Step 2 Activity Handout
Table A: Districts with Four or More Campuses—Reporting Template for Calculating Equity Gaps for
Inexperienced and Out-of-Field Teachers
Percentages of:
Row
Comparison
Inexperienced Teachers
Out-of-Field Teachers
Equity Gap Calculations: Low-Income Students
A
High-poverty quartile
B
Low-poverty quartile
C
District equity gap: High-poverty quartile
minus low-poverty quartile (row A–row B)
D
State averagea
E
State equity gap: High-poverty quartile
minus state average (row A–row D)
Equity Gap Calculations: Students of Color
F
High-minority quartile
G
Low-minority quartile
H
District equity gap: High-minority quartile
minus low-minority quartile (row F–row
G)
I
State 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 Texas Equity Toolkit website.
© TEA
3/29/2017
Texas Equity Toolkit: Training Handouts (Step 2)
1 of 8
Table B: Districts with Three or Fewer Campuses—Reporting Template for Calculating Equity Gaps
for Inexperienced and Out-of-Field Teachers
Percentages of:
Row
Comparison
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)
Inexperienced Teachers
Out-of-Field Teachers
a State
averages for inexperienced and out-of-field teachers are available and updated annually on the Texas Equity Toolkit
website.
© TEA
3/29/2017
Texas Equity Toolkit: Training Handouts (Step 2)
2 of 8
Planning Template: Calculating Equity Gaps in Access to Effective Teaching
Effective Teaching—
Teaching
Performance
Row
Effective Teaching—
Student Learning
Effective Teaching—
Student Engagement
Equity Gap Calculations: Low-Income Students
Low-poverty quartile
A
B
High-poverty quartile
C
District equity gap:
Low-poverty quartile
minus high-poverty
quartile (row A–row
B)
Equity Gap Calculations: Students of Color
D
Low-minority quartile
E
High-minority quartile
F
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.
© TEA
3/29/2017
Texas Equity Toolkit: Training Handouts (Step 2)
3 of 8
Step 3 Activity Handout
Participants may use these supporting “mock data” to support the root cause analysis (RCA) practice
activity. Review the data as they relate to teachers, principals, and districts as you practice the RCA
with your small group. A key describing abbreviations is below the data table.
Teacher
Principal
District
Attrition – HQ 16.4%; LQ 7.8%
Principal/AP Span of Control – HQ
28 appraisals per admin; LQ 27
appraisal per admin
Principal Appraiser Span of Control
–
Two principal appraisers – A has 9,
5 of which are IR, Focus, or Priority;
B has 17, none of which are IR,
Focus, or Priority.
Exit Surveys – Top 3 answers on
“why leaving: 1) moving to metro
area; 2) lack of support; 3) career
change
Principal Time Audit – HQ principals Principal Appraiser Time Audit –
spent 21.7% of time on instructional
A spent 8 hours per month in
leadership tasks and 2.1% of time in
principal meetings, 2 hours per
classrooms
semester on each campus, no time
coaching per year; B has spent 8
hours per month in principal
meetings, 1.2 hours per semester
on each campus, no time coaching
per year.
Applicant Pool – HQ 1.7 per
opening; LQ 6.1 per opening
Principal Appraisal – HQ refinement
areas on T-PESS – Indicators 1B
(monitor and ensures high quality
instructional practices) 2B (coaches
and develops teachers); HQ
reinforcement areas on T-PESS –
Indicators 4E (student discipline
techniques) and 5B (maximizes
learning time)
New teachers with mentors – HQ All;
LQ All
Principal Tenure – As principal: HQ
2.1 years; LQ 6.1 years. As principal
on campus: HQ 1.6; LQ 4.9
Avg. mentor hours per month – HQ
4.4; LQ 4.6
Mentor observations – HQ none; LQ
none
Teacher salaries – In line with
surrounding districts
Key: HQ: Highest Quartile – Highest Percent Low Income/Students of Color
LQ: Lowest Quartile – Lowest Percent Low Income/Students of Color
*No data – student surveys; campus climate surveys
© TEA
3/29/2017
Texas Equity Toolkit: Training Handouts (Step 3)
4 of 8
Step 4 Activity Handout
Blank Strategy Inventory Table
Overall Problem
Statement:
Attracting Teachers
Supporting Teachers
Retaining Teachers
Root Causes
(from Step 3.
Conducting a Root
Cause Analysis)
Current Programs or
Policies that Address
Root Causes
Potential New or
Enhanced Strategies
that Address Root
Causes
© TEA
3/29/2017
Texas Equity Toolkit: Training Handouts (Step 4)
5 of 8
Proposed Strategy Planning Template
Proposed Strategy
© TEA
Aligned to root
causes
Is this strategy
aligned to a root
cause identified in
Step 3? How so?
3/29/2017
Evidence based
Is there evidence
or research
supporting this
strategy? What
makes us think
this strategy will
be effective?
Measureable
(defined by data or
metrics that can
be analyzed). How
do we define this
strategy with data?
How will we
measure the
impact of this
strategy?
Viable
Can our district
successfully
implement this
strategy? Are there
barriers that will
hinder full
implementation of
this strategy?
Texas Equity Toolkit: Training Handouts (Step 4)
Putting It All
Together
Thinking about
your answers to
each question,
should you include
this strategy in our
district’s equity
plan?
6 of 8
Step 5 Activity Handout
Progress Monitoring Planning Template
Long-Term Outcomes: We expect to see these long-term changes in 2-plus years:
Progress Monitoring Planning Template
Problem statement:
Root cause:
Monitoring team and responsibilities:
What are the
sequential
steps you will
take to
implement this
strategy and
achieve the
outcome(s)?
If your strategy
is well
implemented,
what will you
see in up to 6
months?
What data
will you
collect to
help you
know if
this
strategy is
working?
OUTPUTS
Benchmark 1: Up to 6 months
(DATE TO MONITOR HERE)
If your strategy
is well
implemented,
what will you
see in 6–12
months?
What data
will you
collect to
help you
know if this
strategy is
working?
Short-Term OUTCOMES
Benchmark 2: 6–12 months
(DATE TO MONITOR HERE)
If your strategy
is well
implemented,
what will you
see in 12–24
months?
Mid-Term OUTCOMES
Benchmark 3: 12–24 months
(DATE TO MONITOR HERE)
Strategies
or substrategies
© TEA
3/29/2017
Texas Equity Toolkit: Training Handouts (Step 5)
What data
will you
collect to
help you
know if this
strategy is
working?
7 of 8
Monitoring Reflections to Inform Continuous Improvement
Strategy and sub-strategy:
Type of outcome examined:
Date:
Did your team do what was
planned for this strategy?
Did the data we collected help
us to know if the strategy was
implemented well?
Describe any additional data
you need to help you
understand this more or make
better decisions.
How much progress have you
made toward your goals?
Do you need to make any
adjustments at this time?
Was this strategy successful?
Yes ☐ Somewhat ☐
Explain why:
No☐
If yes:
How will we sustain this
strategy? What factors need to
be in place?
If no:
Why wasn’t the strategy
implemented? (Barriers to
implementation?)
If it was implemented but did
not lead to the expected
outcome, was the strategy
implemented with fidelity? Why
not?
© TEA
3/29/2017
Texas Equity Toolkit: Training Handouts (Step 5)
8 of 8