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: Postsecondary Readiness
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
Index 4: Postsecondary Readiness
• 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
Index 4: Postsecondary Readiness
All Components NA NA 60 60
STAAR Component Only 12 13 21 13
10
11
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
19
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
Fort Worth ISD STAAR TrendsPercent Met 2012-2017
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
District State*Approaches Grade Level Standard
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
Fort Worth ISD STAAR TrendsPercent Met 2012-2017
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
District State*Approaches Grade Level Standard
Fort Worth ISD STAAR TrendsPercent Met 2012-2017
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
District State*Approaches Grade Level Standard
Fort Worth ISD STAAR TrendsPercent Met 2012-2017
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
District State*Approaches Grade Level Standard
Fort Worth ISD STAAR TrendsPercent Met 2014-2017
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
Fort Worth ISD STAAR TrendsPercent Met 2014-2017
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
Fort Worth ISD STAAR TrendsPercent Met 2012-2017
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
District State*Approaches Grade Level Standard
Fort Worth ISD STAAR TrendsPercent Met 2012-2017
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
District State*Approaches Grade Level Standard
Fort Worth ISD STAAR TrendsPercent Met 2012-2017
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
District State*Approaches Grade Level Standard
Fort Worth ISD STAAR TrendsPercent Met 2012-2017
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
44
Top Related