1. Validating the Need for Systemic Change
Leaders of Learners
March 27-28, 2013

2. Level II (Satisfactory) Level I (Unsatisfactory)
Scale Score
Percent Correct
Grade 3 Math
1615
89%
Level III (Advanced)
1529
80%
Final Level II (2016 and beyond)
1460
70%
Phase 2 Level II (2014 & 2015)
1392
57%
Phase 1 Level II (2012 & 2013)
STAAR Performance Standards
Level III (Advanced)
Well prepared
for the next grade level or course
Level II (Satisfactory)
Sufficiently prepared
for the next grade level or course
Level I (Unsatisfactory)
Inadequately prepared
for the next grade level or course

3. TAAS TAKS STAAR All tests, grades
3 – 8 and Reading 1 at Level II Final

4. TAAS TAKS STAAR All tests, grades
3 – 8 and Algebra 1 at Level II Final

5. Source: AEIS

6. Source: AEIS

7. Source: AEIS

8. Projected 2013 District Performance, Accountability Index 4
4- or 5-Year Grad Rate
RHSP/DAP
Index 4 - Part 1 Overall
District Name
Total Pts
Max Pts
Score
Denton
669.7
700
628.9
1298.6
1400 93
Grapevine-Colleyville
817.8
900
603.8
1421.6
1600 89
Hurst-Euless-Bedford
668.5
666.1
800
1334.6
1500
Eagle Mountain-Saginaw
800.1
562.7
1362.8 85
Grand Prairie
627.9
560.1
1188.0
Keller
827.0
523.3
1350.3 84
Northwest
579.8
505.3
600
1085.1
1300 83
Pflugerville
763.9
568.4
1332.3
Irving
510.7
464.1
974.8
1200 81
Mansfield
875.5
1000
589.7
1465.2
1800
Arlington
733.0
540.4
1273.4 80
Carrollton-Farmers Branch
609.2
511.8
1121.0
Fort Worth
519.6
668.9
1188.5 79
Birdville
804.7
562.1
1366.8 76
Source: Moak Casey, based on 2012 AEIS

13. # tests met minimum but not passing
2015 Cohort EOC Retesting
(Number of students remaining after December testing)
# tests below minimum
# tests met minimum but not passing 1 2 3 4
Total
127 33 6
167 90 44 12 5
151 30 21 56 22 18 9 11 20
157
221 53
444 students
277 students must take one or more tests
Failing scores on one or more tests

14. Algebra I STAAR Performance Standards Phase-in 4333 78% 4000 63% 3750
Scale Score
Percent Correct
Algebra I
4333
78%
Level III (Advanced)
4000
63%
Final Level II (2016 and beyond)
3750
50%
Phase 2 Level II (2014 & 2015)
3500
37%
Phase 1 Level II (2012 & 2013)
STAAR Performance Standards
Phase-in

15. Continuous improvement timeline
Feb 2003 BISD enters ESC XI Continuous Improvement Consortium with Weatherford and Burleson ISDs Jul 2003 Jim Shipley CI overview training for principals Mar 2004 BISD Board Orientation Apr 2004 Board approves new goals/objectives, Graduate Profile Apr 2004 HEB and Decatur join consortium Jun 2004 District Department Team training Jun 2004 Campus Leadership Team training (Level I) Oct 2004 Teacher/Student Partnership Training Nov 2004 Campus Leadership Training (Level II) Jan 2005 Campus and Department Systems Checks

17. Vertical/longitudinal thinking
Eng III
Eng II
Final
2016 & beyond
Eng I
2016
How will we ensure that our current 6th graders are well prepared for success at the next level?
8th
2015
Phase 2
2014 & 2015
7th
2014
Phase 1
2012 & 2013
6th
2013
5th
SSI in 2016
Level II Phase-in
4th
3rd
2nd
1st
How do we determine whether our kindergarten through grade 2 students are well prepared for success at the next level?
Kinder

18. Unsatisfactory
805 of 1378 = 58%
Level 2 (final): 1468
Tier 2: 1959
719 of 1378 = 52%

20. 3 3 2 2 1 1 5% 30% 20% 23% 75% 47% ISIP Grades K-8 January 2013
Recommended

21. EOC The moral imperative
Ensure that all students are well prepared for success at the next level of learning This can only be accomplished by changing the learning system
EOC