1. Facing the Urban Challenge: The Story of the “Big Six Schools” L

2. Magical Partnership L

3. Houston ISD Demographic Information P Largest school district in Texas Seventh-largest school district in the United States 287 schools 6 early childhood 164 elementary 40 middle 44 high 26 combined/other 210,047 students 61.8% Hispanic 25.8% African American 3.3% Asian 8.0% White 106 languages spoken 80.3% economically disadvantaged

4. Every child in our district deserves to attend a safe school and receive a consistently rigorous quality education. HISD Position Statement P

5. Houston ISD Award Recognition P First ever two time winner of Broad Prize for Urban Education 2002 2013

6. HISD Organization Structure High School Chief Middle School Chief Elementary School Chief 1 Elementary School Chief 2 Dr. Sydney Zulliger Elementary School Chief 3 General Superintendent Dr. Terry Grier Chief Academic Officer Dr. Andrew Houlihan P

7. HISD Organization Structure School Support Officer James Benfield School Support Officer Patsy Cavazos Elementary School Chief 2 Dr. Sydney Zulliger School Support Officer Dr. Matilda Orozco School Support Officer Dr. Tim Jenney Director James Metoyer School Support Officer Kimberly Fonteno P

8. Who is the Big Six ? Historically Academically Unacceptable Decreasing Achievement Changing Program and Enrollment New Campus Administrators ( Range 1 -3 Years) Low Benchmark Results High Poverty Minority Campuses Some of the Characteristics M

9.  Dodson Elementary – New School-wide Montessori  Foerster Elementary – Refugee & ELL Population  Grissom Elementary - Decline in all STAAR tests large homeless  Gross Elementary – Fractured campus culture Mitchell – new administrator with previous testing irregularities  Woodson- Historically under achieving K-8 campus Big Six Campuses: Who Are We? M

10. What are we going to do about all that RED!!!!!! M

11. How were they Identified  Benchmark data trends  Length of principal tenured  SSO classroom observations  Sense of uncertainty 11 M

12. Process  Meeting with open and transparent feedback with big six campus leaders  Big Six Principal Cohort created to continue the collaboration  Principals voiced type of support that was needed  Campuses created a strategic plan  Area 2 discussed how we could support plan 12 K

13. What does central office support look like?  Strategically redeployed Teacher Development Specialist(TDS)  Conducted campus data talks  Build teacher capacity through job embedded Professional Development  Supported principals in aligning staff strength with student needs  Realigned the support of the NCUST facilitator  Chief teamed SSO’s to provide additional support  Bi-weekly visits by SSO teams to provide feedback  Monthly visits by entire area 2 team with NCUST facilitator 13 K

14. HOUSTON INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT Changes in Cohort Data Over Time K

15. Perspectives Student Teacher Principa l Teacher Development Specialist Central Office K

16. Area 2 Admin. & TDS Support Principal Teacher Student Success K

17.  The test was administered 3 weeks earlier than last year  Some schools were more consistent with the plan than others  Are the practice quizzes at the same level of rigor as the actual STAAR test Big Six Considerations J

18. Outcomes Tobacco story with electricity J

19.  297 Priority Schools in State of Texas  31 Houston ISD Priority Schools  0 Priority Schools in Area 2 AYP Identified Schools Lowest Classification is Priority J

20.  District increased by 3% in Reading  Dodson 12% increase  Woodson 15% increase STAAR Reading Data J  District decreased by 5% in Reading  Woodson 11% increase  Dodson 15% increase  Mitchell 18% increase  District decreased by 5% in Reading  Big Six increased by 1% in Reading  Gross 6% increase  Mitchell 18% increase  District increased by 9% in Reading  Foerster 8% increase  Gross 10% increase  District increased by 10% in Reading  Big Six increased by 21% in Reading  All six schools had double digit increases  Gross 20% increase  Woodson 25% increase  Dodson 26% increase  Foerster 27% increase 3rd 4th 5th 3 rd – 4 th 4 th – 5 th Grade level Data Cohort Data

21.  District had no change in Math  Dodson 36% increase STAAR Math Data J  District increased by 1% in Math  Big Six increased by 4% in Math  Dodson 7% increase  Grissom 8% increase  Mitchell 27% increase  District increased by 7% in Math  Mitchell 23% increase  Dodson 35% increase  District decreased by 1% in Math  Big Six increased by 2% in Math  Woodson 5% increase  Mitchell 22% increase  District increased by 16% in Math  Big Six Results in Math  Foerster 16% increase  Grissom 18% increase  Woodson 21% increase  Gross 21% increase  Mitchell 37% increase  Dodson 43% increase 3 rd 4 th 5 th 3 rd - 4 th 4 th - 5 th Grade level DataCohort Data

22. Overall Highlights Area 2 Moved the Bottom Schools STANFORD Results  Of the bottom 40 schools for STANFORD Reading all grade levels combined we only had 8 schools.  Of the bottom 40 schools for STANFORD Math all grade levels combined we only had 9 schools. Information from Research and Accountability Report submitted to the board

23. Performance Bonuses By Percent

24.  Curriculum  Instruction  Assessment 2014 FOCUS C

25.  Implement District Curriculum  Breaking down standards  Formative assessment – “Blue Prints” 2014 Curriculum Focus P

26.  Use formative assessments data to create “Just in time Training”  Use data to identify strongest teachers and allow time for them to share strategies with principals and struggling teachers  Embedded coaches working directly with struggling teachers  Teachers are provided with daily problem-solving ice-breakers based on struggling standards  Identify successful consultants and meet weekly to ensure alignment continuity 2014 Instructional Focus P

27.  On-going data conversations with struggling campuses  Common calendar  Spiral back weakest standards based on formative assessment data  Timely turnaround of formative assessment data for teachers re-teaching and interventions  Identify successful consultants and meet weekly to ensure alignment continuity  Data system more sophisticated (see next 2 slide sample) 2014 Assessment Focus C

28. Teacher Initials Campus Level and Teacher Level Data P

29. Student Level Data with Standards P

30. Challenges  Maintaining Timelines for 40+ schools  Harder to Personalize support (Team support has to be diluted)  New data system that has glitches K

31. For Additional Information: Kfonteno@houstonisd.org morozco@houstonisd.org