1

The TEI System

July 2014
Evaluator Certification Training
A highly effective teacher
helps students learn the
equivalent of a year-and-a-
half of learning in a single
year, while a highly
ineffective one imparts a
half-year of learning.
Research finding of Stanford economist
Eric Hanushek
Students who have the misfortune of receiving
ineffective teachers for three years in a row score
as much as 50 percentile points lower on
statewide assessments than those who benefited
from a three-year string of effective teachers.
Research finding of William Sanders
All students must have access to high-
quality instruction.
To that end, states must re-examine and
align their systems for recruiting,
retaining, preparing, licensing, evaluating,
developing and compensating effective
teachers.
For Each and Every Child, a report by the Equity and
Excellence Commission, Feb. 2013
Goal
Improve student
learning by defining,
supporting and
rewarding teacher
effectiveness
Teacher Effectiveness
Defining
Excellence
Supporting
Excellence
Rewarding
Excellence
What is our vision for effective teaching and
how do we evaluate it?
How do we most effectively support and
differentiate teachers professional learning?
How do we reward teachers for their
professional growth and impact on student
learning?
DNA Policy & Regulation
Passed by the Board on May
22nd, 2014
Outlines evaluation process
and criteria
Ties evaluation to professional
development support and
compensation
DNA (LOCAL) DNA (REGULATION)
Near-final draft available
Provides more specific
expectations for evaluators
regarding process and
timelines
The Evolution of the TEI System
The beginning of 2015-16 will be the first year
compensation is tied to evaluation results
2014-15 is the first year of implementation of the
evaluation and associated support system
Informed by the engagement of thousands of
stakeholders beginning in 2011
2011-2014
2014-2015
2015-2016
The model will be continuously improved over time
Defining Excellence
Performance
Achievement
Student Perceptions
10
Research-based Evaluation System
At least 10 spot observations per year
One extended observation
Distinguished Teacher Review teams
Evaluator certification training
TEI Design
Performance, Achievement, Student Perception
Achievement templates incorporate multiple
assessments and weights
Rubric with four domains
Multiple classroom observations
Student surveys when available
Multiple metrics to measure student
achievement

MET Study Research Findings

Composite of multiple and balanced
weights yielded more reliable and
consistent results
Reliability increases with additional
observations and additional raters
by calibrated evaluators
Multiple measures produce more
consistent performance ratings than
student achievement alone
Evaluation Process
Evaluation Process
Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb March April May June July Aug Sept Oct
Process Step
Training and
Orientation
Goal-setting
Conference: PD
Plan and SLO
Spot Observations
Extended
Observations
w/Conference
Summative
Performance Eval.
w./Conference
Student Survey
SLO Results
Assessments
DTR
Eval. Rating &
Effectiveness level
Compensation
Performance Achievement Survey Compensation
All components
Evaluator Certification
Each evaluator, including an employee who transfers
into an administrator position, will participate in
evaluator certification training within 30 instructional
days from the hire date.
Returning administrators will receive annual update
training no later than the 30th day of instruction during
the school year.
Any observations conducted prior to the evaluator
being certified will not count as part of the teachers
evaluation.
Evaluator Certification: 3 Components
Multiple-choice assessment
Observing & rating a video of classroom
instruction
Campus-based field experience
Component Assessment Method
TEI System
Knowledge
Rater
Accuracy
Observation &
Coaching Field
Experience
Component 1:
TEI System Knowledge
Through a multiple-choice assessment, evaluators will
need to demonstrate proficiency in understanding the TEI
system and relevant processes
Sources of assessment items
Todays session
DNA policy and regulations
SLO training
TEI Teacher Guidebook
Component 2:
Rater Accuracy
Through observing and rating a video of classroom instruction,
evaluators need to demonstrate accuracy on two measures:
The five focus indicators for spot observations (2.1, 2.2,
2.3, 2.5, and 3.1)
11 observable indicators (1.1 and 1.5, all of Domains 2
and 3)
Component 3:
Field Experience
Returning DISD administrators who conducted at least 15 spot
observations and coaching conversations last school year will be
considered to have met this field experience requirement.
New DISD administrators will need to complete the field
experience requirement before conducting spot observations or
using evidence to inform a teachers evaluation
15 Spot Observations
3 Joint Spot Observations
1 Joint Feedback Conference
Component 3: Field Experience
New DISD Administrators
15 Spot Observations
Fifteen (15) spot observations will be completed within the first
three weeks of the 2014-2015 school year.
These spot observations will not be considered as evidence for
teachers evaluations and will not be record in Schoolnet.
Administrators will complete paper-based spot observation
forms; their supervisors will monitor the completion, and may
complete an online review of some of the spot observation
submissions
Component 3: Field Experience
New DISD Administrators
3 Joint Spot Observations
Three (3) spot observations will be completed jointly with the
Executive Director (ED) or another administrator who is
identified as certified in the Spot Observation Process (e.g., a
certified building administrator may fill this role for a newly
hired assistant principal).
Component 3: Field Experience
New DISD Administrators
1 Joint Feedback Conference
The ED (or another certified administrator) will observe one (1)
spot observation and follow up conference, completed by the
new administrator.
At the conclusion of the observation, the ED (or another
certified administrator) will provide feedback to the new
administrator using the Feedback Rubric (a component of the
DISD Mid-Year Review Rubric).
Implications
Administrators must be certified for all three
components.
Administrators need to pass the calibration
assessment (rater accuracy) and satisfy the field
experience requirement in order to conduct any
observations that may be used as evidence in a
teachers evaluation
Implications
If an administrator passes the TEI system assessment
(Component 1) but has not yet passed one or both
of the other components, the evaluator will be
considered certified for the TEI system component
and so may still engage teachers in creating SLOs,
PDPs, and conducting goal-setting conferences.
Implications
Administrators who do not pass the calibration assessment:
The 1
st
time will be provided with a group coaching session
and will re-take the calibration assessment a second time
The 2
nd
time will receive an intervention plan with
individualized coaching support and will re-take the
calibration assessment a third time
The 3
rd
time will lead to other actions that may include
termination
Evaluators
Each teacher shall be assigned a primary evaluator
For 2014-15, evaluators shall be school-based administrators
and selected central office employees that normally evaluate
school-based staff (e.g., SPED)
Campus instructional coaches, department chairs, or other
non-administrative school staff cannot serve as an evaluator
(some roles may be re-visited in future years)
Evaluators
Each evaluator, including an employee who transfers into an
administrator position, will participate in evaluator
certification training within 30 instructional days from the
hire date.
For 2015-16 and beyond, periodic recertification will be
required and returning administrators will receive annual
update training no later than the 30th day of instruction
during the school year.
Teacher Orientation
Each teacher, including an employee who transfers into a
teacher position, will receive teacher evaluation training
within 15 instructional days from the hire date.
For 2014-15, principals and TEI experts will conduct TEI
teacher orientation with all teachers during the week
teachers return.
For 2015-16 and beyond, returning teachers will receive an
annual update training no later than the 15th day of
instruction during the school year.
Sharing School Action Plan
The principal or designee communicates school goals, as
provided for in the School Action Plan, to all campus faculty
to aid in goal-setting for teacher Professional Development
Plans (PDPs) and Student Learning Objectives (SLOs).
School goals should be communicated in writing, to teachers,
within 15 instructional days of hire date.
Goal-Setting Conference
Each teacher will participate in a goal-setting conference by
October 1
st
of each year.
Late hires and employees transferring into teacher positions
after October 1
st
will participate in a goal-setting conference
within 15 instructional days from the hire or transfer date.
During the goal-setting conference, the teacher and primary
evaluator discuss and develop the teachers Student Learning
Objective (SLO) and Professional Development Plan (PDP).
Student Learning Objectives (SLOs)
Student Learning Objectives are student achievement measures on which a teacher
and his or her evaluator agree regarding student growth goals.
Each teacher will develop draft SLOs prior to the goal-setting conference. If possible,
the teacher and primary evaluator should agree on SLOs at the conference.
The SLO should ideally be rated Proficient (2 points) when approved.
Each teacher has the responsibility of working towards the agreed upon SLOs.
The evaluator shall provide the teacher with feedback throughout the school year by
way of classroom observations and conferences with the teacher concerning student
performance.
The evaluator rates the goal accomplishment at the end of the school year.
DISD SLO Rubric
Professional Development Plan (PDP)
1. Teacher selects 2 personal areas of focus
First PD goal must be aligned to an indicator in Domain 2
Second PD goal can be selected from any Domain
2. Teacher shares PDP with Administrator in advance of conference
for review
3. Administrator schedules conference with teacher to review PDP
4. The administrator approves the teachers PDP
5. The administrator monitors progress
Each teacher shall complete an individual Professional
Development Plan during the goal-setting period.
31
TEACHER CATEGORIES
Teacher Categories
Four teacher categories in order to ensure a fair,
accurate, and rigorous system
A teachers category is impacted by:
Courses taught and scheduling decisions
Students with assessment scores
Teacher Categories
Teacher Category
Teacher
Performance
Student
Achievement
Student
Perceptions
Category A Most grade 3-12 teachers whose
students take an ACP, STAAR, or AP exam,
including most K-5 specials teachers
50% 35% 15%
Category B Most K-2 teachers whose
students take an ACP or ITBS/Logramos
65% 35% 0%

Category C Most grade 3-12 teachers whose
students do not take an ACP, STAAR, or AP
assessment but who are able to complete a
student survey (e.g., CTE teachers).

65% 20% 15%

Category D Any teacher whose students do
not take an ACP, STAAR, or AP assessment nor
are eligible to complete a student survey (e.g.,
pre-K teachers, teachers not-of-record such as
SPED inclusion teachers, TAG teachers)

80% 20% 0%

34
TEI PERFORMANCE
Performance
A teachers
performancethe
majority of the
evaluationwill be
determined by principals
and assistant principals,
who will score teachers
based on a performance
rubric
Performance
The goal of the teacher
performance rubric is to
provide an instrument
that describes in detail
the behaviors of
excellent teachers in
ways that facilitate self-
reflection and
collaborative dialogue
Teacher Performance Rubric
Spot Observations
Ensure accurate observations for
providing helpful feedback
throughout the year on five key
indicators:
2.1 Establishes clear and rigorous
lesson objective(s)
2.2 Measures student mastery
through a Demonstration of Learning
2.3 Clearly presents instructional
content
2.5 Engages students at all learning
levels in rigorous work
3.1 Maximizes instructional time
Spot Observations
2013-14 vs. 2014-15
2013-14
Lesson Objective
Demonstrations of Learning
(DOL)
Purposeful Instruction
Engagement
2014-15
2.1 Establishes clear and rigorous
lesson objective(s)
2.2 Measures student mastery
through a Demonstration of Learning
2.3 Clearly presents instructional
content
2.5 Engages students at all learning
levels in rigorous work
3.1 Maximizes instructional time
A key difference for 2014-15 is the concept of maximizing instructional time is a
separate indicator (it was formerly a component of purposeful instruction)
Spot Observations
Observation typically lasts 10 to 15 minutes
Results in written feedback from a principal or assistant
principal within two days
Face-to-face feedback conversations are also recommended
but not required.
A minimum of five spot observations each semester 10 total
for the year
Spot Observations
Spot observations from the teachers primary evaluator and
any other evaluators count toward the required number of
spot observations for a teacher.
In cases where there is more than one evaluator, the primary
evaluator must conduct at least three spot observations each
semester for the teachers assigned.
For late hires, transfers, and employees on leave, the
required number of spot observations will be pro-rated.
42
Extended Observation
All teachers receive an extended 45-minute observation or
observation of one complete lesson if less than 45 minutes
Conducted by primary evaluator
All nine indicators from Domains 2 and 3 are rated
Performed within a 10-day window by the primary appraiser
Written feedback and conference within 10 working days
43
Informal Observations & Other Data
Evaluators may conduct informal observations or gather
other information regarding a teachers performance from
other sources in order to provide teachers with constructive
feedback to improve practice.
Evaluators can observe teachers at any time, in any school
setting, of any duration, and with any frequency deemed
appropriate.
Any observed actions, evidence, artifacts, or other
information learned by the evaluator from other sources,
may inform a teachers evaluation.
44
Performance Domains
Rubric Domains Evidence Used
Domain 1: Planning &
Preparation
Artifacts and informal
observations
Domain 2: Instructional
Practice
Spot, extended and informal
observations
Domain 3: Classroom
Culture
Spot, extended and informal
observations
Domain 4: Professionalism
& Collaboration
Artifacts and informal
observations
Summative Performance
Evaluation
Spot observations, extended
observation, and artifacts for all four
domains inform summative
performance evaluation
Teacher receives a written summative
performance evaluation and also
participates in a summative
conference
Minimum of 7 spot observations along
with the extended observation must
be completed prior to the summative
performance conference
Spot
Obs.
Ext.
Obs.
Sum. Perf.
Eval.
Domain 1: Planning and Preparation
1.1 Demonstrates knowledge of content, concepts, and skills
1.2 Demonstrates knowledge of students
1.3 Plans or selects aligned formative and summative assessments
1.4 Integrates monitoring of student data into instruction
1.5 Develops standards-based unit and lesson plans
Domain 2: Instructional Practice
2.1 Establishes clear, aligned standards-based lesson objective(s) (3x)
2.2 Measures student mastery through a demonstration of learning (DOL) (3x)
2.3 Clearly presents instructional content (3x)
2.4 Checks for academic understanding (2x)
2.5 Engages students at all learning levels in rigorous work (3x)
2.6 Activates higher-order thinking skills (2x)
Domain 3: Classroom Culture
3.1 Maximizes instructional time (3x)
3.2 Maintains high student motivation (2x)
3.3 Maintains a welcoming environment that promotes learning and positive
interactions (2x)
Domain 4: Professionalism and Collaboration
4.1 Models good attendance for students
4.2 Follows policies and procedures, and maintains accurate student records
4.3 Engages in professional development
4.4 Engages in professional community
4.5 Establishes relationships with families and community
Performance Evaluation: Scoring
Not
Observed
Unsatisfactory Progressing Proficient Exemplary
N/O 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
For Spot and Extended Observations, points can be
used in between performance levels
For the Summative Performance Evaluation, evaluators
must select one of the four performance levels
Unsatisfactory Progressing Proficient Exemplary
0 1 2 3
Determining Summative
Performance Evaluation Score
Consider multiple sources of evidence
Consider improvement over time
Obs
Type
Spot
1
Spot
2
Spot
3
Spot
4
Spot
5
Ext Spot
6
Spot
7
Spot
8
Date 9/2 9/23 10/14 11/4 12/2 1/14 2/4 2/25 3/11
Indicator
2.1 Score
1 1 1.5 1.5 1.5 2 2 2 2
What score would you give this teacher for the summative
performance evaluation for indicator 2.1?
Avg = 1.61
Determining Summative
Performance Evaluation Score
Note that indicators vary in their weight:
3x: Spot observation indicators (2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.5, and 3.1)
2x: Extended - not including spot indicators (2.4, 2.6, 3.2, 3.3)
1x: Domains 1 and 4
100 total performance points
DTR process will add up to 23 additional points
Depending on the teacher category, the total number of
performance points will be a ratio for each teachers total
evaluation score (e.g., 70/100 = 35/50 for Category A)
Mindset Shift
Like the principal evaluation, the teacher performance
rubric score uses the whole range
All indicators rated Progressing = 33 points
All indicators rated Proficient = 67 points
DTR-eligible teachers must receive at least 65 performance
points on their summative performance evaluation
A Note on Conferences
While you are likely to meet with teachers
frequently, a minimum of three conferences are
required:
Goal-setting (discussion of SLO and PDP)
Extended (within 10 days after extended observation)
Summative (within 10 days after sharing summative
performance evaluation)
52
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT
53
Student Achievement: Categories A & B
For TEI Teacher Categories A and B,
student achievement is measured by:
Schools STAAR results
Student Learning Objective
Standardized student assessments
Total is 35 percent
Achievement templates, usually
represented as pie charts, apply to
Category A and B teachers
54
Student Achievement: Categories C & D
For TEI Teacher Categories C and D,
student achievement is determined
using:
School STAAR
Student Learning Objective
Total is 20 percent
When school STAAR results are not
available, the 20 percent for student
achievement will be based on the SLO
Student Learning Objective
Teacher establishes a SMART goal in
conjunction with appraiser at the
beginning of the year
Most effective goals have a team
component to foster collaboration
Goals can target a group of students or a
set of concepts
SLO fosters conversations about student
growth
Focuses on achievement data other than
from standardized tests
Student Achievement
Achievement templates
developed with input from
teachers
Achievement templates are
particular to subject and
grade associated with teacher
Wedges represent the
available assessments for
that grade and subject
Achievement Template Examples
58
Achievement Template Metrics
For wedges like STAAR and ACPs, the points for each wedge, or
achievement measure, can be determined based on:
Passing ratee.g. percent at Level II Recommended
Classroom Effectiveness Index (CEI)
Academic peer groups
Teachers are awarded points for each wedge based on the highest of the
metrics
Some wedges may not have all three metrics available
59
Classroom Effectiveness Index (CEI)
Evaluates a students performance on select summative tests by comparing
his or her performance to that of all other similar students in the district
The value-added model used to compute CEIs addresses outside influences
over which the teacher has no control
A high value for the CEI indicates that the teachers students generally
outperformed students in the district who have similar backgrounds and who
started the school year at the same academic level, even if the students are
not yet achieving proficient scores
Prior-year test scores
Gender
English language proficiency level
Socio-economic status
Special education status
Talented and gifted status
Neighborhood variables, such as
educational level and poverty index
60
Academic Peer Groups
Compare scores of students to scores of other students
on particular assessments
Students are placed in peer groups at the same academic
level based on the results of the prior year
The following year, a teachers students who are at or
above the average for their academic peer group
demonstrate relative growth
Student Achievement
Three measures to score wedges
means teachers will get credit
for significant academic
improvement even if a teachers
students are not yet proficient
62
STUDENT SURVEYS
Student Surveys
Third 12
th
grade
Research-based
Student perceptions, not a
popularity contest
English and Spanish
Administered in the spring
64
DISTINGUISHED TEACHER REVIEW (DTR)
65
Distinguished Teachers
Teachers who are rated at Proficient II or higher
Must meet additional criteria and undergo a distinguished
teacher review performed by a three-person team from other
schools and central office
Distinguished Teachers
Unsat Progressing Proficient Exemplary Master
I II I II III I II
66
Distinguished Teacher Review
Excel in all relevant componentsperformance, student achievement and
student survey (if available)
Undergo an additional performance review for their:
Quality of Instruction
Leadership
Lifelong learning
Contributions to the profession
Teachers who serve in Tier One schools (schools not meeting state or
federal accountability) are provided additional points in the process
DTR Implications
Summative performance evaluation for DTR-eligible teachers
should be completed by December 1
st
, or as early as possible
Minimum of 4 spot observations and the extended
observation must be completed before completing the
summative performance evaluation (special circumstance for
DTR process)
68
SUPPORTING EXCELLENCE
Supporting Excellence
Professional learning should:
Connect to practice and be intensive
and ongoing
Focus on student learning and
address the teaching of specific
curriculum content
Align with school improvement
priorities and goals
Build strong working relationships
among teachers
Source: Darling-Hammond et al (2009). Professional Learning in the Profession: A Status Report on Teacher Development in the United States and Abroad.
Supporting Excellence: District Supports
1. Videos of effective teaching
2. 1-on-1 coaching supports
3. Teacher teams (PLCs)
4. Packaged school-based learning modules
5. Summer learning labs
6. Differentiated PD academies
7. District-level content workshops
8. New teacher mentoring program
Supporting Excellence: School Supports
Frequent spot observations with
feedback, an individual professional
development plan (PDP), and
student learning objectives (SLOs)
are critical supports that are
integrated with the evaluation
system
TEI also provides opportunities for
more differentiated and targeted
professional development
Intervention Plans
Focus on specific indicator(s) from the performance rubric
Identify appropriate performance-improvement activities
Indicate evidence of success used to determine successful
completion
Define timelines
73
REWARDING EXCELLENCE
Rewarding Excellence
Raises outside of cost-of-living adjustments or allowances
should be based on teacher effectiveness.
-- Texas Teaching Commission, 2012
Pay Irreplaceables [roughly, top 20 percent of teachers] what
theyre worth, and create career pathways that extend their
reach.
-- TNTP, 2012
Rewarding Excellence
Bases compensation on teacher
performance, student
achievement, and student survey
results
Rewards effective teachers
Effective teachers can earn more
in a shorter span
System is sustainable
Evaluation Ratings, Effectiveness
Levels and Salaries
Some 2015-16 compensation levels may be adjusted upward pending market analysis.
Evaluation
Ratings
Effectiveness
Levels
Compensation
Levels
Unsatisfactory Unsatisfactory $45,000
Progressing I Progressing I $49,000
Progressing II Progressing II $51,000
Proficient I Proficient I $54,000
Proficient II Proficient II $59,000
Proficient III Proficient III $65,000
Exemplary Exemplary I $74,000
Exemplary II $82,000
Master $90,000
Novice
$47,000
Teachers
new to the
profession;
placed at
Progressing I
if renewed
The Rules: Evaluation Rating and
Effectiveness Level
All teachers receive an evaluation rating
and an effectiveness level each year.
Based on evaluation data from 2014-2015,
all teachers will receive an effectiveness
level at the beginning of the 2015-2016
school year.
In subsequent years, effectiveness levels
will be based on the average of two years of
evaluation ratings.
Teachers can move up or down a maximum
of one effectiveness level per year.
Novice: All newly hired teachers with zero
years of experience
Proficient I: Requires completion of three
years of service as a classroom teacher
Proficient II & Above: Requires
Distinguished Teacher Review
Exemplary II: Requires at least one year as
an Exemplary teacher.
Master: Requires at least two consecutive
years as Exemplary II and at least four years
as a distinguished teacher in a Tier One
school
Evaluation Ratings, Effectiveness
Levels and Salaries
Some 2015-16 compensation levels may be adjusted upward pending market analysis.
Evaluation
Ratings
Effectiveness
Levels
Compensation
Levels
Unsatisfactory Unsatisfactory $45,000
Progressing I Progressing I $49,000
Progressing II Progressing II $51,000
Proficient I Proficient I $54,000
Proficient II Proficient II $59,000
Proficient III Proficient III $65,000
Exemplary Exemplary I $74,000
Exemplary II $82,000
Master $90,000
Novice
$47,000
Teachers
new to the
profession;
placed at
Progressing I
if renewed
The Rules: Effectiveness Level and
Compensation
Salaries are based on the effectiveness
level.
Salaries will never go below the 2014-
2015 level for teachers who are
employed in Dallas ISD in 2014-2015 and
return for 2015-2016.
In the first two years of implementation,
no teachers salary will increase by more
than $5,000 per year.
Employees at same or higher
effectiveness level from 2015-2016 to
2016-2017 will receive the difference
between effectiveness levels up to the
$5,000 cap.
It takes three consecutive years of a
lower effectiveness level for salary to
go down one level.
Evaluation Ratings, Effectiveness
Levels and Salaries
Some 2015-16 compensation levels may be adjusted upward pending market analysis.
Evaluation
Ratings
Effectiveness
Levels
Compensation
Levels
Unsatisfactory Unsatisfactory $45,000
Progressing I Progressing I $49,000
Progressing II Progressing II $51,000
Proficient I Proficient I $54,000
Proficient II Proficient II $59,000
Proficient III Proficient III $65,000
Exemplary Exemplary I $74,000
Exemplary II $82,000
Master $90,000
Novice
$47,000
Teachers
new to the
profession;
placed at
Progressing I
if renewed
Comparison of Salaries
CYS
2013-14 Salary
Schedule with
Bachelors
2013-14 Salary
Schedule with
Masters
Potential Strategic Compensation with
an Average Progression
Salary Salary Effectiveness Level Salary
0 46,002 47,022 Novice 47,000
1 46,002 47,022 Progressing I 49,000
2 46,002 47,022 Progressing II 51,000
3 46,257 47,277 Progressing II 51,000
4 46,972 47,992 Proficient I 54,000
5 47,839 48,859 Proficient I 54,000
6 47,839 48,859 Proficient I 54,000
7 48,706 49,726 Proficient I 54,000
8 49,573 50,593 Proficient II 59,000
9 50,440 51,460 Proficient II 59,000
10 51,307 52,327 Proficient II 59,000
11 52,174 53,194 Proficient II 59,000
12 53,041 54,061 Proficient II 59,000
13 53,041 54,061 Proficient III 65,000
14 53,908 56,265 Proficient III 65,000
$739,067 $755,740 $839,000
No cost-of-living
adjustments are
estimated for
simplicity.
Example 1: Master Effectiveness Level
2014-2015 2015-2016 2016-2017 2017-2018 2018-2019
Evaluation
Rating (based
on current
year)
Effectiveness
Level
Compensation
Level
Exemplary
Exemplary I
$56,307
Exemplary
Exemplary II
$61,307
Exemplary
Exemplary II
$82,000
Exemplary
Master
$90,000
2014-2015
data
2017-2018
data
2016-2017
data
2015-2016
data
2014-2015 rating
and rules
Average of 14-15
and 15-16 rating
and rules
Average of 16-17
and 17-18 rating
and rules
Average of 15-16
and 16-17 rating
and rules
$51,307
Current step
system
(Bachelors)
$5,000 salary
cap
$5,000 salary
cap
Second year as
Exemplary I
In order to achieve an effectiveness level of Proficient II or above, teachers must undergo a
Distinguished Teacher Review
No salary cap
Second year as
Exemplary II
Two years as
Exemplary II
Four years as DT
in Tier I school
Teacher with
10 CYS
Example 2: Salary Cap
2014-2015 2015-2016 2016-2017 2017-2018 2018-2019
Evaluation
Rating (based
on current
year)
Effectiveness
Level
Compensation
Level
Proficient I
Proficient I
$52,839
Proficient I
Proficient I
$54,000
Proficient II
Proficient II
$59,000
Proficient III
Proficient III
$65,000
2014-2015
data
2017-2018
data
2016-2017
data
2015-2016
data
2014-2015 rating
and rules
Average of 14-15
and 15-16 rating
and rules
Average of 16-17
and 17-18 rating
and rules
Average of 15-16
and 16-17 rating
and rules
$47,839
Current step
system
(Bachelors)
$5,000 salary
cap
In this case, data for
2015-16 and 2016-
17 average to a
Proficient II
effectiveness level
In this case, data for
2016-17 and 2017-
18 average to a
Proficient III
effectiveness level
Salary catches up
to effectiveness
level
In order to achieve an effectiveness level of Proficient II or above, teachers must undergo a
Distinguished Teacher Review
Teacher with
5 CYS
Example 3: Salary Floor
2014-2015 2015-2016 2016-2017 2017-2018 2018-2019
Evaluation
Rating (based
on current
year)
Effectiveness
Level
Compensation
Level
Progressing II
Progressing II
$52,174
Proficient I
Progressing II
$52,174
Proficient I
Proficient I
$54,000
Proficient II
Proficient II
$59,000
2014-2015
data
2017-2018
data
2016-2017
data
2015-2016
data
2014-2015 rating
and rules
Average of 14-15
and 15-16 rating
and rules
Average of 16-17
and 17-18 rating
and rules
Average of 15-16
and 16-17 rating
and rules
$52,174
Current step
system
(Bachelors)
Salary stays the
same because of
salary floor
In this case, $1,826
salary increase for
effectiveness level
In this case, data for
2016-17 and 2017-
18 average to a
Proficient II
effectiveness level
In this case, data for
2014-15 and 2015-16
average to a Prog. II
effectiveness level;
salary floor
Teacher with
11 CYS
Example 4: Lower effectiveness levels
2014-2015 2015-2016 2016-2017 2017-2018 2018-2019
Evaluation
Rating (based
on current
year)
Effectiveness
Level
Compensation
Level
Proficient I
Proficient I
$52,839
Progressing II
Proficient I
$54,000
Progressing II
Progressing II
$54,000
Progressing II
Progressing II
$54,000
2014-2015
data
2017-2018
data
2016-2017
data
2015-2016
data
2014-2015 rating
and rules
Average of 14-15
and 15-16 rating
and rules
Average of 16-17
and 17-18 rating
and rules
Average of 15-16
and 16-17 rating
and rules
$47,839
Current step
system
(Bachelors)
$5,000 salary
cap
In this case, data for
2015-16 and 2016-17
average to a Progressing
II effectiveness level so
salary stays the same
In this case, data for
2016-17 and 2017-18
average to a Prog. II
effectiveness level so
salary stays the same
Salary catches up
to effectiveness
level
Teacher with
5 CYS
Example 5: Variations in evaluation ratings
2014-2015 2015-2016 2016-2017 2017-2018 2018-2019
Evaluation
Rating (based
on current
year)
Effectiveness
Level
Compensation
Level
Proficient I
Proficient I
$54,000
Progressing I
Progressing II
$54,000
Proficient II
Proficient I
$54,000
Progressing I
Proficient I
$54,000
2014-2015
data
2017-2018
data
2016-2017
data
2015-2016
data
2014-2015 rating
and rules
Average of 14-15
and 15-16 rating
and rules
Average of 16-17
and 17-18 rating
and rules
Average of 15-16
and 16-17 rating
and rules
$49,573
Current step
system
(Bachelors)
$5,000 salary
cap
In this case, data
average to a Proficient I
effectiveness level; 3-
year clock starts again
In this case, data
average to a Proficient
I effectiveness level
No decrease in
salary
Teacher with
8 CYS
Resources
www.dallasisd.org/tei
tei@dallasisd.org