• 90:10 Spending Plan

    The local designation plan was developed by the TIA Steering Committee. The purpose of the proposed plan is to encourage grade, content and course level collaboration and to maintain the campus professional learning community (PLC) culture.

    Designated teachers will receive 90% of the allotment funds received with the remaining 10% to be allocated in one of two ways, as indicated in the graphic below.

    TIA Funding Distribution graphic

    If the cumulative average of all the teachers on the grade level, content level, or course team that the designated teacher is a member of indicates that at least 55% of all students met the expected growth measure for grades K through 12, or 75% of the students met the expected growth for pre-kindergarten, the remaining 10% of the allotment funds will be equally divided among the teachers (with or without a designation) of that team. Where the expected growth measures do not meet 55% or 75%, respectively, the remaining 10% of the allotment funds will be allocated to the campus for targeted professional development to build teacher capacity.

    Growth Calculations for 10% Funding Distribution

    The 10% of funds allocated to your PLC or campus is based on the overall student growth of all students at the appropriate grade level or subject, measured at the end of the year. This calculation considers all students enrolled during the 4th marking period and their performance, regardless of individual circumstances such as attendance or mobility throughout the school year (not the teacher accountability subset). The intent of this calculation is to reward collective efforts within the grade level or campus and support overall performance and professional development.

    Growth Calculations for Teacher Designation

    In contrast, the teacher designation process involves a more specific subset of students. This subset includes students who meet the following criteria:

    Actively enrolled students within KISD who received at least 80 days of instruction from the teacher and:

    • Were enrolled in the teacher’s course during the year and were both pre-tested (BOY) and post-tested (EOY),
    • Were enrolled in the teacher’s course during the pre-testing window but were not pre-tested,
    • Were enrolled in the teacher’s course during the pre-testing window and were pre-tested but post-tested in another teacher’s course,
    • Came from another teacher’s course after being pre-tested and were enrolled in the teacher’s course during post-testing; and


    Inactive students who received at least 80 days of instruction from the teacher and:

    • Were enrolled in the teacher’s course during both the pre-testing and post-testing windows, or
    • Have both a pre-test and a post-test score, regardless of their current enrollment status.


    These specific requirements ensure that only students who received significant instruction and completed both pre- and post-testing (when applicable) are included in the accountability subset used for teacher designation.

    Example of the Accountability Subset and its Effect

    To better illustrate how these requirements impact calculations, let’s take an example from a third-grade teacher.

    Mrs. Smith had 21 students who were scheduled to take both math and reading assessments, for a total of 42 assessments. Of these 42 assessments, students met the expected growth on 16 (or 38%) of the exams. However, when the accountability subset for teacher designation was applied, several adjustments were made:

    • Seven students were removed from the calculation because they were either not pre-tested (BOY) or not post-tested (EOY).
    • Two students were added to the accountability subset, even though they had moved to another teacher or campus, because they had received at least 80 days of instruction from Mrs. Smith.


    As a result, Mrs. Smith’s student count for the designation subset changed from 21 to 16 students, reducing the total number of assessments from 42 to 32. Additionally, the two returning students also increased the number of assessments meeting growth from 16 to 18. As a result, the adjustment raised the growth percentage from 38% to 56%. However, the new calculation is only a subset of all students assessed and includes two students who were not part of the campus, as they had moved.

    Funding Distribution vs Teacher Designation

    While the accountability subset used for teacher designation may result in both higher or lower growth percentages for some teachers, it is important to remember that the 10% funding distribution is based on the overall growth of all students at the grade level and/or subject during the MP4 testing window. The accountability subset is used only to determine individual teacher performance for designation purposes.

    By distinguishing between these two calculations, we ensure that both individual teacher performance and collective PLC or campus success are recognized appropriately. The 10% funding distribution is designed to support overall performance and professional development, while the teacher designation subset evaluates individual teacher performance based on a specific group of students.