We help campuses return to an acceptable rating — and hold it.
ISG places veteran Texas educators on the campuses that need them most, and backs them with governed AI tools built for how schools actually run. We work in the campuses other firms call hard — the ones carrying an unacceptable performance rating (D or F), a Comprehensive Support and Improvement (CSI) or Targeted Support and Improvement (TSI) identification, or accountability pressure on Closing the Gaps.
What we actually see on campus
Six patterns, repeated on almost every campus working through comprehensive or targeted support.
The rating does not match the work.
Closing the Gaps is where most campuses lose the letter grade, and it is usually the same two student groups: emergent bilingual (EB) students — the term Texas uses for students formerly identified as English learners — and students identified as economically disadvantaged. Growth is happening in the building. It is not landing in the domain that decides the rating.
Emergent bilingual students are carrying two jobs at once.
An EB student in Algebra I is learning the mathematics and the language of the mathematics at the same time. When the ELPS live only in the ESL block instead of inside every content lesson, that student gets measured on English proficiency while you are trying to measure content mastery. TELPAS progress and STAAR performance are the same problem. Most campuses staff them as two.
Differentiation is on the lesson plan and not in the room.
Small-group rotation, tiered tasks and sheltered instruction are in every district's PD deck. The gap is daily execution: lesson internalization, spot observations, and coaching cycles frequent enough to change practice before the next benchmark, not after it.
HB 1416 accelerated instruction you cannot staff.
Thirty hours of supplemental instruction at a 1:4 ratio for every student who did not approach grade level, on top of a master schedule that is already full. Most campuses know exactly what the law requires. They do not have the bodies to deliver it.
A Targeted Improvement Plan written for the deadline.
A TIP built to clear a submission window will not move a rating. ESF-aligned planning works when the five levers are prioritized honestly and someone is on campus every week checking whether the practice actually changed.
Turnover in the seats that matter most.
The teacher who finally reached your newcomers leaves in March. Replacing that person with a long-term substitute can cost a full year of growth in the exact student group your Closing the Gaps score depends on.
Who we send
We hire from the top of the state's own rating system.
ISG does not hire generalist consultants. We hire teachers and administrators who have demonstrated mastery on campuses serving high percentages of economically disadvantaged and emergent bilingual students — because results in a well-resourced campus do not transfer, and results in a hard campus do.
1. State-designated effectiveness.
Teacher Incentive Allotment (TIA) designation of Recognized, Exemplary or Master — an objective, state-issued measure, not a reference letter.
Why: It is the one teacher-quality signal in Texas that is externally validated and portable across districts.
2. Proven in the setting that counts.
Demonstrated student growth on a campus with high economically disadvantaged and emergent bilingual enrollment.
Why: The strategies that move a campus in that setting are different, and we only count results earned there.
3. Language-and-content dual competence.
Bilingual or ESL certification, with documented practice embedding the ELPS and linguistically accommodated instruction inside a content area — not as a pull-out. Comfortable reading LPAC decisions and TELPAS proficiency levels — Beginning, Intermediate, Advanced, and Advanced High — as instructional data, not just a compliance report.
Why: EB students master content and language together or not at all.
4. Coaching, not presenting.
Experience running observation and coaching cycles that changed adult practice, evidenced by classroom-level data.
Why: A workshop does not change instruction. A cycle does.
5. Accountability literacy.
Fluency in the A–F domains, ESF diagnostic findings, and how a TIP is actually executed.
Why: A campus leader should not have to translate for the consultant.
We are a new practice. We are stating the bar we hire to, not a roster we have already built. If a candidate does not clear all five, we do not place them.
How an engagement runs
Four phases, mapped to the Effective Schools Framework, built to move a campus through — or ahead of — a TEC Chapter 39A intervention.
1. Diagnostic
Campus data review across all three A–F domains — Student Achievement, School Progress (Part A: Academic Growth, Part B: Relative Performance), and Closing the Gaps — ESF diagnostic alignment, and classroom walks. Output: the two or three levers that actually move this campus.
2. Plan
A TIP, CIP, or DIP that names owners, dates and evidence, not activities.
3. Build capacity
Weekly on-campus coaching cycles, MTSS-aligned PLC and lesson internalization support, and EB instructional support inside content areas.
4. Measure
Benchmark-to-benchmark, data-driven instruction checks against Closing the Gaps targets, with an honest call on what is and is not working — aimed at one goal: return the campus to an acceptable accountability rating, or exit comprehensive or targeted support.
Every phase is mapped to the Effective Schools Framework (ESF) and its five levers: Strong School Leadership and Planning, Effective, Well-Supported Teachers, Positive School Culture, High-Quality Instructional Materials and Assessments, and Effective Instruction.
Where the AI actually helps
The educator does the teaching. The software removes the paperwork.
Accelerated-instruction scheduling
Scheduling and documentation for HB 1416 accelerated instruction — the 30 hours, the 1:4 ratio, and the compliance record it requires.
Domain-aligned progress reporting
Progress reporting that maps to the A–F domains instead of a generic dashboard, so a benchmark result reads the way the rating will.
Every action logged
Every automated action is logged and reviewable — nothing runs unattended.
Student data stays under district control. Our systems are designed to operate under the FERPA school-official exception, and under COPPA where a product touches students under 13.
How districts buy
Purchasing routes districts already use: Education Service Center (ESC) contracts, interlocal cooperatives, and direct professional-services agreements.
- Texas school districts must competitively procure contracts at or above $100,000 (SB 1173 raised the threshold).
- Campus improvement work is commonly funded through Title I, Part A section 1003 school improvement funds, or local funds.
- We will supply the documentation your business office needs to evaluate us.
Questions campus and district leaders ask
Do you work outside Texas?
Yes, but our accountability fluency is Texas first. In other states we lead with the instructional work.
Are you a TEA-approved vendor?
No. We are an independent firm, and we say so. We work inside the district's own procurement process.
What if our campus is already in comprehensive support?
That is the work. Whether it's a CSI, TSI, or ATS identification, we start from the ESF diagnostic and build the plan from there.
Do you replace our staff?
No. We build the capacity of the staff you already have.
How is student data handled?
The district remains the data owner. We operate under the FERPA school-official exception, on a least-access basis, and every action is logged.
Start before the next accountability cycle closes.
Talk to us about what a campus consultation looks like for your A–F domains.
Request a campus consultation