Education Commission of the States • 700 Broadway, Suite 810 • Denver, CO 80203-3442 • 303.299.3600 • Fax: 303.296.8332 • www.ecs.org
Redesigned Teacher Compensation State - Level Programs
Alaska : Public School Performance Incentive Program -State Level
Program Statistics
Name and Level The Public School Performance Incentive Program

The Public School Performance Incentive Program is a state level pilot program intended to encourage everyone on a school’s staff to collaborate.

Enabling Policy: House Bill 13 (2006 session)

Status The Public School Performance Incentive Program

House Bill 13 establishing the pilot program was signed into law on May 31, 2006 and establishes the program for school years 2006-2007, 2007-2008 and 2008-2009. The pilot is currently in its first year (2006-2007) and will sunset June 30, 2009. State statute requires LB&A to review the program by December 31, 2008 and recommend whether it should be continued or not.

Enabling Policy: House Bill 13 (2006 session)

Program Description The Public School Performance Incentive Program

The Alaska Public School Performance Incentive Program is an incentive program for all employees in a school. The law allows for certificated and noncertificated staff to receive incentive payments on top of their base salary. The payment does not supplant or affect employee salaries or have any effect on evaluation promotion, discipline or retirement.

The incentive program is intended to encourage everyone to collaborate and take shared responsibility for all students, use instructional time effectively and use the results of standards-based assessments to target students' academic needs. The program serves as an incentive for public school personnel to create a learning environment in which the students at that school demonstrate improved academic achievement or continue to perform at an advanced level.

Enabling Policy: House Bill 13 (2006 session) Or http://www.legis.state.ak.us/PDF/24/Bills/HB0013Z.PDF

Source: Department of Education and Early Development

The program requires that students demonstrate growth in academic achievement based on the Standards Based Assessments (SBA's) given annually in April, comparisons of the same student are made from the previous year to the current year and 95% of all students enrolled in the school must participate in the assessment.

School eligibility regulatory requirements are those that provide mathematics and language arts instruction, provide any combination of grades K-12, except 11-12 only, and that administer the reading, writing and mathematics standards based assessment.

The first incentive will be based on assessment results in 2007 as compared to 2006. The first recipient schools will be notified by July 25, 2007 and payments will be sent in September 2007.

Source: Department of Education and Early Development

Other Programs No information found.
Hard-to-Staff, High Needs, At-Risk Component
Program Target Components
  • No hard-to-staff, high needs or at-risk component found
  • Description of Component The Public School Performance Incentive Program

    No information found.

    Incentive Structure
    Compensation Structure The Public School Performance Incentive Program

    Personnel employed at public schools where students have demonstrated significant improvement in performance on statewide assessments as determined by the state department of education are eligible to receive incentive payments.

    To determine staff eligibility for bonuses, each student’s test score will be placed in one of six performance categories and at the end of the school year the state will compare each student’s performance with their individual scores from the previous year and schools will receive points for students based on whether a student moved up or down in the categories or stayed the same. The points for a school’s students will be totaled and then divided by the number of students to produce the school score. This score will then be applied to an index that has several levels and the higher the score, the larger the bonus. School’s that show only a year’s growth or less will not receive bonuses.

    Enabling Policy: House Bill 13 (2006 session)

    Incentives The Public School Performance Incentive Program

    The amount of the payment ranges from $2,500 to $5,500 for certificated employee and $1,000 to $2,500 for each noncertificated employee. Up to 5% of the funds awarded to schools within a district are allocated to district wide staff who contributed to the awarded school performance as determined by the commissioner and superintendent in consultation with site principals.

    Enabling Policy: House Bill 13 (2006 session)

    Incentive Recipients The Public School Performance Incentive Program

    Up to 850 certificated staff (teachers and administrators) and the noncertificated staff (paraprofessionals and support staff) employed in the schools where awarded certificated staff are employed may receive incentive payments annually. Some staff in a school district’s central office may also receive payments. Recipients must be employed at least 25% and awards are partial based on employment at an FTE of 25%, 50% 75% or 100%. The superintendent or chief officer is not eligible for incentive payment

    Enabling Policy: House Bill 13 (2006 session)

    Methods of Evaluation
    Method of Evaluation The Public School Performance Incentive Program

    The program requires that students demonstrate growth in academic achievement based on the Standards Based Assessments (SBA’s) given annually in April, comparisons of the same student are made from the previous year to the current year and 95% of all students enrolled in the school must participate in the assessment.

    Enabling Policy: House Bill 13 (2006 session)

    Stakeholder Involvement
    Teachers and Teacher's Unions The Public School Performance Incentive Program

    The program was proposed by the Alaska Department of Education & Early Development.

    Enabling Policy: House Bill 13 (2006 session)

    Other Stakeholders The Public School Performance Incentive Program

    No information found.

    Enabling Policy: House Bill 13 (2006 session)

    Program Funding
    Cost The Public School Performance Incentive Program

    The cost will depend on how many people earn bonuses, on details of the point system and the index, which will be set in regulation by the State Board of Education & Early Development. A fiscal note estimates the range of what the program may cost. For example, if five percent of the state’s school staff members won the highest level of bonus, it would cost nearly $3.1 million. If 25 percent of the staff won the highest level of bonus, it would cost about $15.4 million. The cost of the program will not exceed $5.8 million annually because the program is limited to 850 certificated staff and approximately 340 noncertificated staff

    Source: Fiscal Note

    Enabling Policy: House Bill 13 (2006 session)

    Funding The Public School Performance Incentive Program

    Subject to appropriation.

    Enabling Policy: House Bill 13 (2006 session)

    Results and Outcomes
    Results and Outcomes The Public School Performance Incentive Program

    The first year of the pilot program began in the 2006-2007 school year and there is currently no information or data available.

    Enabling Policy: House Bill 13 (2006 session)


    Arizona : Arizona Career Ladder -State Level
    Program Statistics
    Name and Level Arizona Career Ladder Program

    The Arizona Career Ladder is a state funded program implemented at the district level. Districts in the career ladder program had to apply to become a part of the program with 28 of the 200 plus school districts in Arizona now participating.

    Enabling Policy: ARS §15:918

    Status Arizona Career Ladder Program

    This program is ongoing. Twenty-eight districts currently participate in the Career Ladder program. Fourteen were phased-in over three years beginning FY 1985-86. In 1990, the Career Ladder Program received “permanent” legislative status as a result of demonstration of higher student achievement in Career Ladder districts. Seven districts received approval to budget for a program beginning in FY 1992-93 and seven districts began participation in FY 1993-94. There has been no new funding appropriation for additional district participation since FY 93-94.

    Enabling Policy: ARS §15:918

    Program Description Arizona Career Ladder Program

    The Arizona Career Ladder Program is a performance-based compensation plan that provides incentives to teachers in 28 districts statewide that choose to make career advancements without leaving the classroom or the profession. The participating districts are required to comply with requirements established in A.R.S. §15-918. While the state requires that a number of basic elements be included in the local plan, each district may develop specific details that meet its unique needs. In order to ensure compliance in all areas, the State Career Ladder Advisory Committee annually reviews each district plan. The State Board of Education provides final program approval. ADE staff provides technical assistance to district personnel in the administration of their programs.

    • 28 of the state’s 200-plus districts participate in the Career Ladder Program
    • Approximately 31% of the state’s 865,000 students attend schools in Career Ladder districts
    • Approximately 40% of the state’s 43,000 teachers are employed in Career Ladder districts
    • Approximately 70% of eligible teachers participate in the Career Ladder Program

    Enabling Policy: ARS §15:918

    Other Programs Classroom Site Fund (resulting from Proposition 301)

    In November 2000, voters approved Proposition 301, which increased the State’s sales tax from 5 percent to 5.6 percent to provide additional monies for educational programs. A large percentage of this is distributed to school districts, charter schools, and state schools.

    A major component of this proposition is known as the Classroom Site fund (CSF) and requires that all districts participate in some form of performance pay for teachers. Twenty percent of the CSF funds must be spent on increasing teachers' base salaries and forty percent of the CSF monies must be used for performance pay. Most school districts have developed new performance pay plans with input from board members, administrators, teachers, principals, and parents.

    Most districts are using student achievement as the primary measure of teacher performance, combining it with other measures.

    Other diversified teacher compensation programs fall under the Optional Performance Incentive program. Criteria and definitions are outlined in Arizona Revised Statutes; ARS §15-919

    Enabling Policy: ARS §15-977

    Hard-to-Staff, High Needs, At-Risk Component
    Program Target Components
  • No hard-to-staff, high needs or at-risk component found
  • Description of Component Arizona Career Ladder Program

    No information found.

    Incentive Structure
    Compensation Structure Arizona Career Ladder Program

    The Career Ladder Program consists of levels, each having its own salary range. Placement on the Career Ladder is based on more than one measure of teacher performance. The areas of instructional performance, pupil academic progress, and instructional responsibilities must be included. Advancement to higher levels on the Career Ladder is gained by demonstrating increasingly higher levels of performance.

    Enabling Policy: ARS §15:918

    Incentives Arizona Career Ladder Program

    Incentives include higher salaries for higher levels of placement on the Career Ladder. Teachers qualify for incentives through:

    • Evaluation or classroom performance,
    • Student progress, and
    • Additional responsibility for a particular place within each level.
    Each district constructs its own “ladder” and places teachers according to their performance.

    Enabling Policy: ARS §15:918

    Incentive Recipients Arizona Career Ladder Program

    Individual teachers are eligible to receive incentives. The program also allows districts to apply to implement an additional incentive program for other personnel at the school district level and provides awards based upon group, team, school or district.

    Enabling Policy: ARS §15:918

    Methods of Evaluation
    Method of Evaluation Arizona Career Ladder Program

    Career Ladder districts must comply with requirements established in Arizona Revised Statutes (ARS §15-918). All plans include the following criteria for evaluating teachers:

    • Classroom observations,
    • Pupil academic growth, and, at the highest rung,
    • Increased responsibilities.
    Local performance criteria vary across participating districts, but the plans include both individual- and group- based awards, and they typically reward some combination of the following:
    • Professional development,
    • Teaching quality,
    • Use of innovative methods,
    • Parent satisfaction, and
    • Student performance.
    Arizona Revised Statutes require that the system must evaluate the teacher in terms of individual pupil progress rather than absolute performance so that gains in student learning are recognized and rewarded. Teachers with less than three years of experience in the Career Ladder program must be evaluated at least twice a year and teachers with three or more years experience must be evaluated at least once a year.

    Enabling Policy: ARS §15:918

    Stakeholder Involvement
    Teachers and Teacher's Unions Arizona Career Ladder Program

    Legislation requires that all new teachers in Career Ladder districts be evaluated for placement on the Career Ladder. Once evaluated, new teachers may choose not to participate for the following year. Teachers not choosing to participate in the Career Ladder Program remain on the district’s traditional salary schedule.

    Enabling Policy: ARS §15:918

    Other Stakeholders Arizona Career Ladder Program

    The state board of education is responsible to establish a state career ladder advisory committee with the following duties:

    1. Provide recommendations to the state board on matters related to the implementation, operation and monitoring of career ladder programs in this state's school districts.
    2. Develop criteria for the additional incentive components allowed pursuant to section 15-918.02, subsection B subject to the approval of the state board of education.
    3. Oversee and administer the optional performance incentive programs in this state's school districts pursuant to this article.

    The advisory committee consists of no more than fifteen members and is composed of representatives from the educational, business and general community. No more than one-third of the members of the advisory committee may represent districts which have been authorized to budget for a career ladder program.

    The state board of education appoints the members of the advisory committee for staggered three year terms. Vacancies are filled for an unexpired term in the same manner as original appointments. The advisory committee annually elects a chair and vice-chair.

    Enabling Policy: ARS §15:918

    Program Funding
    Cost Arizona Career Ladder Program

    State appropriated funding is derived by a formula based primarily on student count.

    At full implementation, districts may increase their base funding level by 5.5%. All member district programs are currently budgeted at the 5.5% level.

    Enabling Policy: ARS §15:918

    Funding Arizona Career Ladder Program

    Career Ladder is paid through local property taxes and state appropriations from the general fund.

    State appropriated funding is derived by a formula based primarily on student count. At full implementation, districts may increase their base funding level by 5.5%. Based on compliance with requirements, funding levels have progressed from 1.0%, to 5.5% above the base support level. All Career Ladder district programs are currently budgeted at the 5.5% level. A portion of this funding is derived from a local tax. High school or common school district tax rate is based on two cents for each percentage increase. The unified district tax rate is based on four cents for each percentage increase.

    Enabling Policy: ARS §15:918

    Results and Outcomes
    Results and Outcomes Arizona Career Ladder Program

    Proven Results:

    • Documented higher achievement in Career Ladder Districts,
    • Recognized by US News and World Report as one of ten innovative programs accountable for true educational systemic reform,
    • Recipient of the National Council of States Award.

    Enabling Policy: ARS §15:918


    Arizona : Classroom Site Fund -State Level
    Program Statistics
    Name and Level Classroom Site Fund (CSF)

    The Arizona Classroom Site Fund as enacted by Proposition 301 requires all districts across the state to have some form of pay for performance component for teachers.

    Enabling Policy: ARS §15-977

    Status Classroom Site Fund (CSF)

    In November, 2000 Proposition 301 was passed by 53% of voters. The most significant feature of Proposition 301 is the Classroom Site Fund, which provides specific funding for districts to participate in some form of pay-for performance plan for teachers. Career Ladder districts, as well as districts with other forms of diversified compensation programs in place, already meet this requirement. This program is ongoing and permanent.

    Enabling Policy: ARS §15-977

    Program Description Classroom Site Fund (CSF)

    The most recent evolution in diversifying teacher compensation in Arizona came in November, 2000 when Proposition 301 was passed by 53% of voters. The most significant feature of Proposition 301 is the Classroom Site Fund (CSF), which provides specific funding for districts to participate in some form of pay-for performance plan for teachers . Career Ladder districts, as well as districts with other forms of diversified compensation programs in place, already meet this requirement. Funding for this proposition comes from a 0.6¢ education sales tax and from growth in K-12 state trust land revenues .

    School districts are required to create their own plans but must adhere to the following guidelines when distributing funds:

    • 20% for increasing teachers' base pay,
    • 40% for performance pay for teachers,
    • 40% for school "menu options" (e.g., reduced class sizes; classroom for supplies, materials, computers; AIMS intervention programs; dropout prevention programs; teacher training; teacher liability insurance premiums, additional teacher compensation)
    Enabling Policy: ARS §15-977
    Other Programs The Arizona Career Ladder and the Optional Incentive Program are two other types of diversified teacher compensation programs in Arizona.
    Hard-to-Staff, High Needs, At-Risk Component
    Program Target Components
  • No hard-to-staff, high needs or at-risk component found
  • Description of Component Classroom Site Fund (CSF)

    No information found.

    Incentive Structure
    Compensation Structure Classroom Site Fund (CSF)

    Determined at the district level.

    Enabling Policy: ARS §15-977

    Incentives Classroom Site Fund (CSF)

    Determined at the district level

    Enabling Policy: ARS §15-977

    Incentive Recipients Classroom Site Fund (CSF)

    Determined at the district level.

    Enabling Policy: ARS §15-977

    Methods of Evaluation
    Method of Evaluation Classroom Site Fund (CSF)

    Although Proposition 301 requires that 40% of Classroom Site Fund money be used to compensate teachers based on "performance," there were no specific requirements outlined until 2005. Districts are still free to create and implement their own designs, but school district governing boards must incorporate the following elements

    • School district performance and school performance,
    • Measures of academic progress toward the state academic standards,
    • Other measures of academic progress,
    • Dropout or graduation rates,
    • Attendance rates,
    • Parent and student ratings of school quality,
    • Teacher and administrators' input, including approval of the system by a vote of at least 70 percent of teachers eligible to participate in it,
    • An appeals process for teachers who have been denied performance-based compensation, and
    • A regular evaluation of the system's effectiveness.
    The law also allows districts to revise these elements as long as the compensation system is adopted at a public meeting . Performance-based compensation systems must provide for teacher professional development programs aligned with the above elements.

    Many programs at the district level already include a number of the above elements. In fact, according to 2005 data, 186 of Arizona's 200 plus districts incorporated student achievement as a goal in their performance pay plans, making student achievement the most common goal independently set by districts. Seventy districts incorporated teacher evaluations as a program goal making it the fourth most common element among district programs in 2005.

    Enabling Policy: ARS §15-977

    Stakeholder Involvement
    Teachers and Teacher's Unions Classroom Site Fund (CSF)

    No information found.

    Enabling Policy: ARS §15-977

    Other Stakeholders Classroom Site Fund (CSF)

    No information found.

    Enabling Policy: ARS §15-977

    Program Funding
    Cost Classroom Site Fund (CSF)

    The CSF was established by Proposition 301 from the November 2000 General Election. It receives funding from the 0.6¢ education sales tax established by Proposition 301 and from growth in K-12 state trust land revenues. FY 2007 estimates show a per pupil amount of $333.

    A.R.S. § 15-977(B)(1) specifies that the estimated per pupil funding amount from the CSF for a given budget year is to be computed using the estimated “weighted” student count for the current year and estimated resources in the CSF for the budget year. The Arizona Department of Education (ADE) currently estimates that the weighted student count for 2006 will be 1,219,385 and the JLBC Staff projects that the CSF will have $406,550,500 in available resources for FY 2007 apart from any adjustment for cumulative prior year shortfalls. ($406,550,500 / 1,219,385 = $333 per weighted pupil).

    Forty percent of CSF monies distributed to districts must be spent on pay for performance plans for teachers. This represents a smaller portion than forty percent of the above amount due to payments made to specific programs prior to releasing funds to districts.

    Enabling Policy: ARS §15-977

    Funding Classroom Site Fund (CSF)

    Funding for this proposition comes from a 0.6¢ education sales tax and from growth in K-12 state trust land revenues.

    Enabling Policy: ARS §15-977

    Results and Outcomes
    Results and Outcomes Classroom Site Fund (CSF)

    No information found.

    Enabling Policy: ARS §15-977


    Arkansas : Arkansas Comprehensive Testing and Accountability Program for Schools -State Level
    Program Statistics
    Name and Level Arkansas Comprehensive Testing and Accountability Program

    State level Arkansas Comprehensive Testing and Accountability Program for schools.

    Enabling Policy: §6-15-421

    Status Arkansas Comprehensive Testing and Accountability Program

    Program appears to be ongoing.

    Enabling Policy: §6-15-421

    Program Description Arkansas Comprehensive Testing and Accountability Program

    The purpose of the program is to provide information needed to improve the public schools by measuring annual learning gains of all students through longitudinal tracking and analysis of value-added computation of student gains against a national cohort to inform parents of the education progress of their public school children.

    The rewards program recognizes individual schools that demonstrate exceptional performance in levels of student achievement and significant improvement in student achievement. Each school that does not attain the expected levels of student performance on state-mandated indicators and individual school improvement indicators is designated by one of several levels of sanctions.

    The state board of education shall develop a clear, concise system of reporting the academic performance of each public school on the state-mandated criterion-referenced tests, developmentally appropriate assessments for grades K-2, benchmark exams and end-of-course exams.

    Enabling Policy: §6-15-421

    Other Programs State level incentives for teacher recruitment and retention in high-priority districts.
    Hard-to-Staff, High Needs, At-Risk Component
    Program Target Components
  • No hard-to-staff, high needs or at-risk component found
  • Description of Component Arkansas Comprehensive Testing and Accountability Program

    No information found.

    Enabling Policy: §6-15-421

    Incentive Structure
    Compensation Structure Arkansas Comprehensive Testing and Accountability Program

    There are two performance category levels for schools:

    • Annual Performance (which includes five levels) is based on the performance from the prior year on the criterion-referenced test and end-of-course exams, and
    • Growth is based on the schools’ improvement gains tracked longitudinally and using value-added calculations on the criterion-referenced assessment.
    Schools that receive an annual performance category level of Level 5 or Level 4 are eligible for school recognition awards and performance-based funding pursuant to A.C.A. §6-15-1907.

    Enabling Policies: §6-15-421 and Department of Education Rules Governing Program 9.14.1 and 9.21.1

    Incentives Arkansas Comprehensive Testing and Accountability Program

    Awards are defined as financial or other recognition of a public school structured to recognize schools that demonstrate and maintain high performance over time and to recognize schools that demonstrate growth on the state-mandated indicators. Awards also can be used to highlight individual schools so that their practices can be adopted in other school and districts across the state.

    Enabling Policies: §6-15-421 and Department of Education Rules Governing Program 3.11

    Incentive Recipients Arkansas Comprehensive Testing and Accountability Program

    Schools and school districts exemplifying exceptional performance levels and/or growth patterns are recognized for exemplary performance and are eligible to participate in the rewards program.

    Enabling Policies: §6-15-421 and Department of Education Rules Governing Program 8.16

    Methods of Evaluation
    Method of Evaluation Arkansas Comprehensive Testing and Accountability Program

    There are two performance category levels for schools:

    • Annual Performance (which includes five levels) is based on the performance from the prior year on the criterion-referenced test and end-of-course exams, and
    • Growth is based on the schools’ improvement gains tracked longitudinally and using value-added calculations on the criterion-referenced assessment.
    Schools that receive an annual performance category level of Level 5 or Level 4 are eligible for school recognition awards and performance-based funding pursuant to A.C.A. §6-15-1907.

    Enabling Policies: §6-15-421 and Department of Education Rules Governing Program 9.14.1 and 9.21.1

    Stakeholder Involvement
    Teachers and Teacher's Unions Arkansas Comprehensive Testing and Accountability Program

    The department of education established a working task force during the 2004-2005 school year to assist in the development of the rating system. The task force was to include educators, parents, and business/community stakeholders. In order to keep the rating system reliable and valid, a Technical Advisory Committee composed of nationally recognized accountability experts, statisticians, and psychometricians was to be selected by the commissioner of education and advise the department in all technical aspects of the accountability system.

    Enabling Policies: §6-15-421 and Department of Education Rules Governing Program 9.13.1

    Other Stakeholders Arkansas Comprehensive Testing and Accountability Program

    The department of education established a working task force during the 2004-2005 school year to assist in the development of the rating system. The task force was to include educators, parents, and business/community stakeholders. In order to keep the rating system reliable and valid, a Technical Advisory Committee composed of nationally recognized accountability experts, statisticians, and psychometricians was to be selected by the commissioner of education and advise the department in all technical aspects of the accountability system.

    Enabling Policies: §6-15-421 and Department of Education Rules Governing Program 9.13.1

    Program Funding
    Cost Arkansas Comprehensive Testing and Accountability Program

    No information found.

    Enabling Policy: §6-15-421

    Funding Arkansas Comprehensive Testing and Accountability Program

    Schools that receive an annual performance category level of Level 5 or Level 4 are eligible for school recognition awards and performance-based funding pursuant to A.C.A. §6-15-1907.

    Enabling Policies: §6-15-421 and Department of Education Rules Governing Program 9.14.1 and 9.21.1

    Results and Outcomes
    Results and Outcomes Arkansas Comprehensive Testing and Accountability Program

    No information found.

    Enabling Policy: §6-15-421


    Arkansas : Incentives for Teacher Recruitment and Retention in High Priority Districts -State Level
    Program Statistics
    Name and Level State level incentives for teacher recruitment and retention in high-priority districts.

    Enabling policy: §6-17-811

    Status Appears to be ongoing.

    Enabling policy: §6-17-811

    Program Description Incentives for teacher recruitment and retention in high-priority districts:

    Beginning in the 2004-2005 school year, a teacher licensed by the state board who teaches in a school in a high priority district shall receive in addition to all other salary and benefits:

    • For new teachers, a one time signing bonus to work in any high-priority district and a bonus for the following two years if the teacher continues to work in the same high-priority district. If a teacher receives the bonus pay and leaves prior to the three year bonus pay period, they shall pay back the amount of the bonus received in the previous year. If the teacher leaves during the school year, they shall pay back the previous year’s and the current year’s bonuses.
    • For all teachers not newly signed to work in the district, a retention bonus is paid at the beginning of the 2004-2005 school year and each of the next two years if they continue to work in the high-priority district. If the teacher voluntarily leaves prior to the end of the three year bonus pay period, they shall pay back on a pro-rata basis the amount of the bonus received in the previous years and if they leave during the school year, they must pay back the previous year’s and the current year’s bonuses. If the teacher is reassigned involuntarily to a position that is not eligible for bonus pay or dismissed by a school district, they are not required to repay the bonus pay.

    Enabling policy: §6-17-811

    Other Programs The Arkansas Comprehensive Testing and Accountability Program for schools.
    Hard-to-Staff, High Needs, At-Risk Component
    Program Target Components
  • Hard to staff school
  • Description of Component Incentives for teacher recruitment and retention in high-priority districts:

    Beginning in the 2004-2005 school year, a teacher licensed by the state board who teaches in a school in a high priority district shall receive in addition to all other salary and benefits:

    • For new teachers, a one time signing bonus to work in any high-priority district and a bonus for the following two years if the teacher continues to work in the same high-priority district. If a teacher receives the bonus pay and leaves prior to the three year bonus pay period, they shall pay back the amount of the bonus received in the previous year. If the teacher leaves during the school year, they shall pay back the previous year’s and the current year’s bonuses.
    • For all teachers not newly signed to work in the district, a retention bonus is paid at the beginning of the 2004-2005 school year and each of the next two years if they continue to work in the high-priority district. If the teacher voluntarily leaves prior to the end of the three year bonus pay period, they shall pay back on a pro-rata basis the amount of the bonus received in the previous years and if they leave during the school year, they must pay back the previous year’s and the current year’s bonuses. If the teacher is reassigned involuntarily to a position that is not eligible for bonus pay or dismissed by a school district, they are not required to repay the bonus pay.

    Enabling policy: §6-17-811

    Incentive Structure
    Compensation Structure In addition to all other salary and benefits, a one time signing bonus and a bonus for the following two years are available for a total of a three-year period.

    Enabling policy: §6-17-811

    Incentives For new teachers, the one-time signing bonus of $4,000 with an additional $3,000 paid for the next two subsequent years.

    For existing teachers, a retention bonus of $2,000 shall be paid for the three year bonus pay period.

    Enabling policy: §6-17-811

    Incentive Recipients For new teachers, the one-time signing bonus of $4,000 with an additional $3,000 paid for the next two subsequent years.

    For existing teachers, a retention bonus of $2,000 shall be paid for the three year bonus pay period.

    Enabling policy: §6-17-811

    Methods of Evaluation
    Method of Evaluation No information found.

    Enabling policy: §6-17-811

    Stakeholder Involvement
    Teachers and Teacher's Unions No information found.

    Enabling policy: §6-17-811

    Other Stakeholders No information found.

    Enabling policy: §6-17-811

    Program Funding
    Cost No information found.

    Enabling policy: §6-17-811

    Funding No information found.

    Enabling policy: §6-17-811

    Results and Outcomes
    Results and Outcomes The department of education shall monitor the implementation of the incentive program and collect data to be used to evaluate the incentive program’s effectiveness.

    Enabling policy: §6-17-811


    Florida : STAR -State Level
    Program Statistics
    Name and Level Special Teachers Are Rewarded (STAR)

    State policy requires districts to have some type of performance pay plan. The STAR program was constructed by the state as an option for districts to meet the performance pay plan requirement.

    Enabling Policy: Florida Statutes; 1022.22

    Status Special Teachers Are Rewarded (STAR)

    The STAR program is a consequence of 2006 legislation (HB 7087) and is provided as a method for districts and charter schools to implement performance pay provisions of section 1012.22, Florida Statutes, and to access their portion of the funds in the appropriation.

    The STAR program is ongoing.

    Enabling Policy: Florida Statutes; 1022.22

    Program Description Special Teachers Are Rewarded (STAR)

    Beginning in 2007-2008 school districts are required to adopt a salary schedule with differentiated pay for instructional personnel and school-based administrators. Although it is not a choice whether to implement performance pay required in s. 1012.22, FS, it is a district's choice whether or not to participate in the STAR Program.

    District STAR plans:

    • Include rewards for elementary, middle and high school instructional personnel,
    • Include an instructional personnel evaluation based on the performance of their students,
    • Include all instructional personnel as eligible without an application,
    • Distribute awards of at least 5% of the base pay of the best performing 25% of instructional personnel,
    • Use any remaining funds to award additional instructional or school-based administrative personnel based upon the district’s plan, and
    • Distribute awards for approved charter school plans based on each school’s proportion of the district’s total K-12 based funding.
    The primary determining factor of a STAR evaluation is improved student achievement.

    Enabling Policy: Florida Statutes; 1022.22

    Other Programs Law requiring performance pay passed in 2001. E-Comp, the State Board of Education Performance Pay Rule, was a more recent program with the purpose of ensuring implementation of performance pay at the district level. 2006 legislation suspended the State Board of Education Performance Pay Rule (E-Comp).

    Enabling Policy: Florida Statutes; 1022.22

    Hard-to-Staff, High Needs, At-Risk Component
    Program Target Components
  • No hard-to-staff, high needs or at-risk component found
  • Description of Component Special Teachers Are Rewarded (STAR)

    No information found.

    Incentive Structure
    Compensation Structure Special Teachers Are Rewarded (STAR)

    Each district school board selects or develops an evaluation instrument. The instrument's primary determining factor is the evaluation of improved student achievement. The instrument's factors are scored using the following categories, or categories that are substantially similar in number and connotation:

    • Unsatisfactory,
    • Needs improvement,
    • Satisfactory,
    • High-performing, and
    • Outstanding.
    Instructional personnel must receive no unsatisfactory or needs improvement ratings and may receive no more than one satisfactory rating on the areas evaluated in order to receive a reward.

    Enabling Policy: Florida Statutes; 1022.22

    Incentives Special Teachers Are Rewarded (STAR)

    Performance rewards of at least 5 percent of the base pay are given to qualifying teachers. Districts can use any remaining funds to provide bonuses to additional instructional personnel or school-based leaders pursuant to their plans.

    Enabling Policy: Florida Statutes; 1022.22

    Incentive Recipients Special Teachers Are Rewarded (STAR)

    Incentive recipients include the best performing 25 percent of instructional personnel.

    Enabling Policy: Florida Statutes; 1022.22

    Methods of Evaluation
    Method of Evaluation Special Teachers Are Rewarded (STAR)

    Instructional personnel evaluations are based on student performance. District school boards determine appropriate methods to evaluate instructional personnel based on the performance of their students. The methods measure improved student achievement during the course of the school year; and are approved by the State Board of Education.

    Enabling Policy: Florida Statutes; 1022.22

    Stakeholder Involvement
    Teachers and Teacher's Unions Special Teachers Are Rewarded (STAR)

    Local school districts and the teachers’ collective bargaining units work together to:

    1. Agree on a personnel appraisal system that identifies a minimum of satisfactory, above satisfactory and outstanding levels of (1) teachers who teach courses assessed by the FCAT; and (2) teachers, media specialists, guidance counselors, reading coaches, etc., who do not teach courses related to FCAT subjects;
    2. Determine whether the 5 percent bonuses will be a supplement, or rolled into the base teacher salary of outstanding teachers;
    3. Determine how many more teachers may be identified as outstanding over and above the 10 percent requirement, and the identification criteria for these teachers, within the guidelines established by the state;
    4. Determine whether a district wishes to provide more than 5 percent as a bonus; and
    5. Select, within the guidelines established by the state, those measures that the district will use for instructional personnel whose work is not related to FCAT.

    Enabling Policy: Florida Statutes; 1022.22

    Other Stakeholders Special Teachers Are Rewarded (STAR)

    Other stakeholders include district school boards and legislators.

    Enabling Policy: Florida Statutes; 1022.22

    Program Funding
    Cost Special Teachers Are Rewarded (STAR)

    $147.5 million was appropriated to districts for performance pay awards to instructional personnel. STAR implements performance pay in accordance with s. 1012.22, FS. A district's allocation is equal to its portion of the state total K-12 base funding.

    Enabling Policy: Florida Statutes; 1022.22

    Funding Special Teachers Are Rewarded (STAR)

    From the funds in Specific Appropriation 91, $147,500,000 is provided for the Special Teachers Are Rewarded performance pay plan (STAR Plan). Funds are distributed to school districts for performance pay rewards to instructional personnel as defined in section 1012.01(2) (a)-(d), Florida Statutes, in all K-12 schools in the district, in accordance with the requirements of section 1012.22, Florida Statutes. STAR Plan funds are allocated based on each district's proportion of the state total K-12 base funding, subject to review and approval by the State Board of Education of the district's STAR Plan. The district's STAR Plan may include information from the district's instructional personnel assessment system, and shall include instructional personnel evaluation based on the performance of their students. The Department of Education develops model methodologies that ensure fairness and equity for all instructional personnel, and provides technical assistance upon request.

    Enabling Policy: Florida Statutes; 1022.22

    Results and Outcomes
    Results and Outcomes Special Teachers Are Rewarded (STAR)

    No information was found at this time.

    Enabling Policy: Florida Statutes; 1022.22


    Georgia : Georgia -State Level
    Program Statistics
    Name and Level Georgia's salary schedule is state-level and includes several diversified compensation components. The following components are:
    • §20-2-212.3 provides for salary increases for hard-to-staff subjects.
    • §20-2-212.4 provides for an additional five percent increase in teacher salary based on student performance.
    • §20-2-213 defines the career ladder program.
    • §20-2-213.1 outlines the pay-for-performance for rewarding group activity program.
    • §20-14-26 through §20-14-41 establishes a single state-wide accountability system.
    Enabling policy: O.C.G.A. §20-2 and O.C.G.A. §20-14
    Status All five diversified compensation components of the state's salary schedule appear to be ongoing.

    Enabling policy: O.C.G.A. §20-2 and O.C.G.A. §20-14

    Program Description Salary increases

    The state board of education identifies schools and local school systems where an insufficient supply of qualified teachers is available to teach mathematics, science, special education or foreign language based on criteria defined by the board, the Professional Standards Commission and the Office of Student Achievement. Upon determination of shortages each year, the board shall request funds from the general assembly sufficient to provide for salary increases. The increases are not to exceed one additional step on the state salary schedule for which the teacher would otherwise have been entitled for positions contracted for in those locations and fields during the school year.

    Five percent increase

    Any teacher who has acquired rights to continued employment as a teacher shall receive an increase in annual state compensation of five percent beginning the school year following any year in which the students taught by the teacher earn a significant increase in average scores n the criterion-referenced test or any other test selected by the state board of education. The board shall define "significant increase" and the increase earned shall be in addition to all other increases for which the teacher is eligible.

    Career Ladder

    The state board of education is authorized and directed to devise career ladder programs for teachers and other certificated professional personnel which provide such personnel who demonstrate above average or outstanding competencies relative to their respective positions and exhibit above average or outstanding performance in executing their assigned responsibilities with salary supplements in recognition of such competency and performance. Achievement of students beyond the level that is typically expected for their ability shall be included in the performance criteria for any of the respective personnel categories.

    Pay-for-performance for rewarding group activity

    The state board of education shall develop performance criteria to be used to evaluate proposals submitted by local schools or systems for determining exemplary performance at the school site. Such criteria will relate to the overall educational performance of the school in areas related to student outcomes and achievement. The criteria shall also reflect the six national goals for education adopted under Georgia 2000 and socioeconomic or other demographic factors that may affect student achievement or other outcomes of education. The criteria shall reflect school level improvement on identified performance criteria, such as the numbers of remedial, SIA and Chapter I students that achieved grade level performance.

    The performance evaluation system shall be designed to determine the level of improvement achieved by the school based upon those criteria adopted and approved for the school proposal. Local schools which choose to apply for pay-for-performance awards for group productivity shall submit proposals through the local board of education, which must approve the proposals, to the state board of education. Proposals shall be submitted annually and identify which of the state-wide performance criteria will be emphasized by the local school for the determination of award eligibility.

    Single state-wide accountability system (SSAS)

    The purpose of the SSAS, created by the Office of Student Achievement, is to provide valid and reliable accountability, determined at the school, LEA and state levels that can help promote continuous improvement in raising student achievement and closing achievement gaps. This system includes an annual Accountability Profile for each public school and Local Educational Agency (LEA) in the state. The profile has three components: an absolute performance determination that is based on Adequate Yearly Progress, a Performance Index determination based on progress over the previous year's performance, and Performance Highlights that will provide additional information including recognition for each school and LEA based on academic-related indicators.

    Enabling Policy: Office of Student Achievement Code: GBA (4) Chapter 160-7-1-.01

    O.C.G.A. §20-14-37 The Office of Student Achievement (OSA) shall develop and the state board of education shall approve a Georgia schools awards system to recognize school and school systems that demonstrate progress or success in achieving the education goals of the state and achieving excellence on the school rating system as provided for in §20-14-33.

    Unless otherwise noted, Enabling policy: O.C.G.A. §20-2 and O.C.G.A. §20-14

    Other Programs No information found.
    Hard-to-Staff, High Needs, At-Risk Component
    Program Target Components
  • Hard to staff subject
  • Hard to staff school
  • Description of Component Of the five diversified pay components of the Georgia salary schedule the Salary Increases Component addresses teachers in hard-to-staff schools and subject areas.

    Salary increases

    The state board of education identifies schools and local school systems where an insufficient supply of qualified teachers is available to teach mathematics, science, special education or foreign language based on criteria defined by the board, the Professional Standards Commission and the Office of Student Achievement. Upon determination of shortages each year, the board shall request funds from the general assembly sufficient to provide for salary increases. The increases are not to exceed one additional step on the state salary schedule for which the teacher would otherwise have been entitled for positions contracted for in those locations and fields during the school year.

    Enabling policy: O.C.G.A. §20-2 and O.C.G.A. §20-14

    Incentive Structure
    Compensation Structure

    Salary increases

    The state board of education identifies schools and local school systems where an insufficient supply of qualified teachers is available to teach mathematics, science, special education or foreign language based on criteria defined by the board, the Professional Standards Commission and the Office of Student Achievement. Upon determination of shortages each year, the board shall request funds from the general assembly sufficient to provide for salary increases. The increases are not to exceed one additional step on the state salary schedule for which the teacher would otherwise have been entitled for positions contracted for in those locations and fields during the school year.

    Five percent increase

    Any teacher who has acquired rights to continued employment as a teacher shall receive an increase in annual state compensation of five percent beginning the school year following any year in which the students taught by the teacher earn a significant increase in average scores n the criterion-referenced test or any other test selected by the state board of education. The board shall define "significant increase" and the increase earned shall be in addition to all other increases for which the teacher is eligible.

    Career Ladder

    The state board of education is authorized and directed to devise career ladder programs for teachers and other certificated professional personnel which provide such personnel who demonstrate who demonstrate above average or outstanding competencies relative to their respective positions and exhibit above average or outstanding performance in executing their assigned responsibilities with salary supplements in recognition of such competency and performance. Achievement of students beyond the level that is typically expected for their ability shall be included in the performance criteria for any of the respective personnel categories.

    Pay-for-performance for rewarding group activity

    Awards shall be made by the state board of education to each school through the local board for successful school projects no later than December 1 of the school year after the one for which the performance judged exemplary occurred. The amount of the awards shall be distributed through local systems to schools judged exemplary by the state board according to the number of successful school projects, the size of each school and the level of funding provided by the general assembly. The decision of the local school's certificated personnel, in accordance with a process for decision making specified by the state board, will determine how the awards are spent or distributed at the school site.

    Single state-wide accountability system (SSAS)

    O.C.G.A. §20-14-38 Financial awards will be provided to the schools that the director of the Office of Student Achievement determines have demonstrated the greatest improvement in achieving the education goals of improved student achievement and improved school completion.

    Financial awards will be provided to each school that is identified by the director for performance on with or both excellence in student achievement and progress on student achievement. The certificated personnel in a school that is identified by the director as a either a best performing school or better performing school in either or both categories will be provided a bonus for the year. An additional financial award will be provided to each school for noncertificated personnel for each designation of best performing school and for each designation of better performing school.

    Enabling policy: O.C.G.A. §20-2 and O.C.G.A. §20-14

    Incentives Salary increases

    The increases are not to exceed one additional step on the state salary schedule for which the teacher would otherwise have been entitled for positions contracted for in those locations and fields during the school year.

    Five percent increase

    Any teacher who has acquired rights to continued employment as a teacher shall receive an increase in annual state compensation of five percent and shall be in addition to all other salary increases for which the teacher is eligible.

    Career Ladder

    The board shall submit its policies and guidelines pertaining to the implementation of career ladder programs to the general assembly for review prior to submitting a request for funds to grant salary supplements under this program.

    Pay-for-performance for rewarding group activity

    The amount of the awards shall be distributed through local systems to schools judged exemplary by the state board of education according to the number of successful school projects, the size of each school and the level of funding provided by the general assembly.

    Single state-wide accountability system (SSAS)

    O.C.G.A. §20-14-38 Financial awards will be provided to each school that is identified by the director for performance on with or both excellence in student achievement and progress on student achievement. The certificated personnel in a school that is identified by the director as a either a best performing school or better performing school in either or both categories will be provided a bonus for the year the school was identified of $1,000 for each best performing school designation and $500 for each better performing school designation. The maximum shall not exceed $2,000 and is subject to appropriation by the general assembly or as otherwise may be provided. An additional financial award will be provided to each school for noncertificated personnel in the amount of $10,000 for each designation of best performing school and $5,000 for each designation of better performing school. The total lump sum noncertificated personnel award for an individual school shall not exceed $20,000. The school receiving the award shall determine the distribution of the award among the noncertificated personnel.

    Enabling policy: O.C.G.A. §20-2 and O.C.G.A. §20-14

    Incentive Recipients Salary increases

    The state board of education identifies schools and local school systems where an insufficient supply of qualified teachers is available to teach mathematics, science, special education or foreign language based on criteria defined by the board, the Professional Standards Commission and the Office of Student Achievement. Salary increases are provided for teachers. Upon receiving three such salary increases, a teacher shall become ineligible for additional salary increases under this section.

    Five percent increase

    Any teacher who has acquired rights to continued employment as a teacher shall receive a salary increase.

    Career Ladder

    Career ladder programs provide salary supplements to teachers and other certificated professional personnel.

    Pay-for-performance for rewarding group activity

    Awards will be made to each school through the local board for successful school projects. The decision of the local school's certificated personnel will determine how the awards are spent or distributed at the school site.

    The proceeds may in whole or in part be given to faculty members in the form of bonuses or may be spent for the purpose of providing faculty sabbaticals, for instructional or other equipment, for staff development, for distribution to other school staff in the form of bonuses, or for any other expenditure deemed appropriate by the local school's certificated personnel.

    Single state-wide accountability system (SSAS)

    O.C.G.A. §20-14-38 Financial awards will be provided to each school, the certificated personnel and an additional financial award will be provided to each school for noncertificated personnel. The school receiving the latter award shall determine the distribution of the award among the noncertificated personnel.

    Enabling policy: O.C.G.A. §20-2 and O.C.G.A. §20-14

    Methods of Evaluation
    Method of Evaluation Salary increases

    The state board of education shall identify the schools and local school systems where an insufficient supply of qualified teachers is available and determine the shortages each year. The criteria used for assessing whether or not an insufficient supply of qualified teachers is available and the data used in making the determination that a shortage exists shall be submitted by the Office of Student Achievement to the Education Committees of both the state Senate and House of Representatives.

    Five percent increase

    Any teacher who has acquired rights to continued employment as a teacher shall receive an increase in annual state compensation of five percent beginning the school year following any year in which the students taught by the teacher earn a significant increase in average scores n the criterion-referenced test or any other test selected by the state board of education. The board shall define "significant increase".

    Career Ladder

    Demonstration of above average or outstanding competencies relative to the employees' position and exhibition of above average or outstanding performance in executing their assigned responsibilities. Achievement of students beyond the level that is typically expected for their ability is included in the performance criteria for any of the respective personnel categories.

    Pay-for-performance for rewarding group activity

    The state board of education shall develop performance criteria to be used to evaluate proposals submitted for the determination of exemplary performance at the school site. The criteria will relate to the overall educational performance of the school in areas related to student outcomes and achievement; reflect the six national goals for education adopted under Georgia 2000; reflect socioeconomic or other factors that may affect student achievement or other outcomes of education; and reflect school level improvement on identified performance criteria.

    The state board of education shall evaluate the performance of all schools submitting proposals for a given year according to the terms of the local school proposal as approved by the state board. The state board shall uniformly apply the criteria for weighing the proposals to the local school proposals. The board may appoint an advisory evaluation team from outside the department of education to assist in the development and application of the criteria by which the proposals will be evaluated.

    Chapter 160-3-1-.01 states that academic achievement criteria includes three or more performance objectives. Objectives that emphasize growth as well as those that emphasize exemplary performance are acceptable.

    Enabling Policy: Office of Student Achievement Code: GBA (4) Chapter 160-3-1-.01

    Single state-wide accountability system (SSAS)

    O.C.G.A. §20-14-38 Awards will be provided to the schools that the director of the Office of Student Achievement determines have demonstrated the greatest improvement in achieving the education goals of improved student achievement and improved school completion. Awards will be provided to each school that is identified by the director for performance on either or both excellence in student achievement and progress on student achievement.

    Unless otherwise noted, Enabling policy: O.C.G.A. §20-2 and O.C.G.A. §20-14

    Stakeholder Involvement
    Teachers and Teacher's Unions No information found.
    Other Stakeholders No information found.
    Program Funding
    Cost No information found.
    Funding Salary increases

    Upon determination of shortages each year, the board shall request funds from the general assembly sufficient to provide for salary increases. Funding shall be based on the number of eligible positions identified for the previous school year. Upon receiving three such salary increases, a teacher shall become ineligible for additional salary increases under this section.

    Five percent increase

    No information found, however since it is salary-related, funds are most likely appropriated by the general assembly.

    Career Ladder

    The board shall submit its policies and guidelines pertaining to the implementation of career ladder programs to the general assembly for review prior to submitting a request for funds to grant salary supplements under this program. The board shall grant sufficient funds to each local unit of administration to pay the salary supplements of all personnel awarded supplements under the career ladder programs, subject to appropriation by the general assembly.

    Pay-for-performance for rewarding group activity

    The state board of education shall submit a proposal for funding this pay-for-performance program for rewarding group productivity each year with its budget request. Awards made under this program are subject to appropriation by the general assembly.

    Single state-wide accountability system (SSAS)

    O.C.G.A. §20-14-38 Funding is subject to appropriation by the general assembly or as otherwise may be provided.

    O.C.G.A. §20-14-39 The financial award system may be funded by donations, grants or appropriation by the general assembly or as otherwise provided. The state board of education may solicit and receive grants and donations for the purpose of making awards under this section.

    Enabling policy: O.C.G.A. §20-2 and O.C.G.A. §20-14

    Results and Outcomes
    Results and Outcomes No information found.

    Hawaii : Felix Response Plan -State Level
    Program Statistics
    Name and Level The Felix Response Plan (FRP) Hard-to-Fill Location Incentive and the Felix Response Plan (FRP) Return to Special Education Incentive for 2006-2007 School Year is a state level program.

    Source: Hawaii Department of Education Office of Human Resources

    Status Incentives are available for the 2006-2007 school year and will be offered during the life of the Felix Consent Decree.

    Source: Hawaii Department of Education Office of Human Resources

    Program Description The Felix Response Plan was implemented by Senate Bill 1303 in 2001 stemming from a federal lawsuit against the state of Hawaii. The bill requires the department of education to ensure that appropriate services are provided to eligible children with disabilities.

    Hard-to-Fill Location Incentive:

    Qualified Certificated employees working in the geographically hard-to-fill areas of Moloka'i, Lana'i, Hana, Ka`u, and Kohala will be eligible for this incentive. Teachers must complete one year of satisfactory service as a licensed teacher to earn this incentive. The money will be paid only at the end of one year of satisfactory service as a licensed teacher and will not be pro rated. Exception: If a teacher serves one semester in a hard-to-fill school and is subsequently staff reduced and willing to coontinue in another hard-to-fill school for the second semester, but no placement is available, the amount may be pro rated. However, if a placement in another hard-to-fill school is available and the teacher refuses the placement, the teacher is ineligible for any part of the incentive.

    Return to Special Education Incentive:

    This incentive is offered to dual licensed Special Education teachers, currently employed by the state department of education, who return to a Special Education classroom position anywhere in the state, for a period of three years. Teachers must sign a commitment to return to a Special Education classroom position for a full three years.

    Source: Hawaii Department of Education Office of Human Resources

    Other Programs No information found.
    Hard-to-Staff, High Needs, At-Risk Component
    Program Target Components
  • Hard to staff subject
  • Hard to staff school
  • Description of Component Hard-to-Fill Location Incentive:

    Qualified Certificated employees working in the geographically hard-to-fill areas of Moloka'i, Lana'i, Hana, Ka`u, and Kohala will be eligible for this incentive. Teachers must complete one year of satisfactory service as a licensed teacher to earn this incentive. The money will be paid only at the end of one year of satisfactory service as a licensed teacher and will not be pro rated. Exception: If a teacher serves one semester in a hard-to-fill school and is subsequently staff reduced and willing to coontinue in another hard-to-fill school for the second semester, but no placement is available, the amount may be pro rated. However, if a placement in another hard-to-fill school is available and the teacher refuses the placement, the teacher is ineligible for any part of the incentive.

    Return to Special Education Incentive:

    This incentive is offered to dual licensed Special Education teachers, currently employed by the state department of education, who return to a Special Education classroom position anywhere in the state, for a period of three years. Teachers must sign a commitment to return to a Special Education classroom position for a full three years.

    Source: Hawaii Department of Education Office of Human Resources

    Incentive Structure
    Compensation Structure Hard-to-Fill Location Incentive:

    The incentive is per year for a maximum of three years and will be paid as a lump sum and applied toward a teacher’s retirement benefits.

    Return to Special Education Incentive:

    The incentive is per year and is conditional upon satisfactory teacher performance. It is for a period of three years. The amount will be paid in a lump sum at the end of a full year of satisfactory service and will be paid as a differential and applied toward a teacher’s retirement benefits.

    Source: Hawaii Department of Education Office of Human Resources

    Incentives Hard-to-Fill Location Incentive:

    The incentive is $3,000 per year for a maximum of three years and will be paid as a lump sum and applied to a teacher’s retirement benefits.

    Return to Special Education Incentive:

    The incentive is $10,000 and is pro rated as follows: $3,000 after the first year, $3,000 after the second year and $4,000 after the third year. The pro rated amount will be paid in a lump sum at the end of a full year, paid as a differential and applied toward a teacher’s retirement benefits.

    Source: Hawaii Department of Education Office of Human Resources

    Incentive Recipients Hard-to-Fill Location Incentive:

    The incentive applies to licensed classroom teachers, including all licensed special education or general education classroom teachers. Teachers on probationary status are also eligible. Licensed support personnel, including counselors, registrars, librarians, student services coordinators, student activities coordinators and IRA teachers who are licensed teachers are also eligible.

    Teachers on Code W status or Code 5 status are ineligible, but under certain conditions may be paid retroactively. Resource Teachers are also ineligible.

    Return to Special Education Incentive:

    Dual licensed Special Education teachers, currently employed by the department of education who return to a Special Education classroom position anywhere in the state are eligible.

    Source: Hawaii Department of Education Office of Human Resources

    Methods of Evaluation
    Method of Evaluation Hard-to-Fill Location Incentive:

    Teachers must complete one year of satisfactory service as a licensed teacher to earn the incentive and working in geographically hard-to-fill areas of Moloka'i, Lana'i, Hana, Ka`u, and Kohala.

    Return to Special Education Incentive:

    The department makes the sole determination on the suitability and selection of a returning teacher.

    The following basic guidelines for teachers must be with the Hawaii Department of Education and are as follows:

    • Dual certification
    • Teaching in Special Education
    • Transferred to Regular Education for two years or more
    • Returned to a Special Education position for a period of three years.
    Incentives are conditional upon satisfactory teacher performance.

    Source: Hawaii Department of Education Office of Human Resources

    Stakeholder Involvement
    Teachers and Teacher's Unions No information found.
    Other Stakeholders No information found.
    Program Funding
    Cost No information found.
    Funding No information found.
    Results and Outcomes
    Results and Outcomes No information found.

    Minnesota : Q Comp -State Level
    Program Statistics
    Name and Level Quality Compensation (Q Comp)

    This is a state level program. Districts apply to be a part of the Q-Comp program by submitting a district plan.

    Enabling Policy: Minnesota Law; 122A

    Status Quality Compensation (Q Comp)

    Minnesota Q Comp is an ongoing program enacted by the Minnesota Legislature in July 2005. Currently, 22 Minnesota school districts have been approved for Q Comp and have received funding for implementation. 134 districts have indicated that they plan to submit an application for the 2006-07 or 2007-08 school year.

    Enabling Policy: Minnesota Law; 122A

    Program Description Quality Compensation (Q Comp)

    Quality Compensation for Teachers, or Q Comp, was proposed by Governor Tim Pawlenty and was enacted by the Legislature in July 2005.

    The Q Comp program is based on the Teacher Advancement Program (TAP) and has five components:

    • Career ladders for teachers
    • Job-embedded professional development
    • Instructional observations and standards-based assessments
    • Measures to determine student growth
    • Alternative teacher compensation or performance pay.

    Districts, schools and charter schools must apply to participate in Q Comp.

    Enabling Policy: Minnesota Law; 122A

    Other Programs In 2001, the Minnesota Legislature appropriated funds to begin an alternative teacher compensation pilot program called the Minnesota Alternative Compensation Program. Currently, five school districts receive $150/student to participate in the program. After FY 2007, funds will no longer be available for the Minnesota Alternative Compensation Program.
    Hard-to-Staff, High Needs, At-Risk Component
    Program Target Components
  • No hard-to-staff, high needs or at-risk component found
  • Description of Component Quality Compensation (Q Comp)

    No information found.

    Incentive Structure
    Compensation Structure Quality Compensation (Q Comp)

    A new salary schedule for teachers is one requirement of the Q Comp program. The design of the new salary schedule is done locally between the district and the local teacher union.

    Other incentives include multiple career paths and job-embedded professional development.

    Enabling Policy: Minnesota Law; 122A

    Incentives Quality Compensation (Q Comp)

    A locally selected evaluation team develops a common set of skills to be measured, and measure them with a common rating scale. This tool is used by ALL evaluators.

    Incentives are earned by teachers who show agreed upon gains in student performance. Local districts can set other goals to be met as well as adding other components.

    Enabling Policy: Minnesota Law; 122A

    Incentive Recipients Quality Compensation (Q Comp)

    Incentives are earned by teachers who show agreed upon gains in student performance as well as meeting other goals that are set at the district level.

    Enabling Policy: Minnesota Law; 122A

    Methods of Evaluation
    Method of Evaluation Quality Compensation (Q Comp)

    Teacher performance tied to pay is measured in the following way:

    • A locally selected evaluation team develops a common set of skills to be measured, and measure them with a common rating scale (this tool would by used by ALL evaluators)
    • Agreed upon gains in student performance
    • Local districts set goals to be met and add other components.

    Enabling Policy: Minnesota Law; 122A

    Stakeholder Involvement
    Teachers and Teacher's Unions Quality Compensation (Q Comp)

    A teacher vote is not required before submission of a Q Comp application. However, the application must contain the signatures of the president of the local teacher’s union and either the school board chair or the superintendent. It should be noted that final ratification of a master agreement and contract require a teacher vote under the parameters set in the district’s collective bargaining agreement with its local teacher union. Local districts and local teacher unions should check their bylaws to ensure compliance with collective bargaining processes.

    Enabling Policy: Minnesota Law; 122A

    Other Stakeholders Quality Compensation (Q Comp)

    Other stakeholders include legislators, districts, schools and charter schools.

    Enabling Policy: Minnesota Law; 122A

    Program Funding
    Cost Quality Compensation (Q Comp)

    Districts, schools, and charter schools with an approved Q Comp application for the 2005-06 school year will receive $260 per student in state aid and $190 per student in state aid and $70 per student in a partially equalized levy for the 2006-07 school year and beyond.

    Districts and schools with an approved Q Comp application for the 2006-07 school year will receive $190 per student in state aid and $70 per student in a partially equalized levy for the 2006-07 school year and beyond.

    Charter schools with an approved Q Comp application will receive the state average in aid (likely to be slightly less than $260 per student) depending on how many school districts choose to levy the maximum amount available, and how many choose to levy less than the maximum. Charter schools do not have the authority to impose levies.

    Currently, 22 Minnesota school districts have been approved for Q Comp and have received funding for implementation. 134 districts have indicated that they plan to submit an application for the 2006-07 or 2007-08 school year.

    Enabling Policy: Minnesota Law; 122A

    Funding Quality Compensation (Q Comp)

    The Q Comp law provides funding for approximately 48 percent of students. This program essentially starts up in the second year and is intended to be a phased-in program. The advantage of starting this program in the second year is that the need for state funds can be examined and the demand for the state funds understood in time to request a supplemental budget appropriation if the demand exceeds the funding that is available. The funding structure for this program is permanent.

    Enabling Policy: Minnesota Law; 122A

    Results and Outcomes
    Results and Outcomes Quality Compensation (Q Comp)

    No information found at this time.

    Enabling Policy: Minnesota Law; 122A


    Mississippi : Mississippi Performance-Based Pay (MPBP) Plan -State Level
    Program Statistics
    Name and Level Mississippi Performance Based Pay (MPBP)

    The Mississippi Reform Act of 2006 (Senate Bill 2602) includes the establishment of a state level Mississippi Performance Based Pay (MPBP) plan to reward licensed education personnel at schools showing improvement in student test scores.

    Enabling Policy: Mississippi Reform Act of 2006 (Senate Bill 2602)

    Status Mississippi Performance Based Pay (MPBP)

    Effective July 1, 2007, if funds are available, the legislature may authorize funds for additional base compensation for teachers employed in a public school district located in a geographic area of the state designated as a critical teacher shortage area by the state board of education.

    Enabling Policy: Mississippi Reform Act of 2006 (Senate Bill 2602)

    Program Description Mississippi Performance Based Pay (MPBP)

    The Mississippi Performance Based Pay (MPBP) plan rewards certified teachers, administrators and nonlicensed personnel at individual schools showing improvement in test scores. The MPBP plan shall be developed by the state department of education based on the following criteria:

    • The plan shall utilize only existing standards of accreditation and assessment as established by the board of education.
    • The program shall be designed to calculate each school’s performance as determined by the school’s increase in scores from the prior school year. The program shall be based on a standardized scores rating where all levels of schools can be judged in a statistically fair and reasonable way upon implementation. At the end of the year, after all student achievement scores have been standardized, the state department of education shall implement the MPBP plan.
    • Individual schools shall submit a plan to the local school educational authority to be approved before the beginning of each school year beginning July 1, 2008. the plan shall include, but not be limited to, how all teachers, regardless of subject area, and administrators will be responsible for improving student achievement for their individual school.
    The state board of education shall develop the processes and procedures for designating schools eligible to participate in the MPBP. State assessment results, growth in student achievement at individual schools and other measures deemed appropriate in designating successful student achievement shall be used in establishing MPBP criteria.

    Enabling Policy: Mississippi Reform Act of 2006 (Senate Bill 2602)

    Other Programs No information found.
    Hard-to-Staff, High Needs, At-Risk Component
    Program Target Components
  • Hard to staff subject
  • Hard to staff school
  • Description of Component Mississippi Performance Based Pay (MPBP)

    The Mississippi Reform Act of 2006 (Senate Bill 2602) includes the establishment of a state level Mississippi Performance Based Pay (MPBP) plan to reward licensed education personnel at schools showing improvement in student test scores.

    Enabling Policy: Mississippi Reform Act of 2006 (Senate Bill 2602)

    Incentive Structure
    Compensation Structure Mississippi Performance Based Pay (MPBP)

    The plan shall be designed to calculate each school’s performance as determined by the school’s increase in scores from the prior school year. The program shall be based on a standardized scores rating where all levels of schools can be judged in a statistically fair and reasonable way upon implementation.

    Enabling Policy: Mississippi Reform Act of 2006 (Senate Bill 2602)

    Incentives Mississippi Performance Based Pay (MPBP)

    If after fully funding the Mississippi Adequate Education Program (MAEP) and if funds are available, the state may provide monies from state funds to school districts for additional base compensation for teachers employed in a public school district located in a geographic area of the state designated as a critical teacher shortage area.

    Enabling Policy: Mississippi Reform Act of 2006 (Senate Bill 2602)

    Incentive Recipients Mississippi Performance Based Pay (MPBP)

    Certified teachers, administrators and nonlicensed personnel at individual schools showing improvement in student test scores.

    Enabling Policy: Mississippi Reform Act of 2006 (Senate Bill 2602)

    Methods of Evaluation
    Method of Evaluation Mississippi Performance Based Pay (MPBP)

    The plan shall utilize only existing standards of accreditation and assessment as established by the state board of education. The board shall develop processes and procedures for designing schools eligible to participate. State assessment results, growth in student achievement at individual schools and other measures deemed appropriate in designating successful student achievement shall be used in establishing program criteria.

    Enabling Policy: Mississippi Reform Act of 2006 (Senate Bill 2602)

    Stakeholder Involvement
    Teachers and Teacher's Unions Mississippi Performance Based Pay (MPBP)

    No information found.

    Enabling Policy: Mississippi Reform Act of 2006 (Senate Bill 2602)

    Other Stakeholders Mississippi Performance Based Pay (MPBP)

    No information found.

    Enabling Policy: Mississippi Reform Act of 2006 (Senate Bill 2602)

    Program Funding
    Cost Mississippi Performance Based Pay (MPBP)

    No information found.

    Enabling Policy: Mississippi Reform Act of 2006 (Senate Bill 2602)

    Funding Mississippi Performance Based Pay (MPBP)

    The legislature may authorize funds if funds are available. Only after fully funding the Mississippi Adequate Education Program (MAEP) and if funds are available, the state may provide monies from state funds to school districts.

    Enabling Policy: Mississippi Reform Act of 2006 (Senate Bill 2602)

    Results and Outcomes
    Results and Outcomes Mississippi Performance Based Pay (MPBP)The Mississippi Performance Based Pay (MPBP) plan goes into effect July 1, 2007 and there is currently no data or information available.

    Enabling Policy: Mississippi Reform Act of 2006 (Senate Bill 2602)


    New York : Teachers of Tomorrow Recruitment and Retention Program -State Level
    Program Statistics
    Name and Level New York State Education Department Teachers of Tomorrow Program

    Teachers of Tomorrow teacher recruitment and retention program is a state level program.

    Enabling Policy: §3612

    Status New York State Education Department Teachers of Tomorrow Program

    Program is ongoing.

    Enabling Policy: §3612

    Program Description New York State Education Department Teachers of Tomorrow Program

    The Teachers of Tomorrow program was established under an amendment to the Education Law, Chapter 62 of the Laws of 2000 to assist school districts in the recruitment, retention and certification activities necessary to increase the supply of qualified teachers in school districts experiencing a teacher shortage or subject shortage, especially those schools with Schools Under Registration Review (SURR) and low performing schools.

    Enabling Policy: §3612

    Other Programs There are five other grants available under the Teachers of Tomorrow Program:
    • Summer in the City Internship Program
    • New York State Master Teacher Program
    • Teacher Recruitment Tuition Reimbursement Program
    • Science and Mathematics Tuition Reimbursement Program
    • Summer Teacher Training Program.
    Hard-to-Staff, High Needs, At-Risk Component
    Program Target Components
  • Hard to staff subject
  • Hard to staff school
  • Description of Component New York State Education Department Teachers of Tomorrow Program

    The Teachers of Tomorrow program was established under an amendment to the Education Law, Chapter 62 of the Laws of 2000 to assist school districts in the recruitment, retention and certification activities necessary to increase the supply of qualified teachers in school districts experiencing a teacher shortage or subject shortage, especially those schools with Schools Under Registration Review (SURR) and low performing schools.

    Enabling Policy: §3612

    Incentive Structure
    Compensation Structure New York State Education Department Teachers of Tomorrow Program

    The purpose of the program is to provide incentives to teachers employed for the first time in a public school district. Awards are provided per year and are renewable for three additional years. The awards are in addition to and not part of the teacher’s base pay.

    Enabling Policy: §3612

    Incentives New York State Education Department Teachers of Tomorrow Program

    The teacher shall receive $3,400 per year and is renewable for three additional years. Maximum cumulative award total is $13,600.

    Enabling Policy: §3612

    Incentive Recipients New York State Education Department Teachers of Tomorrow Program

    School districts may apply for these awards to provide funds for teachers who:

    • Have initial, provisional, permanent or professional certification to teach in New York state
    • Agree to a service obligation of one year of service in a teacher shortage areas as a condition of receiving an award, and
    • Are employed for the first time as a teacher in the school district.

    Enabling Policy: §3612

    Methods of Evaluation
    Method of Evaluation New York State Education Department Teachers of Tomorrow Program

    No information found.

    Enabling Policy: §3612

    Stakeholder Involvement
    Teachers and Teacher's Unions New York State Education Department Teachers of Tomorrow Program

    No information found.

    Enabling Policy: §3612

    Other Stakeholders New York State Education Department Teachers of Tomorrow Program

    No information found.

    Enabling Policy: §3612

    Program Funding
    Cost New York State Education Department Teachers of Tomorrow Program

    Thirty-eight projects were funded during the 2000, 2006 funding cycle. The allocation for these grants for the 2000-2002 was $25 million. In 2003-2005 the allocation was $20 million. The allocation for grants for the 2006-2007 program is $25 million.

    Enabling Policy: §3612

    Funding New York State Education Department Teachers of Tomorrow Program

    Grants shall be made to school districts for teacher recruitment, retention and certification activities and shall be awarded to school districts, within the limits of funds appropriated therefore, through a competitive process that takes into consideration several issues. Not more than 60 percent of the funds allocated shall be made available to any one school district. State funds shall not supplant local funds currently used for similar purposes. School districts awarded funds must maintain local efforts related to the recruitment or retention of teachers currently in place at a level equivalent to that base year, or must match the state grant funds. Applications by a school district for funding shall be filed with the commissioner by June 1st of the base year and shall be notified by June 30th of the same year.

    Annual awards from state and local funds shall be paid by the board of education to the award recipient.

    Continuation of the program is dependent on legislative support.

    Enabling Policy: §3612

    Results and Outcomes
    Results and Outcomes New York State Education Department Teachers of Tomorrow Program

    No information found.

    Enabling Policy: §3612


    North Carolina : ABCs -State Level
    Program Statistics
    Name and Level ABCs of Public Education

    This is a state level program with local level control.

    Enabling Policy: NCS § 115C-105

    Status ABCs of Public Education

    The ABCs of Public Education was implemented in the 1996-97 school year and is ongoing. Many changes made to the program in 2006 are outlined in the ABCs 2006 Accountability Report Background Packet.

    Enabling Policy: NCS § 115C-105

    Program Description ABCs of Public Education

    The State Board of Education (SBE) developed the ABCs of Public Education in response to the School-Based Management and Accountability Program enacted by the General Assembly in June 1996. The program focuses on strong Accountability, teaching the Basics with an emphasis on high educational standards, and maximum local control.

    The ABCs accountability program sets growth and performance standards for each elementary, middle, and high school in the state. End-of-Grade (EOG) and End-of-Course (EOC) test results and other selected components are used to measure a school's growth and performance. Schools that attain the standards are eligible for incentive awards or other recognition, i.e., Honor Schools of Excellence, Schools of Excellence, Schools of Distinction and Schools of Progress.

    Enabling Policy: NCS § 115C-105

    Other Programs The ABCs of Public Education is a consequence of the School-Based Management and Accountability Program enacted by the General Assembly in June 1996. Other district-level programs include: Guilford Mission Possible, Charlotte-Mecklenburg High School Challenge EOC Retention Program, Charlotte-Mecklenburg STAR Program and Charlotte-Mecklenburg Performance-Based Pay Pilot
    Hard-to-Staff, High Needs, At-Risk Component
    Program Target Components
  • No hard-to-staff, high needs or at-risk component found
  • Description of Component ABCs of Public Education

    No information found.

    Incentive Structure
    Compensation Structure ABCs of Public Education

    Individual schools receive financial incentives based on student achievement growth and the proficiency rate within schools.

    Enabling Policy: NCS § 115C-105

    Incentives ABCs of Public Education

    In all schools that attain the High Growth standards, certified staff members each receive up to $1,500 incentive awards and teacher assistants receive up to $500. In all schools attaining the Expected Growth standard (but less than High Growth), certified staff members each receive up to $750 and teacher assistants receive up to $375.

    Enabling Policy: NCS § 115C-105

    Incentive Recipients ABCs of Public Education

    The ABCs program provides incentive awards to teachers, principals and other certified school-based staff, in addition to teacher assistants.

    Enabling Policy: NCS § 115C-105

    Methods of Evaluation
    Method of Evaluation ABCs of Public Education

    The three result measures for schools are:

    1. Performance Composite – The percentage of the test scores in the school at or above Achievement Level III (how well the students in the school did against the set standard of proficiency);
    2. Growth – An indication of the rate at which the students in the school learned over the past year. The standard is equivalent to a year’s worth of growth for a year of instruction;
    3. AYP Status – Whether the students in the school as a whole and in each identified group met the performance standards set by each state following federal guidelines with the long-term goal of 100 percent proficiency by 2013-14.
    Incentives are based on a school's academic growth and performance level.
    • Honor School of Excellence
      Schools with 90% to 100% of students with scores at or above a designated achievement level (Achievement Level III) and that meet AYP.
    • School of Excellence
      Schools with 90% to 100% of students with scores at or above a designated achievement level (Achievement Level III), but did not meet AYP.
    • School of Distinction
      Schools with 80% to 89% of students with scores at or above a designated achievement level (Achievement Level III).
    • School of Progress
      Schools with 60% to 79% of students with scores at or above a designated achievement level (Achievement Level III).

    Enabling Policy: NCS § 115C-105

    Stakeholder Involvement
    Teachers and Teacher's Unions ABCs of Public Education

    A year of work went into developing the model to gauge a high school's effectiveness before the model gained Board approval. More than 1,000 people offered input in a series of statewide meetings headed by the State Board's Steering Committee for Assessment and Accountability. That group represented a cross-section of educators and received ideas from high school principals, local superintendents, high school teachers and others.

    Additionally, teachers are appointed to work in teams to help improve schools that do not meet the expected growth standards and that have a performance composite of less than 50 percent.

    Enabling Policy: NCS § 115C-105

    Other Stakeholders ABCs of Public Education

    A year of work went into developing the model to gauge a high school's effectiveness before the model gained Board approval. More than 1,000 people offered input in a series of statewide meetings headed by the State Board's Steering Committee for Assessment and Accountability. That group represented a cross-section of educators and received ideas from high school principals, local superintendents, high school teachers and others.

    Additionally, teachers are appointed to work in teams to help improve schools that do not meet the expected growth standards and that have a performance composite of less than 50 percent.

    Enabling Policy: NCS § 115C-105

    Program Funding
    Cost ABCs of Public Education

    The 2005-2006 cost of incentive awards is anticipated to total approximately $94 million.

    Enabling Policy: NCS § 115C-105

    Funding ABCs of Public Education

    State statutes establish funding for this program.

    Enabling Policy: NCS § 115C-105

    Results and Outcomes
    Results and Outcomes ABCs of Public Education

    In 2004-05, 490 schools, 21.9 percent, earned a designation as Honor Schools of Excellence, the highest category. Honor Schools of Excellence also met the federal requirement of Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP).

    Forty-six schools (2.1 percent) are Schools of Excellence, which means that they met at least Expected Growth and had 90 percent or more of their students' test scores at or above the proficient level.

    A total of 601 schools, or 26.8 percent, are designated as Schools of Distinction, which signifies that they met at least Expected Growth and had 80-89 percent of their students' test scores at proficient or better.

    A total of 273 schools, 12.2 percent, are Schools of Progress, which means these schools met at least Expected Growth and had 60-79 percent of their students' test scores at proficient or better.

    Six hundred seventy-four schools, or 30.1 percent, are No Recognition schools. These schools did not meet their Expected Growth goals even though they had 60-100 percent of their students' test scores at the proficient level or better.

    Fifty-five schools, 2.5 percent, are Priority Schools — schools with less than 60 percent of their students' test scores at the proficient level or better and making Expected Growth or High Growth and schools that have 50-59 percent of students' test scores at the proficient level or better regardless of growth.

    In 2004-05, 69 percent of all schools made Expected Growth or High Growth. This is down from the 75 percent that met Expected Growth or High Growth in 2003-04.

    Source: North Carolina Department of Public Instruction; 2005-2006 News Release

    Enabling Policy: NCS § 115C-105


    Texas : Educator Excellence Awards -State Level
    Program Statistics
    Name and Level The Educator Excellence Awards Program

    This is a state level program.

    Enabling Policy: Texas HB1

    Status The Educator Excellence Awards Program

    The enabling legislation, Texas HB1 (Education Reform Act), was signed by Governor Perry on May 31, 2006.

    Texas HB1 (Education Reform Act) amends the Education Code, Chapter 21, Subchapters N and O.

    Enabling Policy: Texas HB1

    Program Description The Educator Excellence Awards Program

    The Educator Excellence Awards Program provides grants to school districts for the purpose of providing incentive payments to employees under the terms of locally developed awards plans approved by the commissioner. The goal of both programs is to reward teachers who have a positive impact on improving student achievement.

    Enabling Policy: Texas HB1

    Other Programs Houston Independent School District and Aldine ISD Performance Incentives.
    Hard-to-Staff, High Needs, At-Risk Component
    Program Target Components
  • Hard to staff subject
  • Description of Component The Educator Excellence Awards Program

    An eligible campus may also consider a classroom teacher's assignment to teach a subject that is experiencing a critical shortage of teachers or a high teacher turnover rate as well as his/her demonstration of ongoing initiative, commitment, professionalism, and involvement in an activity that directly results in improved student achievement.

    Enabling Policy: Texas HB1

    Incentive Structure
    Compensation Structure The Educator Excellence Awards Program

    Incentive payments and award payments for individual teachers that are based on student learning gains and collaboration with other faculty and staff resulting in overall student achievement. Teachers serving in critical shortage areas and hard to staff schools can also be awarded incentives.

    Enabling Policy: Texas HB1

    Incentives The Educator Excellence Awards Program

    An eligible campus must submit to the Texas Education Agency for approval a campus incentive plan that is designed to reward teachers who have a positive impact on improving student achievement. In distributing incentive payments to classroom teachers, an eligible campus may distribute an incentive payment only to a classroom teacher who:

    • Demonstrates success in improving student achievement using objective, quantifiable measures, such as local benchmarking systems, portfolio assessments, end-of-course assessments, and value-added assessments; and
    • Successfully collaborates with other faculty and with staff in a manner that contributes to improving overall student achievement at the campus.
    An eligible campus may also consider a classroom teacher's assignment to teach a subject that is experiencing a critical shortage of teachers or a high teacher turnover rate as well as his/her demonstration of ongoing initiative, commitment, professionalism, and involvement in an activity that directly results in improved student achievement.

    Enabling Policy: Texas HB1

    Incentive Recipients The Educator Excellence Awards Program

    Individual teachers receive incentives.

    Enabling Policy: Texas HB1

    Methods of Evaluation
    Method of Evaluation The Educator Excellence Awards Program

    No information found at this time.

    Enabling Policy: Texas HB1

    Stakeholder Involvement
    Teachers and Teacher's Unions The Educator Excellence Awards Program

    No information found at this time.

    Enabling Policy: Texas HB1

    Other Stakeholders The Educator Excellence Awards Program

    Other stakeholders include legislators and school districts.

    Enabling Policy: Texas HB1

    Program Funding
    Cost The Educator Excellence Awards Program

    Grants from funds appropriated for the program shall be awarded beginning with the 2006-2007 school year and may not exceed $100 million in the 2006-2007 school year except as expressly authorized by the General Appropriations Act or other law. State cost in fiscal year 2008 is estimated at $261 million in general revenue, increasing to $328 million by fiscal year 2011.

    Enabling Policy: Texas HB1

    Funding The Educator Excellence Awards Program

    Each state fiscal year, the commissioner shall deposit the sum of $1,000 multiplied by the number of classroom teachers in this state to the credit of the educator excellence fund in the general revenue fund. Each state fiscal year, the agency shall use:

    1. Not more than $100 million of the funds in the educator excellence fund to provide grant awards under the awards for student achievement program; and
    2. Any remaining funds in the educator excellence fund to provide a qualifying school district a grant in an amount determined by:
      • Dividing the amount of remaining money available for distribution in the educator excellence fund by the total number of students in average daily attendance in qualifying districts for that fiscal year; and
      • Multiplying the amount determined under Paragraph (A) by the number of students in average daily attendance in the district.

    Enabling Policy: Texas HB1

    Enabling Policy: Texas HB1

    Results and Outcomes
    Results and Outcomes The Educator Excellence Awards Program

    The program is in the beginning stages of implementation, so there is no available information on the results or outcomes at this time.

    Enabling Policy: Texas HB1


    Virginia : Incentives for Hard-to-Staff Schools -State Level
    Program Statistics
    Name and Level Model Incentive Program to Attract and Retain Teachers in Virginia’s Hard-to-Staff Schools

    Model Incentive Program to Attract and Retain Teachers in Virginia’s Hard-to-Staff Schools is a state level pilot program.

    Status Model Incentive Program to Attract and Retain Teachers in Virginia’s Hard-to-Staff Schools

    The two year pilot program began in 2004-2005 and continued through the 2005-2006 school year. The 2006-2007 school year was added, wherein one school division was funded with the stipulation that the state funds would be matched by the division. It is unclear whether the legislature will fund again for the 2007-2008 school year or if there are plans to implement the program across the state.

    Program Description Model Incentive Program to Attract and Retain Teachers in Virginia’s Hard-to-Staff Schools

    The purpose of the program is to improve student achievement in hard-to-staff schools by piloting a model program to attract and retain licensed, highly qualified and experienced teachers in hard-to-staff middle and high schools.

    The pilot program began in the fall of 2004 in Caroline County and Franklin City. During the pilot phase of the program, the commonwealth will provide a one-time hiring incentive of $15,000 to teachers who meet the eligibility criteria and who agree to move to a hard-to-staff middle or high school in one of the two participating school divisions. The relocating teachers must agree to teach in the hard-to-staff school for at least three years and participate in training during the first year of the pilot program in a formal support network during year two. The state will provide $500 stipends during both years of the pilot to cover expenses related to training and professional development to meet the challenges of working in a hard-to-staff school.

    Highly qualified teachers already teaching in the participating schools will receive annual $3,000 bonuses and $500 stipends for training and professional development as incentives to stay. All other teachers in the schools receive a $500 stipend for participating in training and benefit from the finding provided to the school by the state. Teachers also receive first priority to receive finds from the state to assist in earning national recognition.

    In year one of the pilot, the entire faculty and administration receive training to help them meet the challenges of working in a hard-to-staff school Participating schools receive base funding of $150 per student and may be used at the discretion of the school for various projects.

    In year two of the pilot, the entire faculty and administration benefit from a support program to help them meet the challenges of working in a hard-to-staff school. Schools that demonstrate increased student achievement as evidenced by at least a ten percent reduction in the failure rate from the previous year on Standard of Learning tests will receive base funding of $200 per student. These funds may be used at the discretion of the school in ways similar to those described above. However, at least 50 percent of the funds must be used as salary incentives for all faulty members of the school.

    Other Programs No information found.
    Hard-to-Staff, High Needs, At-Risk Component
    Program Target Components
  • Hard to staff school
  • Description of Component Model Incentive Program to Attract and Retain Teachers in Virginia’s Hard-to-Staff Schools

    The pilot program began in the fall of 2004 in Caroline County and Franklin City. During the pilot phase of the program, the commonwealth will provide a one-time hiring incentive of $15,000 to teachers who meet the eligibility criteria and who agree to move to a hard-to-staff middle or high school in one of the two participating school divisions. The relocating teachers must agree to teach in the hard-to-staff school for at least three years and participate in training during the first year of the pilot program in a formal support network during year two.

    Incentive Structure
    Compensation Structure Model Incentive Program to Attract and Retain Teachers in Virginia’s Hard-to-Staff Schools

    For the first year, a one time hiring incentive, an additional annual bonus and a stipend for training are available to teachers. Participating schools receive base finding per student.

    For the second year, an annual bonus and a stipend for participating in the support network are available to teachers. Schools that demonstrate increased student achievement receive funds based on the number of students in the school and are paid out per student.

    Incentives Model Incentive Program to Attract and Retain Teachers in Virginia’s Hard-to-Staff Schools

    For the first year, a one time hiring incentive of $15,000 for new teachers. An additional annual bonus of $3,000 and a $500 stipend are available to new teachers and eligible teachers who already teach at the school. Participating schools receive base funding of $150 per student.

    For the second year, an annual bonus of $3,000 and a $500 stipend are available to teachers and participating schools receive base funding of $200 per student.

    Incentive Recipients Model Incentive Program to Attract and Retain Teachers in Virginia’s Hard-to-Staff Schools

    Recipients include new and existing eligible teachers and participating schools.

    Methods of Evaluation
    Method of Evaluation Model Incentive Program to Attract and Retain Teachers in Virginia’s Hard-to-Staff Schools

    Candidates must satisfy three criteria, including documented evidence of average or better student performance in the teaching area consistent with significant improvement in student achievement, above average or better performance evaluations supported by outstanding classroom observation reports for the last three consecutive years, and letters of outstanding recommendations. The documented evidence of average or better student performance is demonstrated by, but not limited to the following:

    • Performance data for their students that meet or exceed adequate yearly progress measures, accreditation benchmarks or statewide averages on other student achievement measures, or that demonstrate student performance growth on such measures
    • Student performance on division wide assessments developed or selected by the school division
    • Student performance on pre- and post-tests approved by the school division
    • Student performance on standardized or other nationally administered tests
    • Student competency records in Career and Technical Education (CTE)
    • Numbers/percentages of students earning licenses in a content area
    • Evidence of how instruction in the content area contributed to success on SOL tests
    • Number/percentages of students taking and passing Advanced Placement exams, dual enrollment courses, International Baccalaureate exams, etc.
    • Evidence of student performance and success in increasingly complex visual arts, performing arts or practical arts skills
    • Number/percentages of students eligible for national honor society for specific content areas
    • Presidential physical fitness results and awards
    • Other performance-based measures as approved by the school division.
    Stakeholder Involvement
    Teachers and Teacher's Unions Model Incentive Program to Attract and Retain Teachers in Virginia’s Hard-to-Staff Schools

    No information found.

    Other Stakeholders Model Incentive Program to Attract and Retain Teachers in Virginia’s Hard-to-Staff Schools

    No information found.

    Program Funding
    Cost Model Incentive Program to Attract and Retain Teachers in Virginia’s Hard-to-Staff Schools

    No information found.

    Funding Model Incentive Program to Attract and Retain Teachers in Virginia’s Hard-to-Staff Schools

    The pilot was funded with Title II federal funds for the first two years. In the third year, the general assembly provided partial funding with the stipulation that the local division match the state funds. Only one of the two school divisions opted to participate in this the third year.

    Results and Outcomes
    Results and Outcomes Model Incentive Program to Attract and Retain Teachers in Virginia’s Hard-to-Staff Schools

    After the first year of the pilot, the program was modified and expanded to include three additional school divisions. The general assembly funded only one of these divisions and these funds were cut. Only enough funds were allocated for the remaining division to provide the hiring incentives and the bonus for existing teachers.

    The pilot program was expanded to include a third year wherein the general assembly provided partial funds with the stipulation that the local division match the state funds. One of the two original schools opted to participate.

    It is unknown whether the program will be funded for an additional year and unknown whether it will be implemented across the state.




    © 2013 by the Education Commission of the States (ECS). All rights reserved. ECS is the only nationwide, nonpartisan interstate compact devoted to education.

    To request permission to excerpt part of this publication, either in print or electronically, please fax a request to the attention of the ECS Communications Department, 303.296.8332 or e-mail ecs@ecs.org.

    Helping State Leaders Shape Education Policy