Presentation on theme: "CURRICULUM FORUM February 5, 2014. INSTRUCTIONAL SERVICES."— Presentation transcript:
CURRICULUM FORUM February 5, 2014
Instructional Services Organizational Chart Regina Hillis Diana Madrid Ravae Shaeffer Career Tech Ed (CTE) Response to Intervention (RTI) Gifted/Talented (GT) TEKS Resource System Title II (TPTR) ESL/Bilingual English Language Arts and Reading (ELAR) Social Studies Title III Title II (TPTR) Science Technology Engineering & Math (STEM) Math Science Counselor Services CCRS Component Director: Janna Poth
MENTORING HIGHLIGHTS Jayme Presley
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 -
NOTE: To change the image on this slide, select the picture and delete it. Then click the Pictures icon in the placeholde r to insert your own image. 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 standards- based, 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. (At least 2 per ESC) Pilot district will be trained on New Appraisal Systems in Summer 2014 with full implementation during school year 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 Contents and structure of the course have not been determined.
Timeline Early 2014 Pilot districts identified. Steering Committee develops evaluation instruments and scoring measures. TEA communication regarding training schedule for Pilot districts. Late Spring 2014 Finalize guidelines for new appraisal system to submit to USDE Summer 2014 Train Pilot Districts ESC Trainer Academies Fall 2014 Roll out of new appraisal system for Pilot Districts Winter Begin Train-the-Trainer sessions for statewide rollout with ESC staff and contracted support. Spring 2015 Update on revisions to appraisal system based on pilot district feedback Summer 2015 Statewide training to all participating districts and charter schools
TEA Communication Districts and Charters will begin receiving letters via “To the Administrator Addressed” All updated information will be posted on the following website:
ESC-Region 20 Shannon Allen Administrative Specialist – School Leadership (210) Region 20 – Point of Contact
Did you know? Graduation Plans Somerset ISD Sheila Collazo
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 Office Fax Ruth Ann Dalrymple Associate Vice Chancellor for Academic Partnerships Office
Cheri Hendrick Accountability and Assessment Specialist School Support Team Accountability Overview
2014 Development Updates TEA website A-Z Index 2014 Accountability Accountability Development Materials
Accountability System Student Achievemen t Index I Student Progress Index 2 Closing Performan ce Gaps Index 3 Postseconda ry Readiness Index 4 Performance Index Framework 28 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 Achievement Index I Student Progress Index 2 Closing Performance Gaps Index 3 Postsecondary Readiness Index was a transition year, where each index was looked at individually.
2013 Accountability Reports 2013 Accountability Reports Region 20 Index 1, 3 & System Safeguards 2014 Index Index 3
2014 Index 1: Student Achievement 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 30 * The commissioner has proposed to stay at Phase-in 1 Level II for Index 1 Student Achievement provides an overview of student performance based on satisfactory student achievement across all subjects for all students.
2014 Index 2: Student Progress 31 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, STAAR- Alternate, English Language Learner (ELL) Progress Measure & other enhancements to be announced 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.
How is Growth Defined? Previous YearCurrent Year Level 2 Recommended Level 2 Recommended Expected Growth Scale Score 2014 Index 2: Student Progress
2014 Index 2: Student Progress* 33 *We know there will be some changes with English I and II due to the new combined test Let’s look at an example
Grade 4Grade STAAR Reading English 1550 Expected Growth: 32 Points Level 2 Recommended 2014 Index 2: Student Progress* How did the come up with 32 points? = 32
Grade 4Grade 5 Expected Growth: 32 Points Level 2 Phase-In Level Met Growth Not Met 2014 Index 2: Student Progress* STAAR Reading English Example
36 STAAR Modified Progress Measure posted on TEA’s website October 1, 2013 Calculating Progress Measure page 5Calculating Progress Measure 2013/2014 Index 2: Student Progress
37 STAAR Alternate Progress Measure posted on TEA’s website October 1, 2013 STAAR Progress Measure Questions and Answers Questions and Answers # /2014 Index 2: Student Progress
ELL Progress Measure Conceptual Model Satisfactory
2013/2014 Index 2: Student Progress 39 English Language Learner (ELL) Progress Measure posted on TEA’s website October 22, 2013 STAAR Progress Measure ELL Progress MeasureELL Progress Measure
2014 Index 3: Closing Performance Gaps 40 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. Index 3: Closing Performance Gaps emphasizes advanced academic achievement of economically disadvantaged students and the two lowest performing race/ethnicity student groups.
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. 41 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
IndicatorAll African Amer. Amer. Indian AsianHispanic Pacific Islander White Two or More Eco. Disadv. ELL Special Ed. Performance Rates Reading50% Mathematics50% Writing50% Science50% Social Studies50% Participation Rates Reading95% Mathematics95% Federal Graduation Rates (including improvement targets) 4-year78% 5-year83% District Limits on Use of Alternative Assessment Results Reading Modified2%Not Applicable Alternate1%Not Applicable Mathematics Modified2%Not Applicable Alternate1%Not Applicable 42 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] 5 x 11 = 55 2 x 11 = 22 1 x 11 = 11 District only 1 Indicators Campus=88D istrict = System Safeguards 2014 Targets TBD Performance rates for system safeguards are calculated from the assessment results used to calculate performance rates in Index Targets To Be Determined
2014 Accountability Ratings and Designations 43 Accountability Rating (Districts and Campuses) Distinction Designations (Districts and Campuses) Met Standard 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 Met Alternative Standard (assigned to charter operators and alternative education campuses (AECs) evaluated under alternative education provisions) N/A Improvement RequiredN/A Index 2 Index 3
44 Campus Designation Reports Index 2 Student Progress Index 3 Closing Performance Gaps
2013 Performance Index Targets 45 Performance Index CampusesDistricts Index 1: Student Achievement50 Index 2: Student Progress High Schools: Middle Schools: 29 Elementary Schools: 30 Index 3: Closing Performance Gaps55 Index 4: Postsecondary Readiness75
2014 Performance Index Targets 46 The 2014 Index targets will be finalized in spring 2014 by the commissioner based on the recommendations from accountability advisory groups. Performance Index CampusesDistricts Index 1: Student AchievementTBD Index 2: Student Progress High Schools: TBD TBD Middle Schools:TBD Elem. Schools: TBD Index 3: Closing Performance GapsTBD Index 4: Postsecondary ReadinessTBD
Cheri Hendrick Accountability and Assessment Specialist School Support Team (210)