Mike Morath DISD data

7/29/2019 Mike Morath DISD data

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/mike-morath-disd-data 1/6

Stud

nt Perf rmanc



AEIS data are from the Texas Education Agency (TEA) Academic Excellence Indicator System.ACT/SAT data lags two full years as reported by TEA. Dallas ISD tracks the data internally as well, butuses a slightly different data set when making calculations due to limited data availability, causing somediscrepancy between the two. But Internal data are readily available for the most recently completed yearand so a partial data set is included.

20.0%

22.0%

24.0%

26.0%

28.0%

30.0%

32.0%

34.0%

36.0%

38.0%

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

SAT/ACT Achievement Gap ‐ African American

Students

DISD White

‐DISD

Black

(AEIS) State

White

‐DISD

Black

(AEIS)

DISD White ‐ DISD Black (Internal)

20.0%

22.0%

24.0%

26.0%

28.0%

30.0%

32.0%

34.0%

36.0%

38.0%

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

SAT/ACT Achievement Gap ‐ Hispanic Students

DISD White ‐ DISD Hispanic (AEIS) State White ‐ DISD Hispanic (AEIS)

DISD White ‐ DISD Hispanic (Internal)



This graph focuses on achievement as recorded using the Texas state accountability system, as opposedto the nationally normed SAT/ACT. The data analyzed are from the Sum of All Tests, All Grades testedas reported by TEA, for TAAS (from 1995-2002), TAKS (2003-2011), and STAAR (2012-2013). Thegraph is specifically focused on the gap between African American and White students,

The graph is a measure of change from one year to the next. So, the values in 1995 reflect improvementor deterioration in the achievement gap from 1994 to 1995. Anything above zero represents animprovement (ie, narrowing of the difference between black students and their white peers). Anythingbelow zero represents deterioration.

The graph presents both DISD numbers (specifically, DISD black students vs. their statewide white peers)and State numbers (statewide black students and their statewide white peers).

Given the lack of national norm referencing in the state’s accountability system, and the frequentreduction in cut points for passing, it is impossible to know from just looking at state data whether there isan absolute improvement in student achievement. As a result, the purple line in this graph shows the

relative improvement Dallas made vs. the state. Any year Dallas improved more than the state is a yearwhen the achievement gap narrowed in Dallas. Given the data, this happened only 8 years since 1994,including a 1.8% reduction in 2013. The gap worsened in 11 of those years, including a 1.0% increase in2012.

‐15%

‐10%

‐5%

0%

5%

Annual Improvement (or Deterioration) of

Achievement Gap

DISD Gap Reduction State Gap Reduction DISD Gap Improvement vs State



Princi

Returnin

Departin

Al l Pr inc

Departinbut whothe 2012-have an

pal Per

g Principal

g Principal

ipals

Principals inre not servin2013 schoolEI.

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

E

orman

Per (Obs

s

s

cludes all prig as principalear did not r

New Principa

aluation Syst

e

rincipal

New Pri

formanceervational)

35.5

24.5

33.4

cipals whos in 2013-20eceive a sco

lm

SchoolI

Evaluati

cipal Eval

Achie

(Studen

2

2

2

tarted with t4 (for any ree under the

Effectivenessdex (SEI)

n Data

uation Syst

ementScores)

.7

.4

.2

e district durason). Princew Principa

Aver

Princ

Aver

Princ

Aver

Princ

em

Total

59.4

46.4

56.7

ing the 2012-ipals who lef l Evaluation

ge Departing

ipal

ge of All

ipals

ge Returning

ipal

SchoEffectiv

Index (

51.

46.

50.

2013 schoolprior to theystem, but

olness

SEI)

yearnd of o



Teachers

Teacher Vacancy Levels At the Start of School

Date of Measurement

Total Number of

Teacher Vacancies

ElementaryVacancies Middle SchoolVacancies High SchoolVacancies

8/26/2013 337 205 49 83

8/26/2012 661 355 123 183

8/26/2011 886 497 130 259

8/26/2010 501 234 113 153

8/26/2009 382 212 57 112

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

9001000

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Teacher Vacancies



Classroom Effectiveness Index (CEI) Data

CEI Division

Return ing Teachers Separated Teachers

Mean CEINumber of

Teachers wi thCEI

Mean CEINumber of

Teachers wi thCEI

Language Arts 50.5 1882 49.4 363

Social Studies 50.2 301 51.8 57

Math 50.8 1798 48.8 341

Science 51.0 491 30.1 100

World Languages 50.6 76 51.5 15

Computer Science 51.5 56 45.2 2

Al l 50.7 49.4

Return ing Teachers Separated Teachers

Teachers With CEI 3766 717

Teachers Without CEI 4845 819

CEI Data are from the 2012-2013 school year.

Separations include anyone who worked for the district at the start of the 2012-2013 school year who nolonger works for the district as of the start of the 2013-2014 school year, regardless of reason for theseparation.

Total teacher counts don’t equal the sum of individual teaching CEIs because some teachers covermultiple areas and therefore have multiple CEIs.

Mike Morath DISD data

Documents