Category Archives: Teachers

Liquidated Damages – Charging Teachers $750

Open Letter to Superintendent Dr. Stephen Green and Fellow Board of Education Representatives

DeKalb Teachers

The Chief Human Resources Officer reported as of July, 97 teachers notified the district they will not be returning for the 2015-16 school year, despite having initially indicated they would do so. Teachers will soon receive their final paycheck earned from the 2014-2015 school year, including those that will not be returning.  I implore the district to not charge teachers $750 for “Liquidated Damages”.
I am concerned about the potential liability for the district of a class action lawsuit regarding the merits and legality of this charge based on the structure of the DeKalb “employee contract” presented to teachers this past March.
Teachers, principals, and other certificated professionals are entitled to written contracts (OCGA 20-2-211). DeKalb County School District’s 2015-2016 employment contracts went out March 23, 2015. The employment contracts included a “Liquidated Damages Clause” in the amount of $750. As explained by the administration, liquidated damages occur to the District as a result of employees who “break a contract” and include, but are not limited to: the cost of advertising, recruiting, processing applications, criminal background checks, interviewing, orientation and training.

In the letter and documentation sent to teachers in March 2015 regarding their offer of employment for the 2015-16 school year, there was no mention or guarantee of compensation for the 2015-16 school year. There was only a citation of the compensation that was given for the 2014-15 school year. Georgia law provides that a letter of intent is not a legally binding contract (OCGA 20-2-211 (b)). Georgia law also requires that contracts shall be complete in all terms and conditions, including the amount of compensation to be paid during the ensuing school year (OCGA 20-2-211 (b)). Since teachers still have not been notified of their pay plan, I am concerned the March employment letters (labeled “contracts”) will not stand up in a court of law.
I believe we are taking advantage of teachers. Teachers are public servants who are all too often victims of district policies and procedures that impede what is in the best interest of the students and taxpayers of DeKalb. The latest Financial Report indicated the district shorted instruction by $9.7 million this past school year. DeKalb County demonstrated a lack of fidelity to its own budget, where teachers and students are concerned. We have most certainly ceded the moral high ground by extracting another $750 from these teachers. Have we not shortchanged the classroom enough?
Stan Jester
DeKalb County School District
Board of Education Representative


.pdf link icon FY2016 Teacher Employment Contract for the 2015-2016 School Year

Merit Pay For DeKalb Teachers

Teachers

During the week of July 20, 2015, the DeKalb County School District distributed merit pay from a federal program, Race to the Top, to 1,830 teachers, who were identified as the top 20 percent of teachers in 2014-2015 school year using the newly calculated Teacher Effectiveness Measure (TEM) from the Georgia Department of Education (GDOE).
Tier 1 – $2,500 was awarded to the top 10 percent of teachers
Tier 2 – $869.75 was awarded to the next 10 percent of teachers.
Note:  The merit pay awards were distributed according to the district’s approved merit pay plan. However, the merit pay awards may have exceeded the top 20% since many teachers had the same TEM score and could not be ex-cluded if that TEM score in the top 20% qualified for merit pay. There were numerous teachers with the same TEM score which resulted in the district awarding beyond 20% of the teachers in the district (Approximately 29%).
Teachers eligible for merit pay were identified as active employees at the time of the merit pay distribution, were employed by DCSD in SY2013-2014 and SY2014-2015, had student growth data in SY2013-2014 or earned a Level IV or Exemplary on Teacher Assessment of Performance Standards (TAPS) for SY2014-2015 if they had no student growth data in SY2013-2014.
TEM Score
The TEM score consists of a TAPS score and the Student Growth Score as calculated by the GDOE.
TAPS Score
Teachers earned the TAPS score which is the SY2014-2015 annual evaluation by the teacher’s principal outcome they received in April or May. A TAPS rating of 1-4 is earned as follows:
Level 1 – TAPS score of 0-6
Level 2 – TAPS score of 7-16
Level 3 – TAPS score of 17-26
Level 4 – TAPS score of 27-30
Student Growth Score
The Student Growth Rating was calculated by the GDOE using student data from the SY2013-2014. The student growth score assigns a teacher a score of 1-4 depending on the outcome of their student data analysis as follows:

Level 1 • Less than 50% of students demonstrated expected or high growth (SLO Data)
• Mean Growth Percentile is less Than 30 (Student Achievement Data)
Level 2 • 50% or more of students demonstrated expected or high growth (SLO Data)
• Mean Growth Percentile is greater than or equal to 30 and less than or equal to 40 (Student Achievement Data)
Level 3 • 80% or more of students demonstrated expected or high growth (SLO Data)
• Mean Growth Percentile is greater than 40 and less than or equal to 65  (Student Achievement Data)
Level 4 • 90% of more of students demonstrated expected or high growth AND 50% or more of students demonstrated high growth (SLO Data)
• Mean Growth Percentile is greater than 65 (Student Achievement Data)

TEM Outcome
Using the TAPS Score and Student Growth Score, the teachers qualifying for merit pay awards were the top 20% who had TEM outcomes as follows:
Exemplary – TAPS rating of 4 and a Growth Rating of 4
Exemplary – TAPS rating of 4 and a Growth Rating of 3
Exemplary – TAPS rating of 3 and a Growth Rating of 4
Proficient – TAPS rating of 3 and a Growth Rating of 3
TEM Decision Table
TEM Decision Table