John Yonker Execut ive Director Department of Educational Support

March 24, 2016 Regular Board Meeting 1

Refined Tiered Model

Changes: 1. Revised Range Slight ly at Elementary

– 4 Ranges at Elementary instead of 3 – ACTION, Priority, Moderate Eco Dis, Low Eco Dis

2. Revised Developing, Proficient and Superior Point Values

2

ELEMENTARY

Performance relat ive to state peers as measured by the number of dist inct ions earned (0-5 + 2 possible addit ional points for being in the top half of comparison group for Index 2 and Index 3)

Level of Economic

Disadvantage

Range

Tier III

Developing (0-1)

Tier II

Proficient (2-4)

Tier I

Superior (5-7)

ACTION Campuses

≥55%

Berkman (1) 84.2

Robertson (1) 72.7%

Anderson Mill (4) 58.6% Bluebonnet (3) 83.2%

Callison (2) 62.7% Union Hill (2) 69.6%

Voigt (2) 76.1%

Priority Campuses

40-54%

Caldwell Heights (1) 49% Wells Branch (1) 54.9%

Forest North (3) 42.1%

Gatt is (4) 42.6% Live Oak (3) 41%

Moderate Eco Dis

11- 39%

Purple Sage (0) 35.3%

Blackland Prairie (2) 11.1% Chandler Oaks (2) 11% Deep Wood (4) 30.8%

Double File Trail (2) 39.3% Jollyville (4) 36.2%

Old Town (4) 18.4% Pond Springs (4) 25% Teravista (3) 16.3%

Brushy Creek (6) 21.9% Caraway (6) 13.9%

Herrington (7) 26.9%

Low Eco Dis

≤10%

Forest Creek (1) 10.1%

Cactus Ranch (3) 1.5%

Canyon Creek (7) 3.6% England (5) 5.5% Fern Bluff (6) 7%

Laurel Mount . (7) 3.1% Sommer (7) 2.2%

Spicewood (7) 4.8% Great Oaks (5) 8.9%

3

MIDDLE SCHOOL

Performance relat ive to state peers as measured by the number of dist inct ions earned (0-7 + 2 possible addit ional points for being in the top half of comparison group for Index 2 and Index 3)

Level of Economic

Disadvantage

Range

Tier III

Developing (0-3)

Tier II

Proficient (4-7)

Tier I

Superior (8-9)

ACTION

Campuses

≥50%

Hernandez (2) 60.5% C.D. Fulkes (3) 69.8%

Priority Campuses

16-49%

Ridgeview (0) 16.5%

Chisholm Trail (7) 37.1% Grisham (7) 26.7% Hopewell (4) 33%

Deerpark (8) 40.9%

Low Eco Dis

≤15%

Cedar Valley (4) 11% Walsh (8) 8.0%

Canyon Vista (9) 10.7%

4

High School

Performance relat ive to state peers as measured by the number of dist inct ions earned (0-7 + 2 possible addit ional points for being in the top half of comparison group for Index 2 and Index 3)

Level of Economic

Disadvantage

Range

Tier III

Developing (0-3)

Tier II

Proficient (4-7)

Tier I

Superior (8-9)

ACTION Campuses

≥40%

Stony Point (3) 40.5%

Priority Campuses

21- 39%

Cedar Ridge (1) 29%

McNeil (7) 22.1%

Low Eco Dis

≤20%

Round Rock HS (1) 13.4%

Westwood (9) 13.3%

5

DISTRICT Performance Measures

• Increase the number of schools that receive a Dist inct ion Designation for Index 3, Closing Performance Gaps, from 17 to 19

• Increase the number of schools that were in the top half among comparison schools on Index 3, Closing Performance Gaps, from 27 to 29

• Increase the number of schools that receive a Dist inct ion Designation for Index 2, Student Progress, from 29 to 31

• Increase the number of schools that were in the top half among comparison schools on Index 2, Student Progress, from 42 to 43

• Increase the number of Dist inct ion Designations for Academic Achievement in reading, math, science, and social studies from 57 to 70

• Reduce the teacher turnover rate at each Tit le I campus

ACTION Performance Measures • Increase the number of schools receiving

Distinctions* in the following areas: – Index 2 (Student Progress. A school must

be in the top 25% of Comparison Schools) – Index 3 (Closing Performance Gaps. A

School must be in the top 25% of Comparison Schools)

– Academic (Reading, Math, Science and Social Studies. A school must be ranked in Quartile 1 for at least 50% of the indicators required to receive the Distinction)

• Increase the number of schools in the top half of comparison schools

*Quartile Rankings Q1 - Dist inctions Q2 - Minimum Goal Q3 - Growth needed Q4 - Unacceptable

6

ACTION CAMPUS SCHOOL SUMMARY

GOAL 2014 2015

INDEX 2 DISTINCTIONS 0 SCHOOLS* 4 SCHOOLS

INDEX 2 TOP 20 RANKING 4 SCHOOLS* 8 SCHOOLS

INDEX 3 DISTINCTIONS 1 SCHOOL 2 SCHOOLS

INDEX 3 TOP 20 RANKING 4 SCHOOLS 4 SCHOOLS

MATH DISTINCTIONS 2 SCHOOLS 1 SCHOOL**

ELA DISTINCTIONS 2 SCHOOLS 1 SCHOOL

SCIENCE DISTINCTIONS 2 SCHOOLS 3 SCHOOLS

SOCIAL STUDIES DISTINCTIONS 1 SCHOOL 0 SCHOOLS***

7

The High Reliability Schools Framework – Leading Indicators at Each Level

3.1 The school curriculum and accompanying assessments adhere to state and district standards. 3.2 The school curriculum is focused enough that it can be adequately addressed in the t ime available to teachers. 3.3 All students have the opportunity to learn the crit ical content of the curriculum. 3.4 Clear and measurable goals are established and focused on crit ical needs regarding improving overall student achievement at the school level. 3.5 Data are analyzed, interpreted, and used to regularly monitor progress toward school achievement goals. 3.6 Appropriate school- and classroom-level programs and pract ices are in place to help students meet individual achievement goals when data indicate intervent ions are needed.

2.1 The school leader communicates a clear vision as to how inst ruct ion should be addressed in the school. 2.2 Support is provided to teachers to cont inually enhance their pedagogical skills through reflect ion and professional growth plans. 2.3 Predominant inst ruct ional pract ices throughout the school are known and monitored. 2.4 Teachers are provided with clear, ongoing evaluat ions of their pedagogical st rengths and weaknesses that are based on mult iple sources of data and are consistent with student achievement data. 2.5 Teachers are provided with job-embedded professional development that is direct ly related to their instruct ional growth goals. 2.6 Teachers have opportunit ies to observe and discuss effect ive teaching.

Level Three: Guaranteed and Viable Curriculum

Level Two: Effect ive

Teaching in Every

Classroom

1.1 The faculty and staff perceive the school environment as safe and orderly. 1.2 Students, parents, and the community perceive the school environment as safe and orderly. 1.3 Teachers have formal roles in the decision-making process regarding school init iat ives. 1.4 Teacher teams and collaborat ive groups regularly interact to address common issues regarding curriculum, assessment , inst ruct ion, and the achievement of all students. 1.5 Teachers and staff have formal ways to provide input regarding the opt imal funct ioning of the school. 1.6 Students, parents, and the community have formal ways to provide input regarding the opt imal funct ioning of the school. 1.7 The success of the whole school, as well as individuals within the school, is appropriately acknowledged. 1.8 The fiscal, operat ional, and technological resources of the school are managed in a way that direct ly supports teachers.

Level One: Safe and

Collaborat ive Culture

A Handbook for High Reliability Schools © 2014 Marzano Research marzanoresearch.com

8

9

v

10

Predict ive Data • Campus teachers met in teams to assign predict ions to

students. • Ed Support calculated the data based on the State

Accountability System – Index 1 and 2 • Predict ive data is correlated with Released

STAAR/STAAR Ready Assessments given in Jan., Feb. and March

• Resources are being aligned as a result of the data (see next two slides)

11

Areas of Support • Thank you for visit ing three ACTION Campuses

– Items for support at the campuses: Behavior/Social Emotional Support , Reading Levels

• Long Term Subs in Tested Areas • Content Areas

– PEG List 4th grade Writ ing (Berkman and Voigt) and 5th grade Science (Berkman)

– 4th and 7th grade writ ing – all schools – 5th-8th grades - Math (new TEKS) – all schools

12

ACTION Campus Resources

• Addit ional Assistant Principal • Behavior Specialist Support • Instruct ional Coaches • Curriculum Specialists • Elementary Intervent ionists • Long Term Tutors through Tit le 1 • After School Tutoring • Saturday Tutoring

13

ACTION Enrichment

• Working in close collaborat ion with the District Enrichment Coordinator

• Example: • STEM Scouts pilot program at Callison and Berkman, • STEM Academy at CDFMS • Run Free Texas Program • Ed Support and ACTION Campuses are working together to

determine an area of specialty/ focus (five year plan)

14