Student Growth Data by Classroom Teacher and School Dr. Casey Wardynski HCS Superintendent February 4, 2013

35 to 65 = A Year of Growth Per Year of Instruction STAR Math Growth From Sept 2012 to Jan 2013 by Teacher within Elementary Schools Growth Rate by Teacher Elena Lee Every Dot Represents a Teacher. Dots are Arrayed From Low to High Growth Within Schools High Growth Latasha Bell Lakeisha Agun 35 to 65 = A Year of Growth Per Year of Instruction Low Growth Chaffee Farley MLK Dawson Morris Challenger Chapman Goldsmith Highlands Lakewood Williams Jones Valley McDonnell Montview Monte Sano Providence Ridgecrest Rolling Hills Weatherly Blossomwood Hampton Cove University Place

35 to 65 = A Year of Growth Per Year of Instruction STAR Reading Growth From Sept 2012 to Jan 2013 by Teacher within Elementary Schools Growth Rate by Teacher Every Dot Represents a Teacher. Dots are Arrayed From Low to High Growth Within Schools High Growth Linda Tisdale 35 to 65 = A Year of Growth Per Year of Instruction Low Growth Chaffee Farley MLK Dawson Morris Challenger Chapman Goldsmith Highlands Lakewood McDonnell Montview Ridgecrest Williams Jones Valley Monte Sano Providence Rolling Hills Weatherly Blossomwood Hampton Cove University Place

35 to 65 = A Year of Growth Per Year of Instruction STAR Math Growth From Sept 2012 to Jan 2013 by Teacher within Middle Schools Growth Rate by Teacher Every Dot Represents a Teacher. Dots are Arrayed From Low to High Growth Within Schools High Growth Debbie Lynch 35 to 65 = A Year of Growth Per Year of Instruction Low Growth Challenger Chapman Davis Hills Ed White Huntsville Providence Westlawn Williams Hampton Cove

35 to 65 = A Year of Growth Per Year of Instruction STAR Reading Growth From Sept 2012 to Jan 2013 by Teacher within Middle Schools Growth Rate by Teacher Every Dot Represents a Teacher. Dots are Arrayed From Low to High Growth Within Schools Freddie Stokes High Growth Jessica Depew 35 to 65 = A Year of Growth Per Year of Instruction Low Growth Challenger Chapman Davis Hills Ed White Huntsville Providence Westlawn Williams Hampton Cove

35 to 65 = A Year of Growth Per Year of Instruction STAR Math Growth From Sept 2012 to Jan 2013 by Teacher within P-8 Schools Growth Rate by Teacher Every Dot Represents a Teacher. Dots are Arrayed From Low to High Growth Within Schools High Growth Alvona Brown Frankie Newby 35 to 65 = A Year of Growth Per Year of Instruction Low Growth AAA ASFL Mt. Gap Whitesburg

35 to 65 = A Year of Growth Per Year of Instruction STAR Reading Growth From Sept 2012 to Jan 2013 by Teacher within P-8 Schools Growth Rate by Teacher Therina King High Growth Kandria Weaver Valerie Anderson Karen French 35 to 65 = A Year of Growth Per Year of Instruction Every Dot Represents a Teacher. Dots are Arrayed From Low to High Growth Within Schools Low Growth AAA ASFL Mt. Gap Whitesburg

35 to 65 = A Year of Growth Per Year of Instruction STAR MATH Growth From Sept 2012 to Jan 2013 by MATH High School Teachers ONLY Growth Rate by Teacher High Growth Jenny Hornby-Overbeek 35 to 65 = A Year of Growth Per Year of Instruction Every Dot Represents a Teacher. Dots are Arrayed From Low to High Growth Within Schools Low Growth Lee Grissom Butler Columbia Huntsville Johnson New Century

35 to 65 = A Year of Growth Per Year of Instruction STAR MATH Growth From Sept 2012 to Jan 2013 by READING – English High School Teachers ONLY Growth Rate by Teacher High Growth Mary Burns 35 to 65 = A Year of Growth Per Year of Instruction Every Dot Represents a Teacher. Dots are Arrayed From Low to High Growth Within Schools Grissom Low Growth Lee Butler Columbia Huntsville Johnson New Century

Westlawn Middle School STAR Math Growth From Sept 2012 to Jan 2013 by Student Proficiency and Growth Percent of Student Proficient at Grade Level High Growth Classrooms 35 to 65 SGP = Normal Growth Equivalent to One Year of Growth Per School Year Dynetics Teacher of Science Dynetics Teacher of Math Teach for America Teachers Average Growth = 51 SGP Student Growth Percentiles (SGP)

High Growth Classrooms Teacher of Social Studies Westlawn Middle School STAR Reading Growth From Sept 2012 to Jan 2013 by Student Proficiency and Growth Percent of Student Proficient at Grade Level High Growth Classrooms Average Growth = 69 SGP 35 to 65 SGP = Normal Growth Equivalent to One Year of Growth Per School Year COLSA Teacher of Social Studies Teach for America Teachers Intergraph Teacher of English Student Growth Percentiles (SGP)

Westlawn STAR Math Turnaround Model - Increase of 14 SGP & 23% Proficiency

Westlawn STAR Reading Turnaround Model - Increase of 10 SGP & 14% Proficiency Winter 2013 Spring 2012

Huntsville City Schools Effectively Created a Charter School Within the School System at Westlawn Middle School Huntsville Approach Charter Approach New Governance New Leadership New Staff Teach for America Capital Improvements Technology Integration MyFi Connectivity Extended Learning Day Professional Development Embedded in School Day Parent Education STEM – Project Lead the Way

Key Insights: Association Between Program Changes and Changes in Student Growth Davis Hills Ed White Dawson Westlawn Chapman MS Substantial Change in Teaching Staff Y Y Substantial Use of Teach for America Y Change in School Leadership Y Y Y Y Y Extended Learning Day Y Y Self Contained 6th Grade Y Y Y Y Y Use of Performance Based Incentives Y Y Provision of Social Workers Y Y Y Y Y Provision of School Culture Consultants Y Y Provision of Curriculum Professional Development Y Y Y Y Y School Infrastructure Improvement Y Y Y Y Creation of Laboratory School with Higher Education Y Implementation of Project Lead the Way Y Very Low Very High Rate of Student Growth Math & Reading Low Low Moderate

Percent of Students Proficient at Grade Level in STAR Reading and Math Winter 2012 to Winter 2013 Percent Proficient at Grade Level

Continuous Improvement - Next Steps Site Data Review Webinars with All Schools Central Office Staff Conduct Instructional Meetings at Schools Share Point Data Files to Create Common View of Developmental Needs Targeted Classroom Visits and additional support to classrooms with Low SGP Instructional Target Alignment Aligning Strategies Across Feeder Patterns

Continuous Improvement - Next Steps Summarize the progress you are making towards meeting your instructional target. Include the following in your summary statement: Are you on target to meet your One Page Instructional Targets? Include data you are using to determine if you are on target to achieve your goals? What are your successes? What are your challenges? Are you on target to meet your One Page Instructional Targets? YES Include data you are using to determine if you are on target to achieve your goals? STAR results, formative /common assessments, PST meeting agendas/notes, lesson plans, IPR from Renaissance Learning, team collaboration, discipline data. What are your successes? SPED teacher in top 10 growth, Increased rigor in Math, Progress in closing gap between fall and winter, discipline improved, integration of Pearson 1:1 Initiative, all teachers involved in math/reading achievement &/or remediation. What are your challenges? Sustaining positive growth in all students, more PD and emphasis on EXPLORE results, implementation and utilization of more divergent teaching and learning strategies.

Due to Policy Changes and Talent Management Practices, Today 57% of Schools Meet Faculty Desegregation Criteria. Last Year only 39% Met this Criteria.