District Awards for Teacher Excellence (DATE)

TSTA Testimony, December 2007

The Texas State Teachers Association appreciates the opportunity to submit comments regarding the “Text of Proposed New 19 TAC, Chapter 102. Educational Programs, Subchapter FF. Commissioner’s Rules Concerning Educator Award Programs.”  TSTA offers the following comments as follows: 

Comment One 

§ 102.1073(b)(5). District Awards for Teacher Excellence. 

Section 102.1073(b)(5) defines “Meaningful, objective performance measures” as “Quantifiable measures that have a standardized definition and are measured and reported in the same way for every campus/school district and in the same way from year to year.”  TSTA objects to the proposed definition of “Meaningful, objective performance measures” as it fails to allow for any other measure other than the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS) test. 

TSTA continues to object to only using the TAKS test as a measure of teacher performance.  This is an arbitrary test that has no meaningful relevance to how a teacher performs in the classroom.  From year to year, an educator in the public school system has no control or knowledge of the grade level a student is able to learn, and will be presented with students from different backgrounds, languages, home environments and learning abilities.  An educator is also not able to control a student’s environment outside of school.  Performance pay in the workplace can only be fair if the employee has total control of the finished product from start to finish.  Thus, performance pay based on a standardized test has no place in the field of education. 

TSTA recommends that the definition include examples that meet the definition of “Meaningful, objective performance measures” other than the TAKS test.   

Comment Two 

§ 102.1073(e)(2)(A).       

Section 102.1073(e)(2)(A) mandates that the local awards plan be developed by the “district-level planning and/or decision-making committee” established under the Texas Education Code.  This section is vague with regard to the level of teacher involvement that is actually required by the rules.  Without such representation on the committee, teachers will not have a significant voice in this process. 

TSTA recommends that the rule require that any committee formed for the purpose of developing a plan under DATE be composed of at least two-thirds classroom teachers. 

Comment Three   

§ 102.1073(e)(2)(B).       

Section 102.1073(e)(2)(B) requires a local awards plan be submitted with evidence of significant teacher involvement demonstrated by providing the campus majority vote count for selected campuses and an assurance of the election from the superintendent of the district.

It appears that this requirement is limited to only those districts that intend to target campuses for incentive pay.  At a minimum, if a district decides to open the plan district wide, that all teachers within its boundaries vote to approve the plan by a majority vote.  Further, each superintendent should be required to submit a signed affidavit under penalty of perjury for each campus vote rather than simply requiring an assurance. 

TSTA also recommends that there be a requirement in this process for more teacher participation in developing the plan as stated in comment two.  Simply requiring a vote of classroom teachers is insignificant and not a demonstration of support from the potential grantees.      

Comment Four   

§ 102.1073(e)(2)(C).      

TSTA first points out that this subsection is identical to Section 102.1073(e)(2)(G).  Both subsections require local awards plans to define criteria that will be used in determining awards for eligible classroom teachers.  It further specifies that the criteria must be “quantifiable” and “applicable” to the “established meaningful, objective performance measures” which address student academic improvement, growth, and/or achievement. 

As stated in comment one, TSTA objects to any one test such as TAKS be used as the only measure for determining whether a classroom teacher has performed in the classroom to a level meriting incentive pay.  The requirement of subsection 102.1073(e)(2)(C) and (G) only provides one real option and that is student performance on the TAKS test.   

Comment Five   

§ 102.1073(e)(2)(D).        

This subsection requires that at least one measure relate to student academic improvement, growth, and/or achievement as defined by subsection (b)(5).  Again, this allows for only one real option for districts to include as a measure and that is performance on the TAKS test.  TSTA objects and makes recommendations to this limitation as outlined in comment one. 

Comment Six   

§ 102.1073(e)(3).        

This subsection requires the local school board to approve the local awards plan, any changes, and the grant application prior to submission to TEA.  There is nothing in the statute that mandates school board approval of local award plans.  TSTA objects to this provision as it allows for the school board to nullify the majority vote of classroom teachers for a specific plan.  To allow a school board to override the final agreement of the potential eligible grantees under a plan will circumvent the collaborative effort made in creating a system for which most of the teachers agree to one that maybe only a few support. 

TSTA recommends that this requirement be deleted, and the rules merely require a presentation of the plan to the school board upon approval by a majority of the classroom teachers.  If it is determined that school board approval should be required, TSTA recommends there be a provision requiring any changes by the board be submitted back to the campuses for a majority vote to approve.  If the vote fails, the district should be restricted from applying for the grant. 

Comment Seven   

§ 102.1073(e)(4). 

This subsection restricts any appeal of a decision by the school board related to the local awards plan.  The most significant consequence of this provision is if a school board approves a local awards plan that violates the teacher vote or consensus.  TSTA objects to this language as it restricts the process by which an employee can grieve any decision the school board makes in regard to the local awards plan in violation of an educators due process rights.  TSTA recommends this prohibition be deleted from the rules.   

Comment Eight   

§ 102.1073(f)(7)(A) and (C).    

These subsections require a demonstration from the district of a strategic plan for decreasing dependence on state funds to assure long-term sustainability of the program after DATE funds expire, and a demonstration of efforts to identify additional sources of funding to support and sustain the activities of the plan. 

TSTA finds no legislative support or legal authority for the mandate of these additional requirements in order to be eligible for grant funds under DATE.  Moreover, the matching requirement violates the most recent Texas Supreme Court decision on school finance as it diminishes a district’s “meaningful discretion” as it has the effect of prohibiting some districts which cannot budget the required matching funds from even applying for a grant under DATE.[1]  Additional strings of this nature will be cost prohibitive for many districts around the state, leaving a bias toward the more property rich districts.  These provisions create an unfair application process across the board and should be removed as requirements for the grant.  

Comment Nine   

§ 102.1073(g). 

This subsection regards amount of grant awards and requires a school district to provide matching funds in order to receive a grant under DATE.  It also explains that award amounts may vary from one year to the next.   

Again, TSTA finds no legislative support or legal authority for the mandate of requiring matching funds under DATE.  Requiring districts to find money in the budget for this grant is cost prohibitive for many districts around the state leaving a bias toward the more property rich districts.  These provisions create an unfair application process across the board and should be removed as requirements for the grant.  In addition, the fact that award amounts may vary from one year to the next makes it difficult for districts to budget, and may cause future issues with grant award amounts to individuals down the road.  If a district is allowed to maintain the same plan over the course of two or three years, yet the amounts received under the grant vary, there will be no consistency in the distribution of said awards. 

TSTA recommends that the matching requirement be removed from the rules.  TSTA also recommends that when a lesser amount is granted to a district from year to year, that the plan for that district be amended to reflect the change in the grant award amount and require a new vote for the DATE plan as some educators may not feel the varied grant amount justifies the continuation of a plan.  Requiring a new vote for an amended plan will give educators the chance to have additional input in this process and safeguard consistency and fairness in how these awards are distributed.  

Comment Ten   

§ 102.1073(h)(2) and (3). 

Subsection 102.1073(h)(2) allows a district to exclude a teacher who transfers, retires or works part-time on a selected campus.  It further prohibits appeals under these circumstances, and appeals are also prohibited under subsection (h)(3) regarding award amounts.  TSTA first objects to any restriction on the appeal process under DATE.   

Teachers should be assured that there is an avenue for appeal when unjust actions are witnessed in this process.  There are many circumstances where favorites are played in the campus setting, and there is the potential for awards to be distributed in a biased fashion.  The appeal process is available for many occurrences related to employer/employee relations and should not be limited in this context.  In fact, merit pay/performance pay would be a very effective tool for an administrator in awarding some while punishing others. 

Second, TSTA objects to allowing districts to set policy to exclude any otherwise eligible employee under the statute who meet the objectives of the plan.  An educator should be entitled to incentive pay earned once the work is done.  A teacher should not be coerced into staying on a campus the following year in order to receive what has already been earned.  Teachers should be free to retire, work part-time or change jobs without fear of losing what has already been earned through hard work. 

TSTA recommends that these subsections be deleted and that an appeal process be identified for all plans.

57% of School Districts Reject DATE
November 20, 2007: TEA released the final number for school districts filing a notice of intent to apply for incentive pay funds under the District Awards for Teacher Excellence (DATE) grant program.  Approximately 57 percent of districts failed to apply for the incentive pay program under DATE, the newest pay for performance grant program implemented by TEA under HB 1 from the 79^th Third Called Special Session. 

TEA has included a matching requirement in its proposed rules for DATE which is currently under the comment period.  The matching requirement requires 15% district funds be used in the first year, 25% in the second year and 35% in the third year.  TSTA will submit comments to the Commissioner of Education regarding the unauthorized matching requirement and other issue identified as problematic with the implementation of the DATE program.

The final grant applications are not due until April of 2008.  TSTA expects more districts will drop out by the application deadline.

DATE: Will It Be Fair?
September 4, 2007: TSTA provided important input at the TEA’s second stakeholder meeting on the District Awards for Teacher Excellence (DATE), the state’s newest incentive program. DATE was enacted during the third special session of the 79^th Legislature and funded during the 80^th Legislative Session at $147.5 million dollars for FY 2009. All districts in Texas are eligible to apply for grant money and the amounts to be awarded to each district applying will be based on the average daily attendance (ADA) for that district during the 2007-2008 school year.  

It will be up to the district-level planning and decision-making committee for each district to develop a district awards plan and to determine which campuses within the district are eligible to participate. Districts do not have to include all campuses in the plan for incentive pay, and in fact, can target certain campuses for the grants. If a district does not select all campuses, a majority of those selected must be Targeted Campuses.  

If DATE is not implemented district-wide, participation of selected campuses must be approved by a majority of classroom teachers assigned to the selected campus through a simple majority vote. Based on input from TSTA, TEA is considering developing additional criteria for district applications showing teacher support of the grant program at individual campuses included or targeted by district plans.  

Target Campuses must meet at least two criteria established by TEA which can include receiving an academically unacceptable rating, lower performance than district average on TAKS, receipt of comparable improvement rating in the bottom quartile relative to other campuses in district, or experiencing above average dropout. 

Districts planning to apply for a grant under DATE will need to submit a Notice of Intent to Apply to TEA by October 19, 2007, but actual Application is not due until April 15, 2008. TEA will then be able to determine approximately how much grant money will go to each applying district and calculate the rate per ADA to be used for the first year. All districts that participate must commit to a two year grant cycle and must provide matching funds of no less than 15% in year one, 25% in year two, and 35% in year three if continued.  

All plans should identify teacher and campus eligibility requirements and be consistent for no less than two years. Plans should identify meaningful, objective, goals and performance measures, and districts will have two school years from the start of DATE in the district to meet selected performance targets. The district must then meet increased performance targets for each year thereafter. The performance measures must relate directly to student academic achievement or improvement and/or student growth.  

District plans must include an incentive system that uses at least 60% of the award money for teachers who improve student performance and the remaining money can be used for principals or other campus personnel or for projects, like mentoring, professional growth, signing bonuses for working in hard to fill subjects or campuses, etc.

Technical assistance will be provided by TEA to aid districts in developing DATE plans. In particular, TEA will assist districts in developing measures or systems of value-added improvement. Currently, no models have been developed by TEA, but TEA anticipates that several models will be available by November for use by districts in developing DATE plans.   

Any district award plan must be approved by the both the superintendent and the local school board for the applying district prior to being submitted to TEA. The district must also conduct a stakeholder meeting to get input for the plan and make it available to the public no later than the start of the 2008-09 school year. Annual award amounts must be at least $3,000 to each teacher qualifying unless the school board determines less is warranted and awards may not be less than $1,000. 

TEA will provide Technical Assistance Information Sessions from September to October of this year, and will provide Technical Assistance Workshop Sessions in November and December of this year and February and March of 2008 throughout Texas. 

TEA will publish the new rules regarding DATE around September 21, 2007. TSTA members should first determine if your district will by filing a Notice of Intent to Apply for DATE by October 19, 2007; and then follow up with your district’s school board and superintendent regarding the future planning stages for incentive pay pursuant to DATE.