Longview ISD Show Me The Money Longview Incentive

Longview ISD Show Me The Money Longview Incentive For Teachers Pay for Performance Program

Longview ISD Presenters • • Mr. Ted Beard- LISD Board Member Dr. Troy Simmons- LISD Board Member Dr. James Wilcox- LISD Superintendent Dr. Jody Clements – LISD Assistant Superintendent

Longview Incentives For Teachers LIFT- A local pay for performance model that awards campuses, teachers and staff for obtaining state STAAR recognition and showing growth in Economically Disadvantaged students.

Background • In December of 2012, the Longview ISD Board of Trustees voted to implement a teacher performance pay model for middle school reading and math teachers (grades 6 -8) whose value-added results demonstrated significant growth with students who are classified as low socio-economic. This was implemented in an effort to decrease the achievement performance gap between low-socio economic and non low socioeconomic students in Longview ISD. In 2012, two of the three middle schools in Longview ISD missed Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) and were in escalated stages of interventions. Low-socio economic students were identified as the targeted group who did not perform satisfactorily on the state tests in math and reading. As a result, middle school reading and math teachers (grades 6 -8) were the focus of the Longview ISD Incentive for Teachers pay for performance model. Current research has demonstrated that socio-economic status is a significant factor in student achievement; thus, it is the focus of the LISD performance pay model.

Rational The school board determined that Longview ISD ECD students seemed to struggle the most on the state assessments, however there were campuses and pockets of individual teachers that had found the formula for success. The board determined that they wanted to reward those campuses and teachers for their success, as well as encourage other teachers to strive for improvements through monetary reward.

Three LISD Incentive Models • Academic Distinction Model • Growth Model • High Stakes Testers Model

Academic Distinction Model #1 • Academic Distinctions Model • Based on the number of campus Academic Distinctions on STAAR • Available to all employees on Campus • $200 per STAR designation • Employees must meet criteria

Academic Distinction Example • Academic Distinctions If campus A receives 5 Academic Distinctions on the STAAR test then each employee that qualifies under the guidelines will get 5 x $200 = $1000. That would be for every teacher, aide, office worker, custodian, cafeteria worker and administrator assigned to the campus.

Academic Distinction Model 2015 -2016 Results District Academic Distinctions- 30 Campuses Receiving Distinctions- 7 Total Distinction Payout- $529, 959. 00 Total Staff Awarded- 610 Largest Campus Payout- $1, 400. 00 to every employee assigned to campus.

Impact of Distinction Plan • Increased buy-in of all faculty and staff • Increased test results • Higher level of campus buy-in on all aspects of campus improvement • A culture of team work

James Brewer High School Principal

Growth Model # 2 • Growth Model – Based on statistical model (EVASS) – Value- added Model – Pays based on growth of ECD students in Core classes (Not pass rate) – Pays at 2 levels • Level 4 -$69 per ECD student • Level 5 - $104 per ECD Student

T-Tess and Incentive Plans T-TESS includes three components: • Goal-setting and professional development plan • The evaluation cycle (including: preconference, observation, post-conference) • Student growth measure

Value Added Models • The evaluation components in the new rules that are required every year also include a controversial new student growth measure. Commissioner Morath is requiring all teachers to be evaluated based on student growth, and recommending value-added measures (VAM) as one of four such evaluation components in the new rules. ATPE Website

Growth Chart SAS EVAAS Teacher Effectiveness Value Added Reports provide reflection on the overall effectiveness of a teacher based on student progress. This report for the 2016 STAAR test compares the student progress to that of a referenced population such as the state of Texas to establish the appropriate expectation for growth. The expectations for growth are divided into the following effectiveness levels: Level 1 – Least Effective: teachers whose students are making substantially less progress than the state growth/state average (Estimated mean NCE gain is below the growth standard by more than 2 standard errors) Level 2 – Approaching average effectiveness: teachers whose students are making less progress than the state growth/state average (Estimated mean NCE gain is below the growth standard by more than 1 standard errors but greater than 2 standard errors) Level 3 – Average Effectiveness: teachers whose students are making the same amount of progress as the state growth/state average (Estimated mean NCE gain is equal to the growth standard but less than 1 standard errors) Level 4 - Above Average Effectiveness: Teachers whose students are making more progress than the state growth/state average (Estimated mean NCE gain is above the growth standard by more than 1 standard errors but less than 2 standard errors) Level 5 – Most Effective: teachers whose students are making substantially more progress than the state growth/state average (Estimated mean NCE gain is above the growth standard by 2 standard errors or more).

GROWTH EXAMPLE • If teacher A teaches 45 ECD students and the average growth rate of these students are at a Level 4 or 5 then the teacher would receive. Level 4 - 45 students x $69 = $3, 105 Level 5 -45 students x $104= $4, 608

Growth Model 2015 -2016 Results Campuses Receiving Growth Payment- All Total Growth Payout- $194, 690. 00 Total Staff Awarded- 63 Average per teacher- $3, 090. 00 Largest Individual Payout- $11, 370. 00

Growth Model Impact • • Good teachers getting rewards for success. Increased retention rate of good teachers Teachers want to teach ECD students Increased ECD student success Better teacher attendance rates Students get on level with big growth Happy Teachers

Board Perspective Mr. Ted Beard Dr. Troy Simmons

Kyra Letzo Testimony

Kamala Weaver Testimony

High Stakes Testers Model # 3 • High Stakes Testers Students who are taking EOC for graduation Students must have failed previous EOC Teachers are paid based on students that pass Teachers are paid $104 per student that passed

High Stakes Example Teacher C has 25 student in an EOC Science class for people that have failed the test. Seventeen of those students pass the test after completing the class. Teacher is paid. 17 x $104= $1768. 00

High Stakes Model Results 2016 -2017 Total High Stakes Payout- $8, 845. 00 Total Staff Awarded- 3

Impact of High Stakes Testing Model • More Students graduating on time • Great teachers rewarded for high levels of instruction with challenging students • Decrease in student drop-outs due to test

AS A TEACHER How Do I Qualify for Distinction Payment? Come to work Claim Your Students Teach at a high level Follow the requirements Receive a Check

Eligibility Requirements • • • Must be employed entire year of testing window. Must remain employed until December payment is made 97% attendance rate No transfers during year Retired are eligible if they do not take another position in another district • Must be full time • Campus Level only. No district Level employees get pay

Other Important Components • Pay will occur in December after the test • Board makes determination of amount of pay • An appeal can be made if you are deemed ineligible • Employee must follow all administrative requirements to be eligible

Growth Model Requirements • Only paid for Level 4 and 5 teachers • Only paid on Economically Disadvantaged students • Staff must complete all linkage to be eligible • Must have an minimum of six effective students to receive pay • Must be highly qualified and certified

Awards • • Longview ISD Pay for Performance Models 12 -13 13 -14 14 -15 15 -16 Growth (ECD) $64, 343 $131, 225 * $136, 201 $194, 690 Campus Distinctions NA $293, 600 * $322, 174 $529, 959 EOC High Stakes NA $16, 793* $7, 614 $8, 845 Total Payouts $64, 343 $365, 544 $465, 989 $733, 494 • • Teachers Receiving Growth NA 25 38 63 Top Award NA $6500 $10, 742 $11, 370 • Total Staff Receiving Payout NA • These show total qualifying payments as opposed to actual payments 579 610

Appeals Process Appeals must be submitted in writing Appeals submitted after the deadline will not be reviewed. The committee will only review appeals regarding meeting eligibility criteria Appeal decisions are final •

The Pay-off Since 2012 Three schools under Improvement Required in 2012 - Zero in 2016 Increase in ECD Dual credit Participation Increase in ECD Magnet school enrollment Decrease in ECD Drop-out rate Increase in ECD AP/IB/GT participation Increase in ECD College Ready students Last 4 Years 2013 -2017 18 Distinctions in Student Progress 9 Distinctions for Closing Gaps 12 Distinctions for Post-Secondary Readiness Distinctions 2013 -6 2014 -21 2015 -22 2016 -30

Show Me The Money • Show Me The Money

CE# 8027 Thank you for attending our session