Texas Education Agency (TEA) Commissioner Mike Morath provided his regularly scheduled update to the State Board of Education (SBOE) at its Nov. 19 meeting. Morath’s comments focused solely on the Teacher Incentive Allotment (TIA) and Additional Days School Year (ADSY) program. 

Morath offered a detailed view in both his comments and in his slides on House Bill (HB) 2 implementation, giving a clearer picture of how the commissioner views both the TIA program and the expansion of ADSY. Together, the slides and his remarks underscore the commissioner’s belief that longer school calendars and "effectiveness-based" compensation are not simply peripheral options but rather central strategies the agency hopes districts will grow and adopt. 

In his remarks, the commissioner repeatedly described TIA as a uniquely Texan funding entitlement that directly increases a district’s formula funding whenever a TIA-designated teacher is employed—functioning, in his words, “just like a student showing up.” 

The commissioner also framed TIA not as a vehicle to “make teachers better,” parroting arguments long made by ATPE that teachers aren’t waiting for more money to work harder; they largely are already giving their all. In the commissioner’s words, TIA is about improving retention by offering substantial compensation increases to those deemed to be the highest performing—those educators whose only option historically was to leave the classroom for administrative roles or other professional opportunities. He highlighted internal TEA research showing a roughly 9% retention benefit for designated teachers and asserted this retention effect grows stronger as more districts adopt TIA. 

According to data collected by the agency, TIA districts also experience effects on student performance, and those effects extend beyond the individual classrooms of TIA-designated teachers. The cited data indicates that students in TIA-participating districts, especially those students starting far below grade level, are significantly more likely to reach grade level in both math and reading, leading the commissioner to describe TIA as a reform that “is closing the achievement gap in Texas.” 

What was not discussed, likely because it would have undercut the commissioner’s narrative, was causation versus correlation with a potentially confounding variable. Retention has improved in TIA districts, but is that because of TIA specifically or because teachers who are generally well paid are more likely to remain in the classroom? Likewise, did TIA improve student outcomes, or were those outcomes more generally the result of lower turnover among educators turnover? It is worth noting that the commissioner repeatedly said that districts implementing TIA tend to strengthen their instructional definitions, evaluations, and expectations, resulting in districtwide academic gains. While that is certainly a logical hypothesis, the data presented didn’t actually speak to those claims. More important: If the conclusion is that paying teachers helps retain them, and that lower teacher turnover and/or improved management practices leads to better student outcomes, that doesn't necessarily mean TIA is the only, or even best, way to achieve those outcomes. For example, it would stand to reason that paying all educators well would result in better retention than paying a relatively small percentage of educators well using a complex system, as well as that systemically improving training requirements and resources for those managing educators would have a broader impact on management practices.  

Morath went on to detail how the new “Acknowledged” designation and increased funding tiers expand the TIA program. The commissioner openly advocated for performance-based compensation as a philosophical shift, describing seniority pay as “a system designed 100 years ago” and “a fundamentally inefficient use of taxpayer funds.” He argues these changes will bring more high-performing teachers into the system and lead districts to move away from seniority-based pay scales, leaving the false impression that seniority-based pay is common (it is not).  

Parallel comments on ADSY program 

The commissioner's comments on TIA ran parallel to his ADSY messaging. In both his slides and commentary, Morath positioned ADSY as a structural tool to counter the well-documented effects of summer learning loss and noted that HB 2 now allows districts to access three-quarter day ADA funding; expand ADSY from PK–5 to PK–8; and integrate ADSY into voluntary summer learning, intersessional calendars, or full-year designs. The commissioner repeatedly returned to the underlying research, the cumulative learning gap created by inequitable summer access, the negative effects of shortened school weeks, and the significant single-year gains seen in ADSY campuses. Morath’s stance is clear: Extending instructional time is an evidence-based intervention, now paired with stable formula funding, that districts should strongly consider. 

Taken together, the slides and the commissioner’s commentary reflect his strong perspective on these two programs. Although TEA portrays both TIA and ADSY as optional, the presentation make clear these programs are intended to drive statewide structural change. As implementation of HB 2 continues, ATPE will monitor how these shifts affect educator workload, compensation stability, fairness in evaluation systems, and the long-term sustainability of extended-year models, all of which should be key concerns for educators and districts navigating these reforms.