Systemic Data Analysis and Needs Assessment

District Name: Houston ISD Campus Number: 101912075

Campus Name: Lawson Middle School Grades Served: 6th, 7th, 8th
Part 1: 2015-16 Targeted Improvement Plan Evaluation
Using the results from your 2015-16 plan evaluation from the TAIS 2.1a module, answer the following: Find the TAIS 2.1a module here.
1. What strategies did you use to address performance issues during the 2015-16 school year?
1) Focus on data driven instruction building teacher capacity to understand data,
2) Implement well-planned lessons in which the standards, activities, and assessments are aligned,
3) Build teacher capacity through professional development in PLC, after school and out of school opportunities. Implementation will be monitored through classroom walkthroughs with feedback given to the teacher, and
4) Increase teacher content knowledge through professional development and implementation into classroom lessons.

2. Strategy implementation:
Which strategies were successfully implemented? Which strategies were not successfully implemented?
1) Focus on data driven instruction building teacher capacity to understand data 2) Implement well-planned lessons in which the standards, activities, and assessments are aligned,
3) Build teacher capacity through professional development in PLC, after school and out of school opportunities.
Implementation will be monitored through classroom walkthroughs with feedback given to the teacher, and
4) Increase teacher content knowledge through professional development and implementation into classroom
lessons.
Strategy impact on student outcomes refers to
student achievement improvements that resulted
3. Strategy impact on student outcomes: from the implementation of the strategy. It does
not include the success of adults in implementing a
Which strategies had a positive impact on student outcomes? Which strategies failed to produce a positive impact on student outcomes? strategy. A strategy may be successfully
implemented but fail to impact student outcomes.
1) Focus on data driven instruction building teacher capacity to understand data 2) Implement well-planned lessons in which the standards, activities, and assessments are aligned, This might happen if the wrong root cause was
3) Build teacher capacity through professional development in PLC, after school and out of school opportunities. identified.
Implementation will be monitored through classroom walkthroughs with feedback given to the teacher, and
4) Increase teacher content knowledge through professional development and implementation into classroom
lessons.

4. What data supports the information provided in questions 2 and 3 above?

According to the 2016 TEA Accountability ratings for Index 2, 68% of all students met or exceeded their progress measure. The summative rating for 42% of teachers was Level 2 (Developing) according to the Teacher Appraisal and
Development System evaluation feedback. Based on weekly PLC Agendas, after each assessment the teachers completed the Data into Action Framework which strategically helped teachers analyze data by TEKS, ethnicity
subgroup, Special Pops, as well as by class periods. Once each semester data conferences were held with teacher and appraiser in order to dig deeper to guide teachers in using data to drive instruction. Within the Math
department, 95% of the teachers implemented Student Data folders and collaborated with their scholars on tracking and developing student learning goals. By the end of the academic year, 300 students had not met the necessary
requirements to promote to the next grade level, causing them to attend extended learning in summer school.

5. For the strategies that were unsuccessfully implemented or that failed to impact student outcomes, to what do you attribute this lack of success?
Teacher's lack of knowledge of TEKS, inappropriate pedagogical practices and lack of monitoring systems impacted their ability to plan lessons well in ELA. Lessons were well-planned in math, but delivery of instruction was not
aligned with the rigor of the state assessments. Implementation and monitoring were not consistent, professional development was not realigned to meet the teacher's needs.
Longitudinal Plan Evaluation: 2014-15 Targeted Improvement Plan
ONLY COMPLETE THIS LONGITUDINAL EVALUATION SECTION IF THE CAMPUS WAS REQUIRED TO DEVELOP A TARGETED IMPROVEMENT PLAN IN 2014-15.
If the campus did not develop a targeted plan in this year, skip to Longitudinal Plan Evaluation: 2013-14 Targeted Improvement Plan.
1. What strategies did you use to address performance issues during the 2014-15 school year?
<Enter Text>

2. Strategy implementation:
Which strategies were successfully implemented? Which strategies were not successfully implemented?
<Enter Text> <Enter Text>

3. Strategy impact on student outcomes:

Which strategies had a positive impact on student outcomes? Which strategies failed to produce a positive impact on student outcomes?
<Enter Text> <Enter Text>

4. What data supports the information provided in questions 2 and 3 above?

<Enter Text>

5. For the strategies that were unsuccessfully implemented or that failed to impact student outcomes, to what do you attribute this lack of success?
<Enter Text>
Longitudinal Plan Evaluation: 2013-14 Targeted Improvement Plan
ONLY COMPLETE THIS LONGITUDINAL EVALUATION SECTION IF THE CAMPUS WAS REQUIRED TO DEVELOP A TARGETED IMPROVEMENT PLAN IN 2013-14.
If the campus did not develop a targeted plan in this year, skip to Part 2: Systemic Data Analysis.
1. What strategies did you use to address performance issues during the 2013-14 school year?
<Enter Text>

2. Strategy implementation:
Which strategies were successfully implemented? Which strategies were not successfully implemented?
<Enter Text> <Enter Text>

3. Strategy impact on student outcomes:

Which strategies had a positive impact on student outcomes? Which strategies failed to produce a positive impact on student outcomes?
<Enter Text> <Enter Text>

4. What data supports the information provided in questions 2 and 3 above?

<Enter Text>

5. For the strategies that were unsuccessfully implemented or that failed to impact student outcomes, to what do you attribute this lack of success?
<Enter Text>
Part 2: Systemic Data Analysis
Use the data collection pyramid completed for each Critical Success Factor (CSF) to complete this section. This data was collected during the TAIS 201 Module 2.1b. Find the TAIS 2.1b module here.
1. Results of data analysis:

Critical Success Factor Summary of findings for this CSF What data sources validate this finding?

1: Academic Three year trend data shows that academic performance declined in the areas of Math, STAAR, Mock STAAR, HISD Snapshot Assessments, Do Nows and Exit Tickets, TELPAS, student grades,
Performance Reading, Social Studies, and Science. discipline Reports, failure rates, I-Station results.
(Curriculum and
Instruction)
The campus analyzed the data, but did not effectively use the data to drive instruction. TEKS Tracker, student profile sheets, coaching, walkthroughs and feedback, PLCs.
2: Quality Data to
Drive Instruction

For each of the last three years, there was a change in Leadership Team members and their Principal appraisal, teacher appraisal, teacher feedback, teacher data, staff surveys, administrator weekly reports.
3: Leadership roles and responsibilities; therefore making it difficult to have a consistent, highly effective
Effectiveness leadership team.

Each year, the Master Schedule was modified to increase the amount of instructional time per Master Schedule, intervention schedule, tutorial schedule sign-in sheets, Fast Track Program (credit recovery), PLC
4: Increased class period. Extended learning time was offered through the Apollo 20 Program during the Agendas, change from a 75 minute to 90 minute class period.
Learning Time 2015-2016 school year.

Based on the amount of family and parental engagement events offered each month, we Academic & Fine Arts showcases, parent/teacher conferences, Parent Advisory Council, SDMC meetings, PAT
5: Family and received a Gold Star Award from the HISD Family and Community Engagement department. meetings (building construction)
Community However; the parent and community turnout continues to be less than 10% of the student body.
Engagement

The number of teachers that are returning each year has increased; however, there is still a Surveys, attendance, discipline, teacher retention rate, community involvement and support, PBIS.
teacher turnover rate of at least 35%. Although the number of ISS disciplinary infractions has
6: School Climate decreased; there is still an overall high number of school-wide discipline infractions occurring
daily.
According to the end of year Teacher and Appraisal Development System (TADS) evaluation Teacher and appraisal development system, professional development, EVAAS, attendance, formative assessment
data, a majority of the teachers were rated at a level 2 (developing). data, National Center for Urban School Transformation (NCUST) walkthroughs.
7: Teacher Quality

2. What were the 2-3 lowest performing CSFs in 2015-16?

CSF-1: Academic Performance (Curriculum and Instruction), CSF-6: School Climate

3. What were the 2-3 highest performing CSFs in 2015-16?

CSF-4: Increased Learning Time, CSF 5: Family and Community Engagement

4. Have the strategies implemented as part of the 2016-17 Targeted Improvement Plan made significant impacts to the lowest performing CSFs? Describe the data that supports this answer.
No, there is no significant impact according to the 2016-17 TIP Plan. Trends in the district Snapshot assessments shows that our school is still scoring below the state's standards in Math 7th and 8th, Reading 6th-8th and Writing
7th. Weekly PLC agendas have not been aligned across all content areas. Teacher Appraisal and Development System data shows that at least 60% of the mid-year progress conferences have Level 3 teacher ratings; contradictory
to our assessment data, which indicates that more than 60% of our students are not meeting mastery on standards. According to In-school and Out-of Suspensions, we are still averaging 15% more behavior infractions than other
middle schools across the district.
Part 3: Systemic Root Cause
Use the root causes identified in this and last year's Targeted Improvement Plans and systemic root cause analysis results to complete the following section. Find the root cause analysis process here.
1. Of the root causes identified in last year's and this year's targeted improvement plans, which are still unresolved for this campus? Describe the data that supports this.
1) There was no true school-wide system to determine that the teacher's collection of data is being used to drive instruction.
2) Lesson plans and classroom observations were used to determine teacher's lack of content knowledge and instructional strategies.
3) Based on PLC Agendas and HISD's professional development offerings, we discovered there was not an effective system for providing teachers the knowledge and skills necessary to plan and deliver rigorous, aligned lessons
based on Math, Reading and Writing TEKS.

2. What factors influence the persistence of the unresolved root causes identified in question 1?

Unresolved Root Cause Campus Factors District Factors Other School System Factors Factors outside the school system

Teachers did not properly Incomplete data analysis system; Leadership Team did No cohesive plan district-wide that establishes a Limited resources to purchase a <Enter Text>
disaggregate data to drive instruction. not include modeling for teachers to show them how to foundational framework on how to utilize data to drive complete data program other than
use the data to drive instruction after it was analyzed. instruction. EdPlan.

Novice teachers; three-fourths of the
teachers were first year, so teachers
had a lack of content knowledge and
instructional strategies.
Leadership Team provided provided more training on
instructional strategies rather than content knowledge;
ineffective monitoring through observation and feedback.
Limited skillset to effectively implement a behavior
management plan in order to avoid instructional pitfalls.
Unpredictability in weekly Instructional Coach support Master schedule created a limited Lack of support from the Alternative
and campus responsibility alignment across the district is amount of content PLC planning time. Teacher Certification Pprograms
not defined. Lack of resources and district PD offerings Extreme student defiant and
to support secondary content knowledge. aggressive behaviors.

There was not an effective system for Reorganization of leaderhip roles to meet the needs of Lack of support and follow-up from district departments to Lack of administrative skills to Limited resources. Due to budget
providing teachers the knowledge and the campus. PLC framework was not implemented share and model best practices across campuses. effectively manage time to monitor cuts, science consultant contracted
skills necessary to plan and deliver consistently throughout all content areas. Continuous District mandates supported developing a system to plan and provide feedback. Lack of ended after the first semester.
rigorous, aligned lessons based on lesson plan modifications; no uniformity. Inconsistent using Lead4Ward, however; the Planning Guide PD was administrative skillset to prioritize all
Math, Reading and Writing TEKS. cycle of training, implementation, coaching, monitoring not offered until after the school year began. assigned responsibilities to meet the
and feedback. needs of the campus.

3. What common factors appear in the chart above? What data have been collected about those factors?
Weekly PLC agendas show that only 60 minutes or less of PLC planning time is actually being spent on lesson planning either once or twice a week. Agenda minutes reflect that the lesson plan protocol presented during PLC time
was not modeled frequently enough for teacher's to successfully implement it. Discipline reports show that at least 70% of administrator's time is being spent on behavior and parent conferences. STAAR results and district
assessments indicate that rigorous, aligned lesson plans were not being planned and implemented. At least 30% of the teacher appraiser evaluations have a Level 2 rating (developing) in PL-2 criteria Collects, tracks, and uses
student data to drive instruction. Administrators weekly calendars shows that at least 70% of time is not being spent on monitoring and providing teacher feedback due to handling enormous amounts of discipline management
issues.

4. Using the information provided above and the work from the 10-5-5 root cause analysis, enter the systemic root cause for the campus' persistent low performance below. This systemic root cause will be carried over into the
campus turnaround plan. (Note: Up to two systemic root causes may be entered. Please ensure that the systemic root cause describes a problem with a school system or systems, NOT a symptom of a system problem.)

There is an inconsistent cycle of aligned professional development, implementation, coaching, monitoring and feedback in order to provide teachers with the knowledge and skills to deliver instruction effectively and impact student
achievement. School-wide behavior management system has not been fully developed and implemented to properly equip the staff with social and emotional techniques to promote positive behavior interventions.