Validating the Need for Systemic Change: Standard Practice

Instructional Leadership TrainingFebruary 5, 2013

Standard Practice

• Standard– Flag or other conspicuous object to serve as a

rallying point for a military force• From Old French estandart, probably from Frankish

standhard, literally "stand fast or firm" – Authoritative or recognized exemplar of quality or

correctness– Unit of measure• From Anglo-French, is perhaps metaphoric, the royal

standard coming to stand for royal authority in matters like setting weights and measures

Source: Online Etymology Dictionary

Standard Practice

• Practice– To do or perform often, customarily, or habitually – To be professionally engaged in– To perform repeatedly to acquire skill• Expertise and 10,000 hours of practice• “In practically any job it is dedication to deliberate

practice that makes you outstanding; it’s not talent.”• “Deliberate practice is a demanding activity that is not

inherently enjoyable.”

Questions

• What are we willing to stand fast and firm for?• What are the standard processes and

procedures that we follow when students don’t learn?

• How do we support teachers as they engage in the difficult work of deliberate practice?

1899 1913 1927 1941 1954 1968 1982 1995 20091.90

2.00

2.10

2.20

2.30

2.40

2.50

Men's High Jump World Record

Year

Heig

ht (m

)

1899 1913 1927 1941 1954 1968 1982 1995 20091.90

2.00

2.10

2.20

2.30

2.40

2.50

Men's High Jump World Record

Year

Heig

ht (m

)

Dwight StonesPat Matzdorf

Scissors

Western RollCenter of Gravity

StraddleFosbury Flop

Valeriy Brumel

Dick Fosbury

1899 1913 1927 1941 1954 1968 1982 1995 20091.90

2.00

2.10

2.20

2.30

2.40

2.50

Men's High Jump World Record

Year

Heig

ht (m

)

Scissors

Roll

Straddle Flop

Ivan Ukhov 2.38m

Anna Chicherova 2.05m

Valeriy Brumel

Messages

• Performance plateaus when systems reach physical limits imposed by methods, strategies, and approaches

• New approaches take time to learn, practice, and perfect before performance surpasses that produced by the old system

• New effective methods are often developed by individuals not at the top level of performance using older techniques

Phase-in Level II (Satisfactory)

Final Level II (Satisfactory)

Level III (Advanced) Campus and District Accountability

Student Accountability (SSI, EOC)

Phase 1

2012 & 2013 Phase 2

2014 & 2015 Final(Recommended)

2016 & beyondPhase-in for Level II

2012 & 2013 STAAR Performance Standards

94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 1230

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

State Assessment Performance - Reading(source: AEIS)

BISDState

Year

Perc

ent M

et S

tand

ard

STAAR

TAKSTAAS

All tests, grades3 – 8 and Reading 1 Recommended Level II

94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 1230

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

State Assessment Performance - Mathematics(source: AEIS)

BISDState

Year

Perc

ent M

et S

tand

ard

STAAR

TAKSTAAS

All tests, grades3 – 8 and Algebra 1 Recommended Level II

3 4 5 6 7 850

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

78 7780

7881

83

76 77 7775 76

8084

86 86 8885

90

2012 STAAR Performance - Reading (English)Phase-in Level II Satisfactory

BISD TX HEB

Grade Level

Perc

ent M

et S

tand

ard

3 4 5 6 7 850

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

71

62

76

81

73

79

68 68

77 77

71

7678 78

8789

8589

2012 STAAR Performance - Math (English)Phase-in Level II Satisfactory

BISD TX HEB

Grade Level

Perc

ent M

et S

tand

ard

4 7 5 8 850

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

7074

76

71

63

71 71

76

70

59

8179

8688

79

2012 STAAR Performance (English)Phase-in Level II Satisfactory

BISD TX HEB

Grade Level

Perc

ent M

et S

tand

ard

Writing Science Social Studies

Reading 1 Writing 1 Algebra 1 Biology W Geog50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

75

60

8791

85

68

55

8387

8182

68

95 9694

2012 STAAR EOC PerformancePhase-in Level II Satisfactory

BISD TX HEB

Subject

Perc

ent M

et S

tand

ard

94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 1230

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

State Assessment Performance - Mathematics(source: AEIS)

BISDState

Year

Perc

ent M

et S

tand

ard

STAAR

TAKSTAAS

All tests, grades3 – 8 and Algebra 1 Recommended Level II

# tests below

minimum

# tests met minimum but not satisfactory

0 1 2 3 4 Total

0 127 33 6 1 1671 90 44 12 5 1512 30 21 4 1 563 22 18 4 444 9 11 205 6 6

Total 157 221 53 12 1 444 students

2015 Cohort EOC Retesting (Number of students remaining after December testing)

277 students must take one or more tests

Four- orfive-year

graduation rate

RHSP/DAP diplomas

Level III Advanced performance

(beginning in 2014)

Index 4: Postsecondary readiness

District and High Schools

Elementary and Middle Schools

Part 1 Part 2

4- or 5-Year Grad Rate RHSP/DAP Index 4 - Part 1 Overall

District Name Total Pts Max Pts Total Pts Max Pts Total Pts Max Pts ScoreDenton 669.7 700 628.9 700 1298.6 1400 93Grapevine-Colleyville 817.8 900 603.8 700 1421.6 1600 89Hurst-Euless-Bedford 668.5 700 666.1 800 1334.6 1500 89Eagle Mountain-Saginaw 800.1 900 562.7 700 1362.8 1600 85Grand Prairie 627.9 700 560.1 700 1188.0 1400 85Keller 827.0 900 523.3 700 1350.3 1600 84Northwest 579.8 700 505.3 600 1085.1 1300 83Pflugerville 763.9 900 568.4 700 1332.3 1600 83Irving 510.7 600 464.1 600 974.8 1200 81Mansfield 875.5 1000 589.7 800 1465.2 1800 81Arlington 733.0 900 540.4 700 1273.4 1600 80Carrollton-Farmers Branch 609.2 700 511.8 700 1121.0 1400 80Fort Worth 519.6 700 668.9 800 1188.5 1500 79Birdville 804.7 1000 562.1 800 1366.8 1800 76

Source: Moak Casey, based on 2012 AEIS

Projected 2013 District Performance, Accountability Index 4

1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 20001400

1600

1800

2000

2200

2400

2600

f(x) = 0.8438594484716 x + 737.077315293288R² = 0.570736014298247

Correlation between STAAR Reading and ISIP

2012 STAAR Grade 3 Reading Scale Score

ISIP

Gra

de 4

Sca

le S

core

- Ja

n 20

13

Tier 2: 1959

Level 2 (final): 1468

K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 All U.S.0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

5542 42

50 45 43 4356 58

47

75

21

2515

23 28 27 25

24 20

23

202433

4228 27 30 32

20 2230

5

BISD ISIP Performance by Tiers - January 2013

tier 3

tier 2

tier 1

Grade Level

1

2

3

1

2

3

Recommended ISIP Grades K-8January 2013

75%

20%

5%

47%

23%

30%

Eng III

Eng II

Eng I

8th

7th

6th

5th

4th

3rd

2nd

1st

Kinder

Alg 2

Geom

Alg 1

8th

7th

6th

5th

4th

3rd

2nd

1st

Kinder

STAAR 3-8

STAAR EOC

EOC