001Uh my name is Becky Hampton and I support the work at the agency for the local classroom reviews along with Victoria Garrett um who you heard from at the top of the webinar um and also Shay Wise Garland. So, thank you so very much for joining us this afternoon and we have a lot to share and we want to make sure um that everyone has a chance to engage with the content and ask questions. So, without further ado, let's dive right in here um on the uh overview of the local classroom reviews. So, in our afternoon together here, we're going to the purpose is to provide the overview, as I said, but also highlighting some of the key updates that were made to the process for the local classroom reviews to align with statutory requirements
002and the processes that are going to support that implementation during the 2526 school year. So we'll dive more into that uh with each and every slide, but that's our purpose of our hour together this afternoon. Our objectives this afternoon are we have three uh the first one is to discuss some of the strategic shifts in the local classroom review process to prepare for effective implementation in the 2526 school year. The second one is to review two central or driving questions questions that are going to define the focus of the local classroom review uh for the upcoming school year. And then finally uh the third one to provide an overview of the scoring and reviewer training processes uh that are going to support the implementation um and to highlight anywhere or stamp anywhere where there might
003be some changes or some shifts uh to previous work. But before we begin, we wanted to start with what is a local classroom review. And so the uh next few slides are just an overview um as we dive right in. And when we take a look at this timeline, uh I I really want to just highlight three specific things. Um because I think it's important, pardon me, I think it's important to remember that HB16005 really began in June 2023 in the 88th regular session. And so just now um as you move forward on the timeline in as you all know in November 2024 the SBOE voted um for uh SBOE approved materials which does have an impact on local classroom reviews and we'll talk about that in just a moment. But the two things I
004want to draw your attention to are situated in April 2025 and that is when the SBOE approved rules for the local classroom reviews along with the rubrics. So that is a very big driver in a lot of the shifts that are were needed to be made um after April 11th 2025. So just want to draw your attention there. And then last but not least in September 2025, you can see uh that we have two major events happening there as well where we will be able to launch the grants for the local classroom reviews to be able to pay for parent requests and district ad hoc requests. We'll talk more about that in a moment. And the other thing that I want to stamp is that we also have commissioners rules for local classroom reviews that
005become effective as well. So those two things, the state board of education and the commissioner's rules uh are really a driver for what we're about to ga engage with in terms of content. So let's begin. As we mentioned, uh, HB16005, um, really began with many, many, many different elements, but you can see highlighted on screen to the top right there are that the local classroom reviews are going to be established, funded, and can be initiated now via parent requests. And so that is very very different um, from any of the the requests that we've fielded previously. So we're going to spend a little time about uh, talking about that. And the other thing that you can see, another pivotal piece, the SVOE approval of a grade level rigor rubric. And as we mentioned, that happened
006April 11th, 2025. So it makes us ready to move forward um with our work in the 2526 school year. And as a reminder, just really important to ground us all in remembering that after HB16005, of course, ma state support, war support is provided, but that instructional materials decisions really remain at the local level. And so those are some of the citations, but something that we always encourage um parents and our stakeholders to remind to ground ourselves in is that districts have the local discretion to recommend or require or neither one the use of certain instructional materials within their classrooms, whether they be SBOE approved or not SBOE approved. Okay. And this is the star of the show, ladies and gentlemen. This is chapter 31 where the local classroom uh reviews language and statute is positioned.
007So we will engage with this particular content in several different ways throughout our time together. But I really want to point out two specific things as we look at it from the top. The first one is to really be stay anchored in the fact that it is situated in chapter 31 and it which is parental rights and responsibilities. So you will see a huge emphasis on uh parental line of sight, parental visibility and transparency as we work our way uh through the content this afternoon. The other thing that you'll see in section 31 uh.0252 is the official full name of the local classroom reviews. And so um you will uh notice that one of the shifts that we have made is we are working away from the the term academic review has been replaced by
008local classroom reviews and that's to align to statutory language and we'll talk more about that in just a moment. Um the other thing that I want to highlight here on this slide in the bolded text is those are the two focus areas for the local classroom reviews in the 2526 school year. So in other words, the materials that are being submitted for the local classroom review, do they correspond with what the district adopted? Question one. And then question two, do those assignments, what is submitted by the district, actually meet the grade level rigor. So, numerals one and numeral 2 um are something that we'll see again, but definitely want to orient everyone on the call to the language that is actually in chapter 31 um and really kind of drives what we're doing moving forward.
009All right, at a very very high level, a summary of the local classroom review for 2526 under HB16005. And it's really really important to uh stamp here that the local classroom review is designed to answer those two questions that we've just looked at in statute. So the purpose of evaluation is going to be to see question one, how consistently are those materials used in the classroom um aligned to those adopted by the school or the school system. And the second purpose is how consistently those assignments are going to be issued to students are on grade level and meet rigor. Um in 2425 as you know uh the term academic review was used and we were really driving at TESS and Arby's alignment. So want to stamp here a shift in the purpose of the evaluation
010up top here with questions one and two. Um then you can see what is adopted or pardon me what is evaluated and you can see uh numbers one and number two situated again coming directly from the statute. And then we want to take a look at the scope of the review. So these are local classroom reviews are indeed just that the grain size on the reviews classroom level right. So campus no district no we are actually talking about a parent requested uh local classroom review will be at the classroom level. So what materials are evaluated blank student assignments that hasn't changed. Who is conducting the evaluation? it is our wonderful partners uh certified reviewers from our ESC's or approved vendors. So definitely want to uh feature that here on who's conducting the evaluation. Um and
011then when are things going to be evaluated? So part of the rule making established for these ad hoc parent or district requests as part of local classroom reviews, the rules state that the submission window, the statewide submission window would begin September 1st and extend through the last day uh the last instructional day for students. So definitely want to name and sort of stamp that is a change. That means we could have requests coming in all year long um that are district or parent requests for local classroom reviews. So definitely something for our leads to think about in terms of uh the traffic around local classroom reviews wouldn't just be positioned in certain months um as it has been previously. It could extend all year long. And then finally uh how are these results going to
012be reported? They're going to be in a local classroom review report. We'll take a look at that in just a moment uh as we get deeper into the slides. Um but there definitely will be some differences that we'll want to stamp there. All right. So, what materials are we evaluating in the local classroom review? All of you will be familiar with the blank student assignments that you see on screen. Really important to name here that the source of the assignments is irrelevant. The rubrics can be applied no matter what source of the materials um we're engaging with. However, um at this orange triangle here down at the bottom uh left, you will see um stamped a a difference uh in the 2526 school year in terms of the local classroom review. So, the local classroom
013review is going to also gather one week's worth of lesson materials to be included in the report for maximum parental transparency. And so, as you can imagine, that will impact the submission guidance for our LEAS, and we will talk more about that as we get deeper into the presentation. But there will be other materials besides the blank student assignments that will be gathered and returned in the report so that parents have line of sight to what their children are engaging with in a week's worth of less material. Okay. As I mentioned, April 11th, 2025, pretty big day for local classroom reviews because the SBOE approved the rubrics. Um, and as you all know, uh, great care from our partners at ESC's were were taken to, uh, adjust the EMR rubrics so that they could be
014applied to student basing assignments. uh do want to mention here that this ensures that the local classroom reviews are aligned to the AMRA process but not duplicating the AMRA process. I also want to mention um that prior to the April 11th um uh approval date by SBOE, we spent the better part of February and March on a listening tour to gather feedback from the public um on those particular rubrics as they were open for public comment. This included our ESC partners. Uh this included community members, parents, teachers, uh district leaders. And so we really tried um to get that feedback reflected in the rubric. And we'll and all of the rubrics did get some updates and tweaks in language um as we moved through that process prior to approval on April 11th, 2025. Okay. So,
015a little bit of an overview on local classroom reviews in HB16005, but let's dive into the actual shifts that occurred uh to support our work moving forward in 2526. So, on screen you will see a summary of the five key shifts. There are some some sub shifts uh that we'll talk about in just a minute, but these are the ones that are most notable uh for our ESC reviewer leads. The first one being, as I mentioned, the term academic review being replaced. Um, and that will be replaced by local classroom reviews to align our terminology to the statute that we just looked at. The other piece, as I mentioned, the local classroom review rubrics were approved April 11th. All of them um received some uh adjustments and updating based on public comment, but the most
016notable change was in the K3 foundational skills rubric. And so we'll take a look at that um in just a moment. But the driving force behind that uh is that our state board really wanted to see very very explicit language around the prohibition of three queuing uh reflected in our rubric. The third uh big shift is that we are moving away from the externally hosted software or ETL and we're moving to an internally managed TEA solution for local classroom review. So we'll look at we'll look into that just a little bit more. And then this is a big one number four the local classroom review report. There are going to be some shifts to the report simply because the report has to be able to communicate to parents. number one. Um, it also has to
017be able to communicate to the districts that may or may not be involved in any of the bigger initiatives. So, in other words, they have to be able to make meaning behind the report um without necessarily uh being involved in an initiative. And then last but not least, as you as on our timeline, we named and stamped that in November 2024, we get our list of approved materials, which also has an impact on the local classroom review. So we'll talk about what those impacts might be moving forward um in in the summary here. So what we'll do is kind of engage with with each shift one by one. So as I mentioned the AC the term academic review uh has been replaced. So for instance, if a Texas strategic leadership district is engaging in a
018review as part of the landscape analysis, that will be a local classroom review that they will be engaging in as part of the landscape analysis. If you have a campus that is engaging in a ESF targeted diagnostic, for instance, they will be participating in a local classroom review as part of that process. So, we're really trying to streamline uh that all of the reviews, if it is part of an initiative, it will be referred to as a local classroom review, but local classroom review will also refer to a parent requested local classroom review or remember a district can also request a local classroom review. So, really trying to streamline the name to align to the statute. As I mentioned, the second change is in our rubric in the rubrics themselves. All received updates, but I
019definitely wanted to highlight in our short hour together. Um, the K3 rubric in just a moment. And all of these updated rubrics, if you would like to have you and your team engage with those, those are hyperl when you get the deck. They're also on our TEA website so that you can take a look at those and see what has changed and what impact that might have. but definitely wanted to have everybody's eyes on the most notable change which was the K3 foundational literacy skills rubric. As you can see on screen, the phonics compliance uh number one was added and this is at the SBOE's request to make sure that we have very very explic explicit language um around the prohibition of three queuing. So you will see that that is a completely new that
020numeral was not in our foundational skills uh rubric last year. Um and so we really are going to engage with that deeply when we get to our facetoface training this summer uh with our reviewers. Also want to point out here to the bottom left you will know that you are looking at the approved rubrics by SBOE because it'll have this little footer here uh for you to reference on when it uh received SBOE approval. So, if you have reviewers that um have a markedup copy of a of a rubric, as I know um many of us do, we'll want to make sure that we're using the most up-to-date rubrics that we get during training this summer. All right. And now on to the third shift. Um, and this really has to do with where we're
021going to store our information in terms of our scoring and uh, generate the report. So, definitely want to spend just a little time here stamping what we're going to be using. So, we are going to be using some smart sheets with uh, other technology tools because it is new and it will be different. We made that part three of our software training so that we'll be doing that on Zoom. We know that schedules are extremely tight and everyone is so incredibly busy uh helping schools, but we want to make sure that everyone has line of sight to the software training. Um, and the dates are going to be uh at the end of this presentation so everybody can make sure that they have the the dates to be able to prepare and plan. But this
022shift really is designed to do two things. Number one, to get all of our initiatives and all of our ad hoc requests from parents and districts into one place. And the second thing is that as we move forward with this process is to align with the IMRA team uh because they also have um some software that they use for their reviewers that we will be um looking at moving forward. So really trying to integrate, streamline, automate um so that we can do a a good job of um making sure that data is available to everyone in real time. Uh but you will see the screenshot um on the screen actually still uh holds the ability for someone to decline or approve a request and we'll talk more about that in just a moment. Um but
023wanted to definitely put the screenshot up there as a reminder for the software training. Okay, moving on to the local classroom review report. Um, and this is really the shift here is really to mark that most of our schools and parents will be making meaning um from this report that is outside of an initiative. And so on screen you can see a uh just a flat screenshot of the uh title page want to name for us here that remember the two critical questions we're trying to answer are what was submitted during the local classroom review. Does it align to district drafting materials? So, you can see in the local classroom review summary, the answer is going to be yes or no. And we're going to talk more about that in just a moment. And then
024the second question we have to answer for the local classroom review is does this meet expectations for grade level rigor? And the answer is going to be yes or no. And so those yes, that standardized yes no format is to help to bring clarity to parents and districts. um do want to name that a yes means that 75% or more of the assignments that were submitted actually align to what was adopted. We'll talk about that. A no means less than 75%. So that's something that we'll get deeper into during our face-to-face training where we're talking about scoring methodology, but want to name that here in case there are questions that might be surfacing for you in terms of what equals a yes and what equals a no. Um, also want to name for you here,
025as we mentioned that um, the materials that are submitted for a local classroom review are going to be included. They will be included in the appendix and we'll take a look at that in just a moment. But really prioritizing giving parents line of sight to a week's worth of material uh, is something that is was a driving force in terms of how how this is designed. I also wanted to name for our ESSE reviewer leads because I think it's really important in the commissioner's rules, districts will be publishing the local classroom review reports on their district website within 10 days of receiving it. So do want to mention and name for all of our reviewers during face-to-face training and with our group this afternoon um that the reports are have always been very visible visible
026pardon me but they will be even more visible um now that we are moving to posting them on the district website uh according to the commissioner's rules. All right. And then last but not le least, and I think this is such a significant change to stamp here uh with this group is really how the SBOE approved materials this impacts us in the local classroom reviews. And so I want to give you a moment to um digest the information on screen here. You can see to the left hand side, if the school district that is under review is using materials that have not been reviewed by the EMR process, then we are going to go ahead in the local classroom review and address and address both central questions, both driving questions. We're going to uh work
027with number one is what was submitted aligned to the district or campus adopted materials and does it meet grade uh grade appropriate rigor? We're going to apply and leverage the SBOE approved rubrics to determine number two. And then you can see in that middle uh row, row number two, that if a school district is using the instructional materials on the EMRA list, we would only evaluate number one in the local classroom review. So we would not need to apply the rubrics to see if we have great appropriate rigor as that information has already been vetted by the quality reviewers on the EMR process. So it eliminates the need for number two if we have SBOE approved materials. So we'll talk more about that in just a moment that but that is a pretty significant shift
028there. And then the the third scenario that we will have um is we have some of our school districts if they are using materials that are on the rejected list from the SBOE. Those requests are going to be automatically denied and an MRI report for those materials would be provided to the district as a very deep uh and comprehensive look at the quality of those materials has already been determined by the EMR quality reviewers and rejected by the SBOE. So very significant shifts I believe on this slide in terms of how the reviews would move forward for 2526. So for the local classroom review, we're really trying to align the review to the statute. So remember those are those two questions and those two questions um this time same language but highlighted in orange so
029we can take a look at what those actually mean in terms of finding the answer. Okay. So if we as reviewers are going to try to figure out if what was submitted corresponds with the materials adopted by the school district where would we begin? And then we'll take a look also at number two. So, let's dive into that really, really quickly here. And remember, those are our two central questions named in our objectives. This is what we're trying to find out in the review and be able to report back to districts and parents. And so as we dive into that, um, definitely want to summarize where are those changes, where are those takeaways when we're aligning the review to those two key questions, where will you see that alignment happening? And that's actually on screen
030in these five places, right? And so the first place that you're going to see the alignment is we're going to have to use the certification of provision of instructional materials form. And that is uh formerly known as the TESS certification. Uh for for those of you who uh recently coming from the district or working to support districts, those are um where the district actually uh certifies what materials they're going to use. It's submitted to the agency annually and we'll talk more about that. We'll go one by one for each of these. Then uh the second place where we're aligning to the review is going to be have to be to attend to the updates that were made in our uh local classroom review rubrics. Then as I mentioned before, the third place you're going to
031see the alignment is going to be in answering the two questions on the actual review report. And we'll talk more about that. uh as I mentioned before in number four uh where we see alignment for uh really presenting um transparent uh materials to parents um for comprehending and seeing a week's worth of lesson materials. You're going to see that in the appendix and that alignment occurring in number four there. And then last but not least, uh in number five, the local classroom reviews, we're going to give some examples in terms of what is going to be scorable and what is nonscorable for the local classroom reviews. Um many of us have uh had the opportunity to be testing coordinators uh previously prior to maybe your role now. And so we we really wanted to use
032scorable and non-scorable. And we'll give you some examples in terms of what that looks like. But please remember the why behind this is to do our very best uh to provide the parents line of sight into what's being used in the classroom in terms of instructional materials. So let's dive up to number one here the certification or provision of materials form. And this is a very important form that actually districts are submitting right now to the agency and it really is going to help us attend to number one here. So, how are we going to determine if materials submitted correspond with what was adopted? And so, on screen, you can see a screenshot of just the first page there. And this happens to be the reading language arts page. And this is where districts actually
033mark what they are using for reading language arts. They also mark it for math, which would be the two places where local classroom reviews would be impacted. And you can also see uh that this particular form is submitted to us annually. So districts making changes from 2425 to the 2526 school year have an opportunity to identify those changes or updates or if there are no changes of course that can continue as well and they submit it annually every year. Um, and so this this uh form is actually also um really important because it's usually um appears at a publicly noticed board meeting, which is really important as well. But this is the form we're going to use to determine if what was submitted for local classroom reviews aligns to what the districts have adopted. So
034on screen, you can just see a small example of what that might look like. So if we have for instance an assignment submitted on the left over there and we know that the assignment source is Edmondum study island um and we know that from uh the cover page that was submitted and also some of the markings on the assignment and then we actually take a look at what was adopted in mathematics K5 for 2526 by that particular school district and it they do in fact uh have adopted Edum study island as um approved materials. And so when those two things match, we would be able to say yes when we we are answering the question. Question number one for the local classroom reviews, does the assignment correspond to the material adopted in the district. So
035just a small example. On the flip side, this the something opposite could be true where we're trying to ask ourselves once again, does this assignment submitted correspond to the materials adopted in the district. So you can see on the left hand side we have something from splash learn and it does not correspond to what was adopted by K5. And so in that particular case the answer would be no. This does not correspond to what was adopted by the district. So just two examples. Of course, when we get to face tof face training, we're going to be going over these in a little bit more detail, but for this group, in our brief time together, I wanted you to have some examples that were concrete um to work from as we begin to prepare um our
036teams and and our our schools and our school communities for the local classroom reviews. Okay, so it brings us to number two. And remember, we're aligning our review to the statute. And so let's take a look at the particular SBOE approved rubrics. And we are going to leverage those rubrics to help us uh with the number two there in orange to help us determine grade level rigor. And so really wanted to kind of follow the same pattern here just visually give give us something all to concrete give us something very concrete to work with. But if we had that assignment submitted over there to the left um and we were asking ourselves as reviewers, which those are the two questions we're going to ask ourselves as reviewers, does the assignment submitted meet the level of
037rigor for the essential knowledge and skills? You'll see the approved rubric for K12 over here to the right hand side. And so definitely want to name and stamp in this particular case, the reviewer says yes um to this particular assignment. On the flip side, we also have an ELR 4 through8 reading comprehension example where we get all about helicopters turned in from the worksheet zone and the reviewer says no. The answer to this question of does it meet grade level rigor? Um, no, it does not. And so that's really what we're reporting on um is the alignment, right, to district materials and then to leverage the rubrics to determine grade level rigor. So, a few brief examples to help us there. Next, we want to turn our attention to number three. How are we going
038to see the alignment of the review in the local fashion re review report? And so, really want to mention here, we're answering those two questions, yes or no. Yes meaning greater than 75%, no mean meaning less than 75%. You will also see down below um that you will get a yes or a no for the rigger review summary. So in this particular case uh the set of assignments that were evaluated received a no for textbased responses. So that's reported there. But for all that were involved in the spring semester in terms of giving feedback felt really strongly that the report has to be able to answer uh question one and question two very very directly for parents and districts. All right. You will also see that we have the summary statements and I know that
039that was uh actually a feature of the 2425 review. Some of the summary statements are they've been automated um and we are going to be able to populate the summary statements for reading language arts and also mathematics in the report uh really driving at the answers to these two orange questions here on screen. Okay. And so the the next two here on our overall summary the appendix. So remember the appendix is where we're gathering the actual materials um from the classroom that will be evaluated blank student assignments but also a week's worth of lesson materials so parents have line of sight into what's being used in the classroom. And so I really wanted to stamp for us here and this is a screenshot of what the appendix will look like of the report. And you
040can see that appendix one features the documents submitted for the local classroom review. And when we select this link, what's going to pop up are uh an appendix that is organized into two sections. Section one is going to be blank student assignments that are going to be the scorable materials. What the evaluator actually looked at to to render the score report of yes or no. The second thing that's going to appear are the nonscorable materials and that's basically everything else that was gathered in that week's worth of materials. So definitely want to highlight that as that is a pretty big change, but really something that as we engaged with stakeholders in the spring that um there were some strong strong feelings in really being able to see a week's worth of material um and being
041able to publish that back to our parents. In addition, you'll also see that appendix 2 is going to feature the approved rubrics for local classroom review. So parents and districts have access to that. Um, as I mentioned, the scoring methodology, which we're going to go over when we get to our facetoface training, what there's going to be a hyperlink to that as well, so everyone understands what the yes and the no means. Um, in addition, appendix 4 is going to have a hyperlink uh to the AMR process. Um, and appendix 5 will feature the glossery so that we can have um some line of sight into any words that uh might need further definition to make meaning of the results. Okay. So, as I mentioned, as we're looking at number five here, we're looking at
042local classroom reviews having scorable and non-scorable materials. And you can see down there, uh, that as we're gathering this week's worth of lesson materials. That's going to include things like teacher guides, uh, exit tickets, bell ringers, etc. All of those will be non-scorable and organized in the appendix um but will be important to share back to parents so that they know uh what their children were engaging with for that particular week. So wanted to give you an example here on screen in terms of what that might look like. So for a scorable material is any of the assignments where the reviewer used the rubrics to to render the score. On the right hand side the teacher facing materials um really anything that anything else that supplements what was going on besides the assignment um the
043teacher can assemble those uh and in that submission will be those will be nonscorable um and assembled in the actual appendix. All right. So, in terms of really diving in and taking a look at the specific components of the local classroom review and how things are going to be reported, we really wanted to try to name and stamp some of those major shifts. Um, and you're looking at the summary after going through just a little bit of the information uh together, but wanted to name and stamp these particular pieces for us early on in the summertime uh before we get to the face-toface uh environment. Great. So I I think when we're taking a look at the actual um impacts of aligning the review to those two central questions and to the statute um there
044are definitely lots of layers to that in terms of reporting which we'll we'll be happy to dive into like I say when we get to facetoface training but I didn't want to uh leave you this afternoon um because I know time is of the essence and it's so but very very valuable but to also name that our stakeholders our SBOE members they were definitely really really interested in um how we were establishing subject matter expertise for our reviewers and really wanting to um weigh in and in and as much as we can uh really to highlight some of the similarities. They were very very familiar with the EMRA reviewer process and to see what um elements of that process could actually transfer over to our local classroom reviewer. So wanted to spend just a few
045moments uh engaging with some of the processes for um the reviewers. So definitely want to give you um because there are some changes here that I wanted to name and stamp uh for the group and sort of an overview that we're looking at and we'll go through one by one is the actual review process. And so some things are the same and some things might be different. So, when we take a look at step one, the local classroom reviewers are going to receive a notification from Smart Sheet that a review has been assigned. Um, and then they have the ability to say yes or no to deny the request. Do want to mention that those processes are uh very similar to what we've experienced previously. Um, also want to mention step three is where we
046will see the definitely want to stamp a change or a shift um, as we move forward to 2526 because all of the assignment submissions are going to be scored by two TEA certified ESSE reviewers. So each set of assignments is going to be evaluated by two reviewers. So I think that's really really important um because that means uh that if we evaluated 20,000 uh assignments for instance right that we would be evaluating that amount of assignments um twice and so that means probably that your reviewers would be doing more reviews and we'll talk about that in just a moment. The second part of number three is equally important because those two certified ESSE reviewers are going to be engaged in a blind scoring process. And all we're trying to discuss here is that the reviewer
047will not know the campus or the district that the assignments are associated with. And so that's a particularly um another shift here on number three, step three, that we really wanted to stamp for everyone on the call. So two reviewers per assignment and also or submission and then that we're going to have a blind scoring process to ensure that we are uh as objective as we can be about everything that we're engaging with and how we're applying the rubrics for step number four. Um, and we're going to talk more about this in depth in just a moment that the assignments if there is a non-adjacent score assigned to the collection, we are going to assign that assignment or assignment collection to a third reviewer. Um, and so we really want to make sure that we
048have clear and consistent scoring statewide, particularly because we have our parents and our districts and we have reports that are going to be published on district websites. We want to make sure that we have clear and consistent scoring across the board. So we'll talk more about that in just a moment. And then of course step five where we're generating the report and being able to share that back to the districts. So we will unpack each of these one by one. So step one, we said that the local classroom reviewer is going to receive notification that a review has been assigned. And so you'll see a screenshot of what that will look like. you'll see on the screenshot that um that reviewer will either receive an email that says they were are reviewer one for that
049particular collection or reviewer two. Either way, the assignments will be the same. Um and so they will receive that notification and have 48 hours to say yes, I approve or no, I deny. Um if we if we have a dormant request out there uh we definitely um will automatically reassign to another reviewer uh to make sure that we're meeting our particular timelines in terms of turnaround to a parent to a district and some of our initiatives as most of you are well aware um particularly when we are working with our ESF di targeted diagnostic groups um October uh has a tendency to be very very very busy for everyone involved. And so we want to make sure that um our reviewers have enough time to be able to make the evaluation using the rubrics. Um
050and so as I mentioned before, the campus and district information would not be visible to reviewers during the scoring process. The other thing that I want to mention is that reviewers will score submissions from various regions across the state. And so everyone will have a a chance to to be able to um engage with assignment collections, the assembly of an assignment collection from across the state to make sure that we are objectively evaluating our assignment collections. Okay. Um as I mentioned before, if a reviewer declines the request, that's fine. We will send it back out to someone else. Um, and we also want to make sure to highlight and this is where the subject matter expertise and the objectivity of our scores really really plays plays loudly again um as we want to make sure
051that we're assigning reviews uh to the current teacher certification areas that our um our reviewers have. So, as you know, if you have been engaging with the TEA learn course and the pre-registration, um we are definitely taking a look at teacher certifications um to make sure that that aligns with what's being reviewed. And really remember the why behind that being the subject matter expertise um is is playing really loudly in terms of um our requirements um from from the statutory requirements. As I mentioned, step three is where we have we have some uh some shifts to the 2526 process. And so wanted to outline a little bit more about those here for you. Um definitely reviewer one uh will be assigning scores to the assignments independently as will reviewer 2. So each reviewer will score
052the same assignments. They'll score them independently. When those scores come in, what we're going to do is do a what's called the scoring reconciliation in the system. Um and and our partners uh will will recognize this for sure. Uh when we're doing a scoring rec reconciliation, if both scorers score that indicator exactly, then that's the score that we'll post. So that's what you see in row number one. So if reviewer one um scores indicator 1.1 a two and reviewer two scores indicator 1.1 and two, then the score that we'll post right would be the two. Um, if we have an adjacent score where score one may have said zero and score two actually said one, then we're going to average the scores from um the two uh the two scores. And so I definitely want
053to or pardon me the two reviewers. So I want to make sure that everybody understands exact and adjacent scores will um will get one treatment. However, if we have two reviewers assigning scores at both the lowest and the highest performance levels of the rubric, then we're going to escalate that. That's non-adjacent scoring. And there's there's something that we need to look uh to um more deeply. Any non-adjacent scores because there are uh the the indicators that we really need to take a look at um are going to be assigned to a third reviewer. And so really want to name and stamp that here. Uh that the scoring reconciliation process will happen. Um so that we know what that we are posting clear and consistent scoring across the state. And we wanted the ability to be
054able to do this in real time. Right? So we want to send out we want to be able to compare scores uh prior to generating the report and sharing that back with districts and parents. And then you can see on the final bullet there also may mean stamping the blind scoring process really amplifying um the subjectivity and also amplifying our subject ma matter expertise of our reviewers. Um so from that particular point remember those are the shifts blind scoring and being assessed by two reviewers wanted to name for you in step four we're talking about this third reviewer. So remember any assignment collection with one non-adjacent score is going to be assigned a third score. The second scenario where the third score will get involved is if we have an assignment collection where both reviewers
055where we have four or more adjacent scores. Um and we really want to keep a very tight watch on what's happening with their scorer so that we can intervene um if there are questions or if we need um additional clarification uh regarding the assignment collection. But I will name um that the submission criteria are also going to play a pretty big role here. Um because we want to make sure that we are actually have our reviewers engaged with assignments that meet the submission criteria to give ourselves a really good chance at applying the rubrics effectively um and according to their design. Okay. And so in terms of generating the report, and we've looked at several screenshots, but we want to bring them back up just so everyone has a chance to engage with them several
056times throughout our time together this afternoon. Um, we really wanted to name and stamp. Remember that the report is going to answer the questions um very directly about alignment to district, about the materials and grade level rigor. And then you can see if we're only evaluating one particular subject area in that review, that will be in uh blue. And if it was not scored um because it wasn't submitted for whatever reason, because remember a parent review is very different. They might only submit math or they might only submit right um language arts for for consideration. And so if it is not scored, it will be gradeed out so that it's very clear that was not part of the evaluation. uh definitely want to name right the training requirements. Uh so many of you and we
057want to thank you for you and your teams have committed the pre-registration form for training. That was kind of the first step. Um and then right now we have part one happening where our reviewers are engaging in the tea learn course. Um, and so we also know that many uh staffing changes and things move around during the summer uh or you may have new hires or things like that. So we're trying to uh be sure that we have opportunities for everyone to engage in the process. So the TEA learn course is part one and it's the prep training for local classroom reviewers. Then you can see that we're moving to part two which will be the uh rubric deep dives and evidence guides. and just want to thank many on the call who are helping
058us get all the resources updated um to reflect the changes in the rubrics and the changes in the shifts that we're discussing um in in all of our documents and things that are going out uh for us to use in the 2526 school year. you will see uh that at the end of the TEA uh learn course there's the opportunity to register for the part two training which we have hel being held at four different ESC's throughout the summer. Um so we wanted to get those dates and just stamp those for you and we are really looking forward um to seeing everyone this summer uh as we are moving around ESC 20, ESD 13, ESC4 and ESC 10. I want to thank those ESC's for hosting us um and hosting our group so we can
059engage in our deep dives and evidence guides um throughout the summer. As I mentioned, part three of the training is going to be the software training. We are using Smart Sheets and some other tools that we want to be able to introduce to everyone and engage everyone um over Zoom. So, there wouldn't be any travel required. Uh and those dates are listed there. Um and so that would be the final part of the training before we meet all requirements um to become a certified reviewer. I also want to mention um that there are going to be some calibration sessions. Obviously with us having two reviewers, there's going to be opportunities for us to calibrate as they're always uh we always have opportunities to improve our practice. And so we'll be sharing more with you on
060that uh during the face-to-face training. But definitely do want to stamp that the uh requirements and the training requirements and all the things that we need to do to prepare our reviewers uh have been stamped in commissioner's rules as well. Um as I mentioned just establishing um subject matter expertise in the areas in which everyone is reviewing. um out of this. The slide should look dangerously similar from to the previous one except um that part two training is highlighted there in orange and really as the leads just um helping direct everyone to the training that best fits um because you know what's going on and what everyone's engaged with at your ESC's. I know training is extremely um the training calendars are extremely busy in the summer, but wanted to really highlight for us here
061the virtual trainings um are to support any new hires you may have or to support folks who might be doing dual certification. So if you have someone that is incredibly gifted and can do math and ELR um they may attend the math face toface with us and then come back for the virtual training in the other content area. um and so that they would only have to attend one in-person training. And so right now, every ESC has two reserved seats for that virtual training. And just wanted you to be able to a be aware that that's there and b to be able to uh we're asking our reviewers to consult with you, the ESC lead, in terms of who those two spots should be saved for um before we are reserving a seat um for
062the ESC. So definitely looking to uh for your leadership and counsel uh to the group on that attendance during the virtual training. Definitely want to name and stamp the requirements one more time. So the bachelor's degree, the teaching license in the content area they seek to review. looking for experience in that content area, the Arby's training, and those are all things that we're gathering in the TEA learn course because we have to have a database of all of those things to be able to share with our stakeholders. Um and then um really number five guys is incredibly important um because we cannot have our reviewers have a financial interest or be employed by a publisher um or any any entity with financial interest in the adoption of instructional materials in the previous three years. And
063so when we get to facetoface training, and I I put this here for our ESC review leads, simply because when we get to the facetoface training, we all will be signing a conflict of interest form. Um, but that is incredibly important to put front and center, especially if you have I know you have incredibly talented folks at your ESC that may be doing other work um outside the ESC even. And so we really want to make sure that's you have your eyes on that and know what to expect when we get to face-toface training. So particularly important number five there. And then really in terms of the role of local classroom reviewer, we're going to make every effort um to provide the best training environment. Um as I said, we we are so excited to
064see everyone so that everyone be can become a certified local reviewer. Um, we really want to make sure we're scoring according to the rubrics because that's something that we're going to have to be reporting out on frequently. We want to make sure that we're using the smart sheet system to record a score and summary statements. And then the biggest piece is just making sure we have scoring and reporting that's accurate so that it's going out to the schools and out to our parents in a comprehensible format and and that we can really feel good about what it's communicating to our parents and our stakeholders. So the role of the local classroom reviewer is really still the same in terms of really producing quality clear and consistent quality scoring for everyone involved in the local classroom
065review process. One thing that is not changing uh is that we will continue to um each ESC will continue to invoice invoice, pardon me, and be reimbursed by region 7 uh for local classroom reviews for the 2526 school year. The difference is it's going to be at $1,000 per review. So you will notice that is a decrease from the previous amount in 2425. Couple reasons for that. The first one being the why why why is why was the price changed? The first one being that each submission is going to be res scored by two reviewers. So, uh, one assignment submission, right, would be at $2,000. So, $1,000 per reviewer. The other piece is because remember if we have an SBOE, if the district is using SBOE uh approved materials, we would only be checking for
066alignment in that particular review. Um so we really wanted to name and stamp those particular pieces um as we are looking at um really implementing uh escalating to a third reviewer. If we find that someone is their scoring uh is not according to the rubric, we really want to pay attention to how we're assembling um the appendix pieces and really looking towards um sponsoring reviews uh in lots of different scenarios. So, we will still continue to engage with um district-wide reviews. Some of them will be both the rigor and the alignment. Some of the district-wide reviews would only be alignment. Um, and those are the ad hoc requests um that are coming in from the HP165 requested reviews. Um, and so we really want to name the same would be true for campuses. We could
067have a campus um review that is for rigor and alignment or one that is only alignment. And then for the on the parent level, we could have a classroom review that just looks at the alignment to district adopted materials. and we could also have a classroom review that really addresses and drives at the rigor and alignment pieces of the local classroom review. So, both of those are in play. Um, in terms of what we're looking at for the review, I wanted all of our ESC leads to know uh that it is $1,000 per review, but you probably can expect, right, if we're going to be reviewing twice uh for every assignment that there will be um a lot of workstream coming to our reviewers in especially as we're looking at engaging in the fall, supporting
068our initiatives, and supporting the additional ad hoc requests from parents and districts. And then um Victoria, I'm gonna that way we have more time for questions if that's okay because I this time with our wonderful partners here goes quickly as always. And so I did want to call your attention to a couple of things. Um the first one is I have hyperla local classroom review page on this particular uh deck so that you you can get there quickly and easily. And let me see here and I'll drop it in the chat before we log off. And the reason that's important is that's where we're going to be posting um really important information. Um we have some ESSE facing information but we also have parent and district facing information. So really want to um invite you
069to uh to join um and this is actually let me take join back Victoria. I have clearly had not have enough ice team. Let me invite you to tune in to two posted webinars. So on June 25th, we will have a local classroom reviews overview for LEAs um posted on our local classroom reviews page by June 25th. And we made them asynchronous on purpose because we know that our schedules are incredibly busy. And so you could take the opportunity when you maybe have 15 minutes and uh 15 minutes available on several different days because we it's really hard to get everyone together. Also want to invite you to view the posted webinar that's going to be an overview for our parents. And so both of those uh you should look for um on our local
070classroom reviews page and we're planning some additional things moving forward. I would also mention that the local classroom reviews um were featured in the May 29th superintendent call. So there are slides associated with that. If you would like to reference those, be happy to um send you the link for those as well. Um and also want to mention that there was a May 29th to the administrator address communication that went out from TEA regarding local classroom reviews. And I would also mention last one uh is that we have been sharing some information at this with this uh CCRS group with the executive directors at each regarding local classroom reviews and uh and of course uh our time together this afternoon to try to make sure we get some specific communication that is um really pertinent
071to our ESC's out to you as fast as we can. So, lot of communication coming out and just want to make sure that you are aware of where to find it um and that you have access to it uh both for yourself and your broader teams as we support the work moving forward. So, uh definitely want to invite you to tune in to those webinars. They're asynchronous. Um it should be super easy to find um some some chunks of time to be able to engage with that.