# data[].attributes.body
we have a lot of campuses who have TAPs that are not even aligned to ESF 3.1. These are very out of date and do not reflect current campus initiatives or practices.

# data[].attributes.body
I know this has been mentioned multiple times, but it is very difficult to be scored on schools who we provide extensive feedback to who choose not to take feedback or submit without affording us the opportunity to provide feedback.

# data[].attributes.body
How valuable is TIP quality metric in moving campuses out of SI? Is there data to show that receiving100% on TIP rubric moves the campus out of SI?

# data[].attributes.body
...does not necessarily mean that campuses are progressing or implementing.

# data[].attributes.headline
The TIP score continues to reflect the previous calculations so it is often difficult to determine improvement.

# data[].attributes.subject
The TIP score continues to reflect the previous calculations so it is often difficult to determine improvement.

# data[].attributes.body
As currently constructed, the measure aggregates all 4 submissions. Consider measuring at EOY or perhaps the 1st Progress submission after at least TEA call has occured.

# data[].attributes.headline
We would like to see a collaborative effort to revise the TIP rubric to ensure that measurable components are the actual components that "move" the campus. 

# data[].attributes.subject
We would like to see a collaborative effort to revise the TIP rubric to ensure that measurable components are the actual components that "move" the campus. 

# data[].attributes.body
We have several that can write good TIPs, but those plans are not being reflected on the campus work.

# data[].attributes.body
Since ESCs are not regulatory and we can not force a campus to update their TIP. Yet we have a metric to measure if the ESC has 100% TIP quality.

# data[].attributes.headline
There is a disconnect between TIP Ratings from one reviewer to another even with the calibration. Seems that TEA leans to a "softer" rating which makes it difficult for us to coach our campuses on our ratings which leans a little more opposite. 

# data[].attributes.subject
There is a disconnect between TIP Ratings from one reviewer to another even with the calibration. Seems that TEA leans to a "softer" rating which makes it difficult for us to coach our campuses on our ratings which leans a little more opposite. 

# data[].attributes.body
because of the number of cases, some of my schools don't receive feedback on one cycle until another one is about to begin. This makes it incredibly difficult to guide campuses.

# data[].attributes.headline
I'm not sure there is a direct correlation to TIP scores and actual student growth/achievement.  Scoring high on a TIP rubric does not ensure change on the campus level. 

# data[].attributes.subject
I'm not sure there is a direct correlation to TIP scores and actual student growth/achievement.  Scoring high on a TIP rubric does not ensure change on the campus level. 

# data[].attributes.headline
How aligned is this metric with actual campus performance?  If they score at Exceeds, are we seeing dramatic improvement in campus student performance?

# data[].attributes.subject
How aligned is this metric with actual campus performance?  If they score at Exceeds, are we seeing dramatic improvement in campus student performance?

# data[].attributes.body
This metric grades the campus on the rubric not the ESC. How could we change this to grade the ESC feedback to the campus?

# data[].attributes.body
How many TAPs does a typical ESC have? This metric makes sense conceptually but might not make sense in practice.

# data[].attributes.body
Measuring the quality of the ESF Final Reports ensures the fidelity to the diagnostic process for facilitators. It is helpful in keeping the process calibrated across the state.

# data[].attributes.body
No one knows what is happening with TAPs.  When we ask question to TEA on TAP- messaging isn't clear so our communication to LEAs has been limited. (I know this doesn't speak to the metric, but it should be noted)

# data[].attributes.body
The TIP rubric really focuses on how well you can write a document instead of whether or not a campus is selecting the "right" work and implementing with fidelity.

# data[].attributes.headline
There continues to be a disconnect between the impact that we are able to control for charter campuses that have a district office outside of our region

# data[].attributes.subject
There continues to be a disconnect between the impact that we are able to control for charter campuses that have a district office outside of our region

# data[].attributes.body
Has there been any consideration in counting non-Comprehensive recipients of the ESF-Focused Support Grant as opt-ins? They are choosing to engage in interventions that would normally not be required.

# data[].attributes.body
Several old TAPs that are not aligned with ESF. Will they have to re-write this fall and is there a rubric ready?

# data[].attributes.headline
Feedback based on the rubric is compliance not change management

# data[].attributes.subject
Feedback based on the rubric is compliance not change management

# data[].attributes.body
Most of the changes requested by our TEA specialists are not aligned to the rubric but are richer and deeper. While I LOVE that they dig in, it may mean that one campus is getting rich push back and then needs coaching by us through that, while another campus is rated proficient immediately and gets little to no feedback.

# data[].attributes.body
The TIP writing doesn't always reflect what is actually going on.

# data[].attributes.headline
May we, in the near future, review and revise the TAP approval process?  It was punitive in regard to TAP approval scoring and needs upgraded to be aligned as a true coaching model.

# data[].attributes.subject
May we, in the near future, review and revise the TAP approval process?  It was punitive in regard to TAP approval scoring and needs upgraded to be aligned as a true coaching model.

# data[].attributes.body
Feedback on TIPS from TEA is not given in time for schools to update.

# data[].attributes.body
The description in the manual refers to "ESF Facilitator". I think it should say "ESF Diagnostic Report" since the score is based on a sample of reports, not a review of the facilitator's actions.

# data[].attributes.body
We appreciate this metric as it keeps the focus on the high level of the report for everyone writing the report.

# data[].attributes.body
This is a good metric, as long as the feedback is aligned to the existing rubric and the graders are "leveled" and consistent graders across the board.   There seem to be some graders who are more detailed than others, and some feedback is beyond the current scope of the existing rubric.  With that said, this has been a very helpful metric!

# data[].attributes.body
I agree fidelity is important. My wondering is if it is always focused on the right things. We would also love to get this information in time to coach our team. Right now, we didn't get our first feedback cycle (after opt in) until we we were done for the year. We can't implement change or internalize feedback without time.

# data[].attributes.body
The only thing I have noticed is that sometimes clarifications come out in the FOI that would have been helpful during training or clarified more in the rubric.

# data[].attributes.body
To me, this metric has been the easiest to follow and grow in the performance management processes.

# data[].attributes.body
We have several campuses who require a Diagnostic.  I feel like we are stalking campuses to get an "opt in" just to hit a metric.
Have we considered setting a metric for number of required Diagnostics completed? We would still like Diagnostics done in the fall....sometimes it feels like a year is wasted.

# data[].attributes.headline
Although the review of ESFDs to the FOI resources is very time consuming, this metric creates report consistency across campuses and the state.

# data[].attributes.subject
Although the review of ESFDs to the FOI resources is very time consuming, this metric creates report consistency across campuses and the state.

# data[].attributes.body
I understand the idea behind this one, but it can feel a bit "icky" because it's almost like we're setting a sales quota.

# data[].attributes.body
FOI needs to be updated - areas that are just compliance. You can only have 4-8 pieces of evidence - those types of things

# data[].attributes.headline
In thinking about to next year, considering the new acct system, redesigned STAAR, etc., we are concerned about our internal capacity for opt ins, if our required lists are lengthy.  

# data[].attributes.subject
In thinking about to next year, considering the new acct system, redesigned STAAR, etc., we are concerned about our internal capacity for opt ins, if our required lists are lengthy.  

# data[].attributes.body
TIP quality is often causing us to spend tremendous amount of time on the grammar and canned wording of a document, instead of focusing on the spriit of the TIP and the implementation. Are we driving improvement.

# data[].attributes.headline
How will we even do this without personnel?

# data[].attributes.subject
How will we even do this without personnel?

# data[].attributes.body
We are worried about capacity to do the required...how can we do the opt ins?

# data[].attributes.headline
TIP scores don't really paint a good picture of what is actually happening on campus.

# data[].attributes.subject
TIP scores don't really paint a good picture of what is actually happening on campus.

# data[].attributes.body
This feels like a marketing metric, rather than a metric that is aligned to student performance.

# data[].attributes.body
We had close to 20 opt ins.  I know we can work with external ESF Fs, but then the process varies and quality is all over the place.  We are STRAINING to get all of the visits done to the high quality we expect

# data[].attributes.body
We do not have enough personnel to cover any more diagnostics at this time.

# data[].attributes.body
We are having a significant turnover of staff. We will not have the capacity to do opt-ins unless we use them as a learning opportunity for new people.

# data[].attributes.body
The goals and action steps are the most important parts of the TIPs. Along with the evidence and the reflection portion.

# data[].attributes.body
Measuring the quality of ESF Reports is a helpful process for campuses. We would like for this to take place in the fall.

# data[].attributes.body
Clarity in TAPs - purpose, requirements, who, when, for how long...needs to be provided. Often, the majority of leaders on campuses are new.

# data[].attributes.body
It would be so helpful to have results in a very timely manner in order to make adjustments.

# data[].attributes.body
Fidelity is important. It is helpful when feedback is directly aligned to the rubric, rather than a different interpretation.

# data[].attributes.body
Staffing up is difficult with the training timelines.

Which campuses will be required to receive ESFDs?

# data[].attributes.body
Are we to charge or not to charge? Is it a set cost or varies by ESC? Are we required to charge? In visiting with CES, it was shared that we receive funding for ESFDs - required and opt ins - and should not charge. If not charging, how to we engage external ESFDs if we do not have the capacity. Need clarity, please.

# data[].attributes.body
My question for each of these is if we are working on the TIP and ESF, what impact do we, at the ESC, really have on implementation and subsequent student performance.

# data[].attributes.body
All of the campuses that hit our region for this metric do so because they are a credit-recovery type campus. Because of the mobility rate of students and the number of years to graduate for a majority of the students mathematically keep these campuses from meeting the graduation target set forth for Comprehensive status. For this reason, these campuses will always be on our list.

# data[].attributes.body
Since CTG is changing DRASTICALLY in calculation - how can we use data from 22 and 23? this seems unfair.

# data[].attributes.body
Struggle with these as we have so little control over the campuses and what they are doing...

# data[].attributes.body
and when they take 19 year old freshman to try to help them graduate, no-one really knows how to level the playing field for them.

# data[].attributes.headline
I agree, the only case where we can directly impact those aspects are if they engage with TIL and implementation in that way.

# data[].attributes.subject
I agree, the only case where we can directly impact those aspects are if they engage with TIL and implementation in that way.

# data[].attributes.body
We have PMs who don't coach the SI campuses so the change may or may not be implemented there.

# data[].attributes.body
Acct is going through a major change. Comparing scores from 2022 to 2023 is not advised by Performance Reporting for LEAs- so we should not be held to this either....

# data[].attributes.body
Setting targets for these has pretty much been an educated guess since we have not known the impact of moving to a new test and we do not have finalized accountability rules. My wondering is...could you guys work with Performance Reporting to give target recommendations and an explanation
so that when we propose targets internally we have a firm grounding of why we are setting them at the level we are proposing.

# data[].attributes.body
If a campus chooses to not engage with the ESC not matter the begging, and then falls into one of these categories, how can we impact change on the campus?

# data[].attributes.body
This seems to be unrealistic with the current changes in calculations.

# data[].attributes.body
With the accountability reset, we are guaranteed to have more D and F campuses. How does this impact the "F" metrics? How far back will TEA go to count consecutive years?

# data[].attributes.body
The commissioner has said that, overall, score will decrease due to changes in the assessment and changes in the accountability system. Concerned that this might not be measuring "apples to apples" even though the metric is using Student Achievement Domain which did not change, the assessment going to online and new question types will have an impact on the student achievement.

# data[].attributes.body
This was an average divided by an average, which really did not tell a story of a true picture of movement of campuses. Campus performance was able to "hide" in the averages.

# data[].attributes.body
Since, by statute we cannot be regulatory, we can try to influence, but we cannot make leadership engage or change. It is very frustrating, but a reality.

# data[].attributes.body
can we add to the overview that meeting exit criterion can mean "comprehensive to progress" or "progress to exit".

# data[].attributes.headline
District leadership may override campus decisions.

# data[].attributes.subject
District leadership may override campus decisions.

# data[].attributes.body
Communication around the purpose of TAPs, how those correlate with TIPs, etc. will be critical to building a metric that truly measures impact.

# data[].attributes.body
This metric doesn't make practical sense given how few campuses most ESCs have and the way the data lags. I would prefer a pure metric of CSI campuses meeting exit criteria without the separation of 5% from grade rate.

# data[].attributes.body
Hard to set targets from last year to this year.... It is like comparing apples to oranges with new testing and accountability not completely set.

# data[].attributes.body
Who is SI engaged in the coming year? Clarity will be needed - Comprehensive, Comp Progress, Comp Re, Overall F, Overall D, D and F in Domains, etc? This metric overlaps with other metrics, so may need to be reviewed. What is the purpose of each metric? What are we measuring and why?

# data[].attributes.body
We are still hearing of possible changes. Might a baseline be set in 2023-2024, rather than going back?

# data[].attributes.body
This metric is so specific to AEAs and we may need to revisit this to see what truly impacts these schools.

# data[].attributes.headline
Extremely difficult to establish a goal because of data.  This seems unfair to set as a metric.

# data[].attributes.subject
Extremely difficult to establish a goal because of data.  This seems unfair to set as a metric.

# data[].attributes.body
How do we get a rating on this when it is based on the prior year for LEAs? I'm not sure how to support them when the window is closed.