Texas Equitable Access Roadmap: A Toolkit to … · Web viewfor more support on stakeholder...

Texas Equitable Access Roadmap: A Toolkit to Support Texas Districts to Develop Local Equitable Access PlansIntroductionIn 2014, the U.S. Department of Education launched the Excellent Educators for All initiative to support states and districts in ensuring that students of color and low-income students have equitable access to excellent educators. All 50 states submitted equitable access plans, documenting the equity gaps that students in their state faced, the results of a root cause analysis conducted to better understand the causes of these equity gaps, and plans to implement strategies to close equity gaps and monitor progress of implementation. In December 2015, Congress passed the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA),1 which requires states and districts to determine whether low-income students and students of color in Title I schools are served at disproportionate rates by ineffective, out-of-field, or inexperienced teachers, and take steps to address any identified disproportionalities (i.e., gaps in equity).To support Texas districts in better understanding and addressing the challenges they face in providing equitable access to excellent teachers for the students who need it most, the Texas Education Agency (TEA) has developed the Texas Equitable Access Roadmap: A Toolkit to Support Texas Districts to Develop Local Equitable Access Plans. The Roadmap will take district teams through a series of processes to understand, interpret, and implement an action plan around equitable access.

1 For more information on the Every Student Succeeds Act, visit http://www.ed.gov/essa?src=rn. Information on equity as it relates to states is included in section (1111(g)(1)(B)). Information on equity as it relates to districts is included in section (1112(b)(2)).

© TEA 8/29/2017 Texas Equity Toolkit: Step 2 1 of 28

http://www.ed.gov/essa?src=rn

Step 2. Reviewing and Analyzing Data This is the second step in the Roadmap—an overview of the five steps can be found here, with links to the resources for each step of the process.

PurposeThis tool is designed to help district leaders calculate their district equity gaps by assessing, analyzing, and communicating their equitable access data. District leaders will begin this process by focusing on their equitable access vision and goals determined by stakeholders during Step 1. Engaging and Communicating with Stakeholders. Then, district leaders will engage in the Reviewing and Analyzing Data process described here in Step 2.

This tool will assist district staff with a five-part process: Part 1. Engaging a district team or group of stakeholders to develop a local

definition of effective teaching for measuring equity gaps in your district.2

Part 2. Defining which types of equity gaps your district will calculate (i.e., whether your district will calculate equity gaps within district for low-income students and students of color only, or for additional subgroups such as students with disabilities or English learners, or if your district will compare district gaps to the state average gaps).

Parts 3–4. Organizing and analyzing your data to determine the current distribution of effective teaching, and inexperienced and out-of-field teachers by student subgroups across the district.

Parts 4–5. Examining and determining whether there are equity gaps in student access to the following three categories and preparing a presentation of these findings to stakeholders:

1. Effective teaching,2. Inexperienced teachers, and3. Out-of-field teachers.

2 Note: ED provides a definition of the third type of equity gap—access to “out-of-field” teachers.


https://texasequitytoolkit.org/#tools

At the end of this data review and analysis phase, district stakeholders will have defined effective teaching and calculated the gaps in student access to effective teaching and teachers who are inexperienced and out-of-field.

Part 1. Brainstorming and Consensus on Definitions of Effective Teaching To support calculation of equity gaps, districts must have a shared definition of what constitutes effective teaching. TEA recommends that districts convene stakeholders3 to brainstorm and decide how they define effective teaching and other goals identified during the stakeholder engagement process. Guidance to support districts in engaging stakeholders to develop this definition is provided in this tool.In accordance with ESSA, states must now ensure that low-income students and students of color are not served at disproportionate rates by ineffective, inexperienced, and out-of-field teachers. Based on this, districts will examine student access to:

Inexperienced teachers, Out-of-field teachers, and Effective teaching.

Interested in reading more about best practices in defining an “ineffective” teacher? Check out the Center on Great Teachers and Leaders resource Teacher Effectiveness in the Every Student Succeeds Act: A Discussion Guide. This reference also will guide consideration of the role district resources, including time, money, and educator engagement, play in the decision-making process in defining effective teaching.

Inexperienced TeachersTEA defines inexperienced teachers as teacher in their first two years of teaching.Out-of-Field TeacherTEA defines out-of-field teachers as those who do not possess certification in the subject they have been assigned to teach.4

3 When forming your stakeholder group for this work, we recommend including a staff member from Accountability, Program Evaluation, or any other department that is responsible for managing district data and has in-depth knowledge of the data available and their structure and metrics. Consult the resources in Step 1. Engaging and Communicating with Stakeholders for more support on stakeholder engagement planning.4 Although “Districts of Innovation” in Texas may in some cases be exempt from teacher certification requirements, these districts will still need to calculate the “out-of-field” equity gap based on the state definition of “out of field,” per federal ESSA requirements. However, these districts do not necessarily need plans in place to close “out-of-field” equity gaps if those do not pertain to their educator equity


http://www.gtlcenter.org/sites/default/files/TeacherEffectiveness_ESSA.pdf



Effective TeachingESSA requires states and districts to focus on measurable criteria and definitions when developing definitions of effective teaching. Districts must use the metrics5 (see the Planning Template table below) that TEA and research have indicated to be components of effective teaching. TEA asks districts to consider three possible categories of metrics when defining effective teaching to arrive at a definition that they feel is appropriate to their context:Performance—Ratings on the Texas Teacher Evaluation and Support System (T-TESS). Overall rating and ratings from the 16 dimensions. If your district does not use T-TESS, use the performance indicators from your district-developed teacher appraisal or evaluation system.

Student learning—Student learning as measured by achievement or growth on district or state-level tests, student learning objectives (SLOs), student portfolios, benchmark exams, and formative assessments.

Student engagement—Student engagement at the classroom level. Districts can define student engagement by using student surveys, student climate surveys, disciplinary data, or school attendance data.

Because combining data from the three major categories listed above into a singular metric may be challenging or impossible, districts may end up with three sets of criteria for effective teaching that derive from the various data sources above. The Planning Template table includes metrics district may consider to define effective teaching. Districts will develop their own definitions based on the categories listed above. Metrics must be available to districts and aligned with their local context. Districts must keep in mind, however, that their definitions of effective teaching must be based on a numerical value. To support your district team in arriving at a shared definition of effective teaching, work with a district team or group of stakeholders to complete the Planning Template table and consider the strengths and limitations of each data metric as it relates to defining teaching effectiveness. Then consider what your team thinks would best define effective teaching for the purposes of calculating equity gaps. Most likely, there will be competing perspectives on this definition within the district. If there is a lack of consensus on the definition of effective teaching, the district can consider adopting a definition that the majority of stakeholders can agree on and commit to refining it as a way to build greater consensus among stakeholders on the definition of effective teaching.

challenges.5 District staff may use Texas Data Elements Checklist resource to help narrow the focus on certain data elements that are available to most districts in Texas. This checklist is included in Appendix B.


Planning Template: Considering Teaching Effectiveness MetricsGuiding Questions to Consider the Strengths or

Limitations of Each Metric

Metric Examples Rate the extent to which your district

believes these data reflect

effective teaching.1 = Not at All,

2 = Somewhat, and3 = Completely

Does my district have these data

available?

Yes or No

If my district does not have

these data available, could we obtain these

data easily?Yes or No and

Explanation/Notes

Teaching Performance How does your district measure teaching performance?

Example metrics could include those from the T-TESS or your district’s own teacher appraisal or evaluation system, or cumulative data collected during the school year.

Student LearningHow does your district measure effective teaching as it relates to student learning?

Example metrics could include student achievement or growth on district- or state-level tests, SLOs, student portfolios, benchmark exams, or formative assessments.

Student EngagementHow does your district measure student perspectives and student behavior that reveal engagement in the classroom or at school?

Example metrics could include student surveys, student climate surveys, observations of teacher-student interactions, student discipline data, or student attendance data.


Record your district’s definitions of effective teaching from the three categories included in the Planning Template table that your district has decided on after reviewing possible available metrics, considering the strengths and limitations of each metric, and considering the availability and appropriateness of each metric. Include a description of your rationale for these three definition. An example “definition of effective teaching” template is provided here. A blank planning template for your team to record their definitions is included in the Putting It All Together section at the end of this tool.Our District’s Definition of Effective Teaching: Example

Teaching Performance Student Learning Student EngagementSelected data to measure teaching performance:

Selected data to measure student learning:

Selected data to measure student engagement:

T-TESS ratings SLO ratings Student ratings on school climate survey focused on classroom engagement or engagement with teacher.

Definition of effective teaching using these data:



Teachers who receive Proficient or above on all dimensions of T-TESS will be considered as having effective teaching practices.

Teachers who receive distinguished, accomplished, or proficient ratings on their SLOs will be considered as having effective teaching practices.

Teachers for whom the majority of students rated classroom engagement or teacher engagement as above average will be considered as having effective teaching practices.

Identifying “High-Poverty” and “High-Minority” CampusesDistricts must identify campuses within their district as “high poverty” (having a high proportion of low-income students) or “high minority” (having a high proportion of students of color) to calculate gaps in access to experienced and in-field teachers and effective teaching. Student Subgroup CriteriaLow-Income StudentsAccording to TEA definitions, student poverty, or economic disadvantage, is based on student eligibility for free or reduced-price lunch under the National School Lunch and Child Nutrition Program or eligibility for other public assistance, including Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF).6

Students of ColorThe category “students of color” is based on student race and ethnicity. Students of color are Hispanic students and all other students who are not White.7 Students of color and minority students refer to the same group of students. Both terms are appropriate, and are used interchangeably in this toolkit.

6 Public Education Information Management System (PEIMS) (2015–2016). Code tables. Retrieved from http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/peims/standards/weds/7 According to the New Oxford American Dictionary (2015), a person of color is a person who is not White or of European parentage (https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/us/person_of_color).

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/us/person_of_color

http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/peims/standards/weds/

To identify high-poverty and high-minority campuses, work with your district’s data team to classify campuses into the top and bottom quartiles based on the percentages of low-income students and students of color, using the process outlined here:


1. Examine the distribution of campuses in terms of:a. Percentages of students who are low income (i.e., eligible for free or

reduced-price lunch),b. Percentages of students of color, and, if desired, c. Other student subgroups.

2. Based on those percentages, create quartiles of campuses. The highest quartile would include campuses in the top 25% of campuses within the district with students in poverty or students of color, and the lowest quartile would include the bottom 25% of campuses within the district with students in poverty or students of color.

3. Record the campuses in the top and bottom quartiles for both poverty and minority status.

Part 2. Brainstorming and Consensus on Types of Equity Gaps That Will Be CalculatedDistrict stakeholders brainstorm and identify student subgroups that may be facing gaps in equitable access to excellent teachers.The law requires that districts report equity gaps for the rates at which students of color and low-income students are served by effective teaching as well as inexperienced and out-of-field teachers as they compare to their peers. However, in some districts, there may be other student populations that face similar challenges with equitable access to excellent teachers.Although it is not required, districts also may want to consider calculating equity gaps for additional student subgroups. This task is especially relevant to districts that have homogenous student populations. For example, a district may have more than 90% of its students classified as low-income and students of color. For these districts and others that want to examine various student groups, you may consider including the following:

Students with disabilities (receiving special education supports), Students who are limited English proficient, Students at risk for dropout,8 Students with chronic absenteeism or truancy,9 and Other subgroups of disadvantaged students as determined by the district.

8 The TEA’s Public Education Information Management System (PEIMS) 110 record includes an “at-risk indicator code.” This code indicates whether a student is currently identified as at-risk of dropping out of school using state-defined criteria that are based on whether the student meets one or more of 13 criteria. For more information, please visit http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/peims/standards/weds/.9 Chronic absenteeism refers to excessive absences during the school year while truancy refers to a certain number or certain frequency of unexcused absences. In Texas, chronic absenteeism generally refers to a student who is absent for 10% or more of the days school is offered (see Texas. Education Code §25.092; http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/?link=ED). Truant conduct is defined as failing to attend school without an excuse on 10 or more days or parts of days within a 6-month period in the same school year (see Texas Family Code §65.003(a); http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/FA/htm/FA.65.htm).


http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/FA/htm/FA.65.htm

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/?link=ED

http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/peims/standards/weds/

Should your district wish to calculate equity gaps for these other disadvantage student groups, you should repeat the process in Part 2 to identify the top and bottom quartile campuses for each student subgroup of interest.


Part 3. Organize DataFor Parts 3–5, select a district staff person (or small team, as needed) to be responsible for managing, analyzing, and presenting the data and calculations of your district’s equity gaps. TEA recognizes that across Texas districts, there is a wide variety of capacity for data work. Some districts may have departments of research and evaluation with experienced analysts who can easily pull data and calculate equity gaps, while other districts may have one or two staff responsible for managing all of the district’s data. The following Example Data Checklist focuses on students of color and can be used a guide for districts to calculate equity gaps. See Appendix A for a blank Example Data Checklist that your team may use as a more comprehensive guide than the example below and for planning purpose.Example Data Checklist

Equity Gap What data do I need?Access to effective teaching for:Students of color Example:

Student demographic data from PEIMS for each racial/ethnic group; group all Hispanic and non-White students into one group

T-TESS data for all teachers in the district

Part 4. Analyze Data Calculating Equity GapsIn this section, we provide a data analysis template teams can use to calculate and record each equity gap, based on the data they have collected. We provide examples of completed data analysis templates below (one for districts with four or more campuses and one for districts with three or fewer campuses), and a blank template is included in the reporting template at the end of this tool to record your calculations for each type of equity gap. Note that although this tool provides a blank version of the planning template to record all three types of equity gaps, TEA does not require districts to report their gaps in access to effective teachers—only out-of-field and inexperienced teachers.Guidance for Districts to Calculate Equity Gaps, Based on District SizeThe approach to calculating your district’s equity gaps is based on the number of campuses in your district, outlined in the following table. Following this general guidance, we provide a planning template for calculating the gaps using these two approaches that walks districts through each step of calculating each gap.The following instructions depend the number of campuses in your district. First, we describe the guidance for calculating equity gaps for districts with four or more campuses. Then we provide guidance for calculating equity gaps for districts with three or fewer campuses.


Guidance for Districts With Four or More Campuses: Two Sets of CalculationsCalculation 1: Within-district calculation—comparisons by quartiles:1. Create quartiles of campuses as described in Part 3 to identify the high- and low-

quartile campuses for students of color and low-income students.2. Now by quartiles, calculate the percentages of:

a. Inexperienced teachers,b. Out-of-field teachers, andc. Effective teaching, using each metric your district selected to define

effective teaching.3. Compare the percentages for the lowest and highest quartile for each category to

calculate your within-district equity gaps.Calculation 2: Comparisons with the state average:1. Access current state-provided data on the state average for inexperienced and out-

of-field teachers.a These data are available and updated annually on the TEA Equity Toolkit website.

2. Compare the state averages of inexperienced and out-of-field teachers to the averages of your highest quartiles.

Report your biggest gaps (either within-district gaps, or gaps when comparing to the state average).a There is no requirement to make a comparison with the state average for gaps in access to effective teaching.

Guidance for Districts With Three or Fewer Campuses: Comparisons With the State AverageBecause districts that have three or fewer campuses cannot create a quartile distribution of their campuses, TEA requires those districts to compare their percentages of inexperienced and out-of-field teachers at each Title I campus to the statewide averages of inexperienced and out-of-field teachers.b

b There is no requirement to make a comparison with the state average for gaps in access to effective teaching, although TEA encourages districts to reflect on the distribution of access to effective teaching on their Title I campuses.

Recording Your Equity Gap CalculationsFor Districts With Four or More Campuses, Use Table AWithin-District Gaps

1. Complete the rows A, B, F, and G using the high-quartile and low-quartile percentages you’ve calculated for your district.

2. Subtract row B from A to calculate your equity gap for low-income students for both inexperienced and out-of-field teachers. Enter your district equity gap for low-income students in row C.

3. Subtract row G from F to calculate your equity gap for students of color for both inexperienced and out-of-field teachers. Enter your district equity gap for students of color in row H.

Gaps Comparing to State Average4. Enter the state average in row D. State averages are provided and updated

annually on the Texas Equity Toolkit website.


https://texasequitytoolkit.org/


5. Subtract D from A to calculate the state comparison equity gap for low-income students for both inexperienced and out-of-field teachers. Enter the state comparison equity gap for low-income students in row E.

6. Subtract D from F to calculate the state comparison equity gap for students of color for both inexperienced and out-of-field teachers. Enter the state comparison equity gap for students of color in row I.

7. Compare the equity gaps for your within-district comparison to the equity gaps when comparing to the state average. Identify which gap is larger. This will be the gap you report.

Table A. Districts With Four or More Campuses—Example of Calculating Equity Gaps for Inexperienced and Out-of-Field Teachers

Row Comparison

Percentages of:Inexperienced

TeachersOut-of-Field

TeachersEquity Gap Calculations: Low-Income StudentsA High-poverty quartile 9.56% 1.79%

B Low-poverty quartile 4.03% 0.87%

CDistrict equity gap: High-poverty quartile minus low-poverty quartile (row A–row B)

9.56% – 4.03% = 5.53%

1.79% – 0.87% = 0.92%

D State averagea 8.16% 1.50%

EState equity gap: High-poverty quartile minus state average (row A–row D)

9.56% – 8.16% = 1.40%

1.79% – 1.50% = 0.29%

Equity Gap Calculations: Students of ColorF High-minority quartile 9.03% 1.61%

G Low-minority quartile 4.41% 0.96%

HDistrict equity gap: High-minority quartile minus low-minority quartile (row F–row G)

9.03% – 4.41% = 4.62%

1.61% – 0.96% = 0.65%

IState equity gap: High-minority quartile minus state average (row F–row D)

9.03% – 8.16% = 0.87%

1.61% – 1.50% = 0.11%

a State averages for inexperienced and out-of-field teachers are available and updated annually on the TEA Equity Toolkit website.

For Districts With Three or Fewer Campuses, Use Table B

1. Enter the state averages into row B. State averages can be found in the Texas Equity Toolkit website.


The larger of the two equity gaps is circled here for each

type of teacher and gap.



2. Enter the percentages of inexperienced teachers and out-of-field teachers from each Title I campus into row A. (Note: You will need to fill this table in separately for each of your Title I campuses.)

3. Subtract B from A to calculate the state comparison equity gap. Enter the gap into row C.


Table B. Districts With Three or Fewer Campuses—Example of Calculating Equity Gaps for Inexperienced and Out-of-Field Teachers

Percentages of:Row Comparison Inexperienced Teachers Out-of-Field Teachers

A Percentage of teachers in the Title I campus 12.70% 2.00%

B State averagea 8.16% 1.50%

CState equity gap: Title 1 campus minus state average (row A–row B)

12.70 – 8.16 = 4.54% 2.00 – 1.50 = 0.50%


Directions for Calculating Equity Gaps in Student Access to Effective Teaching Although TEA will not require districts to report on their findings, all districts will examine and calculate gaps in student access to effective teaching. Following are instructions for calculating your district gaps.

1. Complete

the rows A, B, D, and E using the high-quartile and low-quartile campus designations you’ve calculated for your district. Consulting the definitions your district chose for measuring effective teaching in each type of metric (teaching performance, student learning, student engagement), record the averages for the high- and low-quartile campuses.

2. Subtract row B from A to calculate your equity gap. Enter your district equity gap in row C.


No gaps—Zeros and negative numbersIt is possible you will find your district percentages of inexperienced teachers or out-of-field teachers are exactly the same as the state average percentages. Or your highest quartile of campuses has the exact same percentages of effective teaching as your lowest quartile of campuses. This means you have a 0% equity gap, which means your district does not have an equity gap. You also may find results that are negative percentages. For example, the highest poverty quartile in your district has 75% of effective teaching while your lowest poverty


3. Subtract row E from D to calculate your equity gap. Enter your district equity gap in row F.


Example of Calculating Equity Gaps in Access to Effective Teaching

Row

Effective Teaching— Teaching Performance

Effective Teaching— Student Learning

Effective Teaching— Student Engagement

Equity Gap Calculations: Low-Income Students

ALow-

poverty quartile

75.57% 92.57% 98.29%

BHigh-

poverty quartile

57.43% 90.71% 95.57%

C

District equity

gap: Low-poverty quartile minus high-

poverty quartile

(row A–row B)

75.57 – 57.43 = 18.14%

92.57 – 90.71 = 1.86%

98.29 – 95.57 =2.72%

Equity Gap Calculations: Students of Color

DLow-

minority quartile

74.43% 91.00% 97.86%

EHigh-

minority quartile

62.14% 91.00% 96.00%

F

District equity

gap: Low-minority quartile minus high-

minority quartile

(row D–row E)

74.43 – 62.14 = 12.29%

91.00 – 91.00 = 0%

97.86 – 96.00 = 1.86%

Notes. When calculating gaps in access to effective teaching (a positive descriptor) compared to inexperienced or out-of-field teachers (negative descriptors), you will subtract the high-poverty (Row B) from the low-poverty (Row A) quartile.Based on district definitions of effective teaching, districts will need to use their discretion about how best, if at all, to reduce each measurement of effective teaching or all three measurements of effective teaching into a singular number.


Blank Planning Template: Calculating Equity Gaps in Access to Effective Teaching

Row

Effective Teaching— Teaching

Performance

Effective Teaching—

Student Learning

Effective Teaching—

Student Engagement

Equity Gap Calculations: Low-Income StudentsA Low-poverty

quartileB High-poverty

quartileC District equity gap:

Low-poverty quartile minus high-

poverty quartile (row A–row B)

Equity Gap Calculations: Students of ColorD Low-minority

quartileE High-minority

quartileF District equity gap:

Low-minority quartile minus high-

minority quartile (row D–row E)

Note. When calculating gaps in access to effective teaching (a positive descriptor) compared to inexperienced or out-of-field teachers (negative descriptors), you will subtract the high-poverty from the low-poverty quartile.

Other Ways to Examine Equity GapsBeyond the equity gap calculations shown in the example above, districts also may choose to examine equitable access at the campus level, or by grade level or subject area. Calculations of equity gaps at the campus level would require district staff to link individual student data to individual teacher data. This additional effort is worthwhile if districts want to examine equity within a campus. Recent research shows that even within a campus, there is inequitable student access to effective teachers.10 Campus, grade-level, and subject area analyses would allow districts to examine whether gaps are more common in certain grades or subjects versus other grades or subjects.

10 Goldhaber, D., Lavery, L., & Theobald, R. (2014). Uneven playing field? Assessing the inequity of teacher characteristics and measured performance across students (CEDR Working Paper 2014-14). Seattle: University of Washington. Retrieved from http://www.cedr.us/papers/working/CEDR%20WP%202014-4.pdf


http://www.cedr.us/papers/working/CEDR%20WP%202014-4.pdf

http://www.cedr.us/papers/working/CEDR%20WP%202014-4.pdf

Part 5. Data PresentationPresent data in a useable manner. For this final step, district leaders and stakeholders will explore various options to display the findings of their data analysis (from Part 4). To support Step 3. Conducting a Root Cause Analysis, the district will need to present the findings of its data analysis to stakeholders to frame the Problem of Practice discussion. Equity gaps can be displayed in tables, bar graphs, heat maps, or other formats. These various formats for presenting findings may be useful to districts with helping their stakeholders understand the equity gaps and distributions of ineffective, inexperienced, and out-of-field teachers by student subgroups in their district. Examples of several of these approaches to displaying data are included here for


The following example comes from the 2015 Texas Equity Plan. TEA used bar graphs to display equity gaps.Figure 1. Percent of Teachers With Less Than One Year of Experience, 2014

HPQ

LPQ

HMQ

LMQ

Average

11.8%

10.3%

7.9%

6.2%

12.1%

10.4%

7.5%

6.2%

9.0%

Average is the average percentage of teachers with less than one year of teaching experience across the state.LMQ = Lowest minority quartile campusesHMQ = Highest minority quartile campusesLPQ = Lowest poverty quartile campusesHPQ = Highest poverty quartile campuses

reference. Districts also may wish to browse state-level equity plans on the ED website for additional examples of approaches to data presentation.


The following example comes from Tennessee’s Equitable Access to Excellent Educators 2015 Plan. The figure shows the distribution across districts of their equity gaps.

http://www2.ed.gov/programs/titleiparta/resources.html

http://www2.ed.gov/programs/titleiparta/resources.html

Next Steps for District Equity Planning GroupNow that your team has planned to engage stakeholders (Step 1) and engaged in data review and analysis (Step 2), you’re ready to move forward to the next part of the Roadmap, Step 3. Conducting a Root Cause Analysis. First, take a moment to record your key findings from Step 2. Reviewing and Analyzing Data into the Putting It All Together section.

Putting It All Together: Incorporating Your Reviewing and Analyzing Data Efforts Into Your Roadmap Reporting Template After completing the processes suggested in Step 2, record in the following table the results of your data review and analysis process. You will be able to transfer your findings directly into the centralized Roadmap Reporting Template.

Findings From [INSERT DISTRICT NAME]’s Equity Gap Analysis Notes:

Districts with four or more campuses, please complete Table A. Districts with three or fewer campuses, please complete Table B. Although districts are not required to report the findings of their analysis of

gaps in access to effective teaching, all districts should also respond to the two questions following Table B to describe your district’s definition of effective teaching and your overall conclusions related to the distribution of access to effective teaching in the district.

Table A. Districts with Four or More Campuses—Reporting Template for Calculating Equity Gaps for Inexperienced and Out-of-Field Teachers

Row Comparison


Teachers Out-of-Field TeachersEquity Gap Calculations: Low-Income StudentsA High-poverty quartileB Low-poverty quartile

CDistrict equity gap: High-poverty quartile minus low-poverty quartile (row A–row B)


https://texasequitytoolkit.org/Resource_files/roadmap.docx

Row Comparison


Teachers Out-of-Field TeachersD State averagea

EState equity gap: High-poverty quartile minus state average (row A–row D)

Equity Gap Calculations: Students of ColorF High-minority quartileG Low-minority quartile

HDistrict equity gap: High-minority quartile minus low-minority quartile (row F–row G)

IState equity gap: High-minority quartile minus state average (row F–row D)

a State averages for inexperienced and out-of-field teachers are available and updated annually on the TEA Equity Toolkit website.Table B. Districts with Three or Fewer Campuses—Reporting Template for Calculating Equity Gaps for Inexperienced and Out-of-Field Teachers

Percentages of:Row Inexperienced Teachers Out-of-Field Teachers

A Percentage of teachers in the Title I campus

B State averagea

C State equity gap: Title 1 campus minus state average (row A–row B)


Defining Effective TeachingIn the fields below, record the definitions of effective teaching from the three categories included in the Planning Template Table. Include a description of your rationale for these three definitions.Our District’s Definition of Effective Teaching:

Teaching Performance Student Learning Student EngagementSelected data to measure teaching performance:

Selected data to measure student learning

Selected data to measure student engagement:




Definition of effective teaching using these data




After examining the equity gaps in your district related to student access to effective teaching, what are your conclusions?


Appendix A. Data ChecklistEquity Gap What data do I need?

Access to effective teaching defined by teacher performance for:Students of color For example:

Student demographic data from Public Education Information Management System (PEIMS) for each racial/ethnic group; group all Hispanic and non-White students into one group

Texas Teacher Evaluation and Support System data

Low-income students

Other (e.g., students with disabilities):Other:

Access to effective teaching defined by student learning for:Students of color For example:

Student demographic data from PEIMS for each racial/ethnic group; group all Hispanic and non-White students into one group

Student learning dataLow-income students

Other (e.g., students with disabilities):Other:

Access to effective teaching defined by student engagement for:Students of color For example:

Student demographic data from PEIMS for each racial/ethnic group. Group all Hispanic and non-White students into one group.

Student engagement dataLow-income students

Other (e.g., students with disabilities):

Equity Gap What data do I need?Other:

Access to inexperienced teachers for:Students of color

Low-income students

Other:

Other:

Access to out-of-field teachers for:Students of color

Low-income students

Other:

Other:


Appendix B. Texas Data Elements Checklist

Variables/Categories Definitions Data Source

Do We Have This? Write Yes or

No

If No, Can We Collect

It? Write Yes or

No

TEA

Defin

ed

Inexperienced Teachers with 2 or fewer years of prior teaching experience.

PEIMS 040 and 050, or district HR

records

Out-of-field Teachers who do not possess the appropriate certification based on the state assignment chart for the grade and subject taught.

District HR records

Dist

rict D

efine

d: E

ffect

ive

Teac

hing

Performance T-TESS rating or, if not using T-TESS, the rating from district’s teacher appraisal system.

T-TESS or district appraisal system

Student learning

Student achievement or growth on district formative or summative tests

District data systems;

curriculum-based assessments; 6-week benchmark tests; TPRI; DRA; iStation; teacher-developed tests

Student achievement or growth on state standarized tests (Grades 3-10)

STAAR; STAAR EOC; TELPAS;

SAT/ACT

Student learning objectives

District data systems

Student engagement

Student engagement with teacher

Student surveys; school/classroom climate surveys;

student perceptions data;

parent surveys

Observations of teacher-student interactions

District or campus walk-thoughs;

principal observations; staff

observations; third-party

observations

Student discipline data PEIMS 425 Student attendance data PEIMS 400


Texas Equitable Access Roadmap: A Toolkit to … · Web viewfor more support on stakeholder...

Documents

Transcript of Texas Equitable Access Roadmap: A Toolkit to … · Web viewfor more support on stakeholder...