HB5 – Community and Student Engagement Accountability System
description
Transcript of HB5 – Community and Student Engagement Accountability System
HB5 – Community and Student Engagement
Accountability System
Key CommunicatorsApril 24, 2014
HB 5 – Sec. 39.0545
Each school district shall evaluate the district's performance and the performance of each campus and assign the district and each campus a performance rating of exemplary, recognized, acceptable, or unacceptable for both overall performance and each individual evaluation factor.
Nine Factors:
1. Fine Arts2. Wellness and P.E.3. Community and Parental
Involvement4. 21st Century Workforce
Development Program5. Second Language Acquisition
Program6. Digital Learning Environment7. Dropout Prevention
Strategies8. Educational Programs for
Gifted and Talented Students9. Record of District and
Campus Compliance with Statutory Reporting and Policy Requirements
CSEAS – Working Committees
CSEAS Factors Central Staff Principals
Fine Arts Kathy Kuddes (Chair) – Fine Arts Janice Truit – Visual Arts Jeff Turner – Instrumental Music Greg Arp – Theatre Arts/SpeechSusan Hayes – Special Assignments
Billie-Jean Lee – Robinson George King – Plano East Jill Stoker – MathewsCindy Savant – Rose HaggarSandy Muzquiz – Meadows
Wellness and P.E.
Melinda Smith (Chair) – P.E./Health Mary Swinton – Elementary Science
Brant Perry – MurphyKary Cooper – JasperKatie Babb – AldridgeLynn Swanson – Thomas Renee Rucker – Mitchell
CSEAS – Working Committees
CSEAS Factors Central Staff Principals
Community and Parental Involvement
Mary Gorden (Chair) – CommunicationsGail Lundberg – Special EducationJoanna Chandler – Federal Programs Robin Garcia – Campus Support Lynda Shuttlesworth – Family Education and Guidance Services Kay Glawe – Family and Social ServicesRhonda Snyder, Plano ISD Council of PTAs
Shurandia Holden – Frankford Kathy King – Plano WestMariea Sprott – HightowerJane Oestreich – HickeyMichele Loper – Barron
21st Century Workforce Development Program
David Hitt (Chair) – Career and Technology EducationPaul Weaver – Guidance and Family Education Services
Lisa Long – HendrickLynn Ojeda – WilliamsSaul Laredo – DooleySarika Pride – MemorialKellie Latimer – Saigling
CSEAS – Working Committees
CSEAS Factors Central Staff Principals
Second Language Acquisition Program
Greta Lundgaard (Chair) – Languages Other than EnglishEmelia Ahmed – Multilingual
Lisa Long – Hendrick Lynn Ojeda – WilliamsSaul Laredo – Dooley Sarika Pride – Memorial Kellie Latimer – Saigling
Digital Learning Environment
Harriet Bell (Chair) – Instructional Tech Lisa Wellborn – Elem. Social Studies Lisa Farrell – Early Childhood Jean Parmer – eSchool
Chris Glasscock – Rice Renee Godi – Academy HighKristi Graham – Hedgecoxe Cindy Guinn – Daffron Toni Strickland – Huffman
Dropout Prevention Strategies
Gary Wilson (Chair) – Section 504 Kim Edmonds – ESL Laura Childress – Bird Education Center Sharon Bradley – Special Programs, Mike Landingham – Student Services
Steve Ewing – Armstrong Sarah Watkins – Plano SeniorBen Benavides – Weatherford Jeanne Beall – Schell
CSEAS – Working Committees
CSEAS Factors Central Staff Principals
Educational Programs for Gifted and Talented Students
Theresa Biggs (Chair) – Gifted Education
Jason Myatt – Schimelpfenig Janis Williams – Clark Barbara Lange – Brinker Linda Patrick – CarlisleTramy Tran – Forman
Compliance with Statutory Reporting and Policy Requirements
Joana Sorrels (Chair) – AccountabilityEmelia Ahmed – Multilingual Gail Lundberg – Special EducationMark Allen – Student & Family Services Kathy Dry – Student Records/PEIMS
Antoine Spencer – Otto Ann Irvine – Harrington
Project Manager
Dr. Paul Dabbs – Assessment & Accountability
Key Milestones
September 23 CSEAS Launch Meeting
by October 4 Committee Literature Review
October 8 Central Staff Meeting: review drafts
by November 21 Central Staff/Principals: draft diagnostics
November 25 Proposal to District Committee
December 4 Review diagnostics with all principals and assistant principals
January 8 Final review by all principals
January 14 Presentation to Board
February 17 Campus level documents available
April 9 Presentation and review of documents and procedures with all principals and assistant principals
May 23 Campus evaluations completed, results posted to web-based system
June 27 District-level evaluation complete
August 8 District and campus ratings submitted to TEA
Programs for Gifted and Talented Students:
1 3 5Teachers serving gifted/talented students have not had the 30 hour state mandated gifted training.
Teachers serving gifted/talented students have received the 30 hour state mandated gifted trainings and the 6 update hours.
Administrators and counselors have received the minimum initial 6 hour gifted training.
Teachers serving gifted/talented students have received the 30 hour state mandated gifted trainings and the 6 update hours.
Administrators and counselors have received the minimum 6 hour gifted training and most of the administrators and counselors have received an annual 6 hour update.
Professional Development
Diagnostic Indicators for Evaluation
CSEAS Factors Elementary Middle HS SHS
Fine Arts 8 21 22 25Wellness and P.E. 13 13 13 13Community and Parental Involvement 16 16 16 16
21st Century Workforce Development Program 5 4 6 7
Second Language Acquisition Program 4 9 8 11
Digital Learning Environment 7 7 7 7
Dropout Prevention Strategies 15 15 15 15
Educational Programs for Gifted and Talented Students 6 6 5 5
Record of District and Campus Compliance with Statutory Reporting and Policy Requirements
13 13 13 13
Summarizing Diagnostic Indicators for a Rating
Performance Rating Rating System(with 10 diagnostics)
Exemplary9/10 Indicators 3 or Higher
+At Least 1 Indicator Above 3
Recognized8/10 Indicators 3 or Higher
+At Least 1 Indicator Above 3
Acceptable 7/10 Indicators 3 or Higher
Unacceptable 4/10 or More Indicators Below 3
Example of Summary ReportCSEAS Factors Rating
Fine Arts ExemplaryWellness and P.E. RecognizedCommunity and Parental Involvement Acceptable
21st Century Workforce Development ProgramExemplary
Second Language Acquisition ProgramRecognized
Digital Learning Environment ExemplaryDropout Prevention Strategies
Recognized
Educational Programs for Gifted and Talented Exemplary
Compliance with Statutory Reporting and PolicyRecognized
Overall Campus Evaluation Rating _____________
Overall Campus Evaluation Rating
CampusEvaluation Rating From Factor Ratings
Exemplary All Factors are Acceptable/Met or Higher + 3/8 Factors Exemplary
Recognized All Factors are Acceptable/Met or Higher + 3/8 Factors Recognized or Higher
Acceptable 8/9 Factors are Acceptable/Met or Higher
Unacceptable Two or More Factors Not Acceptable/Not Met
DISTRICT LEVELEvaluation of Community and Student Engagement Accountability System
District Level CSEAS Process
• Goal is to evaluate how well the district designs, supports, and continues improvements to programs that enable campuses to perform satisfactorily in all the program areas
• The key practices evaluated are:– Leadership and Capacity Building– Monitoring Performance and Progress– Intervention and Adjustment
Programs for Gifted and Talented Students:
1 3 5District leaders do not establish a process to evaluate programs or strategies based on evidence of effectiveness and efficient use of resources.
District leaders establish a process to evaluate programs or strategies based on limited evidence of effectiveness and efficient use of resources.
District leaders establish a process to evaluate programs or strategies based on clear evidence of effectiveness and efficient use of resources.
Professional Development
CSEAS – Schedule– Campuses can begin using the diagnostic system to
evaluate starting February 17• As most diagnostic indicators are on programs,
implementation, and participation of students, this information is already available for evaluation
– Campuses will complete the diagnostics in June– District diagnostic will be in June and will review
campus diagnostic information as input– August 8 – Report data to TEA
CSEAS – Schedule– Campuses can begin using the diagnostic system to
evaluate starting February 17• As most diagnostic indicators are on programs,
implementation, and participation of students, this information is already available for evaluation
– Campuses will complete the diagnostics in June– District diagnostic will be in June and will review
campus diagnostic information as input– August 8 – Report data to TEA
HB5 – Community and Student Engagement
Accountability System
Key CommunicatorsApril 24, 2014