A.1
REPORT FROM THE SUPERINTENDENT
Office of the Superintendent of Schools
Board of Education Meeting of October 15, 2015
SUBJECT:
BOARD MONITORING UPDATE: MULTIPLE METRICS
The Houston Independent School District (HISD) exists to strengthen the social and
economic foundation of Houston by assuring its youth the highest-quality elementary
and secondary education available anywhere. In fulfilling this goal, the HISD Board of
Education has designed the framework for the systematic monitoring of the district's
goals.
Following are the specific, actionable measures provided to the Board of Education on
an annually recurring basis for ongoing monitoring and trend reporting in the areas of
rigorous education in reading and math, consistency, and safety with the intent to
provide a holistic view of the district. As data is received into the district, data attributes
are populated.
Attached to this update are three Executive Summaries containing supporting evidence
of district progress for the 2014–2015 school year, specifically for:



Percentage of students who scored at the unsatisfactory, satisfactory, and
advanced levels on the State of Texas Assessment of Academic Readiness
(STAAR) in mathematics for grades 3–8,
Districtwide Education Value-Added Assessment System® (EVAAS®) growth
measure scores in reading and mathematics (grades 3–8), and
Percentage of highly effective teachers who are retained and the percentage of
ineffective teachers who are exited.
Packet Pg. 8
Board Monitoring Systems (BMS)
A.1.a
As of October 1, 2015
(Reflects updated results from prior year.)
Rigorous Education
2014-2015 School Year
Student Achievement
20122013
Percent of Students at Level III - Advanced Academic Performance STAAR Standard (3-8)
Reading
Percent of Students at Level II - Satisfactory Academic Performance STAAR Standard (3-8) Reading
Percent of Students at Level I - Unsatisfactory Academic Performance STAAR Standard (3-8) Reading
Percent of Students at Level III - Advanced Academic Performance STAAR Standard (3-8)
Math
Percent of Students at Level II - Satisfactory Academic Performance STAAR Standard (3-8) Math
Percent of Students at Level I - Unsatisfactory Academic Performance STAAR Standard (3-8) Math
Percent of Students at Level III - Advanced Academic Performance STAAR EOC (9-12)
ELA I & II
Percent of Students at Level II - Satisfactory Academic Performance STAAR EOC (9-12)
ELA I & II
Percent of Students at Level I - Unsatisfactory Academic Performance STAAR EOC (9-12)
ELA I & II
Percent of Students at Level III - Advanced Academic Performance STAAR EOC (9-12)
Algebra I
Percent of Students at Level II - Satisfactory Academic Performance STAAR EOC (9-12)
Algebra I
Percent of Students at Level I - Unsatisfactory Academic Performance STAAR EOC (9-12) Algebra I
Percent of Students at Level III - Advanced Academic Performance STAAR EOC (7,8)
Algebra I
Percent of Students at Level II - Satisfactory Academic Performance STAAR EOC (7,8)
Algebra I
Percent of Students at Level I – Unsatisfactory Academic Performance STAAR EOC (7,8)
Algebra I
Percent of Students at or above 50th percentile on Norm Reference Test in Grades 1-5
Reading (ELA Total)
Percent of Students at or above 50th percentile on Norm Reference Test in Grades 1-5
Math (Math Total)
Percent of Students at or above 50th percentile on Norm Reference Test in Grades 6-8
Reading (ELA Total)
Percent of Students at or above 50th percentile on Norm Reference Test in Grades 6-8
Math (Math Total)
Districtwide EVAAS Growth Measure Scores in Reading (Grades 3-8)
Reading
Districtwide EVAAS Growth Measure Scores in Math (Grades 3-8)
Math
College and Career Readiness
17.4
70.1
29.9
12.9
67.1
32.9
N/A
N/A
N/A
5.5
15.7
68.7
31.3
16.0
68.6
31.4
4.9
53.9
46.1
6.6
17.5
66.4
33.6
14.1
69.0
31.0
5.4
51.0
49.0
8.3
67.2
32.8
44.0
97.6
2.4
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.2
0.2
68.1
31.9
65.3
34.7
60.9
Percent of Students Enrolling in Higher Education Within 1 Year of High School Graduation
Percent of Students at or above standard on the SAT/ACT Reading & Math Sections Combined
Percent of Students at or above benchmark score on the PSAT
58.0
14.5
21.4
20.4
81.6
11.1
81.8
10.8
92
70
93
70
94
71
88
91
90
87.6
24.4
87.9
25.0
88.1
23.2
86
88
88
64
71
74
5,917
5,800
5,716
1,109
53
1,160
42
1,291
57
139
168
115
86
90
74
72
77
70
94
90
90
91
76
72
80
70
95
91
90
91
76
72
82
74
95
91
Consistency
Graduation & Dropout
Four-Year Cohort Graduation Rate
Four-Year Cohort Dropout Rate
Perception Survey - Rigorous Education
Percent of Parents Satisfied with Rigorous Education
Percent of Students Who Feel Challenged with Coursework
Students
Percent of Students Satisfied with Teachers Having High Expectations
Teachers
Percent of Highly Effective Teachers Who are Retained (EVAAS > 2.0)
Percent of Ineffective Teachers Who are Exited (EVAAS < -2.0)
Parents
Percent of Parents Satisfied with Consistent Education
Safety and Environment
Principals
Percent of Principals Satisfied with Central Office Services
Levels of Offenses
Number of Level III Offenses-Suspension/Optional Removal to Disciplinary Alternative
Education
Number of Level IV Offenses - Required Placement in a Disciplinary Alternative Education Program
Number of Level V Offenses - Expulsion for Serious Offenses
Number of Bullying Incidents
Perception Survey - Safety and Environment
Percent of Parents Satisfied with Safety
Percent of Parents Satisfied with Environment
Percent of Students Satisfied with Safety
Percent of Students Satisfied with Environment
Percent of Teachers Satisfied with Safety
Percent of Teachers Satisfied with Environment
Percent of Principals Satisfied with Safety
Percent of Principals Satisfied with Environment
•
2013-2014 2014-2015
50.1
98.6
1.4
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
-0.1
0.2
98.8
1.2
54.9
63.3
37.7
45.0
0.1
-0.1
21.5
Adjusted to one decimal place to match report.
Packet Pg. 9
A.1.b
Board Monitoring System: STAAR 3-8 Mathematics
Performance
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Purpose
The Houston Independent School District (HISD) exists to strengthen the social and economic foundation
of Houston by assuring its youth the highest-quality elementary and secondary education available
anywhere. In fulfilling this goal, HISD's Board of Education has designed a program to systematically
monitor the district’s goals and core values. The following results inform the progress of the district as it
relates to rigorous education, specifically the: Percent of Students at Level III - Advanced Academic
Performance, Level II - Satisfactory Academic Performance and Level I – Unsatisfactory Performance in
Math. (Please note that the passing rates for STAAR reading tests in grades 3-8 were provided in
August.)
Rigorous Education
Board Monitoring Scorecard
20122013
20132014
20142015
READING
17.4
15.7
17.5
Percent of Students at Level II - Satisfactory
Academic Performance STAAR Standard (3-8)
READING
70.1
68.7
66.4
Percent of Students at Level I - Unsatisfactory
Academic Performance STAAR Standard (3-8)
READING
29.9
31.3
33.6
Percent of Students at Level III - Advanced
Academic Performance STAAR Standard (3-8)
MATH
12.9
16.0
14.1
Percent of Students at Level II - Satisfactory
Academic Performance STAAR Standard (3-8)
MATH
67.1
68.6
69.0
Percent of Students at Level I - Unsatisfactory
Academic Performance STAAR Standard (3-8)
MATH
32.9
31.4
31.0
Student Achievement:
Subject
Percent of Students at Level III - Advanced
Academic Performance STAAR Standard (3-8)
^ Excludes STAAR M, A, Alt., and Alt. 2 results. Includes Spanish testers.
The State Board of Education adopted new rigorous math standards in April 2012 with implementation for
grades K-8 in the 2014-2015 school year. Because of the substantial changes made to the mathematics
curriculum standards, the STAAR math tests were also revised and new passing standards were recently
set. TEA released the spring 2015 STAAR mathematics results on September 4, 2015.
2015 STAAR Gr 3-8 Mathematics Key Findings:
•
•
The number of students tested has increased in 1st – 7th grade since 2012.
Although results are not directly comparable to prior years, math passing rates stayed constant at the
Satisfactory level across grades; however, there are by-grade differences.
Packet Pg. 10
A.1.b
•
•
•
The STAAR mathematics results show that 5th grade students had the highest passing rates for all
proficiency standards.
The grade level performance gaps show that for both Spring 2012 and Spring 2015, the performance
gaps between White and African American student groups are greater than the gaps between White
and Hispanic student groups.
White and Asian student groups continue to outperform all other groups while African American student
group performance remains the lowest across all grade and proficiency levels.
Administrative Response
Secondary Curriculum and Development:
To build on the first year of implementing the new Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) grades
3-5 mathematics, Elementary Curriculum and Development is supporting campuses in the following ways:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Produced Grade 3, 4, 5 Problem Solving Journals: Aligned to the New Math TEKS, follows the
scope & sequence and spirals problem-solving questions into daily math block, connected to new math
rubrics for scoring open-ended items
Provided New Math Problem Solving Rubrics : Instructional explanation page for grading openended items, student exemplars for open-ended items on the Snapshot included on the teacher
directions page, student exemplars being embedded into our unit planning guide formative
assessments for grades 1-5
Created a First 25 Days of Math Launch Document: Provides structure and mini-lessons for
implementing essential math routines and procedures in the classroom, 5 exemplar videos created,
adaptable K-5 with grade-level differentiation recommendations
Math Teacher Development Specialist Campus-Specific Professional Development: Elementary
Math TDS are providing job-embedded support and training as a part of district-wide training with an
emphasis on Elementary Transformation campuses.
Providing Online Math Learning Opportunities: The elementary math curriculum and professional
development team are creating videos and online learning opportunities in partnership with
Professional Support and Development. Topics include: How to use the math problem solving rubric;
How to utilize problem solving journal journals; Lower-grades Fraction Concepts—how to use linear
models to teach developing fraction concepts.
Continual updates to HISD Curriculum Unit Planning Guides & Formative assessments: Math
curriculum specialists are analyzing recently released reporting category information from Student
Assessment to identify where we need additional support in HISD elementary math documents
according to data: building more robust examples, activities accordingly (e.g., 4th grade
geometry/measurement low performance, working to bolster those guides/examples); in addition, have
been working to create more structure in the Unit Planning Guides with clearer arrangement of
background information (by TEKS), and activities that follow a unit-specific recommended sequence
of instruction (by TEKS).
Secondary Curriculum and Development:
The Secondary Curriculum and Development math team continues to place emphasis on Process
Standards (in instruction and planning) as well as the tracking of critical TEKS over time, via formative
assessments. Any differences that occurred between 2013-2014 and 2014 – 2015 are most likely due to
a shift to more rigorous TEKS that include algebraic expectations moved into middle school. Continued
efforts are being made to make Algebra 1 accessible to more students on more campuses in addition to
Packet Pg. 11
A.1.b
increased training for middle school graphing calculator use. More content and pedagogy training will be
provided to middle school teachers since mathematical content shifts from concrete mathematics to
abstract concepts as students move from elementary TEKS to middle school TEKS (For example,
introductory calculus concepts such as slope and rate of change are introduced in middle school). 20152016 Department Chairperson meetings are addressing culturally relevant instructional strategies that
can be represented in campus PLCs. Instructional materials are inclusive of new, engaging activities
and instructional strategies that leverage technology to include personalized learning experiences for
students.
Packet Pg. 12
A.1.b
Figure 1
HISD STAAR English and Spanish Combined by Subject and Grade Level: 2012-2015 (Spring Administration)
Percent Met Standard: Phase-in 1
HISD and State - All Students
Reading
75
71
78
74
Math
75
76
68
70
Grade 3
76
71
Grade 4
77
72
71
73
65
66
77
76
70
68
73
63
78
68
Writing
67
69
70
65
65
66
68
68
70
71
73
71
70
73
68
70
68
69
64
65
77
75
78
79
75
73
69
69
63
72
72
73
71
69
66
66
63
75
71
68
64
Grade 5
75
71
67
64
76
77
70
72
Grade 6
77
68
76
84
77
77
74
73
70
71
71
64
75
67
Grade 7
80
76
75
64
82
75
78
68
79
73
67
53
56
76
76
71
76
62
Grade 8
2012
2013
2014
2015
2012
2013
75
70
72
71
70
70
65
67
64
66
72
63
79
72
2014
Social Studies
77
66
75
Science
70
75
65
2015
66
2012
2013
2014
2015
2012
2013
2014
70
61
2015
63
62
53
57
54
2012
2013
2014
59
64
55
2015
Excludes STAAR Accommodated,STAAR Modified, STAAR Alternate, and STAAR L Tests
HISD- %Phase-in 1
State- %Phase-in 1
All points reflect the most current data available and may differ slightly from data previously reported. 2015 math results are not comparable with those of prior years due to different standards. For grades and
subjects with multiple administrations, 1st administration results are used. North Forest schools are excluded in 2012 & 2013.
Source: TEA-Pearson STAAR Student Data Files
Packet Pg. 13
HISD Research and Accountability_______________________________________________________________________ Figure-1 Page 1
A.1.b
Figure 2
HISD STAAR English and Spanish Combined by Subject and All Grades: 2012-2015 (Spring Administration)
Percent Met Standard: Phase-in 1, Phase-in 2, Recommended, and Advanced
All Students in Grades 3-8
Reading
71.2
70.2
Math
68.8
66.4
68.2
67.1
Writing
68.6
69
68.3
66.2
Science
67.6
67.6
66.8
63.1
52.7
65.1
62.4
57.7
56.7
All Grades
Social Studies
56.5
51.6
51.1
47.3
46.8
48.1
52
50.3
47
53.5
52.8
54.8
47.9
42.8
34.5
35
36.4
34.3
33.8
33.4
29.4
36.8
34.1
30.8
30.5
29.8
30.2
30.5
27.7
29.6
31.1
29.3
21.4
15.2
17.4
15.7
17.5
16
12.4
2012
2013
2014
2015
2012
12.9
2013
2014
14.1
2015
7.4
6.4
6.1
2012
2013
2014
12.1
10.4
9.8
2012
2013
2014
19
8.8
8.6
2012
2013
11.5
7.6
2015
18.6
2015
19.1
10.1
2014
8.3
2015
Excludes STAAR Accommodated,STAAR Modified, STAAR Alternate, and STAAR L Tests
%Phase-in 1
%Phase-in 2
%Final Rec.
%Advanced
All points reflect the most current data available and may differ slightly from data previously reported. 2015 math results are not comparable with those of prior years due to different standards. For grades and
subjects with multiple administrations, 1st administration results are used. North Forest schools are excluded in 2012 & 2013.
Note: The percent met standard at the phase-in 1 and advanced standards in reading and math are included in the Board Monitoring System (BMS).
Source: TEA-Pearson STAAR Student Data Files
HISD Research and Accountability_______________________________________________________________________ Figure-2 Page 2
Packet Pg. 14
A.1.b
Figure 3
HISD STAAR English and Spanish Combined by Subject and Grade Level: 2012-2015 (Spring Administration)
Percent Met Standard: Phase-in 1, Phase-in 2, Recommended, and Advanced
All Students
Reading
71
74
68
54
Grade 3
36
19
71
38
Math
70
60
19
16
65
66
63
54
48
36
33
31
33
16
18
16
17
72
70
53
Grade 5
34
14
67
Grade 6
31
13
70
31
13
76
15
30
33
14
15
17
15
66
64
65
68
31
31
14
16
75
68
53
35
17
16
19
18
19
17
73
64
39
22
19
70
73
49
52
49
50
34
33
32
33
32
35
15
17
15
16
64
55
53
56
72
33
13
77
12
67
49
30
16
15
75
40
20
55
39
18
2013
2014
34
31
14
15
2
3
71
58
35
49
50
34
33
63
49
26
8
6
7
69
66
66
46
48
31
29
30
28
11
9
9
10
62
76
66
68
64
61
52
34
13
65
67
64
66
44
46
27
25
27
30
6
4
6
9
52
27
30
10
11
63
52
72
49
52
48
36
29
29
27
6
5
5
2013
2014
2015
30
30
10
10
2012
2013
18
2015
2012
52
57
65
53
63
70
44
32
69
73
64
41
53
17
68
53
4
2012
20
75
35
68
70
56
32
61
58
39
35
69
68
34
64
52
Social Studies
61
9
34
59
37
28
46
68
Grade 8
50
34
52
Grade 7
47
20
49
Grade 4
66
35
Science
71
65
65
51
36
Writing
2012
2013
2014
2015
48
33
31
15
14
2014
2015
57
54
36
37
19
19
21
19
9
9
10
8
2013
2014
2015
53
2012
55
43
Excludes STAAR Accommodated,STAAR Modified, STAAR Alternate, and STAAR L Tests
%Phase-in 1
%Phase-in 2
%Final Rec.
%Advanced
All points reflect the most current data available and may differ slightly from data previously reported. 2015 math results are not comparable with those of prior years due to different standards. For grades and
subjects with multiple administrations, 1st administration results are used. North Forest schools are excluded in 2012 & 2013.
Source: TEA-Pearson STAAR Student Data Files
HISD Research and Accountability_______________________________________________________________________ Figure-3 Page 3
Packet Pg. 15
A.1.b
Figure 4
HISD STAAR English and Spanish Combined by Subject and Ethnicity: 2012-2015 (Spring Administration)
Percent Met Standard: Phase-in 1, Phase-in 2, Recommended, and Advanced
Grades 3-5
African American
Asian
62
Reading, Grade 3
65
56
41
25
25
11
11
59
48
80
83
87
83
67
67
71
69
49
45
38
24
7
Reading, Grade 4
80
69
68
56
41
26
25
9
11
56
54
45
36
21
9
38
11
87
50
43
66
45
87
68
Reading, Grade 5
31
11
67
61
47
45
28
26
12
9
61
50
69
67
50
43
Math, Grade 3
15
6
48
30
32
16
7
17
7
17
5
48
47
30
33
17
7
19
9
Math, Grade 5
57
39
22
20
9
9
62
45
25
5
60
Science, Grade 5
28
4
56
23
3
56
45
83
72
50
71
66
46
47
33
29
28
30
13
14
12
13
61
52
53
70
54
73
86
75
50
53
89
68
66
50
50
67
56
78
55
95
84
60
66
68
66
96
95
96
91
81
91
81
93
63
65
65
32
28
16
13
68
53
68
66
53
46
94
91
78
80
95
88
74
64
60
97
94
84
69
31
31
13
14
77
35
19
76
69
61
53
88
82
90
80
72
38
32
29
35
34
16
16
19
19
16
6
4
3
3
2014
2015
91
93
84
71
71
75
46
45
36
2012
49
67
68
35
2013
2014
32
42
81
88
78
68
65
49
45
88
85
69
49
88
86
72
52
91
90
91
84
84
86
71
72
73
52
49
56
41
20
68
31
66
68
47
48
30
30
5
4
86
76
59
37
88
81
65
39
70
69
57
31
87
83
57
31
79
73
42
90
86
67
47
46
55
35
15
75
66
39
89
87
77
62
63
41
43
91
82
67
46
90
87
73
50
16
62
86
87
78
86
79
62
73
63
26
27
89
90
79
90
78
84
63
63
63
67
32
32
30
2012
2013
66
60
47
23
24
27
4
90
88
68
65
66
63
51
44
46
28
26
27
25
8
7
7
7
2014
2015
40
2015
88
66
92
71
92
13
89
7
95
88
38
89
85
3
39
88
86
17
35
92
52
79
54
51
46
73
63
51
47
12
66
54
45
85
27
17
8
39
69
90
83
72
95
39
58
46
66
90
88
83
69
91
82
73
63
52
6
35
2013
71
23
21
2012
17
15
7
39
15
30
23
42
18
12
74
Writing, Grade 4
16
30
11
60
34
12
26
63
34
29
87
64
36
10
96
64
35
29
76
51
51
12
95
Math, Grade 4
53
26
92
49
70
60
89
40
92
50
69
85
11
82
74
White
90
89
79
25
87
71
51
24
85
63
Hispanic
91
88
90
2012
2013
2014
37
2015
Excludes STAAR Accommodated,STAAR Modified, STAAR Alternate, and STAAR L Tests
%Phase-in 1
%Phase-in 2
%Final Rec.
%Advanced
All points reflect the most current data available and may differ slightly from data previously reported. 2015 math results are not comparable with those of prior years due to different standards. For grades and subjects
with multiple administrations, 1st administration results are used. North Forest schools are excluded in 2012 & 2013.
Source: TEA-Pearson STAAR Student Data Files
HISD Research and Accountability_______________________________________________________________________ Figure-4 Page 4
Packet Pg. 16
A.1.b
Figure 5
HISD STAAR by Subject and Ethnicity: 2012-2015 (Spring Administration)
Percent Met Standard: Phase-in 1, Phase-in 2, Recommended, and Advanced
Grades 6-8
African American
Asian
84
64
62
Reading, Grade 6
46
26
28
9
11
62
42
58
47
66
46
71
49
Reading, Grade 7
26
28
10
8
74
54
Reading, Grade 8
32
10
21
8
64
42
60
50
24
23
10
9
64
42
73
50
14
13
63
52
69
49
63
37
38
21
21
50
24
9
7
1
1
6
85
83
80
69
78
68
46
49
45
90
81
86
73
79
71
70
56
53
52
59
53
90
87
78
85
96
94
85
66
62
32
16
17
4
4
Math, Grade 8
19
2
64
64
22
40
23
20
20
2
2
1
41
23
20
21
22
3
2
3
4
93
81
11
10
74
76
39
54
40
43
21
23
21
56
52
36
34
31
16
14
14
70
81
67
69
65
68
52
31
33
15
13
14
56
56
15
15
2
2
77
35
94
94
87
88
79
91
58
59
72
51
42
89
84
91
82
68
70
70
47
48
85
39
92
87
84
75
73
41
48
92
88
72
52
70
57
87
75
62
62
45
37
32
91
80
86
65
68
41
39
10
62
65
71
52
26
28
9
10
5
72
75
49
32
24
4
49
51
28
26
4
3
53
81
71
55
27
61
31
9
91
74
65
83
85
67
58
49
12
15
15
88
85
86
75
82
73
52
17
88
63
61
39
32
94
50
53
88
71
44
47
73
31
41
85
90
85
89
86
75
79
76
72
90
87
83
72
91
27
28
73
44
89
80
35
66
39
66
55
31
95
86
76
61
52
90
59
45
39
8
36
59
57
5
88
86
75
85
76
4
9
3
95
20
10
54
34
40
Science, Grade 8
25
28
45
41
61
28
58
62
58
27
48
91
71
94
49
70
63
Writing, Grade 7
27
74
59
81
62
45
5
42
10
43
93
22
38
26
8
47
44
53
29
83
93
74
47
28
65
11
56
44
50
12
82
61
68
67
12
64
71
88
91
64
86
80
60
67
91
26
93
67
53
44
90
42
64
32
79
Math, Grade 7
73
9
33
7
53
84
25
34
61
67
10
81
Math, Grade 6
78
90
25
97
64
82
73
White
89
7
87
73
84
24
83
67
Hispanic
87
64
42
71
60
59
48
21
20
22
25
3
2
3
5
46
27
7
7
66
61
59
50
46
45
28
29
28
13
11
8
66
57
30
19
16
18
88
88
74
86
77
60
63
78
65
53
83
62
39
30
30
82
83
82
66
69
84
78
58
34
92
91
64
Social Studies, Grade 8
52
46
12
5
2012
46
46
47
92
87
79
79
63
66
41
44
87
67
49
47
33
30
28
14
5
14
5
11
14
3
6
2014
2015
2013
2012
2013
2014
2015
2012
53
50
33
33
15
6
18
2013
52
49
39
28
7
15
5
2014
2015
2012
45
26
2013
50
32
2014
81
75
50
29
2015
Excludes STAAR Accommodated,STAAR Modified, STAAR Alternate, and STAAR L Tests
%Phase-in 1
%Phase-in 2
%Final Rec.
%Advanced
All points reflect the most current data available and may differ slightly from data previously reported. 2015 math results are not comparable with those of prior years due to different standards. For grades and subjects
with multiple administrations, 1st administration results are used. North Forest schools are excluded in 2012 & 2013.
Source: TEA-Pearson STAAR Student Data Files
HISD Research and Accountability_______________________________________________________________________ Figure-5 Page 5
Packet Pg. 17
A.1.b
Figure 6
HISD STAAR English and Spanish Combined by Subject and Grade Level: 2012-2015 (Spring Administration)
Percent Met Standard: Phase-in 1, Phase-in 2, Recommended, and Advanced
English Language Learners (ELLs)
Reading
70
Grade 3
34
16
71
34
32
31
15
15
17
Grade 4
38
67
66
57
49
55
10
68
51
65
28
68
Math
59
40
46
27
27
12
12
66
64
54
23
22
9
9
8
30
27
12
12
Grade 5
33
47
62
33
16
65
29
17
15
14
4
5
4
33
12
4
32
16
68
50
29
12
60
33
12
66
39
27
30
25
11
29
12
57
56
3
18
3
57
54
52
33
30
32
14
11
2
33
32
17
17
6
6
5
3
37
43
42
42
35
41
24
26
9
2
10
2
19
10
1
8
1
17
5
3
3
37
17
31
19
54
5
1
3
0
3
8
8
1
6
1
24
41
24
9
2
7
1
23
56
45
7
2
14
5
1
39
41
52
18
16
62
64
19
24
15
27
59
12
19
Grade 7
64
54
43
Grade 6
37
37
5
46
Social Studies
51
61
53
Science
72
43
72
56
69
50
43
22
Writing
14
32
28
11
3
0
4
0
32
24
12
3
0
14
3
0
63
56
51
Grade 8
47
44
33
33
23
5
1
2012
10
2
2013
13
5
1
2014
35
27
16
4
1
2015
29
32
13
13
42
34
12
1
2012
29
22
21
2
1
0
2013
2014
2015
7
1
2012
2013
2014
2015
2012
1
15
7
1
2013
2014
11
27
18
22
5
1
3
1
2015
2012
28
13
4
2
2013
20
21
8
2
1
11
3
0
2014
2015
Excludes STAAR Accommodated,STAAR Modified, STAAR Alternate, and STAAR L Tests
%Phase-in 1
%Phase-in 2
%Final Rec.
%Advanced
All points reflect the most current data available and may differ slightly from data previously reported. 2015 math results are not comparable with those of prior years due to different standards. For grades and
subjects with multiple administrations, 1st administration results are used. North Forest schools are excluded in 2012 & 2013.
Source: TEA-Pearson STAAR Student Data Files
HISD Research and Accountability_______________________________________________________________________ Figure-6 Page 6
Packet Pg. 18
A.1.b
Figure 7
HISD STAAR English and Spanish Combined by Subject and Grade Level: 2012-2015 (Spring Administration)
Percent Met Standard: Phase-in 1, Phase-in 2, Recommended, and Advanced
Non-English Language Learners (Non-ELLs)
Reading
72
Grade 3
38
21
75
76
69
56
53
40
39
21
71
57
Grade 4
42
40
20
23
79
79
63
Grade 5
42
18
75
Grade 6
37
16
78
43
23
72
17
71
71
63
69
62
36
20
77
47
49
28
31
33
63
43
15
17
17
17
66
65
66
69
21
76
57
40
40
15
79
76
59
57
48
32
22
15
77
68
34
18
58
37
35
23
21
38
73
78
65
16
82
26
73
38
39
21
22
77
73
63
53
45
26
23
76
57
36
36
39
19
20
17
19
56
59
74
38
39
36
16
19
18
83
65
63
66
77
68
33
15
17
3
3
73
78
45
45
42
38
31
17
23
22
2013
2014
39
55
9
9
74
72
73
53
55
36
35
37
35
13
12
12
13
70
72
69
52
53
66
57
38
15
69
74
72
50
31
33
12
13
74
54
32
29
32
7
5
7
72
60
36
11
74
32
2015
2012
60
62
57
52
71
74
55
30
33
33
11
12
2012
2013
22
5
2012
41
68
68
56
42
55
76
68
47
39
65
83
73
56
11
49
37
73
31
11
Grade 7
Grade 8
53
74
57
43
Social Studies
40
41
78
Science
70
61
64
39
23
Writing
63
63
53
59
20
Math
6
6
6
2013
2014
2015
2012
2013
2014
2015
58
40
41
20
21
24
22
10
10
11
10
2012
2013
2014
2015
60
48
36
34
17
16
2014
61
57
2015
Excludes STAAR Accommodated,STAAR Modified, STAAR Alternate, and STAAR L Tests
%Phase-in 1
%Phase-in 2
%Final Rec.
%Advanced
All points reflect the most current data available and may differ slightly from data previously reported. 2015 math results are not comparable with those of prior years due to different standards. For grades and
subjects with multiple administrations, 1st administration results are used. North Forest schools are excluded in 2012 & 2013.
Source: TEA-Pearson STAAR Student Data Files
HISD Research and Accountability_______________________________________________________________________ Figure-7 Page 7
Packet Pg. 19
A.1.b
Figure 8
HISD STAAR English and Spanish Combined by Subject and Grade Level: 2012-2015 (Spring Administration)
Percent Met Standard: Phase-in 1, Phase-in 2, Recommended, and Advanced
Students with Disabilities (SWD)
Reading
Math
Writing
Science
Social Studies
49
42
42
41
42
42
25
26
15
14
7
6
39
35
28
28
17
17
7
6
7
38
39
40
Grade 3
14
27
10
5
12
5
29
11
4
39
35
34
34
29
Grade 4
12
5
23
22
12
13
5
5
25
20
10
11
4
4
23
24
14
12
5
7
39
38
10
10
4
3
17
9
9
2
2
14
5
2
39
35
31
24
22
7
17
48
32
Grade 5
9
5
31
21
20
1
47
36
29
17
17
8
7
2
19
8
3
9
4
33
33
34
29
24
21
18
17
7
35
9
9
8
2
2
2
23
15
11
4
5
1
40
34
31
31
27
Grade 6
17
9
10
3
4
19
22
16
15
8
2
5
2
6
3
8
3
18
9
2
18
7
3
36
32
Grade 7
28
27
22
17
17
9
8
3
5
2
3
42
41
25
17
11
13
3
0
4
1
6
2
41
40
41
12
4
1
37
28
25
21
20
16
12
3
1
9
4
1
3
1
10
10
4
0
3
1
32
Grade 8
21
10
9
3
3
2012
2013
19
19
11
13
5
2014
6
2
2015
21
17
24
15
10
9
9
1
0
1
6
1
2013
2014
2015
2012
24
13
9
3
2012
2013
2014
2015
2012
26
16
6
2
8
3
2013
2014
26
17
12
4
1
2015
7
3
2012
18
19
9
5
2
10
6
2
9
2013
2014
2015
15
3
1
Excludes STAAR Accommodated,STAAR Modified, STAAR Alternate, and STAAR L Tests
%Phase-in 1
%Phase-in 2
%Final Rec.
%Advanced
All points reflect the most current data available and may differ slightly from data previously reported. 2015 math results are not comparable with those of prior years due to different standards. For grades and
subjects with multiple administrations, 1st administration results are used. North Forest schools are excluded in 2012 & 2013.
Source: TEA-Pearson STAAR Student Data Files
HISD Research and Accountability_______________________________________________________________________ Figure-8 Page 8
Packet Pg. 20
A.1.b
Figure 9
HISD STAAR English and Spanish Combined by Subject and Grade Level: 2012-2015 (Spring Administration)
Percent Met Standard: Phase-in 1, Phase-in 2, Recommended, and Advanced
Students without Disabilities (Non-SWD)
Reading
72
75
69
55
Grade 3
37
19
72
38
20
66
50
Grade 4
37
17
73
14
69
Grade 6
32
14
72
35
18
66
14
14
79
18
35
16
70
13
69
Grade 8
38
41
14
15
17
68
65
66
32
32
14
16
71
33
16
41
36
19
19
75
67
56
71
50
21
19
2013
2014
70
71
33
18
76
70
50
51
35
34
66
35
8
7
52
28
7
76
71
66
42
41
22
20
74
54
34
36
16
18
16
17
55
58
68
68
68
48
49
32
30
31
30
11
10
10
10
64
32
31
14
16
2
3
78
72
61
55
37
11
73
68
70
66
50
64
36
14
68
68
66
68
45
48
32
27
26
28
12
6
5
6
67
54
32
9
68
55
37
30
29
2012
6
6
5
2013
2014
2015
2012
2013
2014
2015
54
50
50
31
32
34
32
11
16
10
15
2012
2013
19
2015
55
60
55
28
66
73
46
15
69
59
21
34
4
2012
16
36
34
29
15
63
54
37
77
57
53
62
20
50
Social Studies
73
9
36
71
61
33
71
58
Science
51
30
47
35
67
28
20
65
56
Writing
40
37
53
34
34
47
60
35
73
65
77
69
51
17
66
49
51
32
77
67
16
54
Grade 7
16
31
Grade 5
35
37
18
55
71
62
52
33
72
Math
2014
54
59
55
57
45
2015
38
38
19
20
22
20
9
9
10
9
2013
2014
2015
2012
Excludes STAAR Accommodated,STAAR Modified, STAAR Alternate, and STAAR L Tests
%Phase-in 1
%Phase-in 2
%Final Rec.
%Advanced
All points reflect the most current data available and may differ slightly from data previously reported. 2015 math results are not comparable with those of prior years due to different standards. For grades and
subjects with multiple administrations, 1st administration results are used. North Forest schools are excluded in 2012 & 2013.
Source: TEA-Pearson STAAR Student Data Files
HISD Research and Accountability_______________________________________________________________________ Figure-9 Page 9
Packet Pg. 21
A.1.b
Figure 10
HISD STAAR English and Spanish Combined by Subject and Grade Level: 2012-2015 (Spring Administration)
Percent Met Standard: Phase-in 1, Phase-in 2, Recommended, and Advanced
Economically Disadvantaged Students (Econ. Disadv.)
Reading
68
71
64
49
Grade 3
31
32
14
15
67
60
Grade 4
43
30
11
68
Grade 5
9
63
Grade 6
55
30
61
58
49
61
27
27
11
12
11
59
72
30
30
10
13
14
14
47
70
47
45
47
7
9
12
11
12
63
60
52
54
50
43
8
9
74
72
32
13
58
10
64
66
64
65
44
44
28
28
27
6
4
59
52
26
44
20
13
3
4
70
65
60
62
62
41
42
25
24
24
7
6
6
62
64
59
46
33
13
21
5
66
52
28
8
62
62
60
62
38
40
20
19
20
23
3
2
3
4
48
29
13
14
2
2
68
53
28
73
22
25
7
8
59
46
70
63
49
31
46
49
26
24
4
4
3
2013
2014
2015
24
43
24
25
6
7
13
2
2014
33
39
23
2013
69
30
64
2012
67
28
10
14
17
27
25
33
36
24
50
57
59
26
54
Social Studies
68
48
27
68
15
72
27
66
29
56
46
64
47
65
64
53
8
9
61
11
11
30
63
27
26
Grade 8
13
10
27
28
11
41
Science
45
10
24
63
62
24
12
66
Writing
23
42
27
72
29
14
24
9
61
41
12
44
25
61
46
43
Grade 7
66
26
48
27
Math
2015
2012
2012
2013
2014
2015
2012
2013
59
43
56
47
27
25
11
9
2014
2015
47
52
31
13
5
14
5
2012
2013
48
31
16
49
37
6
13
4
2014
2015
Excludes STAAR Accommodated,STAAR Modified, STAAR Alternate, and STAAR L Tests
%Phase-in 1
%Phase-in 2
%Final Rec.
%Advanced
All points reflect the most current data available and may differ slightly from data previously reported. 2015 math results are not comparable with those of prior years due to different standards. For grades and
subjects with multiple administrations, 1st administration results are used. North Forest schools are excluded in 2012 & 2013.
Source: TEA-Pearson STAAR Student Data Files
HISD Research and Accountability_______________________________________________________________________ Figure-10 Page 10
Packet Pg. 22
A.1.b
Figure 11
HISD STAAR English and Spanish Combined by Subject and Grade Level: 2012-2015 (Spring Administration)
Percent Met Standard: Phase-in 1, Phase-in 2, Recommended, and Advanced
Non-Economically Disadvantaged Students (Non-Econ. Disadv.)
Reading
87
89
78
61
Grade 3
84
78
81
41
66
41
41
66
59
86
77
62
42
35
89
78
62
41
40
30
81
82
75
64
Grade 5
90
82
67
90
82
58
53
34
84
89
78
37
43
86
75
61
35
33
81
74
63
53
53
87
85
73
61
59
89
77
65
90
82
66
39
59
40
70
49
25
24
75
59
80
35
33
86
22
20
84
86
78
61
Grade 6
36
86
84
75
62
40
85
72
56
87
77
87
80
73
61
58
56
36
38
31
75
76
55
62
89
89
79
77
42
33
80
73
81
2013
66
64
39
2014
23
24
26
79
78
25
82
72
53
84
79
75
85
72
65
64
53
52
45
43
76
68
49
13
18
21
80
79
71
63
59
51
50
41
34
2015
17
86
59
44
21
6
67
47
67
2012
12
2013
74
66
12
11
2014
2015
2012
2013
2014
2015
22
2012
2013
45
2014
72
55
38
23
73
53
30
10
2012
25
28
49
53
Grade 8
53
31
30
65
59
80
73
36
39
4
61
64
49
18
88
58
79
70
40
31
86
87
62
Grade 7
52
75
38
73
56
54
86
45
66
64
35
83
83
70
29
86
Social Studies
78
59
78
Science
84
88
81
68
44
Writing
44
38
60
46
55
67
29
89
83
71
49
89
Grade 4
64
88
79
Math
25
2015
39
36
22
20
2012
2013
73
70
59
60
41
24
2014
35
19
2015
Excludes STAAR Accommodated,STAAR Modified, STAAR Alternate, and STAAR L Tests
%Phase-in 1
%Phase-in 2
%Final Rec.
%Advanced
All points reflect the most current data available and may differ slightly from data previously reported. 2015 math results are not comparable with those of prior years due to different standards. For grades and
subjects with multiple administrations, 1st administration results are used. North Forest schools are excluded in 2012 & 2013.
Source: TEA-Pearson STAAR Student Data Files
HISD Research and Accountability_______________________________________________________________________ Figure-11 Page 11
Packet Pg. 23
A.1.b
Figure 12
HISD STAAR English Only by Subject and Grade Level: 2012-2015 (Spring Administration)
Percent Met Standard: Phase-in 1, Phase-in 2, Recommended, and Advanced
All Students
Reading
71
Grade 3
36
74
67
53
51
37
36
Math
69
60
64
65
47
50
31
33
15
16
17
66
64
65
64
19
71
64
49
Grade 4
20
14
66
47
36
33
30
16
18
16
72
70
53
Grade 5
34
14
67
Grade 6
31
13
70
31
13
76
53
34
17
16
34
17
15
16
68
21
75
61
58
34
35
35
20
18
19
73
64
70
73
49
52
32
35
15
17
15
16
64
55
53
56
33
13
77
40
30
16
15
75
20
39
18
2013
2014
33
31
14
15
2
3
71
58
35
67
68
48
48
34
32
62
48
25
18
8
6
7
73
64
69
66
67
46
48
31
29
30
28
11
9
9
10
62
76
66
68
64
61
52
34
13
65
67
64
66
44
46
27
25
27
6
4
6
52
27
30
10
11
63
52
30
9
72
49
52
48
36
29
29
27
30
30
10
10
2012
2013
18
2015
2012
52
57
65
53
64
70
44
32
55
32
19
33
49
69
56
22
32
67
68
40
33
72
16
42
34
12
61
53
53
17
Social Studies
71
9
69
4
2012
35
50
59
37
32
14
69
68
Grade 8
32
52
49
52
Grade 7
46
75
68
34
64
62
54
Science
40
36
28
19
Writing
6
5
5
2013
2014
2015
2012
2013
2014
2015
48
33
31
15
14
2014
2015
53
57
54
55
43
36
37
19
19
21
19
9
9
10
8
2013
2014
2015
2012
Excludes STAAR Accommodated,STAAR Modified, STAAR Alternate, and STAAR L Tests
%Phase-in 1
%Phase-in 2
%Final Rec.
%Advanced
All points reflect the most current data available and may differ slightly from data previously reported. 2015 math results are not comparable with those of prior years due to different standards. For grades and
subjects with multiple administrations, 1st administration results are used. North Forest schools are excluded in 2012 & 2013.
Source: TEA-Pearson STAAR Student Data Files
HISD Research and Accountability_______________________________________________________________________ Figure-12 Page 12
Packet Pg. 24
A.1.b
Figure 13
HISD STAAR Spanish Only by Subject and Grade Level: 2012-2015 (Spring Administration)
Percent Met Standard: Phase-in 1, Phase-in 2, Recommended, and Advanced
All Students
Reading
72
73
Math
71
Grade 3
67
37
61
37
35
21
21
65
19
11
12
68
66
65
65
56
48
35
16
36
28
15
11
74
70
Grade 4
50
32
26
18
68
60
53
46
40
68
54
52
70
69
74
70
59
57
58
54
45
33
16
40
39
38
15
Science
73
71
66
56
Writing
35
30
30
29
13
13
14
17
36
32
30
14
8
7
10
8
59
55
Grade 5
45
38
42
44
35
32
23
23
24
23
30
26
0
15
11
6
1
2013
2014
12
7
3
2012
2013
5
2014
6
2015
25
21
8
5
2012
6
5
0
3
2015
2012
2013
2014
2015
2012
22
20
20
7
9
1
0
2
0
9
5
1
2013
2014
2015
12
Excludes STAAR Accommodated,STAAR Modified, STAAR Alternate, and STAAR L Tests
%Phase-in 1
%Phase-in 2
%Final Rec.
%Advanced
All points reflect the most current data available and may differ slightly from data previously reported. 2015 math results are not comparable with those of prior years due to different standards. For grades and
subjects with multiple administrations, 1st administration results are used. North Forest schools are excluded in 2012 & 2013.
Source: TEA-Pearson STAAR Student Data Files
HISD Research and Accountability_______________________________________________________________________ Figure-13 Page 13
Packet Pg. 25
A.1.b
Figure 14
HISD STAAR L Only by Subject and Grade Level: 2012-2015 (Spring Administration)
Percent Met Standard: Phase-in 1, Phase-in 2, Recommended, and Advanced
All Students
Math
Grade 3
48
43
25
Grade 4
46
47
30
33
13
5
12
4
17
7
15
4
37
37
33
32
23
14
6
13
4
Grade 5
Science
22
18
5
17
12
6
26
16
9
4
30
18
10
6
27
17
11
6
20
10
7
3
24
15
6
2
21
9
4
1
16
11
6
2
15
9
4
1
22
10
5
1
18
10
5
1
20
13
6
1
2013
2014
Social Studies
46
19
8
33
24
29
11
5
8
2
22
13
10
4
22
14
7
4
21
16
7
3
13
3
0
12
5
2
1
13
6
2
1
13
9
2
0
2012
2013
2014
Grade 6
33
12
6
Grade 7
24
7
2
Grade 8
26
7
1
2012
2015
Excludes STAAR Accommodated and STAAR Alternate
%Phase-in 1
%Phase-in 2
%Final Rec.
2015
9
1
0
2012
7
2
1
0
8
1
0
10
7
2
0
2013
2014
2015
%Advanced
All points reflect the most current data available and may differ slightly from data previously reported. 2015 math results are not comparable with those of prior years due to different standards. For grades and
subjects with multiple administrations, 1st administration results are used. North Forest schools are excluded in 2012 & 2013.
Source: TEA-Pearson STAAR Student Data Files
HISD Research and Accountability_______________________________________________________________________ Figure-14 Page 14
Packet Pg. 26
A.1.c
Board Monitoring System: Student Achievement
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Purpose
The Houston Independent School District (HISD) exists to strengthen the social and economic foundation
of Houston by assuring its youth the highest-quality elementary and secondary education available
anywhere. In fulfilling this goal, HISD's Board of Education has designed a program to systematically
monitor the district’s goals and core values. The following results inform the progress of the district as it
relates to student achievement regarding district-wide Educational Value-Added Assessment System
(EVAAS) growth measure scores in reading and in math, as defined below.
Board Monitoring Scorecard
Rigorous
Education
Student Achievement
2012–2013
2013–2014
2014–2015*
Districtwide EVAAS Growth Measure
Scores in Reading (Grades 3–8)
0.2
-0.1
0.1
Districtwide EVAAS Growth Measure
Scores in Math (Grades 3–8)
0.2
0.2
-0.1
* Only includes grades 4–8
Changes in Methodology
 In 2014–2015, the EVAAS analyses using STAAR and Iowa/Logramos results were conducted
separately. Because of this change, please note the following implications which are listed below
and shown in Table 1:
o
The gain model, which requires consecutive grade level and subject testing, could only be
used for reading and math in grades 4–8. The analysis for all other grade levels and subjects
used the predictive model.
o
The reference group for the reading and math grade 3 analyses and for all Iowa/Logramos
subjects and grade levels is the district, which means there are no district-level results for
these subjects and grade levels.
o
Because the reference group changed to the district in 2014–2015 for reading and math in
grade 3 and for all Iowa/Logramos subjects and grade levels and to the Texas Consortium
in science for grades 5 and 8 and in social studies for grade 8, the 2014–2015 results cannot
be directly compared to results from previous years where a different reference group was
used.
o
Because of the changes in analysis, only one year of EVAAS values are being reported for
grades 3-8.
Packet Pg. 27
A.1.c
Table 1. EVAAS Models and Reference Groups by Assessment
Reports provided for:
Model
Reference
Assessment
Used
Group
District
School
Teachers


STAAR Reading and Math in grade 3
Predictive
District



STAAR Reading and Math in grades 4-8
Gain
State
Texas



STAAR Science in grades 5 and 8
Predictive
Consortium
Texas



STAAR Social Studies in grade 8
Predictive
Consortium
Iowa (Language in grades 3-8; Science in


Predictive
District
grades 4, 6, and 7; Social Studies in grades 4-7)
Texas



STAAR EOC
Predictive
Consortium
Results
 In 2015, the district’s reading growth measure was 0.1 and the math growth measure was -0.1 for
grades 4–8.


Graphs are presented on page 3 in Figure 1 for reading and math in grades 4–8. Because of the
changes made to the models used, there are no district-level values for reading or math in grade
3, language, science in grades 4, 6, and 7, and social studies in grades 4–7. Also, because the
model used for science in grades 5 and 8 and for social studies in grade 8 changed to the predictive
model and the reference group changed to the Texas Consortium, the values from 2014 cannot be
directly compared to the values from 2015.
o
In grades 4–8, reading growth was higher than that of the state overall, particularly in grades 4,
5, and 7. Although reading growth was lower than that of the state in grades 6 and 8, growth
increased from 2014. Reading EVAAS uses the STAAR exam to assess growth.
o
In math, grade 5 was the only grade that showed higher growth as compared to the state. Math
EVAAS uses the STAAR exam to assess growth. Since the STAAR math assessment was new
for the 2014–2015 school year, its results will not be used for appraisals.
o
In science, there was evidence that students in grades 5 and 8 met the growth standard. In
grade 5, the gain index was -0.61, and in grade 8, the gain index was -0.73.
o
In social studies grade 8, the gain index was -0.68, which means there was evidence that
students met the growth standard.
Table 2 shows the STAAR End-of-Course (EOC) 2015 value-added growth measure and gain
index for each of the five EOC exams. The district exceeded the growth standard by at least one
standard error in Algebra I. In English I and Biology, the district met the growth standard. The district
did not meet the growth standard in English II by at least one standard error and in U.S. History by
at least two standard errors. Compared to the 2014 EOC value-added results, which can be found
in Table 3, the district showed improvements in English I and Biology.
Page 2 of 5
Packet Pg. 28
A.1.c
FIGURE 1. STAAR 4-8 Reading and Math Value-Added Growth Measure Scores, 2014 and 2015
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
-0.5
-1.0
-1.5
-2.0
Grade 4
Grade 5
Grade 6
Reading 2014 Growth Measure
Grade 7
Grade 8
Across Grades
(4-8)
Reading 2015 Growth Measure
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
-0.5
-1.0
-1.5
-2.0
Grade 4
Grade 5
Grade 6
Math 2014 Growth Measure
Grade 7
Grade 8
Across Grades
(4-8)
Math 2015 Growth Measure
Page 3 of 5
Packet Pg. 29
A.1.c
Table 2. STAAR EOC Value-Added By Subject, 2015
STAAR EOC Exam
Growth Measure
Gain Index
Algebra I
22.3
1.30
English I
2.9
0.35
English II
-10.2
-1.75
Biology
-4.6
-0.27
U.S. History
-38.4
-2.11
Table 3. STAAR EOC Value-Added By Subject, 2014
STAAR EOC Exam
Growth Measure
Gain Index
Algebra I
54.4
3.44
English I
-9.5
-0.83
English II
5.0
0.64
Biology
5.3
0.36
U.S. History
-3.9
-0.34
Legend
Color
Blue
Light Blue
Green
Yellow
Red
Growth Measure Compared
to the Growth Standard
At least 2 standard errors
above
Between 1 and 2 standard
errors above
Between 1 standard error
above and 1 standard error
below
Between 1 and 2 standard
errors below
More than 2 standard errors
below
Gain Index
Interpretation
Between 1.00 and
2.00
Significant evidence that students
exceeded the growth standard
Moderate evidence that students
exceeded the growth standard
Between -1.00 and
1.00
Evidence that students met the growth
standard
2.00 or greater
Between -2.00 and 1.00
Less than -2.00
Moderate evidence that students did not
meet the growth standard
Significant evidence that students did not
meet the growth standard
ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSE

The expansion of Literacy By 3 initiative for grades 4 and 5 will allow schools to meet the
individualized Reading needs for all students. The district’s purchase of additional resources will
assist campuses in closing the achievement gap.

We expect to see an improvement in our Grade 4 & 5 Reading STAAR scores this year. Common
Literacy By 3 Walkthrough Forms and Look Fors will calibrate expectations and assist monitoring
campus implementation.

iStation, formative assessments, and the DRA will help to provide frequent monitoring of student
progress in regards to skill development, campus and individual reading progress.

Professional development in the area of Math has been calendared with a specific focus on
planning and best practice in grades 3-5.
Page 4 of 5
Packet Pg. 30
A.1.c

There was a focus on literacy in middle schools with all schools being required to have
comprehensive literacy plans. Part of this included monitoring of iStation. Grade 6 th & 7th showed
progress with 8th grade showing a small decline.

The new math standards required a lot of staff development as well as a shift in the strategies to
teach 6th – 8th grade math. Continuous professional development will continue to be utilized to
strengthen the teachers instructional delivery of the new math standards.

Algebra 1 showed a significant increase in progress with no changes in the standards for 20142015 school year. Teachers will be trained on the new algebra 1 standards that will be in effect for
2015-2016.

There was a focus on in the area of Science and Social Studies. This focus which involved
Professional Development for teachers resulted in improved progress for both Science and Social
Studies in 8th grade.
Page 5 of 5
Packet Pg. 31
A.1.d
Board Monitoring System: Teachers
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Purpose
The Houston Independent School District (HISD) exists to strengthen the social and economic foundation
of Houston by assuring its youth the highest-quality elementary and secondary education available
anywhere. In fulfilling this goal, HISD's Board of Education has designed a program to systematically
monitor the district’s goals and core values. The following results inform the progress of the district as it
relates to retention of highly effective teachers and removal of ineffective teachers, as defined below.
Consistency
Board Monitoring Scorecard
Teachers
2012–2013
2013–2014
2014–2015*
Percent of Highly Effective Teachers Who
are Retained (EVAAS > 2.0)
87.6
87.9
88.1
Percent of Ineffective Teachers Who are
Exited (EVAAS < -2.0)
24.4
25.0
23.2
* Because the STAAR 3-8 math test was new for the 2014–2015 school year, composite EVAAS scores
were calculated without math.
Findings

Highly Effective Teachers are defined as teachers with an EVAAS Cumulative Teacher Gain
Index of 2.0 or greater.
o
For the 2014–2015 school year, there were 842 teachers with a Cumulative Teacher Gain
Index of 2.0 or higher out of 3,835 teachers with an EVAAS score. Since the STAAR 3-8
math test was new for the 2014–2015 school year and not used for appraisal purposes,
this total number does not include any teachers who only taught math in grades 3-8. Of
the 842 teachers with a Cumulative Teacher Gain Index of 2.0 or higher, 742 (88.1%)
were retained.
o
For the 2013–2014 school year, there were 832 teachers with a Cumulative Teacher Gain
Index of 2.0 or higher out of 4,457 teachers with an EVAAS score. Of these, 731 (87.9%)
were retained.
o
For the 2012–2013 school year, there were 695 teachers with a Cumulative Teacher Gain
Index of 2.0 or higher out of 4,469 teachers with an EVAAS score. Of these, 609 (87.6%)
were retained.
Packet Pg. 32
A.1.d
School Year
2012–2013
2013–2014
2014–2015

% Retained
87.6
87.9
88.1
Ineffective Teachers are defined as teachers with an EVAAS Cumulative Teacher Gain Index of
-2.0 or less.
o
For the 2014–2015 school year, there were 922 teachers with a Cumulative Teacher Gain
Index of -2.0 or lower out of the 3,835 teachers with an EVAAS score. This number does
not include any teachers who only taught math in grades 3-8. Of these, 214 (23.2%) are
no longer with the district. Of these 214 teachers, 56 were first-year teachers and 34 were
second-year teachers.
o
For the 2013–2014 school year, there were 805 teachers with a Cumulative Teacher Gain
Index of -2.0 or lower out of the 4,457 teachers with an EVAAS score. Of these, 201
(25.0%) are no longer with the district.
o
For the 2012–2013 school year, there were 1,099 teachers with a Cumulative Teacher
Gain Index of -2.0 or lower out of the 4,469 teachers with an EVAAS score. Of these, 268
(24.4%) are no longer with the district.
School Year
2012–2013
2013–2014
2014–2015

Table 1. Highly Effective Teachers
Total # with
# Highly
% Highly
EVAAS
Effective
Effective
4,469
695
15.6
4,457
832
18.7
3,835
842
22.0
Table 2. Ineffective Teachers
Total # with EVAAS
# Ineffective
4,469
1,099
4,457
805
3,835
922
% Ineffective
24.6
18.1
24.0
% Exited
24.4
25.0
23.2
District-wide, of the 11,963 teachers in the 2014–2015 school year, 10,265 (85.8%) were
retained. Of the 12,374 teachers in the 2013–2014 school year, 10,138 (81.9%) were retained. Of
the 11,737 teachers in the 2012–2013 school year, 9,699 (82.6%) were retained. Retention rates
of highly effective teachers exceeded the district retention rate of all teachers for each of the last
three years.
ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSE

Our staff reviews helped us align our vision for retaining highly qualified teachers.

Effective use of the Appraisal and Develop System is being utilized to coach, develop and train
teachers with a specific emphasis on developing teachers.
Page 2 of 2
Packet Pg. 33