CURRICULUM FORUM
February 5, 2014
INSTRUCTIONAL SERVICES
Instructional Services Organizational Chart
Regina Hillis
regina.hillis@esc20.net
210-370-5407
Career Tech Ed (CTE)
Response to Intervention
(RTI)
Gifted/Talented (GT)
TEKS Resource System
Title II (TPTR)
Diana Madrid
diana.madrid@esc20.net
210-370-5483
ESL/Bilingual
English Language Arts
and Reading (ELAR)
Social Studies
Title III
Title II (TPTR)
Component Director:
Janna Poth
Janna.poth@esc20.net
210-370-5674
Ravae Shaeffer
ravae.Shaeffer@esc20.net
210-370-5280
Science Technology
Engineering & Math
(STEM)
Math
Science
Counselor Services
CCRS
MENTORING HIGHLIGHTS
Jayme Presley
Jamyme.preseley@esc20.net
370-5429
Mentoring Highlights
Reflecting on the year
House Bill 2012 – Mentoring Survey
Overview of programs
• Scaffolded Solutions - Training & Online Support
• TxBESS - Training
• PACT – Online
• Success stories
• Close eyes and listen to questions
• Contact Jayme Presley - jayme.presley@esc20.net
CURRICULUM
UPDATES
TEXAS ADMINISTRATOR
AND TEACHER APPRAISAL
SYSTEM UPDATES
By: Shannon Allen
Administrative Specialist
Education Service Center – Region 20
New Teacher and Administrator
Performance Standards
 Available for public comment last month on
TEA website under Commissioner’s Rules.
 Feedback was positive. (Hard copy
available for Teacher Standards)
 New standards will inform educator and
administrator preparation programs.
 New standards will inform the development
of a state mentorship program.
Domain I
Instructional Planning and Delivery
Teachers demonstrate their
understanding of instructional planning
and delivery by providing standardsbased, data-driven, differentiated
instruction that engages students,
makes appropriate use of technology,
and makes learning relevant for today’s
learners.
Domain II
Knowledge of Students and Student Learning
Teachers work to ensure high levels of
learning, social-emotional development,
and achievement outcomes for all
students, taking into consideration each
student’s educational and
developmental backgrounds and
focusing on each student’s needs.
Domain III
Content and Knowledge Expertise
Teachers exhibit a comprehensive
understanding of their content, discipline, and
related pedagogy as demonstrated through
the quality of the design and execution of
lesson plans and their ability to match
objectives and activities to relevant state
standards, such as Texas Essential Knowledge
and Skills and College and Career Readiness
Standards.
Domain IV
Learning Environment
Teachers interact in respectful ways with
students at all times, maintaining a
physically and emotionally safe,
supportive learning environment that is
characterized by effective routines, clear
expectations for student behavior, and
systems of organization that maximize
student learning.
Domain V
Data-Driven Practice
Teachers use formal and informal
methods to assess student growth
aligned to instructional goals and
course objectives and regularly review
and analyze multiple sources of data to
measure student progress and adjust
instructional strategies and content
delivery as needed.
Domain VI
Professional Practice and Responsibility
Teachers consistently hold themselves to a
high standard for individual development,
pursue leadership opportunities, collaborate
with other educational professionals,
communicate regularly with stakeholders,
maintain professional relationships, comply
with all campus and school district policies,
and conduct themselves ethically and with
integrity.
The Appraisal System
Recommendations
 A steering committee is drafting the
instrument in the next 2-3 months.
 Summative Evaluation format will be aligned
with the Commissioner’s vision, Student
Growth Measures, and a Teacher-Self Report.
 Present to USDE in May 2014 with detailed
plans on implementation and deployment.
Pilot Districts
 65 Pilot districts across the state.
2 per ESC)
(At least
 Pilot district will be trained on New Appraisal
Systems in Summer 2014 with full
implementation during school year 20142015.
 Region 20’s Pilot Districts are:
 Southwest ISD
 Jubilee Charter Schools
Training Information
 Outside contactor will be selected to develop the training
for both appraisal systems. (Administrators and Teachers)
 The contractor will train ESC staff and assist with training
deployment with pilot districts.
 2 day appraiser training for both systems.
 Equals 4 days of training per district or charter school.
 Training in print and digital format.
 Teacher orientation will be available online and easily
deployed for district use.
What about ILD?
 A pre-requisite course will continue to
be required.
 ILD will be updated to a newer version
beginning Summer 2015.
 Contents and structure of the course
have not been determined.
Timeline
Early 2014
Fall 2014
 Pilot districts identified.
 Roll out of new appraisal system for
Pilot Districts
 Steering Committee develops
evaluation instruments and scoring
measures.
Winter 2014-2015
 TEA communication regarding
training schedule for Pilot districts.
 Begin Train-the-Trainer sessions for
statewide rollout with ESC staff and
contracted support.
Late Spring 2014
Spring 2015
 Finalize guidelines for new appraisal
system to submit to USDE
 Update on revisions to appraisal
system based on pilot district
feedback
Summer 2014
 Train Pilot Districts
 ESC Trainer Academies
Summer 2015
 Statewide training to all participating
districts and charter schools
TEA Communication
 Districts and Charters will begin receiving letters via
email:
“To the Administrator Addressed”
 All updated information will be posted on the
following website:
http://txcc.sedl.org/our_work/tx_educator_evaluation/index.
php
ESC-Region 20
Shannon Allen
Administrative Specialist – School Leadership
(210) 370-5675
shannon.allen@esc20.net
 Region 20 – Point of Contact
Did you know?
 Graduation Plans
 Somerset ISD
 Sheila Collazo
 sheila.collazo@sisdk12.net
HB 5 College Prep Course
I. Updates
II.Prep Course Development
III.Alamo Colleges
Alamo Colleges Contacts
Lisa Alcorta, Ph.D.
Director of Academic
Student Success
210-485-0178 Office
210-485-0161 Fax
lalcorta3@alamo.edu
Ruth Ann Dalrymple
Associate Vice Chancellor
for Academic Partnerships
210-485-0162 Office
210-485-9287
rdalrymple2@alamo.edu
Accountability Overview
Cheri Hendrick
Accountability and Assessment Specialist
School Support Team
Handout
26
2014 Development Updates
TEA website
A-Z Index
2014 Accountability
Accountability
Development
Materials
Performance Index Framework
For 2014 and beyond, a framework of four Performance Indexes will include a broad set
of measures that provide a comprehensive evaluation of the entire campus or district.
Student
Student
Achievemen
Achievement
t
Index I
Index I
Postsecondary
Postseconda
ryReadiness
Readiness
Index 4
Index 4
Accountability
System
Closing
Closing
Performance
Performan
ceGaps
Gaps
Index 3
Index 3
Student
Student
Progress
Progress
Index 2
Index 2
2013 was a transition
year, where each
index was looked at
individually. 28
2013 Accountability Reports
Region 20
2014 Index 4
2014 Index 1: Student Achievement
Index 1 Student Achievement provides an overview of student
performance based on satisfactory student achievement
across all subjects for all students.
 Subjects:
Combined over Reading, Mathematics, Writing, Science, and Social
Studies.
 Student Groups: All Students only
 Performance Standards: Phase-in 1 Level II (Satisfactory)*
 STAAR EOC Assessments: Algebra I, Biology, English I, English II, U.S. History
* The commissioner has proposed to stay at Phase-in 1 Level II for 2013-14
30
2014 Index 2: Student Progress
Index 2: Student Progress focuses on actual student growth
independent of overall achievement levels for each race/ethnicity
student group, students with disabilities, and English language
learners.
 By Subject Area:
Reading, Mathematics, and Writing for available grades
 Small Numbers analysis will be used in 2014
10 groups: All Students, seven ethnic groups, Students with Disabilities and English
Language Learners
 Credit based on weighted performance:

One point credit given for each percentage of students at the Met growth
expectations level.

Two point credit given for each percentage of students at the Exceeded growth
expectations level.
 Additional Progress Measures Included in 2014: STAAR-Modified, STAARAlternate, English Language Learner (ELL) Progress Measure & other
enhancements to be announced
31
2014 Index 2: Student Progress
How is Growth Defined?
Scale Score
Expected
Growth
Level 2
Recommended
Level 2
Recommended
Previous Year
Current Year
2014 Index 2: Student Progress*
Let’s look at an example
*We know there will be some changes with English I and II due to
the new combined test
33
2014 Index 2: Student Progress*
How did the come up with 32 points?
STAAR Reading English
1582
1550
Level 2 Recommended
Expected Growth:
32 Points
Level 2 Recommended
1582
- 1550
= 32
Grade 4
Grade 5
2014 Index 2: Student Progress*
STAAR Reading English Example
1684
1450
1505
1458
Expected Growth: 32 Points
Level 2 Phase-In 1
1324
1281
Grade 4
Grade 5
Met
Growth
Met Growth
Met
Met Growth Not
Level 3
1686
2013/2014 Index 2: Student Progress
STAAR Modified Progress Measure posted on TEA’s website
October 1, 2013 Calculating Progress Measure page 5
36
2013/2014 Index 2: Student Progress
STAAR Alternate Progress Measure posted on TEA’s website
October 1, 2013 STAAR Progress Measure
Questions and Answers #13
37
ELL Progress Measure
Conceptual Model
Satisfactory
2013/2014 Index 2: Student Progress
English Language Learner (ELL) Progress Measure
posted on TEA’s website October 22, 2013 STAAR
Progress Measure ELL Progress Measure
39
2014 Index 3: Closing Performance Gaps
Index 3: Closing Performance Gaps emphasizes advanced academic
achievement of economically disadvantaged students and the two
lowest performing race/ethnicity student groups.


By Subject Area: Reading, Mathematics, Writing, Science, and Social Studies.
Student Groups
 Socioeconomic: Economically Disadvantaged
 Lowest Performing Race/Ethnicity: The two lowest performing race/
ethnicity student groups on the campus or district
o

Based on 2013 assessment results that were reported on 2013 Index 1:
Student Achievement Data Table All Subjects released on August 8, 2013
Credit based on STAAR weighted performance:
 Phase-in 1 Level II satisfactory performance
One point for each percentage of students at the phase-in 1 Level II satisfactory
performance standard.

Level III advanced performance
Two points for each percentage of students at the Level III advanced performance
standard.
40
2014 Index 4: Postsecondary Readiness
Index 4: Postsecondary Readiness emphasizes the importance for students to
receive a high school diploma that provides them with the foundation
necessary for success in college, the workforce, job training programs, or the
military; and the role of elementary and middle schools in preparing students
for high school.
 Graduation Score: Combined performance across the graduation and dropout rates for


Grade 9-12 Four-Year Graduation Rate for All Students and all student groups
OR
Grade 9-12 Five-Year Graduation Rate for All Students and all student groups,
whichever contributes the higher number of points to the index.
 RHSP/DAP Graduates for All Students and seven race/ethnicity student groups
 Texas Success Initiative (TSI) college readiness benchmarks
 Number of students who earn postsecondary credit required for the foundation high
school program, an associate’s degree, or an industry certification.*
 STAAR Score:
STAAR Percent Met FINAL Level II on One or More Tests for All Students
and seven race/ethnicity student groups
Elementary/Middle Schools will only have FINAL level II
41
2013 System Safeguards 2014 Targets TBD
Systems safeguards are designed to evaluate the disaggregated
performance results of the state accountability system to ensure
that poor performance in one area or one student group is not
masked in the performance index. [Federal lens]
All
African
Amer.
Amer.
Indian
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
95%
95%
95%
95%
95%
95%
95%
95%
95%
95%
95%
95%
95%
95%
Federal Graduation Rates (including improvement targets)
4-year
78%
78%
78%
78%
5-year
83%
83%
83%
83%
78%
83%
78%
83%
78%
83%
Indicator
Performance Rates
Reading
Mathematics
Writing
Science
Social Studies
Participation Rates
Reading
Mathematics
Asian Hispanic
Pacific
White
Islander
Two or
Eco.
More Disadv.
ELL
Special
Ed.
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
5 x 11 = 55
95%
95%
95%
95%
95%
95%
95%
95%
2 x 11 = 22
78%
83%
78%
83%
78%
83%
78%
83%
1 x 11 = 11
District Limits on Use of Alternative Assessment Results
Reading
Modified
Alternate
Mathematics
Modified
Alternate
2%
1%
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
2%
1%
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
2014 Targets
To Be
Determined
Performance rates for system safeguards are calculated from the
assessment results used to calculate performance rates in Index 1.
District only
1 Indicators
Campus=88
42
District =89
2014 Accountability Ratings and
Designations
Accountability Rating
(Districts and Campuses)
Met Standard
Distinction Designations
(Districts and Campuses)
Postsecondary Readiness
Distinction Designations
(Campuses Only)
Top 25%: Student Progress
and/or
Top 25%: Closing Achievement Gaps
and/or
Academic Achievement: Reading/ELA
and/or
Academic Achievement: Mathematics
and/or
Academic Achievement: Science
and/or
Academic Achievement: Social Studies
Index 2
Index 3
Met Alternative Standard
(assigned to charter operators and alternative education campuses
(AECs) evaluated under alternative
education provisions)
N/A
Improvement Required
N/A
43
Campus Designation Reports
Index 2
Student Progress
Index 3
Closing Performance
Gaps
44
2013 Performance Index Targets
Performance Index
Index 1: Student Achievement
Index 2: Student Progress
Campuses
Districts
50
50
High Schools:
17
Middle Schools:
29
Elementary Schools: 30
21
Index 3: Closing Performance Gaps
55
55
Index 4: Postsecondary Readiness
75
75
45
2014 Performance Index Targets
The 2014 Index targets will be finalized in spring 2014 by the
commissioner based on the recommendations from accountability
advisory groups.
Performance Index
Index 1: Student Achievement
Campuses
Districts
TBD
TBD
High Schools:
Index 2: Student Progress
TBD
Middle Schools: TBD
Elem. Schools:
TBD
TBD
Index 3: Closing Performance Gaps
TBD
TBD
Index 4: Postsecondary Readiness
TBD
TBD
46
Cheri Hendrick
Accountability and Assessment Specialist
School Support Team
(210)370-5451
cheri.hendrick@esc20.net
SBOE UPDATE
Marissa Perez
THANK YOU
FOR JOINING US