORY Performance Rubric - DRAFT
INDICATOR Domain 2: Planning and Preparation
Teacher Excellence Initiative
Appendix A • 49
50 • Appendix A
Unit objectives are rarely (less
than half of the time), if at all,
grounded in end of year
expectations, and summative
assessments do not match level of
rigor required by end of year
expectations.
Lesson plans rarely (less than half
of the time), if at all, include daily
objectives and/or do not provide
students multiple opportunities to
engage in appropriate level of rigor
required by objectives.
Indicator 5:
Develops
standards-based
unit objectives
Indicator 6:
Develops
objective-based
lesson plans
Lesson plans demonstrate all the
indicators under “Proficient” half
of the time.
Unit objectives demonstrate all the
indicators under “Proficient” half
of the time.
PROGRESSING Lesson plans usually:
• Identify lesson objectives that are
measureable and scaffold toward
formative assessments
• Include instructional strategies that
give students multiple
opportunities to engage in
41
appropriate level of rigor
required by objectives and
formative assessments
• Align learning experiences with
instructional outcomes and
differentiate where appropriate to
ensure appropriateness for all
learners
Unit objectives most of the time:
• Align to end of year expectations
and interim goals that will be
mastered in each unit
39
• Align summative assessments to
40
end of unit expectations
• Allocate appropriate amount of
instructional time based on
knowledge of student performance
levels and goals
• Align to prior and next grade level
and/or same subject area taught by
different teacher to ensure
appropriate progression of rigor
and concepts across grades and
subjects
38
PROFICIENT 40
39
Revised: 9/27/2013
Refer to the Bookends model for unit planning.
Alignment is achieved by matching level of cognition required by end of unit goals/standards to an assessment type that can effectively assess this level.
Standards to be mastered by end of unit.
41
Rigor is defined by level of cognition required by learning goal(s). This can be quantified using Bloom’s Taxonomy. 38
UNSATISFACTORY INDICATOR Domain 2: Planning and Preparation
Lesson plans demonstrate all the
indicators under “Proficient” all
or nearly all the time. Unit objectives demonstrate all
the indicators under “Proficient”
all or nearly all the time.
EXEMPLARY 10
Performance Rubric - DRAFT
Teacher Excellence Initiative
Little to no evidence of
implementation and/or enforcement
of rules and procedures, so
inappropriate or off-task student
behavior constantly interrupts or
42
delays the lesson .
Indicator 1:
Establishes and
maintains rules
and procedures
Focuses on correcting off-task
behavior, but response to
misbehavior has minimal results.
Considerable time on task is lost for
groups and/or the whole class.
UNSATISFACTORY INDICATOR Consistently implements classroom
rules and procedures so
inappropriate or off-task student
behavior rarely interrupts or delays
43
the lesson .
Praises positive behavior and, if
necessary, corrects off-task
behavior in a manner that is timely,
specific, and sensitive to
individual student needs.
Praises positive behavior and, if
necessary, corrects off-task
behavior, but sometimes does not
respond appropriately, resulting
in some loss of individual, group,
and/or whole class time on task.
PROFICIENT Develops some rules and
procedures but they are leniently
enforced, so inappropriate or offtask student behavior sometimes
interrupts or delays the lesson.
PROGRESSING Praises positive behavior and, if
necessary, corrects off-task
behavior in a manner that is always
timely, specific, and sensitive to
individual student needs. Students
take an active role in monitoring
44
their own and peers’ behavior .
Consistently and effectively
implements classroom rules and
procedures, so the flow of the
lesson is not impeded by
inappropriate or off-task student
behavior because either no such
behavior occurs or the teacher
efficiently addresses it. EXEMPLARY 43
Revised: 9/27/2013
11
Unsatisfactory implementation of rules and procedures may include frequently kicking students out of a classroom or making discipline referrals without following the discipline management plan.
Teacher evidence of implementing rules and procedures may include but are not limited to: physically occupying all quadrants of a room, scanning entire room making eye contact, and proactively
addressing sources of disruption of inflammatory situations. Teacher provides verbal and non-verbal signals when student behavior is not appropriate (e.g. eye contact, proximity, tap on the desk, shaking
head no) that do not disrupt the flow of the lesson. Students cease inappropriate behavior when signaled, accept consequences, and describe the teacher as fair and appreciative of their good behavior.
Teacher acknowledges adherence to the routines, rules, and procedures though verbal (e.g. thanks students, praises student behavior) and non-verbal signals (e.g. smile, nod of head, high five) or tangible
recognition. Teacher follows the discipline management plan before making a discipline referral.
44 Students monitoring their own and peers’ behavior means that students show evidence of holding themselves and their peers accountable for the teacher’s behavioral expectations. Examples may include,
but are not limited to: students keeping their own behavior logs (individually or as a class), and students quietly and discretely correcting classmates’ behavior.
42
Domain 3: Classroom Management
Performance Rubric - DRAFT Teacher Excellence Initiative
Appendix A • 51
52 • Appendix A
Students sit idly waiting for
directions for significant periods of
time. Students are frequently
disengaged or left with nothing
meaningful to do.
Much loss of instructional time
leading to lack of clarity and
disruption of learning.
• Non-existent or inefficient
46
routines leading the
teacher to direct every
activity
• Disorderly and long
transitions, fully directed
by the teacher
Little loss of instructional time.
• Routines that run
smoothly with some
prompting from the
teacher
• Transitions that run
smoothly with some
teacher direction
Students are rarely idle while
47
waiting for the teacher . Students
who finish assigned work early
usually have something meaningful
to do.
Students are idle for short periods
of time while waiting for the
teacher. Students who finish
assigned work early are sometimes
left with nothing meaningful to do.
Most students are highly motivated,
on-task with little to no prompting,
with an understanding of the
relevance of their tasks.
Keeps most students engaged by
consistently using a variety of
engagement strategies.
PROFICIENT Some loss of instructional time.
• Routines that are in place
but require significant
teacher prompting and
direction
• Less than orderly
transitions, primarily
directed by the teacher
More than half of the students are
on-task with some prompting
and/or have an understanding of the
relevance of their tasks.
Keeps half of the students engaged
by using a limited range of
engagement strategies, and misses
several opportunities to use a
strategy.
PROGRESSING Students are never idle waiting for
the teacher. Students who finish
assigned work early always have
something else meaningful to do.
No loss of instructional time .
• Efficient routines that run
smoothly with minimal
prompting from the
teacher
• Orderly, efficient, and
seamless transitions
between activities with
little teacher direction to
get the most out of every
minute
• Students share
responsibility for the
management classroom
and routines 48
Students are highly motivated, take
ownership of their learning, and
understand the relevance of their
tasks.
Keeps all or nearly all students
engaged by actively and
effectively using a variety of
45
engagement strategies .
EXEMPLARY Performance Rubric - DRAFT
Revised: 9/27/2013
12
Engagement strategies may include but are not limited to: scanning the room making note of when students are not engaged and taking overt action, using academic games and friendly competition, using
response rate techniques (e.g. wait time, response cards, hand signals, responding as a group), using physical movement (e.g. physically move to respond, model content to increase energy), maintaining a
lively pace, modeling enthusiasm for the content (e.g. physical gestures, voice time, dramatization), using friendly controversy, providing opportunities for students to talk about themselves, and presenting
unusual or intriguing information. 46
Routines may include, but are not limited to: managing student groups, handling of supplies, and performance of non-instructional duties. 47
Overall, little to no instructional time is lost due to non-instructional duties including taking attendance, handing in papers, etc. 48
In exemplary classrooms, students learn skills to work purposefully and cooperatively in groups, with little supervision from the teacher, and execute seamless transitions between activities (e.g. large
group, small group, independent work). Exemplary teachers have all necessary materials and have taught students to implement routines to distribute, collect, and clean up materials with minimum
disruption to the flow of instruction.
45
Indicator 3:
Maximizes
instructional
time
Uses little to no engagement
strategies resulting in less than half
of the students engaged in the
lesson
Indicator 2:
Maintains high
student
motivation
Half of the students are on-task
with frequent prompting and/or
have an understanding of the
relevance of their tasks.
UNSATISFACTORY INDICATOR Domain 3: Classroom Management
Teacher Excellence Initiative
Does not establish a welcoming or
safe classroom environment.
49
Classroom environment does not :
• Support learning
• Positive interactions
• Respect the unique needs
of most learners
Indicator 4:
Maintains a
welcoming
environment
that promotes
learning and
positive
interactions
Generally maintains a welcoming
and safe classroom environment
50
that supports :
• Learning, with some
exceptions
• Positive interactions with
some exceptions
• Respects the unique needs
of most learners
PROGRESSING Almost always maintains a
welcoming and safe classroom
environment that:
• Supports learning
• Promotes positive
interactions
• Respects the unique needs
of nearly all of learners
PROFICIENT Students embrace opportunities to
adjust the physical space or use
available classroom resources to
52
advance learning .
Without exception, maintains a
welcoming and safe classroom
51
environment :
• Drives learning
• Promotes positive
interactions
• Respects the unique needs
of all learners
EXEMPLARY Performance Rubric - DRAFT
Revised: 9/27/2013
13
49
Students may demonstrate disinterest or lack of investment in their work. For example, students might be unfocused, frequently off-task, refuse to attempt assignments, unwilling to take on challenges
and risk failure, reluctant to answer questions, hesitant to ask the teacher for help even when they need it, or discourage or interfere with the work of their peers. Students may frequently be disrespectful to
the teacher or their peers; for example, they might interrupt or be clearly inattentive when the teacher or their peers are speaking. There may be little or no evidence of a positive rapport between the teacher
and the students, or there may be evidence that the teacher has a negative rapport with students.
50
Students are generally engaged in their work but are not highly invested in it. For example, students might spend significant time off-task or require frequent reminders, students might give up easily,
sometimes hesitant to ask the teacher for help when they need it, or the teacher might communicate messages about the importance of the work, but there is little evidence that students have internalized
them. Some students are willing to take academic risks, but others may not be. The teacher may rarely reinforce positive behavior and good academic work, may do so for some students but not for others,
or may not do so in a meaningful way. The teacher may have a positive rapport with some students but not others, or may demonstrate little rapport with students.
51
In an elementary classroom, centers and reading corners may structure class activities, while for older students, the position of chairs and desk can facilitate or inhibit rich discussion. Classrooms should
be safe (no dangling wires or dangerous traffic patterns), and all students must be able to see and hear the teacher and each other so they can actively participate. Student comments and actions demonstrate
that students are excited about their work and understand why it is important. Students are invested in the success of their peers. For example, they can be seen collaborating with and helping each other
without prompting from the teacher, giving unsolicited praise or encouragement to their peers for good work, when appropriate, or showing interest in other students’ answers or work. There is evidence
that the teacher has strong, individualized relationships with students in the class. For example, the teacher might demonstrate personal knowledge of students’ lives, interests, and preferences.
52
Students take initiative to adjust the physical environment to promote learning (e.g. closing a door to shut out hallway noise, lowering blinds to block out glare, shifting furniture to better suit group work
or discussion). Teachers and students make extensive and creative use of available technology.
UNSATISFACTORY INDICATOR Domain 3: Classroom Management
Teacher Excellence Initiative
Appendix A • 53
54 • Appendix A
Engages in required professional
development activities, and
reluctantly accepts feedback on
instruction. Sometimes implements
the feedback in the classroom.
Contributes to the profession in a
limited fashion.
Makes little to no effort to contribute
to the profession.
Makes substantial contribution
to the field by sharing new
learning and assuming positions of
teacher leadership.
Proactively seeks out and
participates in job-embedded
professional development, and
effectively implements the
feedback in the classroom.
System for maintaining accurate
records is efficient, and students
contribute to its maintenance.
54
Revised: 9/27/2013
14
Unexcused absences are those that are in violation of procedures set forth by local school policy and by the teacher contract.
Such records document critical interactions with students and families/caregivers, enabling the teacher to anticipate and respond to individual learning needs. The teacher records evidence of student
learning and develops a system for monitoring student progress must align with the teacher’s approach to instruction and the needs of students. Records of student progress enable the teacher to provide
accurate information to students themselves and to their families/caregivers. Records must be maintained on non-instructional activities such as returned permission slips for a field trip. The teacher is also
required to complete other paperwork, including inventories and supply orders in an accurate and timely manner. 53
Actively participates in assisting
other educators.
Consistently engages in jobembedded professional
development activities, and
consistently implements the
feedback in the classroom.
System for maintaining accurate
records is effective and up to
date.
Proactively initiates the
development of school-wide
operating procedures.
Consistently implements schoolwide operating procedures.
Attends meetings on school-wide
operating procedures, and
implements them as required.
System for maintaining accurate
academic and non-instructional
records is used inconsistently.
Without exception, complies with
DISD and local school policies
and procedures.
Always leaves clear directions and
lessons for substitutes.
Almost always leaves directions
and lessons for substitutes.
With rare exception, complies
with DISD and local school
policies and procedures.
Clearly has excellent attendance
(95-100%). Has no unexcused
absences.
EXEMPLARY Has very good attendance (9095%). Has no unexcused
absences.
PROFICIENT Most of the time, complies with
DISD and local school policies and
procedures.
Most of the time leaves directions
and lessons for substitutes
Has fair attendance (80-89%). Has
1 unexcused absence.
PROGRESSING Engages in little to no professional
development activities and resists
feedback on instruction. Rarely
implements the feedback in the
classroom.
System for maintaining academic and
54
non-instructional records is
haphazard or non-existent, resulting
in errors or confusion.
Sometimes does not comply with
DISD and local school policies and
procedures, where the needs of the
students or the school/district’s
effective operations were
compromised.
Indicator 3:
Engages in
professional
development
Indicator 2:
Follows policies
and procedures,
and maintains
accurate student
records
Has poor attendance (less than 80%).
Has more than 1 unexcused
53
absence .
Indicator 1:
Models good
attendance for
students
Sometimes does not leave directions
and lessons for substitutes.
UNSATISFACTORY INDICATOR Domain 4: Professionalism and Commitment
Performance Rubric - DRAFT Teacher Excellence Initiative
Avoids interaction with
colleagues.
Indicator 4:
Engages in
professional
community
Engages families and community
in the instructional program at key
points in the school year, such as
in the beginning of the year or at
the end of each quarter.
Makes modest, often
unsuccessful attempts to engage
families and community in the
instructional program.
Regularly and proactively engages
families and community in the
instructional program throughout the
school year.
Uses consistent, timely, and multiple
56
forms of communication with all
parents regarding student
expectations, progress and/or
concerns every month during the
school year.
Has a good understanding of the
campus improvement plan:
consistently participates in
implementing aspects of the plan to
achieve performance goals.
Establishes collaborative
57
partnerships with families and
community to enhance the instructional
program in a manner that demonstrates
integrity, confidentiality, respect,
flexibility, fairness and trust.
Uses effective, timely, and multiple
forms of communication with all
parents regarding student expectations,
progress and/or concerns every week
during the school year.
Has an in-depth understanding of the
campus improvement plan: actively
and consistently participates in
planning sessions and models for
others to meet designated performance
goals and overcome performance gaps.
Establishes working relationships with
all colleagues that demonstrate
leadership, integrity, respect,
flexibility, fairness, and trust.
Communicates at least weekly with
school administrators on student
progress and status of instruction.
Collaborates at least weekly with
colleagues to plan units, share teaching
ideas, review student work and
progress, and seek feedback on
instructional practices.
EXEMPLARY Performance Rubric - DRAFT
Revised: 9/27/2013
15
Other collaboration materials may include, but are not limited to: lesson plans, student profiles, or regularly updated electronic grade books.
Communication materials may include, but are not limited to: student progress reports, weekly newsletters with information on homework, current class activities, community or school projects, and field
trips. Communication should take into account different languages spoken at home and the accessibility of the information (e.g. paper versus email).
57
Teachers can go beyond one-way teacher-family communication to form a partnership with the family and community to foster learning. For example, students could maintain accurate records about their
individual learning to share daily with their families, and students participate in regular, on-going projects designed to engage families and the community in the learning process (e.g. interviewing a family
member or friend about growing up in a certain era). 56
55
Participates in school’s required
activities and procedures for
communication to parents, and
responses to parent concerns are
occasionally sporadic, slow, or
inappropriate.
Participates in school’s required
activities and procedures for
communication to parents, and
responses to parent concerns are
often sporadic, non-existent, or
inappropriate.
Indicator 6:
Establishes
relationships with
families and
community
Has a limited understanding of the
campus improvement plan:
participates in implementing the
plan as required.
Has little to no understanding of
the campus improvement plan:
does not participate in the
implementation.
Establishes working relationships
with nearly all colleagues that
demonstrate integrity, respect,
flexibility, fairness, and trust.
Communicates biweekly with school
administrators on student progress
and status of instruction.
Communicates with school
administrators on student progress
and status of instruction only
when asked.
Maintains cordial relationships
with most colleagues to fulfill the
duties that the school requires.
Collaborates on a weekly basis with
colleagues to plan units, share
teaching ideas, review student work
55
and progress .
PROFICIENT Collaborates with colleagues
weekly or biweekly but
interactions rarely focus on
instruction or student performance.
PROGRESSING Indicator 5:
Actively
participates in
implementing the
campus
improvement plan
Does not communicate with
school administrators on student
progress and status of
instruction.
UNSATISFACTORY INDICATOR Domain 4: Professionalism and Commitment
Teacher Excellence Initiative
Appendix A • 55
Teacher Excellence Initiative
Appendix B
INDIVIDUAL STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT GOAL RUBRIC (DRAFT)
Salaries
Goal Setting
• Goal is tied
to student
achieve70000ment or
­performance
60000
•Proficiently
written as a
50000
SMART goal
40000
30000
Progresssing I
Progresssing II
• Goal is tied
to student
achievement or
­performance
•Proficiently
written as a
SMART goal
•Challenging and
­attainable
• Goal is tied
to student
achievement or
­performance
•Proficiently
written as a
SMART goal
•Challenging and
­attainable
$539,500,000
20000
10000
Goal Accomplishment
0
0
5
10
15
20
25
Years of Service
30
35
Proficient I
Proficient II
Proficient III
Exemplary
• Goal is tied
• Goal is tied
• Goal is tied
• Goal is tied
to student
to student
to student
to student
achieveachieveachieveachieve. or
ment or 80000 ment or
ment or
performance
­performance
­performance
­performance •Proficiently
70000 •Proficiently
•Proficiently
•Proficiently
written as a
written as60000
a
written as a
written as a
SMART goal
SMART goal
SMART goal
SMART goal
•Goal
50000
•Goal
•Goal
•Goal
stretches the
stretches 40000
the
stretches the
stretches the
employee,
employee,
employee,
employee,
requiring
30000
­requiring
­requiring
­requiring
new learnnew learnnew learning, skill, or
20000 new learning, skill, or
ing, skill, or
ing, skill, or
­collaboration
10000
­collaboration
­collaboration
­collaboration • Goal is tied to
the success
0 • Goal supports • Goal is tied to
40
Unsat Prog I Prog II Prof I
Prof II Prof III Exemp +
the work of
the
success
of the team,
Effectiveness
others or the
of the team,
department,
school
department,
school, or
school, or
district
district
Salary
Unsat
and
and
and
and
and
and
and
•Employee
accomplishes
part of the
goal (on a
scale from 1
to 10, goal
accomplishment would
rate above 3)
•Employee
accomplishes
part of the
goal (on a
scale from 1
to 10, goal
accomplishment would
rate above 3)
•Employee
accomplishes
part of the
goal (on a
scale from 1
to 10, goal
accomplishment would
rate above 4)
•Employee
accomplishes
the goal (on
a scale from
1 to 10, goal
accomplishment would
rate above 6)
•Employee
accomplishes
the goal (on
a scale from
1 to 10, goal
accomplishment would
rate above 6)
•Employee
accomplishes
the goal (on
a scale from
1 to 10, goal
accomplishment would
rate above 7)
•Employee
accomplishes
the goal (on
a scale from
1 to 10, goal
accomplishment would
rate above 8)
and
and
•Accomplishment has
positively
impacted the
success of the
team, department, school,
or district
•Accomplishment has
positively
impacted the
success of the
team, department, school,
or district
This is a minimum criteria rubric. Start at the lowest level of performance (at the left). The employee must meet each
criterion at the lower level before being considered for the next higher level. Assign the rating associated with the
last level at which the employee met all the criteria at that level.
56 • Appendix B
Teacher Excellence Initiative
Appendix C
DISTINGUISHED TEACHER REVIEW (DTR) PROCESS
A distinguished teacher is one who earns a rating of Proficient II or higher. A distinguished teacher has to
be distinguished in performance and distinguished in overall effectiveness (performance plus student achievement plus student survey). Based on the target distribution, the district expects approximately 20 percent of all
teachers to hold distinguished ratings.
1.Eligibility
The first step in DTR process is for a teacher to become eligible for a district-level review. Except in the
very first year of the TEI system, eligibility is based on a current TEI performance evaluation and the prior
year’s student achievement and survey data. Teachers new to the District are not eligible for a DTR in their
first year. The teacher must score a minimum of 40 points on the performance evaluation and a combined
score of 25 points on the student survey data and student achievement data from the year before in order
to be eligible for a DTR.
Eligibility for the 2014-2015 school year
For DTRs in the 2014-2015 school year, a teacher must still receive a minimum of 40 points on the TEI
performance evaluation. CEIs from the previous year (2013-2014) will be used to determine eligibility. If a
teacher has a CEI, that teacher must be in the top 25 percent. If a teacher has no CEI, only the performance
evaluation will be used to determine eligibility for distinguished review.
For the 2014-2015 school year and all future years, the past achievement and student survey results only
help to determine eligibility. The current year’s achievement results and student survey results will ultimately be used to determine the teacher’s rating and overall effectiveness.
2.Application
The top page of the application packet includes a signature line for the teacher’s principal. The application
packet also includes a form for the principal’s input (Appendix E) and space for the teacher to provide
evidence of her leadership, contributions to the profession, and lifelong learning. All applications are due
by Jan. 15, 2015.
3. Review of instruction and performance
A three-person team will review the instruction and performance of each applicant sometime between Jan.
19 and May 15. The review team will comprise of a principal or assistant principal, an instructional coach
or academic facilitator, and a subject-area specialist or teacher.56
The 2014-2015 school year will be the first year for DTRs, and the district expects the reviews to be logistically challenging. As many as 2,500 reviews will have to be conducted the first year. In the future, there will
be significantly fewer reviews needed because the achievement data and student survey data required for
eligibility will be available and will be more rigorous at each higher effectiveness level.
56 Distinguished teachers will be invited to be part of the process in future years after these individuals have been identified at the end of
the first year of implementation.
Appendix C • 57
Teacher Excellence Initiative
For the first year, the district will convene approximately 125 review teams. Each team will conduct up to
20 evaluations of instruction and performance from Jan. 19 to May 15. Executive directors will nominate
principals and assistant principals to be on the review teams. Approximately 50 principals and 75 assistant
principals will serve on the review teams. School Leadership will select academic facilitators to serve. Almost all of the academic facilitators (approximately 50) will be on the review teams. Teaching & Learning
content specialists as well as select campus instructional coaches will also serve on review teams.
Approximately 125 teams will be selected by Oct. 15, 2015. All members of the DTR review teams will be
required to attend a minimum of four hours of calibration training and pass a DTR review assessment by
Jan. 15, 2015.
Each applicant will be given a three week window during which the actual review of her instruction or
performance will be conducted. Teachers will not know ahead of time the specific day of the review. The
review team will observe the applicant on the job for at least 40 minutes. At the end of the day of the
review, the team will meet with the teacher for 30 minutes to ask clarifying questions and to allow the
teacher to comment on the techniques and strategies she used during the observation. The review team
will not provide specific feedback to the teacher at this stage of the review process.
Each team member will then individually evaluate the instruction based on rubrics developed by School
Leadership. An applicant may receive up to 6 points. After this initial scoring, each team will discuss
among themselves the individual scores and offer commentary and rationale. Individual members have
a chance to change their assessment after this group discussion. The final score is the average of the three
final scores from the team members.
4.
Review of leadership, lifelong learning, and contributions to the profession.
The remainder of the application—evidence of leadership, lifelong learning, and contributions to the
profession—will be assessed by the DTR implementation section of Human Capital Management. Each
application will be scored by three different people. The applicant’s score is an average of the scores given
by the three reviewers. An applicant may receive up to six points for leadership, four points for lifelong
learning, and four points for contributions to the profession.
5. Sign-off by principal
Once the DTR scores are compiled on a DTR scorecard, the scorecard is sent to the principal of the applicant. The principal will conduct a final review of the application and the teacher’s scores for the DTR
review process. Barring any severe discrepancy or objection, the principal will approve the evaluation of
the DTR review team. Should the principal object to the evaluation of the DTR review team, the principal’s
original score will stand. Standard appeals process for teachers will apply.
6. Calculation of total points and performance level
The DTR implementation section will calculate an applicant’s total performance points by adding the
points from the DTR instruction and performance review, the points from the review of leadership,
lifelong learning, and contributions to the profession, and a possible additional three points for service in
a Tier 1 school. Once all the points for all of the applicants are calculated, the DTR implementation team
will establish cut points for the performance levels based on the target distribution.
58 • Appendix C
Teacher Excellence Initiative
The total DTR performance score is then added to the current year’s achievement score, student survey
score (if available), and the 40 points from the principal-based performance score to obtain the overall
effectiveness score. Once all of the effectiveness scores are calculated (for both teachers who underwent
a DTR and those who did not), the DTR implementation team will establish cut points for the overall
effectiveness levels based on the target distribution. Teachers will be placed at the effectiveness level corresponding to the teacher’s points. However, since distinguished teachers have to be distinguished (above
proficient) in performance and overall, teachers who underwent a DTR and received a “Proficient” on their
DTR performance score, will be placed at the “Proficient” level overall.
DTR performance score
Criteria
Weight
Rubric Pts.
Total
Actual Instruction
1.5x
/6
Leadership
1.5x
/6
Lifelong learning
1x
/4
Contributions to the profession
1x
/4
Service in a Tier 1 School
1x
3
Performance Evaluation Score
Appendix C • 59
Teacher Excellence Initiative
Appendix D
DISTINGUISHED TEACHER REVIEW RUBRIC (DRAFT)
Name_________________________________________________ Site__________________________________________________
Review Team Members___________________________________________________________________________________________
ProficientExemplary
Contributions to the Profession
Lifelong Learner
Leadership
Quality of
Instruction
1
2
3
4
A classroom observation rubric will be completed based on two observations and the final interview/discussion with the
teacher.
• Helps to make sense of information and contributes to
professional dialogue and problem solving.
• Assumes a leadership position with adults in some aspect
of school life.
• Works to overcome challenges when encountered in role
or position.
• Demonstrates commitment to the goals of the school or
district.
• Recognize and demonstrates an understanding that they
are part of a larger organization and their actions impact
other segments of the school.
• Helps to effect change through sense-making that secures
staff cooperation and advances the goals of the school or
district.
• Helps expand the leadership density in the school or
­district.
• Challenges the status quo, seeking more effective ways to
accomplish goals and improve the organization.
• Helps the leadership team attain the vision of the school
or district.
• Demonstrates high standards of professionalism and a
commitment to a cause or an idea and through their actions, advances the entire organization.
• Takes advantage of multiple learning opportunities,
including workshops or conferences, to grow personally
and professionally.
• Acts upon feedback on instruction and professional
behavior to improve performance.
• Reads books, educational articles, or publications to keep
informed on current practice, policy and/or legislation.
• Attains the knowledge of technology and how to use it in
the classroom.
• Successfully completes relevant coursework at institutions of higher learning or completes other professional
programs.
• Completes multiple professional development programs
in more than one discipline that demonstrates a commitment to growth and mastery of the educational craft.
• Actively seeks and acts on feedback that challenges self to
continue to grow professionally.
• Remains current in the field through demonstration
and application of knowledge gained through relevant
­literature.
• Embeds and utilizes technology to enhance instructional
practice.
• Earns a Master’s or higher degree.
• Shares work and ideas with other teachers in my school or
district.
• Contributes to the development and growth of others
through mentoring, coaching, or providing non-evaluative feedback.
• Serves on committees or boards at school or district level.
• Formally teaches other professionals in the district (i.e.,
presents at workshops, teaches at a community college,
provides professional development at another school, etc.).
• Collaborates with a team to improve the educational
practices in the school or district.
• Shares ideas or work in ways that advance the profession
and through media that reach a larger educational community (i.e., through journals, books, websites, articles, etc.).
• Based on feedback provided to others, materials are
developed, shared, or modeled that result in implementation to improve instruction and performance.
• Serves on a state or national committee or board.
• Formally teaches other professionals inside and outside of
the district (i.e., presents at conferences, teachers a university class, conducts a workshop for another district, etc.).
• Collaborates with others to improve or influence educational practices or policies that have an impact beyond
the school and district.
60 • Appendix D
Teacher Excellence Initiative
Appendix E
PRINCIPAL INPUT FOR THE DTR PROCESS
Teacher Name__________________________________________ Principal______________________________________________
LEADERSHIP
RarelyFrequently
Contributes to staff meetings in a way that positively affects the attitudes and abilities of others.
Mentors or coaches others.
Assumes a leadership position or role in at least some aspect of school life.
Works to ensure the success of students and the organization by contributing time and resources outside of operational school hours. Knows the goals and supports the philosophy and vision of the school and district and takes action to accomplish those goals.
Has taken time to learn and understand the interests of different groups or parts of the organization.
Helps to effect change in ways that secure staff cooperation.
Challenges the status quo, seeking more effective ways to accomplish goals and improve the organization.
Contributes to the leadership density within the district by actively participating on committees and focus groups.
Inspires or gives hope to others. Demonstrates high standards of personal integrity and a commitment to a cause or an idea. LIFELONG LEARNING
Actively seeks feedback in order to assess instructional strengths and areas for growth.
RarelyFrequently
Takes advantage of multiple learning opportunities over a number of years, demonstrating a commitment to growth and mastery of the educational craft. Successfully completes relevant coursework at institutions of higher learning or completes other professional programs.
Earns a Master’s degree or higher degree.
Reads educational articles or publications.
Stays informed of major education legislation and policies.
Acquires knowledge in more than one discipline.
Positively influences the attitude of students and colleagues toward lifelong learning.
Reflects on personal behavior, abilities, and instruction in order to be challenged and to continue to grow professionally.
Has learned to incorporate technology into instruction in motivating, effective and meaningful ways. (continued on next page)
Appendix E • 61
Teacher Excellence Initiative
PRINCIPAL INPUT FOR THE DTR PROCESS
(Continued)
CONTRIBUTES TO THE PROFESSION
RarelyFrequently
Develops and shares materials and resources with other teachers as well as contributes ideas and offers suggestions in order to improve instructional practices
and expand capacity.
Offers ideas and exhibits constructive efforts toward advancing the goals of the team, department, or school.
Conducts non-evaluative spot observations for peers and offers feedback.
Participates in and contributes to the professional development and growth of others in the school or district (i.e. presents at workshops, teaches on weekends at
a community college, provides professional development at another school, etc.). Collaborates on multiple teams in order to improve student achievement and instructional practices within the school or district.
Collaborates and exhibits active effort, in conjunction with school, district and community members, to improve or influence educational practices or policies that
have an impact beyond the school or district.
Shares ideas or works in ways that advance the profession through media that reach the larger educational community (i.e. through journals, books, websites, articles, etc.).
Formally teaches other professionals outside of the district (i.e. presents at conferences, teaches a university class, conducts a workshop for another district, etc.).
Serves as a contributing member, by presenting research, data, or other pertinent information toward the mission of committees or boards at the school or district level.
Serves as a contributing member on a state or national committee or board.
Initiates important efforts, activities or programs to solve significant problems or to improve professional practice among teachers.
COMMENTS:
62 • Appendix E
Teacher Excellence Initiative
Appendix F
Appendix F – Teacher Compensation Calculations and Notes
General information
The following data will help provide context for the financial discussions related to the
Teacher Excellence Initiative.
•
On Oct. 15, 2013, the district employed 9,915 teachers. These included 491 grant
funded teachers (9,424 from general operating revenue). On Nov. 21, as a result of
completing the leveling process, the district employed 10,052 teachers, including 487
grant funded teachers.1
•
The District had approximately 325 teacher vacancies on Oct. 30. This number
decreased to approximately 200 by the end of November.
•
The average teacher salary for the 2013-2014 school year is $53,655.
•
The following charts provide information about teacher salaries and the budget:
2013-­‐2014 Budget
No. of teachers
Salary
Benefits
Stipends
M&O
9,903 517,858,045 61,111,007 3,567,206
Grant funded
624 32,494,291 4,453,622 575,400
TOTAL 10,527 550,352,336 65,564,629 4,142,606
•
In the 2013-2014 school year, classroom teacher salaries (with benefits and stipends)
will consume 46.6 percent of the Maintenance and Operations (M&O) budget.
•
One can approximate benefits by taking the salary and multiplying it by 12 percent.
•
The current salary schedule ranges:
1 Approximately 550 teachers work part time. In order to be conservative in our financial estimate, we count them as full-­‐time equivalents in our analysis. Appendix F • 63
Teacher Excellence Initiative
2013-­‐2014 Salary Schedule
Bachelor's
Master's
Doctorate
•
Range
10th year
$46,002 -­‐ $65,541
$47,022 -­‐ $71,600
$49,062 -­‐ $73,711
$51,307
$52,327
$54,367
The current distribution of Dallas ISD’s teachers with regard to salaries:
Distribution of Teachers by Salary 30 Oct 2013 3000 2826 2500 2000 1715 1500 847 1000 500 0 1492 706 796 51 < $47 $47 -­‐ $49 $49 -­‐ $51 $51 -­‐ $54 $54 -­‐ $59 $59 -­‐ $65 $65 -­‐ $74 > $74 64 • Appendix F
1480 Teacher Excellence Initiative
Distribu9on of Teachers by Salary -­‐-­‐ % 30 Oct 2013 30.0% 28.5% 25.0% 20.0% 17.3% 15.0% 14.9% 15.0% 8.5% 10.0% 7.1% 8.0% 5.0% 0.5% 0.0% < $47 $47 -­‐ $49 $49 -­‐ $51 $51 -­‐ $54 $54 -­‐ $59 $59 -­‐ $65 $65 -­‐ $74 > $74 * Totals may not add to 100 percent due to rounding
•
The current distribution of teachers with regard to years in the profession:
Distribution of Teachers by Years in the Profession 30 Oct 2013 3500 2969 3000 2500 2000 1500 1168 1664 1443 981 1000 529 500 0 < 1 1-­‐3 4-­‐10 491 348 200 11-­‐15 16-­‐20 21-­‐25 26-­‐30 31-­‐35 36-­‐40 121 >40 * General Fund teachers only as of Oct. 30, 2013
Appendix F • 65
Teacher Excellence Initiative
•
In the 2013-2014 school year, Dallas ISD had approximately 1,900 new teachers. Of
those, approximately 1,156 were novice teachers.
•
The teachers who departed earned varying salaries, but most were earning less than
$50,000.
Departing Teachers -­‐-­‐ 2013 No. of Teachers 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 642 2184 243 1472 142 705 261 185 1219 1307 127 579 191 605 4 47 < $47 $47 -­‐ $49 $49 -­‐ $51 $51 -­‐ $54 $54 -­‐ $59 $59 -­‐ $65 $65 -­‐ $74 > $74 Salary Ranges Analysis assumptions and parameters
•
•
•
•
•
In order to be conservative in our estimates of the financial impact of TEI, the district
will start with a calculation of the financial impact of full employment (no vacancies).
At full capacity, the district would employ 9,903 classroom teachers and an additional
624 grant-funded teachers for a total of 10,527 in the 2014-2015 school year. Grant
funded teachers will be paid like other full-time classroom teachers.
The district will then take into account other factors such as the vacancy rate and the
number of part-time. Dallas ISD plans on cutting its vacancy rate considerably. The
district will have fewer than 100 teacher vacancies on Oct. 30, 2014.
Approximately 10.1 percent of the classroom teachers will be novice teachers.
Another 8 percent will be teachers new to the district, but who have taught elsewhere.
This allows for an 18percent teacher turnover.
Teachers new to Dallas ISD, but not new to teaching, will be placed at the
Progressing II level ($51,000) on average.
The district uses the average salary distribution of teachers that left the district at the
end of the 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 school years to estimate the salary distribution
of the teachers who will be departing at the end of the 2013-2014 school year.
66 • Appendix F
Teacher Excellence Initiative
•
•
The target distribution will impact veteran teachers and those with little experience in
similar ways. The current distribution of salaries will bear little resemblance to the
distribution of teacher effectiveness.
Unsatisfactory teachers will be counseled out or removed.
Two key concepts
As noted in the concept paper, two key concepts make the TEI plan financially viable:
1. Same percentage of the general operating revenue. The plan is designed to use
approximately the same percentage of the M&O (general operating revenue) that
is currently used to pay for classroom teacher salaries. The TEI plan was
designed to keep the percentage of the M&O used for classroom teacher salaries
between 46 percent and 50 percent.2
TEI is not an incentive plan in which the District would have to fund over and
above the amount it pays in salaries. TEI takes approximately the same amount
of money spent in classroom teacher salaries and distributes it based on
effectiveness rather than years of experience and college credits.
2. Target distribution. Adopting a target distribution keeps the entire financial part
of the system predictable and sustainable. Statistically, the distribution of the
effectiveness of 10,000 teachers would most likely approximate a normal
distribution. Thus, it would make sense to select a target distribution that would
be similar to a normal distribution. Since the district is below the state average in
student achievement, it would also make sense if the target distribution were
skewed positively, with slightly more teachers in the “Progressing” area of the
curve than one might find in a normal distribution.3
2 Note the percentage of M&O consumed by classroom teacher salaries under the traditional compensation plan as outlined on Page 52. 3 In a positively skewed graph, the mass of the distribution is concentrated on the left of the graph. Appendix F • 67
Teacher Excellence Initiative
Adherence to these two concepts gives TEI its viability. Once a district establishes its
target distribution and knows both the total amount it plans to spend on classroom teacher
salaries and approximately how many teachers it will employ, it then has to select the
compensation levels that will yield that total salary amount.
2015-2016 budget for TEI
Without a new evaluation system, the district would spend approximately $560 million
on classroom teacher salaries for all funds (assuming full employment) if it gave all
teachers a step increase at the end of the 2013-2014 school year. The chart below outlines
the amount of funds the district would spend on classroom teachers for the next four
years. The calculations include a step increase every year and do not include any
possible increases to revenue or increases in the number of teachers. [Note that without
increases in revenue, salary increases generally increase the percentage of the M&O
devoted to classroom teacher salaries.]
Year 14-­‐15 15-­‐16 16-­‐17 17-­‐18 No. of teachers 10,527 10,527 10,527 10,527 Salary Benefits Stipends Total $559,567,540 $567,891,175 $576,346,399 $584,935,293 $66,143,480 $67,117,546 $68,107,012 $69,112,120 $4,142,606 $4,142,606 $4,142,606 $4,142,606 $629,853,626 $639,151,327 $648,596,017 $658,190,019 % of M&O 47.8 48.5 49.3 50.1 Thus in order to be sustainable over the long run, the amount of money spent on TEI
must be approximately the same as the money spent on classroom teacher salaries in the
current system.
Taking $568 million as the target, the district established compensation levels.4 The
following chart shows the proposed compensation levels, the target distribution, and the
approximate number of teachers that will be at each effectiveness level (based on the
target distribution). The combination of these three factors yield a total salary of
$568,879,080.
4 At full employment, the district would spend $567,891,175 on classroom teacher salaries in the 2015-­‐2016 school year (if it gave teachers a step increase). Teachers will be placed on the new, TEI compensation scale at the start of the 2015-­‐2016 school year. Therefore, the 2015-­‐2016 budget for classroom teacher salaries should approximate $568 million. The benefits and stipends will be based on this number and will not differ greatly than the amount outlined in the chart on Page 52. 68 • Appendix F
Teacher Excellence Initiative
Rating Compensation
Unsat
Prog I
Prog II
Prof I
Prof II
Prof III
Exem.+
45,000
49,000
51,000
54,000
59,000
65,000
74,000
Target Distribution
No. of Teachers
Financial impact
3%
12%
25%
40%
12%
6%
2%
316
1,263
2,632
4,211
1,263
632
211
$14,211,450
$61,898,760
$134,219,250
$227,383,200
$74,531,160
$41,055,300
$15,579,960
10,527
$568,879,080
Note that the total salary of $568 million is the same as the amount estimated for the
2015-2016 school year if the district were to stay with the current, traditional salary
schedule. Designing the system in this way ensures that the plan can be sustainable in the
long run.
Other parameters
While $568 million is a good, rough estimate, the actual (versus “target”) distribution and
other parameters will impact the total amount the district spends on classroom teacher
salaries.
•
Over time the district will arrive at the target distribution for teacher
effectiveness. However, for the first several years of this plan, because the district
has a large percentage of new and inexperienced teachers, there will be
significantly more “Novice” and “Progressing I” than the target distribution might
suggest.
The chart also does not take into account other parameters, which make the system both
instructionally and financially more sound.
•
•
•
No teacher may be placed at the Proficient I effectiveness level unless he/she has
had at least three years of classroom experience in a school accredited by a state
department of education.
For the first two years of implementation, no teacher may have his/her salary
increased by more than $5,000 a year regardless of effectiveness level.
A teacher cannot be placed at the “Exemplary II” effectiveness level unless he/she
has demonstrated “Exemplary I” effectiveness for at least one year. A staff
member will be considered a “Master” teacher if he or she has been rated at the
Exemplary II level for at least two years in a row and has taught in a Tier One
School as a distinguished teacher for a minimum of three years.
Appendix F • 69
Teacher Excellence Initiative
The cost of the salary floor
The adherence to the two concepts outlined above will ensure the financial viability of
the plan. Still, there is a significant up-front cost because of the promise that “no teacher
will earn below his/her 2014-2015 salary regardless of his/her evaluation and
effectiveness level.”5
In other words, if the district were starting from scratch with 10,527 new teachers and
approximately $568 million to pay them, it could compensate people strictly according to
the target distribution and the amounts outlined in the calculations chart. Those
performing well would be compensated at higher amounts than those performing poorly.
However, because of the desire to keep some teachers from a decrease in salary, the
district has to make up the difference between a teacher’s current salary and the salary
they would receive under TEI if the TEI salary turns out lower than the person’s current
salary.
Over time, as less effective teachers leave, there will be fewer teachers at the salary floor
and the District will have to spend less in order to compensate them.
In order to calculate the total salary differential, the district determined the distribution of
teachers based on the current salaries and divided into salary ranges tied to the TEI
effectiveness levels. The district assumed that the distribution of salaries in the 20142015 school year would be similar to the distribution of salaries in the 2013-2014 school
year. Approximately 10 percent of the teachers would be new to the profession and
another 8 percent would be new to Dallas ISD.
The district also made the assumption that the effectiveness levels of the teachers at each
range would mirror the target distribution. The district then multiplied the number of
teachers at each salary level and effectiveness level by the compensation associated with
that effectiveness level, adjusting the amount when necessary because of a salary cap or
salary floor. The charts in the next section outline the calculations for each salary range.
This methodology yields several results:
•
The “cost” to the district to fund the promise to provide a salary floor is
approximately $23 million. To calculate this, the district took the difference in the
average salary of the teachers and the compensation associated with each
effectiveness level.6 The difference multiplied by the number of people at that salary
level equals the amount the district will have to spend in order to maintain the salaries
of the teachers at that salary and effectiveness level.
5 Teachers also have to continue to be employed by the District and work as many or more hours than they did in the 2014-­‐2015 school year. 6 See pink area of the calculations chart. 70 • Appendix F
Teacher Excellence Initiative
•
•
However, the cost of the salary floor is offset by the money the district “saves” as a
result of the salary cap ($5,000 each year for the first two years of the plan). The
salary cap will save the district approximately $14.6 million in the 2015-2016 school
year.
In the 2015-2016 school year, approximately 2,850 teachers will have to take
advantage of the salary floor in order to maintain their salaries at 2014-2015 levels.
Approximately 2,860 teachers will have their salaries capped at an increase of $5,000.
Total 2015-2016 compensation (estimate)
The salary amount (accounting for salary caps and the salary floor) for the first
year of the TEI plan will be approximately $568 million. This is the combined total
of the amount for each effectiveness level.7
Sixty-six percent of teachers who are not new and who are not rated “Unsatisfactory” will
see an increase in their salary beginning in the 2015-2016 school year.8 Thirty-four
percent of teachers will earn the same salary (no increase). The average increase for those
teachers receiving an increase will be approximately $4,000.
If one adds new teachers to the category of teachers who will see a salary increase
(because starting salaries are higher than in the past), then 69 percent of teachers will see
a salary increase as a result of the TEI plan.9
Total 2016-2017 compensation (estimate)
The total amount of money the district will pay out in salaries in the 2016-2017 school
year is a function of the numbers of teachers who will be promoted at each level and the
number of teachers at each level who decide to leave the district. The target distribution
and other safeguards built into the TEI plan make the amount fairly predictable (see
section below on financial safeguards).
In particular, only the most effective teachers will reach the highest effectiveness levels.
One has to continue to improve student achievement and performance in order to advance
to the next level. Therefore, it will be easier to advance at the lower levels of
effectiveness than at the higher levels of effectiveness, and the district can expect higher
percentages of teachers to be “promoted” at the lower levels than at the higher levels.
The district estimates that 75 percent of the teachers rated “Progressing I” will advance to
the next level; 60 percent of the teachers rated “Progressing II” will advance to the next
level; and 25 percent of the teachers rated “Proficient I” will advance to the next level.
7 This amount is less than the previously budgeted amount because the district has a considerable number of new and novice teachers. 8 Almost all “unsatisfactory” teachers will be non-­‐renewed or have their contracts terminated. 9 This is an initial implementation year phenomenon. In future years, between 20 and 25 percent of teachers will earn placement at a higher effectiveness level in a given year. Appendix F • 71
Teacher Excellence Initiative
For distinguished levels of performance, the advancement rate will vary between 15 and
25 percent.
With regard to the number of teachers departing the district, we suspect that teachers who
are currently earning more than the average amount and who also are rated at the lower
effectiveness levels will depart in greater numbers than they have in the past. Teachers at
the higher end of the effectiveness scale will tend to remain in the district longer than
they have in the past.10
Based on our estimates of the number of teachers who will be advanced to the next level
and the percentage of teachers at each level departing the district, we calculate the total
amount the district will spend for classroom teacher salaries in the 2016-2017 school year
to be $575,479,000.11 Note that this amount is slightly less than the amount the district
would have spent on classroom teacher salaries under the current, traditional salary
schedule ($576,346,000).
10 See our estimates in the “% not returning” column. 11 See charts 72 • Appendix F
Teacher Excellence Initiative
Financial safeguards
If the TEI plan is to remain financially viable, the district will also have to ensure
evaluations do not become inflated. While the plan allows for teacher performance and
student achievement to improve, the plan cannot sustain significant numbers of teachers
being advanced either because the standards are too low or because evaluators inflate
actual performance. The TEI plan has several safeguards against lowering the standards
or inflating evaluations:
1. Congruence metric in the principal evaluation. One way to assess true capacitybuilding versus evaluation inflation is to compare evaluation ratings with
achievement results, which tend to be more stable. Our premise is that these two
metrics are positively correlated (in a fair, accurate, and rigorous – FAR – evaluation
system). Thus a teacher who has an exemplary performance evaluation would obtain
higher student achievement results than a teacher who has a progressing performance
rating.
High performance evaluations that are not accompanied by increasing student
achievement means that the two parts of the evaluation are not congruent. Similarly,
incongruity results when a principal gives teachers low performance evaluations
when student achievement is increasing.
Tying a “congruence metric” to a principal’s evaluation helps prevent the inflation of
evaluations. Evaluations will be more aligned with achievement results, and
performance ratings will grow over time, but only if actual student achievement
increases. The congruence metric is worth a total of 5 points on the principal
evaluation.
2. Distinguished review conducted by the district. In a system that differentiates
evaluations based on student achievement results and classroom performance, it is
important to maintain quality control. With the TEI plan, principals (and other
campus-level evaluators) can bestow an evaluation rating no higher than “Proficient
I.” Teachers seeking a higher evaluation rating must undergo a distinguished review
conducted by the District.
The standards with regard to instructional ability, leadership, contributions to the
profession, and life-long learning (the key components of the district review) are high
and are controlled by the District. Having the distinguished review conducted by the
District also allows the District to control the numbers of teachers at the distinguished
effectiveness levels.
3. The target distribution. The most important element with regard to maintaining
standards and ensuring financial stability is the application of a target distribution (see
pages 5-6). Cut-points on the student achievement metrics will be established after
the data are gathered. The cut-points will be established in order to achieve the target
Appendix F • 73
Teacher Excellence Initiative
distribution for each metric. Applying the target distribution to each student
achievement metric ensures that the evaluation ratings will be differentiated.
4. Control of the distribution of the effectiveness levels. A teacher may earn up to
100 points. The score from the performance rubric is added to the score from the
student survey and the achievement template to get the teacher evaluation rating or
annual summative. At present, the effectiveness levels have been assigned the
following range of scores.
Unsat
10-18
Prog. I
19-29
Prog. II
30-42
Prof. I
43-57
Prof. II
58-71
Prof. III
72-85
Exem
86-100
However, these ranges will be adjusted in order to achieve the target distribution. The
range of scores will be adjusted after the evaluations of the teachers in the 2014-2015
school year and after the evaluations of the teachers in the 2015-2016 school year.
After the 2015-2016 school year, the District will determine whether to continue to
adjust the cut-points or to keep them stable.
There are also other key safeguards that will ensure financial stability even should the
district have its revenue cut substantially.
5. Freezing effectiveness levels. Just as under traditional compensation plans, when the
district’s revenue is cut substantially, the district may freeze teacher compensation
and/or effectiveness levels.
6. The salary cap. The salary cap offsets the salary differential received by teachers
who remain at the salary floor. The district plans to keep a cap on the increase of a
teacher’s salary ($5,000 a year) for the first two years of the plan. Should the district
find itself in financial need, it could elect to extend the salary cap for another year.
7. Steady advancement. While teachers can get to higher effectiveness levels fairly
quickly, the TEI plan is designed for steady improvement. Once assigned to an
effectiveness level, a teacher may only advance one level at a time. Additionally,
teachers must have a minimum of three years of classroom experience in order to be
rated “Proficient I.”12
12 A “year” in this case is a full year of teaching. 74 • Appendix F
Teacher Excellence Initiative
Appendix G
Appendix G: Congruence Metric in Principal Evaluation
If a system is not careful, over time, teacher performance evaluations will become
inflated, making it harder to accurately assess staff effectiveness and the principal’s
ability to build capacity. One way to assess true capacity-building versus evaluation
inflation is to compare evaluation ratings with achievement results, which tend to be
more stable. Our premise is that these two metrics are positively correlated (in a fair,
accurate, and rigorous – FAR – evaluation system). Thus a teacher who has an
exemplary performance evaluation would obtain higher student achievement results than
a teacher who has a progressing rating.
Tying a “congruence metric” to a principal’s evaluation helps prevent the inflation of
evaluations. Evaluations will be more aligned with achievement results, and performance
ratings will grow over time, but only if actual student achievement increases. The
congruence metric is worth a total of 5 points on the principal evaluation.
Congruence metric
Unsat
Prog. I
Prog. II
-­‐ 1 Unsat
Prog. I
Prog. II
Prof. I
Prof. II
0 Prof. I
Prof. III
Exemplary
Prof. III
Exemplary
2 Prof. II
Congruence = Sum of absolute values/ no. of teachers =
The congruence metric is derived by taking the absolute value of the difference
between each teacher’s performance rating (from the teacher evaluation rubric) and
their achievement score. The diagram above shows performance ratings and
achievement scores for three different teachers. The absolute values of the three
congruence measurements are 1, 0, and 2. The sum of the absolute values is then
divided by the number of teachers, providing the average congruence between
performance and achievement. A principal’s congruence score is based on this
average. The goal would be to get as close to “0” as possible.
• Appendix G
56 75
Teacher Excellence Initiative
Congruence between performance ratings and achievement results .5 ≥ Cong. .75 ≥ Cong. > .5 1.0 ≥ Cong. > .75 1.25 ≥ Cong. > 1.0 1.5 ≥ Cong. > 1.25 76
Score 5 4 3 2 1 57 Appendix G •
• Appendix H
NEW HIRES
Current
Dist %
Prog I
12%
Total
Empl
Amt.
Novice (47,000)
#
Empl
$49,971,669
$5,996,600
$55,968,269
22
$49 ‐ $51 7.10%
*Teacher totals may be off due to rounding
Salaries
Benefits
Total Cost
51
642
$65 ‐ $74 6.10%
0.48%
18
615
$59 ‐ $65 5.84%
> $74
42 56.5k
2
76k
19 69.5k
62k
39 52.5k
$54 ‐ $59 13.20% 1390
50k
48k
46k
FY16
Salary
$13,585,000
$1,630,200
$15,215,200
$152,000
$1,320,500
$1,116,000
$2,373,000
$2,047,500
$1,100,000
$2,256,000
$3,220,000
FY16 Actual
Cost
(Savings)/
Cost over TEI
62,000
465,500
306,000
483,000
292,500
110,000
141,000
70,000
Unsatisfactory ($45,000)
$51 ‐ $54 12.30% 1295
747
47
$47 ‐ $49 14.80% 1558
842
70
8.00%
#
Empl
Prof III Exemp+
6.0%
2.0%
22.08% 2324
< $47
New
Novice 10.10% 1063 1063 $49,971,669
Unsatisf
3%
Prepared by:
Budget Services
01/08/2014
CURRENT SALARY DISTRIBUTION
Performance Distribution
Prog II Prof I
Prof II
12%
25% 40%
50k
62k
6
76k
77 69.5k
74
167 56.5k
155 52.5k
90
187 49k
$55,302,500
$6,636,300
$61,938,800
$456,000
$5,351,500
$4,588,000
$9,435,500
$8,137,500
$4,500,000
$9,163,000
$13,671,000
FY16 Actual
Cost
Prog I ($49,000)
FY16
Salary
279 49k
#
Empl
162,000 1,578,500 962,000 1,252,500 542,500 90,000 0 0 (Savings)/
Cost over TEI
51k $42,950,160
51k
$9,537,000
51k $19,839,000
51k $29,631,000
486,000 0 0 0 518 54k
299 54k
623 53k
930 51k
(Savings)/
#
FY16
Cost over TEI Empl Salary
62k
$9,548,000
1,694,000 246
62k
13
76k
$160,298,160
$19,235,779
$179,533,939
$988,000
325,000 20
76k
161 69.5k $11,189,500 2,978,500 257 69.5k
154
347 56.5k $19,605,500 1,908,500 556 56.5k
324 52.5k $17,010,000
187
389
581
842
FY16 Actual
Cost
Prog II ($51,000)
#
FY16
Empl Salary
$190,614,500
$22,873,740
$213,488,240
$1,520,000
$17,861,500
$15,252,000
$31,414,000
$27,972,000
$16,146,000
$33,019,000
$47,430,000
FY16 Actual
Cost
#
FY16
Empl Salary
440,000 3,983,500 1,968,000 1,390,000 0 0 (623,000)
55k
62k
6
76k
77 69.5k
74
167 59k
155 57.5k
90
187 53k
(2,790,000) 279 51k
(Savings)/
Cost over TEI
Prof I ($54,000)
2015‐2016 TEI Cost Model
$58,251,000
$6,990,120
$65,241,120
$456,000
$5,351,500
$4,588,000
$9,853,000
$8,912,500
$4,950,000
$9,911,000
$14,229,000
FY16 Actual
Cost
102,000 808,500 222,000 0 (232,500)
(360,000)
(1,122,000)
(2,232,000)
(Savings)/
Cost over TEI
Prof II ($59,000)
55k
53k
65k
3
76k
39 69.5k
37
83 61.5k
$29,426,000
$3,531,120
$32,957,120
$228,000
$2,710,500
$2,405,000
$5,104,500
$4,485,000
$2,475,000
$4,929,000
$7,089,000
FY16 Actual
Cost
51k
(651,000)
2,860
$567,321,829
$68,078,619
Total Ceiling Count:
Total Salaries Cost:
Total Benefits Cost:
3,106
($14,604,000)
Total Ceiling Savings:
$23,034,000
2,000 0 (84,000)
(350,000)
(429,000)
(285,000)
Total Floor Count:
$9,873,000
$1,184,760
$11,057,760
$76,000
$962,000
$804,000
$1,722,000
$1,495,000
$825,000
$1,643,000
$2,346,000 (1,058,000)
(Savings)/
Cost over TEI
$635,400,448
76k
74k
67k
61.5k
57.5k
55k
53k
FY16 Actual
Cost
Exemp+ ($74,000)
FY16
Salary
Total Cost:
1
13
12
28
26
15
31
46
#
Empl
10,527
Total Floor Cost:
33,000 175,500 0 (290,500)
(585,000)
(450,000)
(1,116,000)
(1,946,000)
(Savings)/
Cost over TEI
Prof III ($65,000)
78 57.5k
45
93
139 51k
#
FY16
Empl Salary
Teachers:
bh
Teacher Excellence Initiative
Appendix H
77
Teacher Excellence Initiative
Appendix I
2016 -­‐ 2017 TEI Cost Model
Unsatisf
3%
45k
Prog I
12%
49k
Performance Distribution
Prog II
Prof I
Prof II
25%
40%
12%
51k
54k
59k
Teachers:
Prof III
6.0%
65k
NON-­‐PROGRESSING EMPLOYEE COSTS
Novice in 15-­‐16
New in 15-­‐16
Novice in 14-­‐15
New in 14-­‐15
2014-­‐15 SALARY DISTRIBUTION
NEW HIRES
14-­‐15
Dist.
<$47
26.95%
$47 -­‐ $49
18.07%
$49 -­‐ $51
8.67%
$51 -­‐ $54
15.02%
$54 -­‐ $59
16.12%
$59 -­‐ $65
7.13%
$65 -­‐ $74
7.45%
> $74
0.59%
2014-­‐15 Eval. No. of Rating
Teachers
Novice
Prog II
Unsatisf
Prog I
Prog II
Prof I
Prof II
Prof III
Exemp+
Unsatisf
Prog I
Prog II
Prof I
Prof II
Prof III
Exemp+
Unsatisf
Prog I
Prog II
Prof I
Prof II
Prof III
Exemp+
Unsatisf
Prog I
Prog II
Prof I
Prof II
Prof III
Exemp+
Unsatisf
Prog I
Prog II
Prof I
Prof II
Prof III
Exemp+
Unsatisf
Prog I
Prog II
Prof I
Prof II
Prof III
Exemp+
Unsatisf
Prog I
Prog II
Prof I
Prof II
Prof III
Exemp+
Unsatisf
Prog I
Prog II
Prof I
Prof II
Prof III
Exemp+
1063
842
70
279
581
929
279
139
46
47
187
389
623
187
93
31
22
90
187
299
90
45
15
39
155
324
518
155
78
26
42
167
347
556
167
83
28
18
74
154
246
74
37
12
19
77
161
257
77
39
13
2
6
13
20
6
3
1
% not returning
15%
15%
100%
15%
15%
10%
5%
5%
5%
100%
15%
15%
10%
5%
5%
5%
100%
20%
15%
10%
5%
5%
5%
100%
25%
25%
10%
5%
5%
5%
100%
25%
25%
10%
5%
5%
5%
100%
25%
25%
10%
5%
5%
5%
100%
25%
25%
10%
5%
5%
5%
100%
25%
25%
10%
5%
5%
5%
No. not returning
159
126
70
42
87
93
14
7
2
47
28
58
62
9
5
2
22
18
28
30
5
2
1
39
39
81
52
8
4
1
42
42
87
56
8
4
1
18
19
39
25
4
2
1
19
19
40
26
4
2
1
2
2
3
2
0
0
0
%
returning
85%
85%
0%
85%
85%
90%
95%
95%
95%
0%
85%
85%
90%
95%
95%
95%
0%
80%
85%
90%
95%
95%
95%
0%
75%
75%
90%
95%
95%
95%
0%
75%
75%
90%
95%
95%
95%
0%
75%
75%
90%
95%
95%
95%
0%
75%
75%
90%
95%
95%
95%
0%
75%
75%
90%
95%
95%
95%
Number % at same No. at same Returning rating
rating
FY17
1,000
100%
1,000
605
100%
605
904
0%
0
716
40%
286
0
25%
0
237
25%
59
494
40%
198
836
75%
627
265
75%
199
132
75%
99
44
75%
33
0
25%
0
159
25%
40
331
40%
132
561
75%
421
178
75%
134
88
75%
66
29
75%
22
0
25%
0
72
25%
18
159
40%
64
269
75%
202
86
80%
69
43
80%
34
14
80%
11
0
25%
0
116
25%
29
243
40%
97
466
75%
350
147
85%
125
74
85%
63
25
85%
21
0
25%
0
125
25%
31
260
40%
104
500
75%
375
159
85%
135
79
85%
67
27
85%
23
0
25%
0
56
25%
14
116
40%
46
221
75%
166
70
85%
60
35
85%
30
11
85%
9
0
25%
0
58
25%
15
121
40%
48
231
75%
173
73
85%
62
37
85%
31
12
85%
10
0
25%
0
5
25%
1
10
40%
4
18
75%
14
6
85%
5
3
85%
3
1
85%
1
PROGRESSING EMPLOYEE COSTS
2016-­‐17
Salary
FY17 Actual
Cost
$47,000
$51,000
$47,000
$51,000
$46,000
$49,000
$51,000
$54,000
$56,000
$56,000
$56,000
$48,000
$49,000
$51,000
$54,000
$58,000
$58,000
$58,000
$50,000
$50,000
$51,000
$54,000
$59,000
$60,000
$60,000
$52,500
$52,500
$52,500
$54,000
$59,000
$62,500
$62,500
$56,500
$56,500
$56,500
$56,500
$59,000
$65,000
$66,500
$62,000
$62,000
$62,000
$62,000
$62,000
$65,000
$72,000
$69,500
$69,500
$69,500
$69,500
$69,500
$69,500
$74,000
$76,000
$76,000
$76,000
$76,000
$76,000
$76,000
$76,000
$47,000,000
$30,855,000
$0
$14,586,000
$0
$2,891,000
$10,098,000
$33,858,000
$11,144,000
$5,544,000
$1,848,000
$0
$1,960,000
$6,732,000
$22,734,000
$7,772,000
$3,828,000
$1,276,000
$0
$900,000
$3,264,000
$10,908,000
$4,071,000
$2,040,000
$660,000
$0
$1,522,500
$5,092,500
$18,900,000
$7,375,000
$3,937,500
$1,312,500
$0
$1,751,500
$5,876,000
$21,187,500
$7,965,000
$4,355,000
$1,529,500
$0
$868,000
$2,852,000
$10,292,000
$3,720,000
$1,950,000
$648,000
$0
$1,042,500
$3,336,000
$12,023,500
$4,309,000
$2,154,500
$740,000
$0
$76,000
$304,000
$1,064,000
$380,000
$228,000
$76,000
Floor/
(Ceiling)
$0
$0
$0
$0
($597,000)
($891,000)
($594,000)
$0
$0
$0
$0
($134,000)
($462,000)
($352,000)
$0
$18,000
$0
$0
$0
($170,000)
($154,000)
$0
$101,500
$145,500
$0
$0
($157,500)
($241,500)
$0
$232,500
$572,000
$937,500
$0
$0
($172,500)
$0
$182,000
$506,000
$1,328,000
$180,000
$0
($18,000)
$0
$307,500
$888,000
$2,681,500
$651,000
$139,500
$0
$0
$27,000
$100,000
$308,000
$85,000
$33,000
$2,000
%
advanced
100%
60%
75%
75%
60%
25%
25%
25%
25%
75%
75%
60%
25%
25%
25%
25%
75%
75%
60%
25%
20%
20%
20%
75%
75%
60%
25%
15%
15%
15%
75%
75%
60%
25%
15%
15%
15%
75%
75%
60%
25%
15%
15%
15%
75%
75%
60%
25%
15%
15%
15%
75%
75%
60%
25%
15%
15%
15%
#
advanced
904
430
0
178
296
209
66
33
11
0
119
199
140
45
22
7
0
54
95
67
17
9
3
0
87
146
117
22
11
4
0
94
156
125
24
12
4
0
42
70
55
11
5
2
0
44
73
58
11
6
2
0
4
6
5
1
0
0
2015-­‐2016
Eval. Rating
Prog I
Prof I
Prog I
Prog II
Prof I
Prof II
Prof III
Exemp+
Exemp+
Prog I
Prog II
Prof I
Prof II
Prof III
Exemp+
Exemp+
Prog I
Prog II
Prof I
Prof II
Prof III
Exemp+
Exemp+
Prog I
Prog II
Prof I
Prof II
Prof III
Exemp+
Exemp+
Prog I
Prog II
Prof I
Prof II
Prof III
Exemp+
Exemp+
Prog I
Prog II
Prof I
Prof II
Prof III
Exemp+
Exemp+
Prog I
Prog II
Prof I
Prof II
Prof III
Exemp+
Exemp+
Prog I
Prog II
Prof I
Prof II
Prof III
Exemp+
Exemp+
2016-­‐17
Salary
$49,000
$54,000
$49,000
$51,000
$54,000
$56,000
$56,000
$56,000
$56,000
$49,000
$51,000
$54,000
$58,000
$58,000
$58,000
$58,000
$50,000
$51,000
$54,000
$59,000
$60,000
$60,000
$60,000
$52,500
$52,500
$54,000
$59,000
$62,500
$62,500
$62,500
$56,500
$56,500
$56,500
$59,000
$64,000
$66,500
$66,500
$62,000
$62,000
$62,000
$62,000
$65,000
$72,000
$72,000
$69,500
$69,500
$69,500
$69,500
$69,500
$69,500
$69,500
$76,000
$76,000
$76,000
$76,000
$76,000
$76,000
$76,000
FY17 Actual
Cost
$44,296,000
$23,220,000
$0
$9,078,000
$15,984,000
$11,704,000
$3,696,000
$1,848,000
$616,000
$0
$6,069,000
$10,746,000
$8,120,000
$2,610,000
$1,276,000
$406,000
$0
$2,754,000
$5,130,000
$3,953,000
$1,020,000
$540,000
$180,000
$0
$4,567,500
$7,884,000
$6,903,000
$1,375,000
$687,500
$250,000
$0
$5,311,000
$8,814,000
$7,375,000
$1,536,000
$798,000
$266,000
$0
$2,604,000
$4,340,000
$3,410,000
$715,000
$360,000
$144,000
$0
$3,058,000
$5,073,500
$4,031,000
$764,500
$417,000
$139,000
$0
$304,000
$456,000
$380,000
$76,000
$0
$0
Total
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
($627,000)
($594,000)
($594,000)
($198,000)
$0
$0
$0
($140,000)
($315,000)
($352,000)
($112,000)
$0
$0
$0
$0
($85,000)
($126,000)
($42,000)
$0
$130,500
$0
$0
($55,000)
($126,500)
($46,000)
$0
$517,000
$390,000
$0
($24,000)
($90,000)
($30,000)
$0
$462,000
$560,000
$165,000
$0
($10,000)
($4,000)
$0
$814,000
$1,131,500
$609,000
$49,500
($27,000)
($9,000)
$0
$100,000
$132,000
$85,000
$11,000
$0
$0
$47,000,000
$30,855,000
$44,296,000
$37,806,000
$0
$11,969,000
$26,082,000
$45,562,000
$14,840,000
$7,392,000
$2,464,000
$0
$8,029,000
$17,478,000
$30,854,000
$10,382,000
$5,104,000
$1,682,000
$0
$3,654,000
$8,394,000
$14,861,000
$5,091,000
$2,580,000
$840,000
$0
$6,090,000
$12,976,500
$25,803,000
$8,750,000
$4,625,000
$1,562,500
$0
$7,062,500
$14,690,000
$28,562,500
$9,501,000
$5,153,000
$1,795,500
$0
$3,472,000
$7,192,000
$13,702,000
$4,435,000
$2,310,000
$792,000
$0
$4,100,500
$8,409,500
$16,054,500
$5,073,500
$2,571,500
$879,000
$0
$380,000
$760,000
$1,444,000
$456,000
$228,000
$76,000
Total Cost:
$645,256,640
$14,582,000
Total Ceiling Savings:
78
Floor/
(Ceiling)
Total Floor Cost:
Total Floor Count:
Prepared by:
Budget Services
01/09/2014
10,527
Exemp+
2.0%
74k
2,003
($7,550,000)
Total Ceiling Count:
1,368
Total Salaries Cost:
$576,122,000
Total Benefits Cost:
$69,134,640
bh
Appendix I •
1/24/2014
1
Citizens Budget Review Commission
January 27, 2014
2
Agenda
 Overview
 Brief context  Intended outcomes
1
1/24/2014
3
TEI’s Objective: Improve student learning by improving teacher effectiveness
Defining Excellence
• What is our vision for effective teaching and how do we evaluate it?
Supporting Excellence
• How do we most effectively support and differentiate teachers’ professional learning?
Rewarding Excellence
• How do we reward teachers for their professional growth and impact on student learning?
4
TEI Goals
 Assess teachers fairly, accurately, and rigorously
 Assesses a teacher’s ability to deliver high‐quality instruction and to raise student achievement
 Equitably distribute highly‐effective and well‐qualified teachers across the District, and encourage them to serve students who are most at‐risk
 Targets support and professional development to improve the overall capacity of our teachers to provide high‐quality instruction
2
1/24/2014
5
TEI Goals
 Raise expectations for teaching and increase accountability for effective teaching
 Recruit, recognize, and reward effective teachers; support teachers who are not excelling, and, if necessary, remove teachers who remain ineffective
 Support career pathways for teachers
6
Defining Excellence
 Performance
 Achievement
 Student Surveys
3
1/24/2014
7
Performance
 Instructional practice
 Planning and preparation
 Classroom management
 Professionalism and commitment
8
Achievement

All templates will include the school’s STAAR results and the individual teacher goal

Best of three measures for an assessment will be used when possible

More than 1,000 surveys received from teacher focus groups

Refining templates for teacher input in the spring
4
1/24/2014
9
Achievement
10
Student surveys
 Kindergarten – 12th grade
 Research‐based
 MET study found correlation between student surveys and teacher effectiveness
 Student perceptions, not a popularity contest
5
1/24/2014
11
Student surveys
Examples of types of descriptive statements My teacher encourages me to do my best.
My teacher encourages us to think. We don’t just memorize. If I am confused or have questions, my teacher knows how to help me understand what we are learning.
My teacher makes the time to give us a summary of what we learn every day.
This class keeps me interested, so I don’t get bored.
My teacher gives us the opportunity to explain our thoughts and ideas.
We work during class and we don’t waste time. 12
Overall Effectiveness Levels
District Review (DTR)
Principal Review
Unsat
$45K
Progressing
I
$49K
II
$51K
Proficient
I
$54K
II
$59K
Exemplary
III
$65K
I
$74K
II
$82K
Master
$90K
Novice ($47K)
 Nine levels of overall effectiveness
 Additional Novice level for teachers new to the profession
 Experienced teachers new to the district can be placed at Progressing I or II
and Proficient I levels.
6
1/24/2014
13
Distinguished Teachers

Teachers that are rated at Proficient II or higher

Excel in all three components – teachers performance, student surveys, and student achievement.

Undergo an additional performance review by a three‐member team of instructional leaders and are reviewed for their:


Quality of Instruction

Leadership

Lifelong learning

Contributions to the profession
Teachers who serve in Tier One schools (the highest‐need schools in DISD) are provided additional points in the process
14
Supporting Excellence
 Support is a crucial component of evaluation system
 TEI provides richer and more useful feedback to teachers
 Opportunities for more differentiated and targeted professional development
7
1/24/2014
15
Supporting Excellence: The Research
Guiding principles to support teacher professional learning
Professional learning should:
 Connect to practice and be intensive and ongoing  Focus on student learning and address the teaching of specific curriculum content
 Align with school improvement priorities and goals
 Build strong working relationships among teachers
Source: Darling‐Hammond et al (2009). Professional Learning in the Profession: A Status Report on Teacher Development in the United States and Abroad.
16
Supporting Excellence
The Plan: Supporting Job‐Embedded Professional Learning Learning Context
High‐Leverage Supports
Fostering Self‐
Facilitated Learning Opportunities
 Create short exemplar videos of Dallas ISD teachers representing each indicator of the new performance rubric in various content areas
 Customize a user‐friendly technology platform that facilitates data analysis and reflection as well as tools to incorporate insights into planning
 Develop district training modules for effective use of digital video cameras; invest in digital video cameras for teacher use
Enhancing One‐on‐One Coaching Supports
 Develop extensive calibration modules for school leaders and instructional coaches to ensure a common vision of excellence
 Create an online resource bank with videos and modules for school leaders and instructional coaches on developing effective coaching relationships and providing effective feedback
 Develop a more structured mentoring program for novice teachers that leverages campus expertise
8
1/24/2014
17
Supporting Excellence
The Plan: Supporting Job‐Embedded Professional Learning Learning Context
High‐Leverage Supports
Empowering Teacher Teams
 Provide tools and resources for teacher teams (e.g., toolkits, videos of effective team practices)
 Create virtual PLC modules that facilitate role‐alike teachers within and across campuses
 Develop live and online modules for team leaders
 Support school leaders and coaches in effectively supporting teams (e.g., scheduling logistics, coaching teams)
Increasing Whole‐Group Training Offerings
 Develop a series of 1‐hour model PD modules with facilitator guides aligned to rubric indicators to support campus leaders in facilitating whole‐group PD sessions (e.g., when introducing a topic)
 Create modules to support principals in developing a comprehensive framework for job‐embedded PD on campus, including work on deepening content knowledge
18
Supporting Excellence
The Plan: Identifying strategic professional development initiatives
Initiative
High‐Leverage Supports
Developing Summer
Learning Labs
 Pair proficient and above teachers with progressing teachers in teaching summer school in order to build instructional capacity
Building Robust  Build and provide a set of workshops (e.g., Tuesdays and District Content Saturdays) that are designed to build campus and content Workshops
expertise in areas of need
9
1/24/2014
19
Supporting Excellence
The Plan: Identifying strategic professional development initiatives
Initiative
High‐Leverage Supports
Differentiated PD Academies (Year‐long)
 Develop a set of academies for select teachers that targets:
 Progressing II teachers in order to support them in becoming proficient teachers
 Proficient I teachers in order to support them in becoming distinguished teachers
 Distinguished teachers in order to continue to grow their teacher leadership capacities
 Academies would include a summer session with ongoing PD during the year in order to support job‐embedded professional learning
20
Rewarding Excellence
“Raises – outside of cost‐of‐living adjustments or allowances –
should be based on teacher effectiveness.”
‐‐ Texas Teaching Commission, 2012
“Pay Irreplaceables [roughly, top 20 percent of teachers] what they’re worth, and create career pathways that extend their reach.”
‐‐ TNTP, 2012
10
1/24/2014
21
Rewarding Excellence
 Bases compensation on teacher performance, student achievement, and student survey results
 Rewards effective teachers
 Effective teachers can earn more in a shorter span
 System is sustainable
22
Rewarding Excellence
District Review (DTR)
Principal Review
Unsat
$45K
Progressing
I
$49K
II
$51K
Proficient
I
$54K
II
$59K
Exemplary
III
$65K
I
$74K
II
$82K
Master
$90K
Novice ($47K)
 Novice level for teachers new to the profession
 Experienced teachers new to the district can be placed at Progressing I or II
and Proficient I levels
11
1/24/2014
23
Average teacher with master’s CYS
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Current Salary Schedule
Salary
47,022
47,022
47,022
47,277
47,992
48,859
48,859
49,726
50,593
51,460
52,327
53,194
54,061
54,061
56,265
Potential Strategic Compensation
Effectiveness Level
Salary
Novice
47,000
Progressing I
49,000
Progressing II
51,000
Progressing II
51,000
Proficient I
54,000
Proficient I
54,000
Proficient I
54,000
Proficient I
54,000
Proficient II
59,000
Proficient II
59,000
Proficient II
59,000
Proficient II
59,000
Proficient II
59,000
Proficient III
65,000
Proficient III
65,000
$755,740 $839,000 This teacher would earn $83,260 more over the course of 15 years. Teachers that improve at a faster rate would earn more; less effective teachers would earn less.
24
Rewarding Excellence
Key Implementation Parameters
 Based on SY14‐15 ratings, all classroom teachers would be assigned an overall effectiveness level. The new salary would start in SY15‐16.
 Teacher salaries will not go below 2014‐2015 level
 For first two years of TEI implementation, maximum salary increase in a single year will be capped at $5,000 for an individual teacher
 Proficient I teachers must have a minimum of three years of teaching experience
12
1/24/2014
25
Rewarding Excellence
Other Considerations
 Stipends
 Stipends for hard‐to‐fill areas (e.g., bilingual teachers) will continue
 Stipends for department chairs, team leaders, and mentors will continue through 2015‐16 and will be phased‐out in subsequent years.
 Adjustment for Inflation or Cost‐of‐Living
 The compensation tied to the effectiveness levels is not adjusted every year to account for inflation. However, the compensation scale will be reviewed at least once every three years by the HCM Compensation Team to determine if the scale is competitive and to make a recommendation to adjust it if necessary.
26
Budget and Sustainability
 Two concepts to ensure sustainability
 Base the budget for the new system on the same percentage of the M&O (general operating revenue) that is currently used to pay teacher salaries on the traditional schedule
 Utilize a “target distribution” of effectiveness levels
13
1/24/2014
27
2013‐14 Teacher Salaries & Budget
M&O
Grant funded
TOTAL
2013‐2014 Actual (estimate)
No. of Salary
Benefits
teachers
9,565 $507,500,884 $59,888,787 487 $25,360,128 $3,475,824 10,052 $532,861,012 $63,364,611 Stipends
$3,495,862 $449,070 $3,944,932 28
2015‐2016 Budget for TEI
14
1/24/2014
29
2013‐14 Distribution of Teachers by Salary
30 Oct 2013
30%
28.5%
25%
20%
17.3%
14.9%
15%
15.0%
8.5%
10%
7.1%
8.0%
5%
0.5%
0%
< $47
$47 ‐ $49
$49 ‐ $51
$51 ‐ $54
$54 ‐ $59
$59 ‐ $65
$65 ‐ $74
> $74
* Totals may not add to 100% due to rounding
30
2013‐14 Distribution of Teachers by Creditable Years of Service
3500
2969
3000
2500
2000
1664
1443
1500
1168
981
1000
529
500
491
348
200
121
0
< 1
1‐3
4‐10
11‐15
16‐20
21‐25
26‐30
31‐35
36‐40
>40
*General Fund Teachers only as of October 30, 2013
15
1/24/2014
31
2015‐16 Target Distribution
• The majority of teachers (about 58%) would be considered Proficient, with 37% at Progressing, and 3% Unsatisfactory, and 2% Exemplary
32
2015‐16 Target Distribution
Rating
Compensation
Unsat
Prog I
Prog II
Prof I
Prof II
Prof III
Exem.+
45,000
49,000
51,000
54,000
59,000
65,000
74,000
Target Distribution
3%
12%
25%
40%
12%
6%
2%
No. of Teachers
316
1,263
2,632
4,210
1,263
632
211
10,527
Financial Impact
$14,220,000
$61,887,000
$134,232,000
$227,340,000
$74,517,000
$41,080,000
$15,614,000
$568,890,000
• NOTE: Table excludes cost of maintaining 2014‐15 salary floor and $5K salary increase cap needed to transition over to new system
16
1/24/2014
33
2015‐16 Impact for Teachers
 66% of teachers who are not new and who are not rated “Unsatisfactory” are likely to see an increase in their salary beginning in the 2015‐2016 school year.  Approximately 2,860 teachers will have their salaries capped at an increase of $5,000.  The average increase for those teachers receiving an increase will be approximately $4,000.
 34% of teachers are likely to earn the same salary (from 2014‐15)
34
Parameters & Financial Safeguards
1. Congruence metric in the principal evaluation
2. Distinguished teacher review conducted by the District
3. Use of target distribution
4. Control of the distribution of effectiveness levels
5. Salary increase cap of $5,000 (first two years of plan)
6. Steady advancement: Teachers move one level at a time
7. Freezing effectiveness levels (if District revenue is cut substantially)
17
1/24/2014
35
Non‐Teacher Salary Budget Implications
Costs
Data management system
2014‐15
$1,000,000
2015‐16
$1,000,000
2016‐17
$1,000,000
Assessment development, scoring, and data analysis
$1,860,000
$1,860,000
$1,860,000
Student surveys
$1,250,000
$1,250,000
$1,250,000
TEI implementation team & Distinguished reviews
$ 800,000
$ 725,000
$ 650,000
Training for appraisers and teachers
$ 250,000
$ 50,000
$ 50,000
Professional Development
TOTAL
$3,000,000
$8,160,000
$3,000,000
$7,885,000
$3,000,000
$7,810,000
• A High‐Yield, Efficient Investment: The projected costs average about $800 per teacher per year, the largest portion dedicated to providing professional development supports for teachers.
36
Defining Excellence
Supporting Excellence
Rewarding Excellence
18
1/24/2014
37
Appendix
38
Communications and Engagement
Internal  Presentations by Assistant Superintendents to all school staff
 TEI Implementation Committee
 Teacher Focus Groups by Feeder Pattern
 Regular principal & teacher  Information distributed through The Same Page employee newsletter
 Information through E‐News
 Created a teacher‐specific site on intranet
 Will continue to meet with teachers
engagement through beta
19
1/24/2014
39
Communications and Engagement
Community
 Web site with information
 Meetings with more than 100 community, education, civic and business organizations
 16,215 page views
 Meetings with teacher organization leadership and membership
 Open Mike Meetings
 Will continue to meet with  Answered questions and community and parents
received input 40
Project timeline
2011‐12
2012‐13
Design
Design
(last year)




June 2011 board approved contract to develop a new evaluation system
Engaged thousands of stakeholders
Researched best practice teacher evaluation design elements
Tested an initial rubric and design elements in 18 schools
2013‐14
2014‐15
2015‐16
Beta
Full roll‐
out
Goes into effect
Alig
Alignment
nme
nt

Engaged thousands of stakeholders

Refined preliminary performance measures and conducted spring beta

Defined and built achievement measures

Content area/ grade focus groups

Beta test in different schools across district:

Performance measures

Achievement measures 
Student surveys

Launch Web site

Outreach to teachers and community

Present to Board of Trustees for approval

Training

Performance measures

Achievement 
measures for most teachers

Continue training teachers and principals

Effectiveness ratings determine compensation for 2015‐16 school year

Second year of ratings
Continue to refine evaluation instrument
20
Was this manual useful for you? yes no
Thank you for your participation!

* Your assessment is very important for improving the work of artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project

Download PDF

advertisement