I read the reply back about my first post and you do raise some good points, but now all are 100% accurate.

First of all, one of the biggest misconceptions is the whole deal about CEIs and reconstituted schools.

I have to even admit that some of the top administration officials have misspoken on how the reconstituted teachers were removed from the schools.

If you completely removed CEIs from the equation of which teachers got removed from reconstituted schools, then guess what, the same or most likely more teachers would have been removed.

The teachers who were removed had their percent passing TAKS analyzed BUT once we added CEIs to the mix, it pretty much said that even though some teachers had low percent passing of TAKS, the CEI could be used to "save" them from being removed.

Otherwise, they were already put on the list to be removed in the first place.

Having a low CEI didn't put anyone on the list because teachers with a low CEI could still stay at the campus if their TAKS passing was good.

It's sort of a confusing explanation that often gets misunderstood, but I say again, the CEI didn't remove anyone from the reconstituted schools but rather just gave a new way for them to get off the list.

As for the other uses of CEI, hey you are right on some of those. I'm sure some principals have been using CEIs for other purposes, but that really doesn't have anything to do with the performance pay plan because that was being done before this whole performance pay began.

That's another big issue that I admit does need to be addressed.

Another point brought up was "The data used to calculate is often incorrect and no matter how wonderful the formula may be, if incorrect data is used, a flawed CEI will always be calculated."

Yes true, there are times that some wrong information may be used in the CEI and most of that has to do with the wrong kids being included in the calculation.

There is a grievance process for teachers on their CEI score and work is being done to verify rosters more throughout the year to lower this problem.

It is my understanding that teachers are suppose to verify their rosters periodically, so part of the issue is to communicate that teachers make sure they verify the right kids, but I do admit there are mistakes made and every effort to my knowledge is being done to fix those mistakes when they happen.

I still don't believe those few mistakes are enough to warrant scraping the whole program.

Another point made is that "This program favors core teachers." Well so do many of the extra stipends in place now.

Why aren't you advocating getting rid of the many thousands of dollars extra that core teachers receive for teaching hard-to-staff subjects like math and science?

Also, core teachers are the ones being reconstituted, core teachers are more at risk, core teachers are the ones who MOST affect the state and federal accountability rating, so yes, with more risk there comes more reward. But with the advise of the various unions and other stakeholders, a specific effort was made to make sure that everyone in the campus, even including support staff, was eligible for funds.

It's not a perfect system and no, it's not a completely fair system, but it is what we have come up with so far, and this pilot year will be evaluated and adjustments will be made.

We have to start somewhere.

There were some other issues brought up, but I'll just address this last one (in an effort to keep this post shorter than my previous).

An important comment was made "what about our Pre-K and Kinder teachers? Where is their recognition for teaching our children to read?" Yes, yes and yes. I couldn't agree more. This is where we need YOUR HELP!!

With the current system of accountability, it is very hard to measure teachers who teach subjects with no standardized test. That's what it really comes down to.

Remember, this is only a portion of a 5-component performance pay system, and for this portion that specifically measures student performance, we need a measurement of student performance.

It may just so happen that teachers that aren't able to largely benefit from this portion of the performance pay plan will benefit largely from other portions or vice versa. That doesn't mean the district is not open to suggestions and I'm confident that if teachers give suggestions and recommend new and better ways to include more people in the rewards of being great educators, then your efforts would be greatly appreciated.

I do thank you (whoever posted the reply) for your feedback and think it is good to have a healthy discussion over these topics. I'm not here to fight over whose right and wrong, but to only help clarify what is going on and better yet, to get honest, constructive feedback on the many concerns about the program. Thanks!

[Ed Note: I like the point you raise. There are folks demonizing pay-for-performance, yet accepting stipends for teaching certain subjects. See the trick is just to be a science teacher with a top 20% CEI!]