March 15, :00pm Daryton A. Ramsey Educator Quality Grant Administrator

 Created by House Bill 1, Article IV 79th Legislature, 3rd Special Session, 2006 Modified by House Bill 3646, 81st Legislature, 2009 Supported by Commissioner’s Rules Concerning Educator Award Programs, § District Awards for Teacher Excellence

 A highly effective teacher can provide up to 50% improvement in student achievement (Hanushek, Kain & Rivkin, 1998)  Students consistently assigned to strong teachers can overcome the achievement gap in 3-5 years (Rivers & Saunders, 2002)  Effective teachers tend to gravitate towards schools that serve kids from higher socio-economic backgrounds (Loeb & Reininger, 2004)  The most common criteria for rewarding teachers – classroom experience and education – are weakly associated with student achievement (Hanushek, Kain, O’Brien, & Rivkin, 2005)  Performance award programs can align compensation with student improvement and help attract, develop, and retain high quality teachers (Springer & Podgursky, 2007)

 Funding is intended to support the establishment of district award programs encourage the recruitment, retention and development of high quality educators through: ◦ Awarding teachers for positively impacting student achievement ◦ Creating capacity and sustainability for improved instruction within the district ◦ Alignment with overall district goals

 participate for at least two consecutive grant cycles with consistent requirements (i.e. the same types of teachers and campuses should be targeted) ;  develop a district award plan with goals to improve student academic improvement and/or growth;  create an awards system consistent with district goals;  establish performance measures consistent with district goals.

 Districts will utilize a district-level planning and decision- making committee to develop a district award plan.  Award plans can be implemented for the entire district or campuses selected by the district. (More than half of campuses must be target campuses if the plan is not for entire district.)  Reward eligible teachers who positively impact student academic improvement and/or growth.  Describe how all program funds will be distributed under Part I & Part II.

 Part I of our DATE plan must make up at least 60 percent (no less, but can be up to 100%) of the district’s total grant award. Teachers who meet TEA’s definition are the only educators eligible under this section. The minimum incentive amount which can be offered is $1,800.  Principals (not assistant principals) are the only personnel that can be included in Part I.  Part I must use meaningful and objective goals and performance measures that identify which eligible educators will receive awards. At least 50% of the criteria used must be quantifiable and address one or both of the following: ◦ student academic improvement and/or ◦ student growth.

Part II of DATE can use up to 40 percent of the grant funds on other allowable activities, including stipends and awards for: ◦ Recruitment and retention of teachers; ◦ Career, mentor, and master teachers; ◦ On-going applied professional growth; ◦ Increasing local data capabilities to support instruction and accountability; ◦ Awards for principals who increase student performance; and ◦ Other campus employees who demonstrate excellence.

D.A.T.E. Plan 1.0

Apr Jun Dec 4/7/11- Application Due Date Apr –Jun 2011:Negotiate, Revise, Resubmit D.A.T.E. Timeline Data Source Collection Complete Jul D.A.T.E. Final Plan due June 1, 2011

 ds.org/ ds.org/

 Target Campuses CNA  Target Campuses CIP  Target Campus Surveys(Pre/Post)  Target Campus State Assessment Data  Other Campuses CAN  Other Campuses CIPS  District/CNA  District/ DIP  District Programs/Processes  District Demographics  Other District Performance Data(eg. PBMAS)  District Perception data  Committee Member expertise/experience

Q & A