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