Some clarification on this new performance pay plan the district is rolling out. This is a bit of a long post, but if you want some good, truthful feedback about the new performance pay program, please continue. Just as a precursor, I will admit that I am not a teacher but am an informed DISD employee about the performance pay program. I really want some honest feedback on this.

If I were to come to a teacher and say for their class, if 80% of your kids pass the TAKS exam then you’re doing good, and if 80% doesn’t pass, your doing bad, how fair would you think that would be?

I can hear it now, well so and so has the honors kids, well I have all the limited-English speaking students, well I have a bunch of special education kids in my class, etc….

Guess what. That’s exactly what the state and federal systems do.

They do not care what your class looks like or who you teach.

Let me correct that, they do look at race and a few other factors to determine various student groups, but they primarily look at scores and percent passing.

If that were the only way to be considered a good teacher, then that means the only good teachers must reside in the suburbs with the “rich, privileged kids” in districts such as Highland Park and Southlake Carroll because they’re the ones who consistently have good accountability ratings, etc…

Or maybe only the magnet schools have good teachers and all the others have bad teachers because the magnets always score so great. Well what if someone said we know that’s not the fairest way to do it and instead of judging you just on passing rate, we will judge how well you grow the kids who are given to you. Wow what a great concept. You mean if I have low income, Limited-English speaking kids, I can still be considered an effective teacher even though my passing rate, or average TAKS scores aren’t that high? Exactly.

I just don’t understand what all the fuss is about. Why aren’t there daily protests in Austin and in Washington about the current accountability system because like I said, they just judge mainly by percent passing, and absolute measurements?

And yes, the state does tie money to those accountability ratings. Look at many of the grant funds being given out because many of them tie accountability ratings to them. Believe it or not, the state doesn’t rate a district exemplary because of how well the teachers get parents involved, or measure how passionate and caring teachers are. Sorry, but in the real world, they care about numbers and something measurable to determine accountability. I know it sounds insensitive, but I didn’t make up the system.

We have a district in Dallas who is trying to improve upon the unfair system that the state and federal government is currently using. DISD recognizes that it is an urban district with urban students and urban challenges, so they should have a system that better shows which teachers are doing well in the classroom with their students.

Notice how I said, “a system that better shows,” as in better that what we’re currently using. What the state and federal government does is one thing, and DISD is attempting to do something they think is MORE fair.

When teachers got money from the TEEG grant from the state, did you read the details in that your school still had to have a certain accountability rating? When the district rolled out the Outstanding School Performance Award, did you read the details and notice how the school still had to have a certain accountability rating? In other words, you still had to be in a high-achieving environment to be eligible for the money and yet I still didn’t see any pitchforks raised.

The program the district is rolling out says you can improve the students that come in your classroom, still have a low accountability rating as a school or even a low passing rate, and be eligible for money. Maybe I’m missing something but that sounds at least a little fairer than what’s in place.

Let me just mention this too. One of the reasons why some administrative staff said this is “cutting edge” and that we are ahead of the curve is because even the state and federal government recognize the unfairness of the current accountability system. They understand that measuring by absolute performance isn’t always the best accountability so they are encouraging districts to start developing and researching these “value-added” systems that look more at student growth in the classroom rather than absolute performance measurements.

It just so happens, in the still relatively new arena of “value-added” systems, Dallas ISD does have a lot of research in this area, so why not try it out to see if it can work better than what we are using right now?

I never said the district is presenting something that is PERFECT. If there is anyone out there who thinks they can come up with a perfect system, please strip the anonymous tag off your post name so we can anoint you superintendent right now.

I promise there is not one who can come up with a perfect system that is fair to everyone. Not DISD, not the state and not the federal government. If teachers are so up in arms about tying pay to performance that just give money out free for doing nothing and showing no improvement.

Oh yeah we already do that.

We give thousands and thousands of dollars with absolutely no performance measurement.

Teach math = extra money.

Bilingual = extra money, etc…

And those are the stipends that actually make sense and there are many that don’t. I’m not against stipends or incentives or awards. I actually think that serves another way to recruit certain people to do certain jobs or have certain responsibilities.

The district’s plan has many categories, in which just like the previous example of stipends, some money just has the purpose of paying money to people for being a math teacher or whatever. Which is fine.

One way to help recruit the math, science, bilingual, etc... teachers is to offer these "stipends". Other parts of the district’s plan look at how well students are growing in achievement compared to similar kids in the district. I’ll repeat, how well the students are growing in achievement, and not just how well they are passing. Of course the eventual goal is to get them to pass but you have to start somewhere and why punish the teachers who are getting them closer to the bar?

We don’t see protest being done for a teacher who increases their salary by 40% with absolutely not accountability tied to those stipends and incentives. I’ve heard plenty of times and believe teachers are right when they say they don’t work for the money.

Great, but do you work for free?

Do you even want to get paid at all? Don’t act like you don’t want a paycheck. Forgive the district for trying to offer an improvement over the current system and give teachers and campus staff ways to get more money.

Just one last thing about the district’s plan.

All full-time campus employees (in one of the pilot schools) are eligible for this extra money. Yes all, including elective teachers, janitors, cafeteria workers, coaches, counselors, everyone. And better yet, there is really no risk to the program.

For teachers who get CEIs, you will receive your CEI whether you join this program or not and for those who join, there is no punishment if you don’t qualify for the money.

There are different levels of awards for the staff, but the point is that some are saying this is only for the “core” teachers, but that is not true.

At least be educated about the program first and try to understand more about CEIs and SEIs before pulling out your pitchforks and torches. The district barely began communicated the plan yet, and some are opposed before they are even fully explained the details.

Let’s give them a chance and see how this pilot works.

Thanks for listening.