McAllen Independent School District officials on Nov. 11 defended their Teacher Incentive Allotment (TIA) data submission and described steps to improve teacher communication after months of concern from staff and the union.

John Grassi, the district’s TIA instructional facilitator, told the Board of Trustees the district expanded the pool of eligible teachers from about 750 in year one to 1,239 in year two and proposed 406 new designations for the 2024–25 submission. He said the district’s data distribution shifted ‘to the right’ because multiple assessments were added (from one MAP assessment to 11 assessments for the current capture), which raised local cut points relative to the state minimums and is why local thresholds can differ from published state minima.

Grassi described the TIA validation steps that follow submission: system alignment review by the Texas Education Agency (TEA) and data validation performed by Texas Tech University. He said designations accrue across years — once a teacher is designated it can remain on file for five years — and that presenting district data in a way consistent with validation expectations increases the likelihood the state will validate proposed designations.

Teachers, members of McAllen AFT and board members pressed administration about communication and fairness. Public commenter Juan Lopez said the district raised a previously communicated T‑TEST threshold (he described it as increasing from 4.5 to 4.8) and tightened student‑growth percentage requirements, which he said had been applied after evaluations were complete. "In any fair system, the rules and expectations remain consistent throughout the process," Lopez said during public comments.

Sylvia Tanguma, speaking for McAllen AFT, said many teachers felt negatively affected by post‑data adjustments and asked the district to include at least one teacher representative from each campus on the TIA committee and to update committee membership records.

In response, district leaders said the existence of a district option to set local minimums is part of the program and that cut points are determined after analyzing the year’s data distribution; they noted the district had communicated in its guidebook that local cut points would be set after data capture. Grassi and other administrators described steps to improve ongoing stakeholder engagement, including continuing stakeholder committee meetings year‑round, strengthening the lead committee (composed largely of teacher representatives), and enhancing web and FAQ materials.

Trustees asked whether cut points would continue to increase year to year; Grassi said adjustments are driven by yearly data and are not intrinsically required to always rise. Trustees also asked about tax treatment and check distribution for TIA payouts; the district said TIA payouts remain taxable and that the district plans to issue the additional money as a separate check this year.

The district said it posted an updated TIA guidebook and will continue collecting feedback to inform future adjustments. No formal board action was required on the TIA data submission during the Nov. 11 meeting; discussion was informational and the district will report back as the state validation process proceeds.