Dr. Cornelio Gonzalez · High Schools and K-12 Campuses: A campus earns a distinction designation...

Dr. Cornelio GonzalezExecutive Director

2018 - 2019ANNUAL PERFORMANCE

REPORT

ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE DATA

2018 - 2019

2019 Public Hearing: Academic Report

P E R F O R M A N C E, G R O WTH , A N D E Q UI TY

August 22, 2019Division of Instructional Leadership, School Improvement, and College Readiness Support

T R A N S F O R M I N G O U R A C C O U N TA B I L I T Y S Y S T E MT H R O U G H E X PA N D E D M E A S U R E S O F L E A R N I N G

Region One Education Service Center Public Hearing: Academic Report

- P E R F O R M A N C E , G R O W T H , A N D E Q U I T Y -

2© 2019 DIVISION OF INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP, SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT, AND COLLEGE READINESS SUPPORT

2019 State of Texas A-F Accountability System Overview

Regional A-F Accountability Ratings Performance Results

Regional Distinction Designations for Outstanding Achievement Performance Results

Regional ESSA Federal Accountability Performance Results




2019 State of Texas A-F Accountability System

Overview

With the passage of HB22 during the 85th Legislative Session, the Texas school accountability system was expanded so that every District and Campus is evaluated on a broader range of educational achievement measures. Much like students receive letter grades A through F in individual subjects and then combined for a GPA, the law requires schools and districts to be issued letter grades based on three different Performance Measures that include: Domain I: Student Achievement, Domain II: School Progress, and Domain III: Closing the Gaps

Focus on student academic attainment, progress from year to year, and level of

preparation for postsecondary success

Reducing achievement gaps among students from

different racial and ethnic groups, and socioeconomic

backgrounds

Informing parents and the community about district and

campus performance

Texas A–F Accountability System: Purpose

HB 22



Domain III: Closing

The Gaps

Domain II: School

Progress

Domain I: Student

Achievement

State Accountability System

Texas A-F Accountability System: Domain Framework – Expanded Measures of Learning



6


Texas A-F Accountability System: Domain Framework- Expanded Measures of Learning

STAAR Performance

Post-Secondary Readiness (CCMR)

Graduation Rates

Domain I:Student

Achievement

© 2019 DIVISION OF INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP, SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT, AND COLLEGE READINESS SUPPORT

7



Academic Growth STAAR Progress Measure or Maintaining Proficiency Level

Economically Disadvantaged Proficiency

Domain II: School

Progress


8



Academic Achievement in Reading and Mathematics

Student Growth in Reading and Mathematics

Four-Year Graduation Rate

English Learner Proficiency Status

School Quality: CCMR Attainment

School Success: STAAR Achievement Component

Domain III:Closing

The Gaps





Regional A-F Accountability Ratings Performance Results

Domain II: School Progress

(Part A -Academic

Growth)

Domain I: Student

Achievement

Overall Rating10

Texas A-F Accountability System: Overall Rating Evaluation

A-F Rating Label Assigned

A-F RatingLabel Assigned

Domain II: School Progress(Part B - Relative

Performance)


OR OR


Domain III: Closing

The Gaps

AND


Weighted at 70 % Weighted at 30 %

11


Texas A-F Accountability System: Overall System Evaluation- 2019 District and Campus Rating Labels

For school systems and campuses, what does each academic accountability performance letter represent?

A = “Exemplary Performance”

B = “Recognized Performance”

C = “Acceptable Performance”

D = “In Need of Improvement”

F = “Unacceptable Performance”


© 2019 DIVISION OF INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP, SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT, AND COLLEGE READINESS SUPPORT 12





2019 State A-F Accountability SystemExemplary “A” Rated School Systems


Region One ESC School Districts and Charter School Systems that earned the Exemplary Performance Rating

Brownsville ISD Los Fresnos CISDMcAllen ISD Roma ISD San Perlita ISD

Sharyland ISD South Texas ISDUnited ISD Valley View ISD Vanguard Academy

17




Regional Distinction Designation for

Outstanding AchievementPerformance Results


Eligible Distinction Designations• Academic Achievement in English Language Arts/Reading (campus only)• Academic Achievement in Mathematics (campus only)• Academic Achievement in Science (campus only)• Academic Achievement in Social Studies (campus only)• Top 25 Percent: Comparative Academic Growth (campus only)• Top 25 Percent: Comparative Closing the Gaps (campus only)• Postsecondary Readiness (district and campus)

High Schools and K-12 Campuses: A campus earns a distinction designation if it is in the top quartile (Q1) of its comparison group for at least 33 percent of the indicators used to award the distinction.Elementary and Middle School Campuses: A Campus earns a distinction designation if it is in the top quartile (Q1) of its comparison group for at least 50 percent of the indicators used to award the distinction.

2019 Campus Distinction Designations for Outstanding Achievement

19



Districts that receive a rating of A, B, C, or D are eligible for a distinction designation in postsecondary readiness.

2019 District Distinction Designation for Outstanding Achievement:

Postsecondary Readiness Distinction

District Eligibility Criteria

• Districts that receive an A, B, C, or D rating are eligible for a distinction designation for outstanding academic performance in attainment of postsecondary readiness.

• To earn a distinction for postsecondary readiness, districts must have at least 55 percent of all their campuses’ postsecondary indicators in the top quartile.

21


Postsecondary Readiness Indicators for Campuses

• Percentage of STAAR Results at Meets Grade Level or Above Standard (All Subjects)

• Percentage of Grade 3–8 Results at Meets Grade Level or Above in Both Reading and Mathematics

• Four-Year Longitudinal Graduation Rate• Four-Year Longitudinal Graduation Plan Rate• TSI Criteria Graduates• College, Career, and Military Ready Graduates• SAT/ACT Participation• AP/IB Examination Participation: Any Subject• CTE Coherent Sequence Graduates

2019 Campus Distinction Designations for Outstanding Achievement

22


0%

3% 3% 3% 4% 4% 4% 5%6% 6%

7%8% 8% 9% 9%

10%

14%

19% 19%

30%

2019 State Accountability Distinction Designation for Outstanding Achievement

Percent of Eligible Districts Earning Postsecondary Distinction by ESC

Postsecondary Readiness Distinction Designation


Region One ESC School Districts and Charter School Systems that earned the Postsecondary Readiness Distinction

Edinburg CISDHarlingen CISD Laredo ISD Los Fresnos CISDMcAllen ISD Raymondville ISD

Roma ISD Sharyland ISD South Texas ISDUnited ISD Valley View ISD Vanguard Academy

24

Postsecondary Readiness Distinction Designation


Of more than 1,200 school districts and charters, 5 school districts in Texas have earned the Postsecondary Readiness Distinction for the past six years since this distinction became part of the accountability system. Of the five school districts that have consecutively earned the PostsecondaryReadiness Distinction, three are Region One ESC school districts:

Los Fresnos CISD Sharyland ISD South Texas ISD

25




Regional Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)

Federal Accountability Performance Results

ESSA Federal Accountability


• The lowest five percent of campuses that receive Title I, Part A funds are identified for comprehensive support and improvement. If a campus does not attain a 67 percent four-year graduation rate for the all students group, the campus is also automatically identified. Additionally, any Title I campus identified for three consecutive years is automatically identified for comprehensive support and improvement the following school year.

Comprehensive Support and Improvement

• TEA uses the Closing the Gaps domain to identify campuses that have consistently underperforming student groups. TEA defines “consistently underperforming” as a campus having one or more student groups that do not meet interim benchmark goals for three consecutive years. Any campus that has one or more achievement gap(s) between individual student groups and the performance targets will be identified.

Targeted Support and Improvement

• Any campus that is not identified for comprehensive or targeted support and improvement will be identified for additional targeted support if an individual student group’s percentage of evaluated indicators met is at or below the percentage used to identify that campus type for comprehensive support and improvement.

Additional Targeted Support

27


2019 State AccountabilityPercent of Campuses Meeting Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)

Federal Accountability Performance

28

29

Region One ESC Questions and Feedback

Contact• Dr. Eduardo Cancino, Deputy Director for Instructional

Leadership, School Improvement, and College Readiness Support

• (956) 984-6022• [email protected]

• Dr. Belinda S. Gorena, Administrator for School Improvement, Accountability, and Compliance


• Kelly VanHee, Administrator for Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment


• Melissa I. Lopez, Administrator for Office of College, Career and Life Readiness



mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

FINANCE PERFORMANCE DATA

FIRST 2018 - 2019 (2017 - 2018 DATA)

Purpose of FIRST

• School FIRST is designed to encourage Texas public schools to manage their financial resources better in order to provide the maximum allocation possible for direct instructional purposes.

• School FIRST is a tool that creates transparency and discloses the quality of local management and decision-making processes that the school district uses concerning the financial resources the school district receives.

2018-2019 Ratings (FY 2017-18 Data)

2018-2019 Ratings(Based on FY 2017-18 Data)

Indicators for 2018-2019 RatingsBased on 2017-18 DATA

Four (4) Critical Indicators

Failure to meet the requirements of any critical indicator would cause a failure of FIRST.

• Indicator 1: Timely filing of the AFR• Indicator 2: Unmodified auditor opinion for the AFR –Material

Weaknesses• Indicator 3: Compliance with Debt Agreements• Indicator 4: Total unrestricted net asset balance• Indicator 5: This indicator not being scored


Seven (7) Solvency IndicatorsEach indicator focuses on the solvency of the entity.

• Indicator 6: Days Cash On Hand• Indicator 7: Current Assets to Current Liabilities Ratio• Indicator 8: Long-Term Liability to Total Asset Ratio• Indicator 9: General Fund Revenues Equal or Exceed Expenditures• Indicator 10: Debt Service Coverage Ratio• Indicator 11: Administrative Cost Ratio• Indicator 12: Student to Staff Ratio Over 3 Year Period


Three (3) Financial Competence IndicatorsEach indicator identifies serious deficiencies in financial management.

• Indicator 13: PEIMS to AFR (Data Feed)Data Quality• Indicator 14: Material Noncompliance Noted on AFR• Indicator 15: Foundation School Program (FSP) Hardship

7

100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 98 98 98 98 98 96 96 96 94 9490 90 88 88 86 86 84 84 82 80 80 78

72 70

60

52

00

20

40

60

80

100

120

REGION ONE EDUCATION SERVICE CENTER2018-2019 Preliminary FIRST RatingsBased on School Year 2017-18 Data

Public School Districts Overall Rating

= Above Standard = Meets Standard = Substandard Achievement= Superior

100 100

98

96

90 90

84

86

88

90

92

94

96

98

100

102

Triumph Public HS-RGV Vanguard Academy Excellence in Leadership Academy Horizon Montessori Public Schools IDEA Public Schools Triumph Public HS-Laredo

= Superior

REGION ONE EDUCATION SERVICE CENTER2018-2019 Preliminary FIRST RatingsBased on School Year 2017-18 Data

Charter Schools Overall Rating

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

A=Superior B=Above Standard C=Meets Standard F=SubstandardAchievement

88.43%

7.06%3.43%

1.08%

60%

24%

11%5%

Region One Education Service Center2018-2019 Preliminary FIRST RatingsBased on School Year 2017-18 Data

State Comparison of School Districts

State

Region One ESC

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

A=Superior B=Above Standard C=Meets Standard F=SubstandardAchievement

76.83%

13.41%

6.71%3.05%

100%

0 0 0

Region One Education Service Center2018-2019 Preliminary FIRST RatingsBased on School Year 2017-18 Data

State Comparison of Charter Schools

State

Region One ESC

EVALUATION OFSERVICES DATA

2018 - 2019

Region One ESC Annual Public HearingAugust 24, 2017

Survey Results for Texas Regional Education Service Centers: Region One ESC

Total respondents:

35 Superintendents




Purpose of the survey is to measure client satisfaction in the areas of:

• Services supporting regular education programs

• Services supporting special populations

• Other ESC services




Possible responses and point values

5 = Very Satisfied

4 = Satisfied

3 = Neutral

2 = Dissatisfied

1 = Very Dissatisfied

*Service Not Utilized




Which means…..a score of

• 3.0 or above indicates positive results

• 4.0 or greater indicates strength

• Less than 3.0 indicates area of concern




Score Summary:

Reading & Language Arts 4.63

Mathematics 4.59

Social Studies 4.59

Science 4.58




Score Summary:

• Special Education 4.66

• At Risk & Compensatory Education 4.66

• Bilingual & ESL Education 4.66

• Gifted & Talented and AP 4.56

• Migrant Education 4.68




Score Summary:• Services to help district/charter 4.76

operate more efficiently/economically

• Services and support for PEIMS 4.73

• Services to help districts/charters comply 4.70 with federal and state regulations and guidelines

• Services to assist and help improve 4.66student performance

• School Board Training services 4.77Region One ESC Annual Public HearingAugust 22, 2019

Survey Results for

Texas Regional Education ServiceCenters

for

701 - Texas Education Agency

Region 1

October 01, 2018 Through

December 01, 2018

Texas Regional Education Service Centers October 01, 2018 Through December 01, 2018 Scoring Overview

701 - Texas Education Agency Region 1

Texas Education Agency participated in a survey to measure the satisfaction ofSuperintendents and Charter School Directors with Texas Regional Education ServiceCenters. The survey consists of demographic items and 14 standard items that measuresatisfaction in three areas:

(1) Satisfaction with services supporting regular education programs (Items 1-4) (2) Satisfaction with services supporting programs for special populations (Items 5-9)

(3) Satisfaction with other services (Items 10-14)

Scoring for Standard Items: Respondents are asked to indicate how satisfied they are with the ESC support services.

Possible responses and related point value for the response are listed below:

(1) Very Dissatisfied (2) Dissatisfied

(3) Neutral (4) Satisfied

(5) Very Satisfied (Not scored) Service Not Utilized

Any survey item with an average (mean) score above the neutral midpoint of "3.0"suggests that respondents perceive the issue more positively than negatively. Scores of"4.0" or higher indicate a substantial strength for the organization. Conversely, scoresbelow "3.0" are viewed more negatively and should be a significant source of concern.

Standard Deviation (Std. Dev.): Standard Deviation data provide a measure of variance on how well individuals agree with

one another. The higher the deviation, the more the group disagreed.

Number of Respondents: Number of Respondents are the number of valid responses (including Service Not

Utilized).

Frequency Distribution: Frequency Distribution is represented by both the frequency and corresponding

percentage in numerical and graphical formats for each possible response.

The University of Texas at Austin School of Social Work

1 University Station, R5000 Austin, Texas 78712

www.survey.utexas.edu [email protected] Phone (512)471-9831 Fax (512)471-9600

Page 1

Texas Regional Education Service Centers October 01, 2018 Through December 01, 2018 Survey Items


Survey Respondents

Total Number of Respondents: 35

Page 2



Reading and Language Arts

Score: 4.63Std. Dev.: 0.554Number of Respondents: 34

Item Response Count Pct.Very Satisfied 21 61.76%Satisfied 10 29.41%Neutral 1 2.94%Dissatisfied 0 0.00%Very Dissatisfied 0 0.00%Service Not Utilized 2 5.88%

Frequency Distribution

Very Satisfied 61.76%

Satisfied 29.41%

Neutral 2.94%

Dissatisfied 0%

Very Dissatisfied 0%

Service Not Utilized 5.88%

Page 3



Mathematics





Satisfied 31.43%

Neutral 2.86%

Dissatisfied 0%



Page 4



Social Studies





Satisfied 26.47%

Neutral 5.88%

Dissatisfied 0%



Page 5



Science





Satisfied 26.47%

Neutral 5.88%

Dissatisfied 0%



Page 6



Special Education





Satisfied 28.57%

Neutral 2.86%

Dissatisfied 0%


Service Not Utilized 0%

Page 7



At-Risk and Compensatory Education





Satisfied 28.57%

Neutral 2.86%

Dissatisfied 0%



Page 8



Bilingual and ESL Education





Satisfied 28.57%

Neutral 2.86%

Dissatisfied 0%



Page 9



Advanced Academics Education (e.g., gifted andtalented and AP)




Very Satisfied 60%

Satisfied 31.43%

Neutral 5.71%

Dissatisfied 0%



Page 10



Migrant Education





Satisfied 25.71%

Neutral 2.86%

Dissatisfied 0%



Page 11



Services to help the district/charter school operate moreefficiently and economically (e.g. shared services,cooperatives, curriculum support, business services,teacher recruitment, etc.)





Satisfied 17.65%

Neutral 2.94%

Dissatisfied 0%



Page 12



Services and support for PEIMS





Satisfied 21.21%

Neutral 3.03%

Dissatisfied 0%



Page 13



Services to assist the district/charter school incomplying with federal and state regulations andguidelines (e.g. ESSA, PBM, Child Nutrition)





Satisfied 24.24%

Neutral 3.03%

Dissatisfied 0%



Page 14



Services and assistance to help improve studentperformance





Satisfied 34.29%

Neutral 0%

Dissatisfied 0%



Page 15



School board training services





Satisfied 20.59%

Neutral 0%

Dissatisfied 0%



Page 16



Use this space for additional comments about services andassistance your district/charter school has received from the ESC inyour region. Comments may also include suggestions for newservices and comments on programs and services not referencedabove.

Verbatim Responses: 17

We always use Region One for issues that come up on a daily basis.They are part of our success.The unity in purpose and direction of the region can be attributed tothe consistent direction and dissemination of information that wereceive through the ESC One.Our Service Center provides monthly meeting for Charter SchoolAdministrators. This very helpful for Charters.Our service center has always been service minded, the assistanceprovided is excellent. Their support and expertise are vital to thesuccess of small, rural districts like Lyford CISD. Their services andassistance are second to none!Excellent support, staff and director are always ready to assist in anyway possible.The assistance with TxEIS on the business side is not where wewould like it to be. As a district, I feel that we do not utilize all thecomponents of the program, and at times we do not get the answerswe need from the RegionRegion One ESC has been a tremendous help for my small district.They provide the staff development and program support that mydistrict cannot afford to provide in house.The Education Service Center - Region One provides incrediblesupport for the school districts they serve. We are very fortunate tohave passionate leaders at our service center that work diligently atmaking a difference for the students we serve. The assistancereceived is phenomenal and is utilized in our daily decision makingprocess. ESC Region One leaders understand all aspects of schoolleadership and provide the support necessary for all superintendentsto be successful.

Page 17



Verbatim Responses: (Cont.) 17

Our Region ESC has provided some phenomenal and remarkableservices in all areas for our students, teachers and staff!Region One goes above and beyond to provide our charter districtswith support.Region One goes above and beyond to provide our charter districtswith support.Region One is a very supportive partner in our mission to provide aquality education to all of our students!The ESC has been a huge support of our smaller districts that rely onsuch services for improvement of the overall function of the district.Excellent services!Thank you for the valuable services you provide our district as well asthe others in our region. the quality of the service is unlike any otherwe've experienced. We appreciate the responsiveness to our needsand to the challenges that we face each day.Excellent Service and Professional Delivery Best ESC I'veExperiencedThe Educational Service Center is always available when questionsarise and to help the district in every way possible.

Page 18



I am a

Number of Respondents: 35

Item Response Count Pct.Superintendent 30 85.71%Charter School Administrator 5 14.29%


Superintendent 85.71%

Charter School Administrator 14.29%

Page 19



Your district/charter school is located in which ESCregion?


Item Response Count Pct.Region 1 35 100.00%Region 2 0 0.00%Region 3 0 0.00%Region 4 0 0.00%Region 5 0 0.00%Region 6 0 0.00%Region 7 0 0.00%Region 8 0 0.00%Region 9 0 0.00%Region 10 0 0.00%Region 11 0 0.00%Region 12 0 0.00%Region 13 0 0.00%Region 14 0 0.00%Region 15 0 0.00%Region 16 0 0.00%Region 17 0 0.00%Region 18 0 0.00%Region 19 0 0.00%Region 20 0 0.00%

Page 20




Region 1 100%

Region 2 0%

Region 3 0%

Region 4 0%

Region 5 0%

Region 6 0%

Region 7 0%

Region 8 0%

Region 9 0%

Region 10 0%

Region 11 0%

Region 12 0%

Region 13 0%

Region 14 0%

Region 15 0%

Region 16 0%

Region 17 0%

Region 18 0%

Region 19 0%

Region 20 0%

Page 21



How many years, including the current school year,have you been a superintendent in Texas publicschools?


Item Response Count Pct.Less than 1 2 6.25%1-2 8 25.00%3-5 4 12.50%6-10 10 31.25%11-15 6 18.75%16+ 2 6.25%


Less than 1 6.25%

1-2 25%

3-5 12.5%

6-10 31.25%

11-15 18.75%

16+ 6.25%

Page 22



How many years, including the current school year,have you been a superintendent in your current ESCregion?




Less than 1 15.63%

1-2 31.25%

3-5 12.5%

6-10 18.75%

11-15 18.75%

16+ 3.13%

Page 23



How many years, including the current school year,have you been a charter school administrator in Texas?




Less than 1 16.67%

1-2 16.67%

3-5 0%

6-10 16.67%

11-15 0%

16+ 50%

Page 24



How many years, including the current school year,have you been a charter school administrator in yourcurrent ESC region?




Less than 1 16.67%

1-2 16.67%

3-5 0%

6-10 16.67%

11-15 0%

16+ 50%

Page 25



Item Score Summary

Item Text Score Std. Dev.Reading and Language Arts 4.63 0.554Mathematics 4.59 0.560Social Studies 4.59 0.615Science 4.58 0.620Special Education 4.66 0.539At-Risk and Compensatory Education 4.66 0.539Bilingual and ESL Education 4.66 0.539Advanced Academics Education (e.g., gifted and talentedand AP) 4.56 0.613

Migrant Education 4.68 0.535Services to help the district/charter school operate moreefficiently and economically (e.g. shared services,cooperatives, curriculum support, business services, teacherrecruitment, etc.)

4.76 0.496

Services and support for PEIMS 4.73 0.517Services to assist the district/charter school in complyingwith federal and state regulations and guidelines (e.g.ESSA, PBM, Child Nutrition)

4.70 0.529

Services and assistance to help improve studentperformance 4.66 0.482

School board training services 4.77 0.430

Page 26

ORIONPROJECT UPDATE

2018 - 2019

Public Hearing UpdateRegional High-Speed Fiber Optic Network2019-08-22

Presented byRegion One ESC

• Reduce impact of LEA location and size on access to services and resources

• Drive down costs through consortium provisioning

• Create a foundation for implementing regional shared services

• Facilitate compliance with FCCs “1Mb/student” bandwidth recommendation

Orion OverviewEnabling access to cutting-edge educational

tools using next-gen technology

2

“The FCC has anticipated that by 2018,

1 Mbps per student will be the minimum

recommended bandwidth for digital learning.”Education Superhighway Compare and Connect K-12 (2018)

Digital ConnectivityThe Need for More Bandwidth and Wireless in Schools

• Region One school districts have taken advantage of the E-Rate program and campuses are connected via fiber

• About 87% of Region One schools met the minimum of 100Kbps/student for bandwidth in 2017 and 2018

3Education Superhighway Compare and Connect K-12 (2018)

Meeting87%

Not Meeting3%

Data Not Available10%

Districts Meeting100Kbps/student Minimum Bandwidth

Meeting

Not Meeting

Data Not Available

11

2 1 30

20

2 0 1 16

1

30

15

14

0.84

15

10

15

15 3

0.1 1 2 15

1.5 0

10

1

BRO

WN

SVIL

LE IS

DD

ON

NA

ISD

EDCO

UCH

-ELS

A …

EDIN

BURG

CIS

DEX

CELL

ENCE

IN …

HA

RLIN

GEN

CIS

DH

IDA

LGO

ISD

I.D.E

.A. A

CAD

EMY

JIM

HO

GG

…LA

FER

IA IS

DLA

JO

YA IS

DLA

VIL

LA IS

DLA

RED

O IS

DLA

SARA

ISD

LOS

FRES

NO

S IS

DLY

FORD

CIS

DM

CALL

EN IS

DM

ERCE

DES

ISD

MIS

SIO

N IS

DM

ON

TE A

LTO

ISD

POIN

T IS

ABE

L IS

DPS

JA IS

DRA

YMO

ND

VILL

E …RI

O G

RAN

DE …

RIO

HO

ND

O IS

DRO

MA

ISD

SAN

BEN

ITO

CIS

DSA

N IS

IDRO

ISD

SAN

PER

LITA

ISD

SAN

TA M

ARI

A IS

DSA

NTA

RO

SA IS

DSH

ARY

LAN

D IS

DSO

UTH

TEX

AS

ISD

TECH

NO

LOG

Y …U

NIT

ED IS

DVA

LLEY

VIE

W IS

D

Current Internet Bandwidth per District(in Gigabits)

Recommended Bandwidth

Districts and Charters Meeting Recommended Levels

• About 32% of schools met the FCC’s projected need of 1Mbps/student

• Distance and E-Learning content, the Internet of Things, and immersive technologies like AR and VR will require increased bandwidth and more robust infrastructure

4

30

105

30

20

3 1 3

20

1

20

0.5

10

2

20

510

2 3

30

2

10

25

10

0.30.3 1 1

10

3

30

1

BRO

WN

SVIL

LE IS

DD

ON

NA

ISD

EDCO

UCH

-ELS

A IS

DED

INBU

RG C

ISD

EXCE

LLEN

CE IN

…H

ARLI

NG

EN C

ISD

HID

ALG

O IS

DI.D

.E.A

. ACA

DEM

YJI

M H

OG

G C

OU

NTY

ISD

LA F

ERIA

ISD

LA J

OYA

ISD

LA V

ILLA

ISD

LARE

DO

ISD

LASA

RA IS

DLO

S FR

ESN

OS

ISD

LYFO

RD C

ISD

MCA

LLEN

ISD

MER

CED

ES IS

DM

ISSI

ON

ISD

MO

NTE

ALT

O IS

DPO

INT

ISAB

EL IS

DPS

JA IS

DRA

YMO

ND

VILL

E IS

DRI

O G

RAN

DE

CITY

CIS

DRI

O H

ON

DO

ISD

ROM

A IS

DSA

N B

ENIT

O C

ISD

SAN

ISID

RO IS

DSA

N P

ERLI

TA IS

DSA

NTA

MAR

IA IS

DSA

NTA

RO

SA IS

DSH

ARYL

AND

ISD

SOU

TH T

EXAS

ISD

TECH

NO

LOG

Y …U

NIT

ED IS

DVA

LLEY

VIE

W IS

D

Projected 2018 Bandwidth Needs (in Gigabits)

Meeting32%

Not Meeting58%

Data Not Available10%

Districts Meeting 1Mbps/studentRecommended Bandwidth

Meeting

Not Meeting

Data Not Available

Education Superhighway Compare and Connect K-12 (2018)

Bandwidth CostsRegional District and Charter Bandwidth Comparison

• Median bandwidth cost across the region is about $1.23/Mb, with a high value of $3.29/Mb and a low value of $0.45/Mb.

• Average cost of internet services across Region One districts is about $2.66/Mb.

• The ORION consortium attained a price of $0.40/Mb for 10Gb internet service, a significant cost savings and increase in available bandwidth for participating entities.

5

$1.23

$2.66

$3.29

$0.45 $0.40

MEDIAN COST AVERAGE COST HIGHEST COST LOWEST COST ORION COST

Regional Cost Comparison for Internet Bandwidth (per Mb)

ORION ConsortiumPower in numbers

• The ORION consortium currently consists of twenty-eight (28) entities comprised of school districts, charter schools, and libraries.

• RFPs and E-Rate Forms 470/471 filed and currently under USAC review

• Consortium members opted to assemble a steering committee tasked with review/approval of decisions impacting the Orion network and associated services

6

Consortium Member68%

Did Not Join - Cost Concern

13%

Did Not Join - Not Interested

17%

Did Not Join - Missed Deadline

2%

Membership for Region OneLEAs and Libraries

Orion Project Timeline

Completed• Aug 2017 – initiate planning

• Sept-Oct 2017 – discovery and consortium building

• Oct-Apr 2018 – distribute and receive Letters of Agency, file USAC application, distribute Service Agreement letters

• Apr-July 2018 – Q&A, meetings, and communication to address questions and concerns

• July-Aug 2018 – gather Service Agreements and get a final headcount

• Feb 2019 – Orion application not approved by USAC

• Feb 2019-March 2019 – submit appeals to USAC and FCC requesting review and repost RFPs.

• March 2019 – evaluate RFPs and award vendors, resubmit FCC Form 471 application for E-Rate funds.

Remaining• December 2019-January 2020 – await USAC

review/approval of application

• March 2020 – begin implementation

• Mar-July 2020 –begin testing and turning on service for consortium members

7

ORION Project Redefinition

Original Plans

• “Dark fiber” network, requiring approximately 200 miles of fiber to be built

• Members purchase specialized optical equipment to connect to network

• Consortium members maintain the network

• Major network equipment housed at Region One datacenter

Updated Plan

• “Leased-lit fiber” network, requiring no special construction

• Members are provided optical equipment by internet service provider

• Service provider maintains and upgrades network

• Major network equipment housed at service provider’s datacenter

8

Bandwidth, access, and service levels remain UNCHANGED

Consortium Member Updated PricingPackage price includes 10Gb internet bandwidth, equipment, and eRate consulting.

Original Pricing Updated Pricing

Number of Students

Years 1-4 Monthly

Cost

Years 5-10 Monthly

Cost

Ten Year Total Cost

Years 1-10 Monthly

Cost

Ten Year Total Cost

Total Cost Savings

1-999 $550 $400 $55,200 $400 $48,000 13%

1000-2999 $800 $650 $85,200 $650 $78,000 9%

3000-5999 $1,000 $800 $105,600 $800 $96,000 9%

6000-10,000

$1,200 $800 $115,200 $800 $96,000 17%

10,000+ $1,500 $1,000 $144,000 $1,000 $120,000 17%

9

$55,200

$85,200

$105,600

$115,200

$144,000

$48,000

$78,000

$96,000 $96,000

$120,000

1-999 1000-2999 3000-5999 6000-10,000 10,000+

Cost Comparison: Original and Updated Orion Implementation

Original Ten Year Total Cost Updated Ten Year Total Cost

QUESTIONS???10

Region One ESC Board of Directors2019-2020

Ruben Cortez, Jr., ChairpersonPlace 5 – Cameron County

Raul R. Chapa, Vice-ChairpersonPlace 7 – Willacy County

Sonia A. Falcon, SecretaryPlace 4 – Hidalgo County

Alicia E. Requenez Place 1 – Hidalgo County

Ricardo Gutierrez Place 2 – Jim Hogg County, Starr County & Zapata County

Laura A. McCoyPlace 3 – Webb County

Dr. Manuel Gomez, Jr.Place 6 – Cameron County

Roberto MorolesCharter Schools Representative

AdministrationDr. Cornelio Gonzalez

Executive Director

Dr. Eduardo Cancino Deputy Director, Instructional Leadership, School Improvement, & College Readiness Support

Mr. Heriberto VillarrealDeputy Director, Administrative Leadership, School & Community Support

Connie Lopez, CPA Deputy Director, Business, Operations & Finance Support

Ali KolahdouzChief Technology Officer

Division of Technology for Learning

Date post:	07-Mar-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

Dr. Cornelio Gonzalez · High Schools and K-12 Campuses: A campus earns a distinction designation...

Documents