2015 State Accountability Ratings Report Report of 2017 Student … · 2017. 9. 14. · 2015 State...

2015 State Accountability

Ratings ReportReport of 2017 Student

Assessment Results

September 12, 2017

Agenda

• Performance Index System for State

Accountability Ratings

• District Rating Summary Report

• Campus Ratings

• Distinction Designations

• Comparison of Students Served

• Key Focus Areas & Instructional

Responses

2

2017 Performance Index System

Index 1: Student Achievement

Index 2: Student Progress

Index 3: Closing Performance Gaps

Index 4: Postsecondary Readiness

3

Index 1: Student Achievement

Index 1 measures satisfactory student achievement for all students combined across all subjects

reading/ELA

writing

mathematics

science

social studies

4

Index 2: Student Progress

Index 2 measures student progress of each

race/ethnicity, English Language Learners, and special education group in

reading/ELA

mathematics

Met Progress: 1 point

Exceeded Progress: 2 points

5

Index 3: Closing the Performance Gaps

Index 3 emphasizes the academic achievement of

• economically disadvantaged students

• two lowest performing race/ethnicity groups reading/ELA

writing

mathematics

science

social studies

6


Index 4 emphasizes –

• the role of elementary and middle school in preparing students for the rigors of high school

• earning a high school diploma to provide students with the foundation necessary for success in college, the workforce, job training programs, or the military

7


• All Students and race/ethnicity student groups

• Reading/ELA, writing, mathematics, science, and social studies

8

Index 4 Components Weight

STAAR at Meets Grade Level Standard 25%

Graduation Rate (or Dropout Rate) 25%

Graduation Diploma Plan 25%

Postsecondary Component: College and Career Readiness

25%

2017 Ratings Criteria

To receive a Met Standard rating, campuses and districts must meet the following performance index target criteria:

Index 1 OR Index 2 AND Index 3 AND Index 4

9

2017 Performance Index Targets

Performance Index Campuses District

Elementary Middle High

Index 1: Student Achievement 60 60 60 60

Index 2: Student Progress 32 30 17 22

Index 3: Closing Performance Gaps 28 26 30 28


All Components NA NA 60 60

STAAR Component Only 12 13 21 13

10

Performance Index Report

FWISD Met Standard

2017 FWISD Campus Ratings

116 out of 130 rated MET STANDARD

14 rated Improvement Required

13

116

14 RATING

MET STANDARD

IMPROVEMENTREQUIRED

2017 Campuses Rated Improvement Required

14

Polytechnic HSGlencrest 6th

West Handley ESCarrol Peak ESGeorge Clarke ESComo ESMaude Logan ES

John T. White ESHarlean Beal ESMitchell Blvd. ESMaudrie Walton ESSunrise McMillan ESI.M. Terrell ESClifford Davis ES

2017 Campuses Now Rated MET STANDARD

Eastern Hills HS

Daggett MS

Wedgwood 6th Gr

Forest Oak MS

Handley MS

Morningside MS

Riverside MS

J. Martin Jacquet MS

Leonard MS

Rosemont 6th Gr

Jean McClung MS

Daggett ES

De Zavala ESBill J. Elliot ES

15

Distinction Designations57 FWISD campuses received one or more Distinction Designations:

– Academic Achievement in English Language Arts/Reading

– Academic Achievement in Mathematics

– Academic Achievement in Science

– Academic Achievement in Social Studies

– Top 25 Percent: Student Progress

– Top 25 Percent: Closing Performance Gaps

– Postsecondary Readiness

16

Distinction Designations

Young Women’s Leadership Academy received all eligible distinction designations.

Kirkpatrick MS,

Rosemont MS,

M.L. Phillips ES, and

Tanglewood ES

each received all but one eligible distinction designations.

17

Commit! District to District Comparison

18

Planning for Additional Supports for Improvement Required campuses

• Instructional Leadership Teams –

– Interdepartmental teams to support teaching and learning through coaching and professional learning communities

• Campus Improvement Plans –

– Identify professional learning needs based on their data so that professional learning is customized to meet each campus’ needs

20

District Key Focus Areas: Reading – grade 3Writing – grade 4 & 7; English I & IIMath – grades 6, 7, & 8; Algebra I

21

Key Focus Area: Our DataReading – grade 3

22

Fort Worth ISD STAAR TrendsPercent Met 2012-2017

23

64%66%

61%65%

60% 60%

76%79%

76% 77%74%

72%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017*

% M

et

Year

Reading Grade 3 English

District State*Approaches Grade Level Standard


24

62%66% 66%

63%

58% 58%

65%68%

65% 65% 64% 63%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017*

% M

et

Year

Reading Grade 3 Spanish


Big 8 Comparison: Grade 3 Reading

25

Key Focus Area: Instructional ResponseReading – grade 3

26

Key Focus Area: Instructional ResponseReading – grade 3

27

• TX-KEA – new Kindergarten Readiness assessment• Year 2 Dyslexia Instructional Model• Yearlong plan for instructional coaches and specialists• Primary Literacy - grades K-2

• 16 campuses - phonics• Smarty Ants – foundational literacy practice

• Core Instruction & Progress Monitoring – grades 2-12• Achieve 3000 • Lexile Levels • Instructional Walks

• Teacher Professional Learning • FWISD Learning Model• Fort Worth Literacy Partnership • Benchmark

Key Focus Area: Our DataWriting – grades 4 & 7; English I & II

28


29

59% 59%62%

59% 60%

53%

71% 71%73%

70% 69%

63%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017*

% M

et

Year

Writing Grade 4 English



30

69%

63%

61%

66%68%

63%64%

59%

64%

64%66%

64%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017*

% M

et

Year

Writing Grade 4 Spanish



31

58% 57% 58%60%

57%55%

71% 70% 70%72%

70%68%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017*

% M

et

Year

Writing Grade 7



32

52% 51% 51%48%

62% 63% 63%60%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2014 2015 2016 2017

% M

et

Year

English I

District State


33

54% 54%57%

52%

66% 66% 66%62%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2014 2015 2016 2017

% M

et

Year

English II

District State

Key Focus Area: Instructional ResponseWriting – Grades 4 & 7; English I & II

34

Key Focus Area: Instructional ResponseWriting – grades 4 & 7; English I & II

35

• Expectations by grade level – PK through high school• Writing Portfolios• Learning Walks focused on content area literacy• Teacher Professional Learning

• Abydos• Writing Rubrics • Criteria Calibration

• Writing Quick Checks• Benchmark

Key Focus Area: Our DataMath – grades 6, 7, & 8; Algebra I

36


37

67%

60%

66%

60%57%

60%

77%74%

79%75% 74% 75%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017*

% M

et

Year

Math Grade 6



38

58%

47%

41%

46%

40% 40%

71% 71%67%

72% 71%68%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017*

% M

et

Year

Math Grade 7



39

59%

71%73%

69%65%

67%

76% 77%79%

75%73% 74%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017*

% M

et

Year

Math Grade 8



40

78%

70%72% 72%

74%76%

83%

78%81% 81% 81% 82%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

% M

et

Year

Algebra I

District State

Algebra I Completed by Grade 9

41

Algebra I: Percent of students who pass Algebra I EOC by the end of Grade 9.

2014%

Met

2015%

Met

2016%

Met

2017%

Met

Change from 2016

to 2017

79 76 77 83 + 6

Key Focus Area: Instructional ResponseMath – grades 6, 7, & 8; Algebra I

42

Key Focus Area: Instructional ResponseMath – grades 6, 7, & 8; Algebra I

43

• Foundations in Number Sense for PK • K – 12 Comprehensive Mathematics Plan• Academic Indicators of Mastery• Teacher Professional Learning

• Teacher Leader Cadre• Learning Walks focused on content area literacy• MAP Progress Screener – beginning, middle, and end of year• MAP Skills Navigator – additional instructional and assessment

resources for teachers and students• Interim Assessments• Benchmark

2015 State Accountability Ratings Report Report of 2017 Student … · 2017. 9. 14. · 2015 State...

Documents

Transcript of 2015 State Accountability Ratings Report Report of 2017 Student … · 2017. 9. 14. · 2015 State...