Imagine 20 20 -14 Final Report - Dallas Independent … ent. Imagine 2020 ... Report uation a 14-530-2 ust 2014 e Hall, Ph Douglas, P Zhang, Ph 020 I ... Imagine 2020 Initiative Final

Deepartm

Im

2013

ment o

magin

3-14

of Eva

MSuperinte

ne 20

Final

aluatio

Mike Milesendent of S

020

Repo

on and

Schools

EA

ort

d Ass

A14-53

essm

30-2

ent

Imagine 2020 Initiative Final Report 2013-14

ii

This page is intentionally left blank.

L. ShanManage

Dep

e Hall, Ph.D. er – Program

A

partment

Imag

201

Evaluation

Cecilia OakeAssistant Su

pproved

t of Eval

EA

Aug

L.ShanNora E.

Jinhai

gine 2

13-14

eley, Ph.D. uperintendent

MSuperint

d Report

luation a

A14-530-2

gust 2014

ne Hall, PhDouglas, PZhang, Ph

020 I

Final

ND

t – Evaluation

Mike Milestendent of S

Imagine 2020

t of the

and Ass

4

h.D. Ph.D. h. D.

Initiat

Repo

Nancy KihnemDirector – Pro

n and Assessm

Schools

0 Initiative Fin

sessmen

tive

ort

man, Ph.D. ogram Evalua

ment

nal Report 20

nt

ation

13-14

iii


iv

This page is intentionally left blank.


v

Table of Contents ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................................... 1

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION .......................................................................................................................... 3

Background Information ............................................................................................................................ 3

Purpose and Goal ...................................................................................................................................... 3

PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF THE EVALUATION ........................................................................................ 3

MAJOR EVALUATION QUESTIONS AND RESULTS ................................................................................. 4

What were the characteristics of the Imagine 2020 feeder patterns and schools? ............................... 4

Methodology .......................................................................................................................................... 4

Results ................................................................................................................................................... 4

What were the programs and components of Imagine 2020? ................................................................ 14

Methodology ........................................................................................................................................ 14

Results ................................................................................................................................................. 14

How was the Student Services focus of the Imagine 2020 Initiative implemented? ............................... 17

Methodology ........................................................................................................................................ 17

Results ................................................................................................................................................. 17

How was the accelerated instruction program of Imagine 2020 implemented and what were the

outcomes? ............................................................................................................................................... 22

Methodology ........................................................................................................................................ 22

Results ................................................................................................................................................. 23

How was the optional extended day for students implemented? ............................................................ 28

Methodology ........................................................................................................................................ 28

Results ................................................................................................................................................. 28

What curriculum and instruction components, including optional initiatives, were implemented in the

Imagine 2020 schools? ............................................................................................................................ 32

Methodology ........................................................................................................................................ 32

Results ................................................................................................................................................. 32

How was the Imagine 2020 parent and community engagement program implemented? ..................... 34

Methodology ........................................................................................................................................ 34

Results ................................................................................................................................................. 34


vi

How was in-school tutoring in Imagine 2020 schools implemented? ...................................................... 40

Methodology ........................................................................................................................................ 40

Results ................................................................................................................................................. 40

What were the first-year outcomes for in-school tutoring? ...................................................................... 45

Methodology ........................................................................................................................................ 45

Results ................................................................................................................................................. 45

What were the Year 1 outcomes of the Imagine 2020 Initiative? ............................................................ 48

Methodology ........................................................................................................................................ 48

Results ................................................................................................................................................. 48

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................... 67

Summary ................................................................................................................................................. 67

Recommendations ................................................................................................................................... 70

REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................................ 72

APPENDICES ............................................................................................................................................. 73

Appendix A: STAAR Level II Passing Rates by Campus and Student Subgroup................................... 74

Appendix B: 2013-2014 Focus Group Protocol: Student Services ......................................................... 82

Appendix C: 2013-2014 Student Interview Protocol: Accelerated Instruction ......................................... 83

Appendix D: 2013-2014 Teacher Interview Protocol: Accelerated Instruction ........................................ 84

Appendix E: 2013-2014 Classroom Observation Protocol: Accelerated Instruction ............................... 85

Appendix F: Imagine 2020 Initiative Snapshot ........................................................................................ 86


vii

List of Tables Table Page 1 Age, Race/Ethnicity, Sex, and Grade Level – Program Participants ............................................. 23

2 English Proficiency, Low SES, and Retention – Program Participants ......................................... 24

3 Characteristics of Extended Day Participants and Nonparticipants .............................................. 29

4 2012-13 STAAR Results, Extended Day Participants and Nonparticipants .................................. 29

5 Imagine 2020 Curriculum and Instruction, Math and Science Programs ...................................... 33

6 Imagine 2020 Curriculum and Instruction, Reading Programs ...................................................... 34

7 Imagine 2020 Curriculum and Instruction, Social Studies Programs ............................................ 34

8 Imagine 2020 Curriculum and Instruction, Other Programs .......................................................... 34

9 2013-14 Imagine 2020 Parent Engagement Goals ....................................................................... 35

10 2013-14 PREP University Workshop Topics ................................................................................. 37

11 Group Excellence, Number of Students Tutored by Campus ........................................................ 41

12 Average Length and Number of Group Excellence Tutoring Sessions, by Campus ..................... 42

13 Readers 2 Leaders Tutoring Session Details ................................................................................ 44

14 Reading Partners, Number of Students Tutored by Campus ........................................................ 45

15 Reading Partners Tutoring Session Details ................................................................................... 45

16 STAAR Math and Algebra EOC Results for Group Excellence Students ...................................... 46

17 Percentage Change of STAAR of 2012-13 and 2013-14 in Reading Partners ............................. 46

18 Average Algebra I EOC Scale Scores for In-School Tutoring Participants and District ................ 47

19 Independent Samples T-Test Results for In-School Tutoring Participants Tested on

Algebra I EOC ................................................................................................................................ 47

20 ITBS Reading Results (40th Percentile or Above) for Grade 1 In-School Tutoring, by Campus .. 47

21 ITBS Reading Results (40th Percentile or Above) for Grade 2 In-School Tutoring, by Campus .. 47

22 Logramos Results (40th Percentile or Above) for Grades 1-2 In-School Tutoring, by Campus .... 48

23 2013 and 2014 State Accountability Ratings for Imagine 2020 Campuses ................................... 49

24 2013 and 2014 STAAR Results (English and Spanish) in Reading and Math for Grade 3 ........... 50



27 2013 and 2014 STAAR Results (English and Spanish) in Reading and Math for Grades 6-8 ...... 53


viii

28 2013 and 2014 STAAR Results (English and Spanish) in Science for Grades 5 and 8 ................ 54

29 2013 and 2014 STAAR Results (English and Spanish) in Social Studies for Grade 8 ................. 54

30 2013 and 2014 STAAR Results (English and Spanish) in Writing for Grades 4 and 7 ................. 55

31 2013 and 2014 STAAR EOC Results (English and Spanish) for Imagine 2020, SOC,

and District ..................................................................................................................................... 56

32 Factor Analysis of Survey Items .................................................................................................... 59

33 Paired Samples t-test Results for Student Noncognitive Factors Survey ...................................... 60

34 Number of Referrals for 2012-13 and 2013-14, Percent Change, Imagine 2020 High Schools

and District ..................................................................................................................................... 65

35 Number of Referrals for 2012-13 and 2013-14, Percent Change, Imagine 2020 Middle Schools

and District ..................................................................................................................................... 65

36 Number of Referrals for 2012-13 and 2013-14, Percent Change, Imagine 2020 Elementary

Schools and District ....................................................................................................................... 66

List of Figures Figure Page

1 STAAR EOC Level II Passing Rates for Imagine 2020 High Schools and District .......................... 5

2 Grade 6 STAAR Level II Passing Rates for Imagine 2020 Middle Schools and District ................. 5



5 Grade 3 STAAR Level II Passing Rates for Imagine 2020 Elementary Schools, 2013 ................... 7



8 Percentage of Seniors Meeting ACT/SAT Benchmarks: Imagine 2020 High Schools and District,

2012-13 .......................................................................................................................................... 10

9 Attendance Rates for Imagine 2020 High Schools and District, 2012-13 ...................................... 10

10 Attendance Rates for Imagine 2020 Middle Schools and District, 2012-13 .................................. 11

11 Attendance Rates for Imagine 2020 Elementary Schools and District, 2012-13 ........................... 11

12 Disciplinary Referral Rates by Imagine 2020 High School Campus and District, 2012-13 ........... 12

13 Disciplinary Referral Rates by Imagine 2020 Middle School Campus and District, 2012-13 ........ 13

14 Disciplinary Referral Rates by Imagine 2020 Elementary Campus and District, 2012-13 ............ 13


ix

15 2013-14 Imagine 2020 Budget, by Expenditure Category ............................................................. 16

16 Program Participants – Average Attendance Rates for 2012-13 and 2013-14 ............................. 26

17 Program Participants – Number of Discipline Referrals for 2012-13 and 2013-14 ........................ 27

18 STAAR Proficiency Rates for AI and non-AI Students, 2013 and 2014 ........................................ 27

19 Grade 3 STAAR Passing Rates, by Optional Extended Day Participation .................................... 30

20 STAAR Passing Rates for Grades 4 and 5, by Optional Extended Day Participation ................... 31

21 STAAR EOC Passing Rates for Grades 9, by Optional Extended Day Participation .................... 32

22 Percentage of Imagine 2020 High School and Middle School Parents Registered for Parent Portal

at the Beginning and End of the 2013-14 School Year .................................................................. 35

23 Percentage of Imagine 2020 Elementary School Parents Registered for Parent Portal at the

Beginning and End of the 2013-14 School Year ............................................................................ 36

24 Imagine 2020 Parent PREP University Workshop Helpfulness ..................................................... 37

25 Imagine 2020 Prep University Workshop, Agreement Items ......................................................... 38

26 Imagine 2020 Prep University Workshops, Identifying what was Most and Least Helpful ............ 38

27 Imagine 2020 Prep University Workshops, What Other Topics Would you be Interested in? ...... 39

28 Group Excellence, Percentage of Students Tutored by Ethnicity .................................................. 41

29 Average Group Excellence Student-to-Tutor Ratio, by Campus ................................................... 42

30 Readers 2 Leaders, Students Tutored by Ethnicity ....................................................................... 43

31 Readers 2 Leaders Tutor-to-Student Ratio by Campus ................................................................ 43

32 Reading Partners Students Receiving Tutoring, by Ethnicity ........................................................ 44

33 Imagine 2020 State Accountability Ratings, 2013 and 2014 ......................................................... 49

34 College and Career Readiness Measures for Imagine 2020 High Schools, 2013-14 ................... 57

35 Percentage of Staff Giving Positive Ratings on Climate Survey Items .......................................... 61

36 Attendance Percentages, 2012-13 and 2013-14, Imagine 2020 High Schools and District .......... 61

37 Attendance Percentages, 2012-13 and 2013-14, Imagine 2020 Middle Schools and District ...... 62

38 Attendance Percentages, 2012-13 and 2013-14, Imagine 2020 Elementary Schools

and District ..................................................................................................................................... 62

39 Number of Referrals for 2013-14, Imagine 2020 High Schools and District .................................. 63

40 Number of Referrals for 2013-14, Imagine 2020 Middle Schools and District ............................... 64

41 Number of Referrals for 2013-14, Imagine 2020 Elementary Schools and the District ................. 64


x

This page was intentionally left blank.


IMAGINE 2020 INITIATIVE 2013-14 FINAL REPORT

Project Evaluators: L. Shane Hall, Ph.D. Nora E. Douglas, Ph.D. Jinhai Zhang, Ph.D.

ABSTRACT

Imagine 2020 is the Dallas Independent School District’s Strategic Feeder Pattern initiative, intended as a

pilot for transforming the entire district. The initiative began in the Lincoln, Madison, and Pinkston feeder

patterns, for a total of 21 elementary and secondary campuses. Imagine 2020 proposed to improve

student achievement and college readiness through a combination of additional staff and other resources

to provide improved instruction, student support services, school climate, and family and community

involvement. Activities implemented for the first year of Imagine 2020 included hiring additional campus

administrators, instructional staff, and student support services staff members; a Blended Learning

program; accelerated instruction for at-risk middle school students; an in-school tutoring program; and an

optional extended day in which schools stayed open longer to provide additional academic and

enrichment support for students. Outcomes for the first year of Imagine 2020 were mixed, with schools

showing significant improvements in grade 5 math on the State of Texas Assessments of Academic

Readiness, as well as the grade 9 algebra and biology STAAR End of Course exams. Reading and

English language arts results were mixed across campuses and grade levels. Imagine 2020 schools also

saw improved writing scores in grade 4. In addition, the schools saw an overall reduction in disciplinary

referrals, while the high schools increased their college admission application and financial aid application

rates.


2

This page was intentionally left blank.


3

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Background Information Imagine 2020 was the Dallas Independent School District’s strategic feeder pattern initiative,

designed to serve as a pilot for transforming the entire district in accordance with the district improvement

plan known as Destination 2020. The Imagine 2020 initiative identified three high-needs feeder patterns –

the Pinkston High School feeder in west Dallas, and the Lincoln and Madison high school feeders in

south Dallas – as the first feeders to participate. Overall, Imagine 2020 served 21 campuses: 14

elementary, 4 middle, and 3 high schools. The initiative proposed to inject additional personnel and other

resources into these campuses to produce improvements in instruction, student achievement, student

support, and school climate. The budget for the first year of Imagine 2020 was $8,841,266.

Imagine 2020 involved a three-pronged approach to improvement that focused on school staffing,

curriculum and instruction, and parent and community engagement. The theory of change driving this

initiative was that by changing these three components, the district would provide greater support for

students, leading to improved student achievement.

Purpose and Goal The goals of Imagine 2020 included improving the quality of instruction, raising student

achievement, significantly engaging parents and the community, and making a positive collective impact

on the education of children. By the end of 2013-14, the first year of Imagine 2020, the district hoped to

see at least a 10 percent increase over 2012-13 in passing rates on the State of Texas Assessments of

Academic Readiness (STAAR) assessments among students in the initiative’s schools. Year 1 goals also

included an increase in the percentage of seniors completing college admission and financial aid

applications, as well as meeting or exceeding Destination 2020 college readiness benchmarks for the

SAT and ACT.

PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF THE EVALUATION Imagine 2020 was a comprehensive school improvement initiative, involving multiple programs

and components aimed at affecting student achievement, academic instruction, school climate, and more.

The evaluation of this initiative involved in-depth examination of programs and components considered

priorities by the Imagine 2020 leadership. The first year of the Imagine 2020 evaluation emphasized

student support services, accelerated instruction for overage middle school students, optional extended

day programs, optional academic initiatives, in-school tutoring, and parent and community engagement

efforts.

Dallas ISD’s Department of Evaluation and Assessment conducted the evaluation of Imagine

2020. A team of three evaluation specialists conducted formative and summative evaluation activities


4

designed to assess the implementation of Imagine 2020 and identify the most successful components of

the program. The first year of the Imagine 2020 evaluation was primarily formative in nature, examining

the implementation of program components identified by initiative leaders as high priorities. The

evaluation goals were to:

1. Describe the characteristics of the Imagine 2020 feeder patterns and schools.

2. Describe the programs and components of Imagine 2020.

3. Describe and evaluate the Student Services focus of the School Staff component.

4. Evaluate the implementation and outcomes of the accelerated instruction program of Imagine

2020.

5. Assess the implementation of the optional extended day for students.

6. Describe the implementation of curriculum and instruction components, including optional

initiatives, in the Imagine 2020 schools.

7. Assess the implementation of the Imagine 2020 parent and community engagement program.

8. Assess the implementation of in-school tutoring in Imagine 2020 schools.

9. Assess the Year 1 outcomes of Imagine 2020.

MAJOR EVALUATION QUESTIONS AND RESULTS What were the characteristics of the Imagine 2020 feeder patterns and

schools?

Methodology

The sample consisted of the three feeder patterns and the 21 schools that comprised Imagine

2020. District databases provided data needed to describe the characteristics of the schools and feeder

patterns. The evaluators reviewed 2012-13 state assessments, college admissions tests, student

attendance, and disciplinary referrals to provide a context for future reporting and the performance

indicators by which the success of Imagine 2020 will be gauged.

Results

State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness (STAAR) Results

This section will summarize 2013 STAAR results, including high school STAAR End of Course

(EOC) exam results, for students in the Imagine 2020 campuses, compared to districtwide results. Charts

in this section show the percentage of all students tested who scored at Level II (Satisfactory)

performance or higher on the exam.

As shown in Figure 1, Imagine 2020 high schools trailed the district passing rates on the grade 9

STAAR EOC tests: English I (reading and writing), Algebra I, Biology, and Geography. Passing rates for

all three high schools and the district were the lowest in Writing and highest in Biology.

Figure 1: S

F

by middle

shown in

district on

Pinkston f

2020 middFigure 2

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

STAAR EOC Le

igures 2-4 su

e school grad

the three cha

n the STAAR

feeder pattern

dle schools a2: Grade 6 STA

Reading

3337

44

59

Quintanilla

54 55

evel II Passing

ummarize STA

e levels. Figu

arts, Quintanil

tests at all th

n, meanwhile

nd the districtAAR Level II Pa

Algebra

5648

72

a Edison

2834

Rates for Ima

TAAR Level II

ure 2 display

la, Edison, an

hree grade le

e, had the hig

t. assing Rates fo

Writin

9

18 2

73

Dade

44

4

gine 2020 Hig

results for Im

ys grade 6; F

nd Dade midd

evels. The Da

hest passing

or Imagine 20

ng Bio

73

20

42

e DES

98

53

Imagine 2020

gh Schools an

magine 2020

igure 3, grad

dle schools h

allas Environm

rates, excee

020 Middle Sc

ology G

4

69

82 84

SA Dis

58

98

0 Initiative Fin

nd District

middle scho

de 7; and Fig

ad lower pas

mental Scienc

eding those of

hools and Dist

Geography

48

6357

75

strict

8 61

nal Report 20

ols and the d

ure 4, grade

sing rates tha

ce Academy

f the other Im

trict

Lincol

Pinkst

Madis

Distric

Reading

Math

13-14

5

district

8. As

an the

in the

magine

ln

ton

son

ct

g

F

Figure 3:

Figure 4: Grad

T

campuses

in reading

0102030405060708090

100

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Qu

81

Grade 7 STAA

e 8 STAAR Lev

he next set

s, by grade le

g, but most tra

Quintanilla

65

53 56

uintanilla

77

68

58

AR Level II Pas

vel II Passing

of charts s

evel (3-5). In g

ailed the distr

Edison

59

44

6

Edison

76

65

48

27

ssing Rates fo

Rates for Imag

summarizes

grade 3, 8 of

ict results in m

Dade

61

32

47

Dade

77

59

50

7

r Imagine 202

gine 2020 Mid

STAAR resu

the 14 campu

mathematics

e DE

100

2

44

DE

100 10

056

Imagine 2020

20 Middle Sch

ddle Schools a

ults for the

uses exceede

(Figure 5).

ESA D

67

96 94

ESA

8

00 99 96

0 Initiative Fin

hools and Distr

and District

14 Imagine

ed district Lev

District

760 57

District

83

7466

59

nal Report 20

rict

2020 eleme

vel II passing

Readin

Math

Writing

Read

Math

Scien

Socia

13-14

6

entary

rates

ng

g

ing

h

nce

al Studies

Figure 5: G

G

Imagine 2

writing, bu

Steve

De

M

Arcad

Grade 3 STAAR

Grades 4 and

2020 elemen

ut most had lo

0

District

Rhoads

Rice

Dunbar

King

Roberts

ens Park

Allen

Carr

Carver

eZavala

Earhart

Lanier

Martinez

ia Park

R Level II Pass

d 5 showed s

ntary schools

ower passing

20

21

sing Rates for

similar results

had higher

rates in math

40

39

41

36

4

35

Imagine 2020

s, as illustrat

grade 4 pas

hematics (Fig

60

62

51

58

46

44

57

47

56

45

53

54

Imagine 2020

0 Elementary S

ted by Figure

ssing rates th

ure 6).

80

68

74

80

2

75

67

69

78

74

76

71

78

0 Initiative Fin

Schools, 2013

es 6 and 7.

han the distr

100

93

90

86

nal Report 20

3

Nearly half o

rict in reading

Math

Readi

13-14

7

of the

g and

ng

Figure 6: G

A

the distric

Figure 7.

R

Steve

De

E

Ma

Arcadia

Grade 4 STAAR

Among grade

ct passing rat

0

District

Rhoads

Rice

Dunbar

King

Roberts

ns Park

Allen

Carr

Carver

eZavala

Earhart

Lanier

artinez

a Park

R Level II Pass

5 students, m

tes in all thre

20

21

21

sing Rates for

more than hal

ee subjects t

40

43

40

44

40

32

45

36

4

32

38

33

38

45

Imagine 2020

lf of the Imag

tested: readin

60

62

71

60

56

65

58

65

58

56

69

67

63

49

53

54

56

63

64

60

67

58

58

67

57

Imagine 2020

0 Elementary S

gine 2020 ele

ng, mathema

801

77

84

77

985

89

87

86

0 Initiative Fin

Schools, 2013

mentary scho

tics, and scie

100

W

M

R

nal Report 20

3

ools lagged b

ence, as sho

Writing

Math

Reading

13-14

8

behind

own in

Figure 7: G

Other Per

P

included m

percentag

2012-13,

college re

of the fou

Steve

De

E

M

Arcadi

Grade 5 STAAR

rformance M

erformance m

measures rela

ge of seniors

as measured

eadiness benc

r ACT tests –

0

District

Rhoads

Rice

Dunbar

King

Roberts

ens Park

Allen

Carr

Carver

eZavala

Earhart

Lanier

artinez

ia Park

R Level II Pass

easures

metrics for th

ated to stude

who met the

d by scores o

chmarks spec

– English, ma

20

21

sing Rates for

e Imagine 20

ent attendance

e Destination

on the ACT o

cify a score o

athematics, re

40

4

4

41

Imagine 2020

020 schools w

e, behavior, a

2020 perform

or SAT colleg

of 21 or highe

eading, and s

60

7

70

66

59

69

66

62

55

54

65

49

59

58

49

56

54

55

65

Imagine 2020

0 Elementary S

were not limi

and college r

mance bench

ge entrance e

er on the ACT

science) or a

801

8288

71

80

79

0

78

85

72

87

82

82

82

93

9

79

82

75

83

77

76

85

82

95

72

84

0 Initiative Fin

Schools, 2013

ted to STAAR

readiness. Fig

hmarks for co

examinations

T composite (

990 or highe

100

1003

98

S

nal Report 20

3

R results, bu

gure 8 display

ollege readine

. Destination

(the average

er on the com

Science

Math

Reading

13-14

9

ut also

ys the

ess in

2020

score

mbined

reading a

district hig

in this ran

A

percent a

district ov

who took

F

2012-13.

the 2013-

by dividin

district fig

days. Fi

nd mathemat

gh school gra

nge (Dryden, H

As shown in F

t Lincoln, me

verall. It is im

the SAT or AFigure 8: PeDistrict, 201

igures 9-11 d

One element

-14 school ye

ng the averag

ure represen

igure 9: Attend

0.0%2.0%4.0%6.0%8.0%

10.0%12.0%14.0%16.0%

75.0%

80.0%

85.0%

90.0%

95.0%

100.0%

tics sections

aduates who g

Hall, and Joh

Figure 8, just

t the Destina

mportant to no

CT. rcentage of Se

12-13

display averag

tary campus,

ear and thus,

ge number o

ts the averag

dance Rates fo

Lincoln

1.6%

Lincoln HS

88.2%

of the SAT. D

go on to comp

nson, 2012).

over 5 perce

tion 2020 AC

ote that these

eniors Meeting

ge attendance

Oran M. Rob

had no data

f days in atte

ge number of

or Imagine 20

Madiso

%

5.4

Madison

%

92

Dallas ISD re

plete a colleg

ent of seniors

CT or SAT be

e percentages

g ACT/SAT Be

e rates for Ima

berts, was no

for 2012-13

endance by

days in atten

020 High Scho

on Pinks

4%

HS Pinkst

.3%

Imagine 2020

esearch on co

ge degree had

s at Madison

nchmarks, co

s are for all e

enchmarks: Im

agine 2020 s

ot included be

(see Figure 1

the average

ndance divide

ools and Distric

ston Di

5.2%

ton HS Di

91.2%

0 Initiative Fin

ollege readine

d average SA

and Pinksto

ompared to 1

enrolled seni

magine 2020 H

chools and th

ecause it was

11). Attendan

number of d

ed by the tota

ct, 2012-13

istrict

14.4%

istrict HS

93.2%

nal Report 20

ess has foun

AT and ACT s

n, and less t

4.4 percent f

ors, not just

High Schools a

he district ove

s a new scho

nce was calcu

days enrolled

l number of s

13-14

10

d that

scores

han 2

for the

those

and

erall in

ool for

ulated

d. The

school

Figure 10

Figure 11:

F

disciplinar

middle sc

2012-13 s

overall dis

75

80

85

90

95

100

90.0%

91.0%

92.0%

93.0%

94.0%

95.0%

96.0%

97.0%

98.0%

99.0%

100.0%

0: Attendance

Attendance R

igures 12-14

ry referral dur

chool and Am

school year.

strict data.

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

Dade

96.7%96.4

Rates for Ima

Rates for Imag

represent the

ring the 2012

elia Earhart L

The disciplin

e MS DE

93.7%

%

94.4% 94.1%

gine 2020 Mi

gine 2020 Elem

e percentage

2-13 school ye

Learning Cen

nary alternati

ESA MS

98.1%

%

97.2%96.9%

ddle Schools a

mentary Schoo

of students f

ear. The Dalla

ter elementar

ive campuse

Edison MS

93.5%

% 96.8%96.4%

Imagine 2020

and District, 2

ols and Distric

from each cam

as Environme

ry school had

s were exclu

Quintanilla M

95.5%

% 96.2%95.9%

0 Initiative Fin

2012-13

ct, 2012-13

mpus who rec

ental Science

d no disciplina

uded from th

MS District M

% 95

% 95.8%95.5%

nal Report 20

ceived at leas

e Academy (D

ary referrals f

he analyses o

MS

5.6%

%

94.7%

96.8%

13-14

11

st one

DESA)

for the

of the

T

year. Offe

offenses

bullying o

offense w

that serio

prohibited

D

(ISS), Ou

placemen

A

rates of s

School an

district, b

Oran M. R

he charts in F

enses range in

include class

or using profa

would be assa

ously disrupt

d weapon to c

Disciplinary co

ut-of-School

nt (DAEP), an

As shown in F

students with

nd DESA. Mo

ut four camp

Roberts – is nFigure 12: District, 20

*Th

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

Figures 12-14

n severity from

sroom disrup

ane language

ault on a stud

the educati

campus.

onsequences

Suspension

d Off-Campu

Figures 12 an

disciplinary r

ost of the ele

puses had mu

new for 2013-Disciplinary R

012-13

he School Comm

Lincoln

23.4%

4 include all c

m least sever

ption or offen

e or obscene

dent. Level IV

onal process

vary with the

(OSS), Off

s Juvenile Ju

nd 13, most o

referrals than

ementary cam

uch higher ra

14, no disciplReferral Rates

munity Guidance

Madiso

%

5.

classes of off

re (Level I) to

nsive languag

gestures tow

V offenses ar

s, such as a

severity of th

f-Campus Di

stice Alternat

of the Imagine

the district o

mpuses had l

ates of referr

inary referral s by Imagine

Center was remo

on Pink

.7%

Imagine 2020

fenses comm

o most severe

ge. Example

wards person

re either viola

assaulting sc

he offense an

isciplinary A

tive Education

e 2020 midd

overall, with t

lower rates o

rals. Because

data exist for2020 High S

oved from the di

kston Dis

31.8%

0 Initiative Fin

mitted during t

e (Level IV). E

es of Level I

nnel. An exam

ations of state

chool person

d include In-S

Alternative Ed

n Program pla

le and high s

he exception

of disciplinary

e one Imagin

r 2012-13. School Campu

istrict analysis.

strict HS

14.9%

nal Report 20

he 2012-13 s

Examples of L

I offenses in

mple of a Le

e law or beha

nnel or bring

School Suspe

ducation Pro

acement (JJA

schools had h

s of Madison

y referrals tha

ne 2020 cam

us and

13-14

12

school

Level I

nclude

evel III

aviors

ging a

ension

ogram

AEP).

higher

n High

an the

pus –

Fi

Figure 13: District, 20

* Learning Al

igure 14. Disc

* Elementary D

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%10.6%

Disciplinary R012-13

lternative Center

iplinary Referr

Disciplinary Alter

Dade

59.2%

%

3.4% 3.3%

1

Referral Rates

r for Empowering

ral Rates by Im

rnative Education

DESA

0.0%

.2%

8.9%8.1%

s by Imagine 2

g Youth (LACEY)

magine 2020 E

n Program (DAEP

Edison

58.3%

%

6.3%

4.0% 3

Imagine 2020

2020 Middle S

Y) was removed fr

Elementary Ca

P) was removed

Quintanilla D

19.2%

3.7% 3.6%

1.3

0 Initiative Fin

School Camp

from the district a

ampus and Dis

d from the district

District MS

18.1%

3%0.2% 0.0%

nal Report 20

us and

analysis.

strict, 2012-1

t analysis.

4.3%

13-14

13

3


14

What were the programs and components of Imagine 2020?

Methodology

This section of the evaluation report reviews how closely the Imagine 2020 Strategic Feeder

Pattern Initiative in practice during the first year resembled its original design. Imagine 2020 leadership

staff created a summary document called the Imagine 2020 Snapshot, which outlined all aspects of the

initiative. That document served as a reference by which to measure current implementation (see

Appendix F). In addition, the evaluation team obtained a copy of the 2013-14 budget for Imagine 2020.

The results were based on 13 interviews conducted in January 2014 with management staff

members, including feeder pattern executive directors, as well as directors and executive directors of

district departments involved in the implementation of Imagine 2020. There were three sections to the

interviews: what on the Initiative Snapshot was currently happening, what was happening that did not

appear on the Snapshot document, and what activities listed were not occurring.

Results

Planned Activities

Imagine 2020 staff members identified the activities on the Initiative Snapshot for which they were

responsible. Of those activities, they reported which were being implemented at all Imagine 2020 schools,

some of them, or none of them.

All of the support, innovation, and engagement activities outlined in the Imagine 2020 Snapshot

were being implemented to some degree. Additional school staff members were on the 21 Imagine 2020

campuses and providing support to students, teachers, school leaders, parents, and the community.

Required teaching and learning initiatives, optional initiatives, in-school tutoring, and optional extended

day for students were occurring on all campuses. Student Advocacy Management meetings, parent

engagement and education activities, and community partnership activities were taking place across the

21 campuses. Results of interviews suggested that all Imagine 2020 staff members were tracking their

work in some form.

Activities Not Described in Plan

During interviews, evaluators asked Imagine 2020 management team members to describe any

activities being implemented in Imagine 2020 schools that were not on the Initiative Snapshot (i.e.,

unplanned). They reported on whether those activities were occurring at all or some of the 21 campuses

included in the initiative. In addition, they described the activities and identified the expected outcomes.

The scope of work for Imagine 2020 was overarching and could not be completely described in

the Initiative Snapshot. Staff members were implementing activities not outlined in the Snapshot to

potentially strengthen the initiative. These additional activities included Parent Portal activities, parent

Super Saturdays, additional optional initiatives for students, Imagine 2020 newsletters for principals and

Teaching and Learning staff, and volunteer training and coordination.


15

Planned Activities Not Being Implemented as Designed

Interviews with Imagine 2020 management included a discussion of barriers to implementation,

as well as what activities were not implemented as planned, and why they were not.

As expected with any new program, there were barriers to implementing certain aspects of the

initiative at the beginning of the school year. But wherever interviewees indicated there were barriers,

they also provided examples of how they were overcoming those barriers to meet program goals.

There were some issues with Imagine 2020 principals not following guidelines regarding Student

Services employees on their campuses. In addition, results of the interviews suggested there were some

redundancies and inefficiencies among various Student Services staff positions. With regards to staffing,

results indicated that there continued to be some difficulty finding qualified applicants to fill certain school

staff positions.

Communication and collaboration barriers between Teaching and Learning and School

Leadership were mentioned on several occasions. Results indicated that communication was somewhat

siloed, resulting in difficulty taking collaborative action to address Imagine 2020 needs. School

Leadership and Teaching and Learning had offices in separate Dallas ISD buildings, which contributed to

communication and collaboration barriers.

Dallas ISD hired three vendors to provide in-school tutoring to Imagine 2020 students: Readers 2

Leaders, Reading Partners, and Group Excellence. Readers 2 Leaders and Reading Partners provided

reading tutoring to elementary school students in the strategic feeder patterns, and Group Excellence

provided math tutoring to middle and high school students in the feeder patterns. The initiative Snapshot

indicated that there should be a 1:1 to 1:3 tutor-student ratio for selected high-needs students.

Tutoring services did not begin until late October and early November at most campuses and

began even later at a handful of elementary campuses. Tutoring providers in some cases did not meet

the preferred student-tutor ratios laid out by Imagine 2020 leadership. The requirement that secondary

schools provide in-school tutoring only for math and not for reading was a source of concern among

Imagine 2020 management and principals, who preferred that they be able to choose the subject(s) on

which to tutor students based on identified needs, which could vary across campuses (see pages 40-47

of this report for more details on the implementation of the in-school tutoring program).

The Imagine 2020 initiative implemented a Student Advocacy Management (SAM) model to

address the needs of students with serious academic, attendance, and disciplinary problems. These were

known as Tier 3 students and comprised 5-10 percent of the student population. Students on Tiers 1 and

2 had only minor academic, attendance, or disciplinary issues.

SAM teams were multidisciplinary and designed to address the individualized needs of each

student. SAM teams could include an administrator, Response to Intervention (RtI) chair (under

Instructional Support Services), Student Support Team chair, social workers, psychologists, instructional

coaches, urban specialists, college and career coordinators, and truancy prevention coordinators.

Additional staff could be added, depending on student needs. Parents and/or students may also be

invited to

or more c

students w

R

the future

principals

need for

appropria

are taken

lacked the

Budget

T

and the k

category,

well as te

stipends t

would ope

C

support s

others. C

early chi

classroom

support. F

and careeFigure 15:

participate w

course failure

who did not m

Results indicat

e. Interviewee

were not alw

SAM meetin

te position to

n. Other SAM

e authority to

he budget for

key expendit

accounting fo

am leads for

to teachers f

erate an addit

Central staff

staff member

ollective Imp

ldhood educ

m manageme

Finally, misce

er certification 2013-14 Ima

12%

1

where appropr

s, six or more

meet the Tier 3

ted that the S

es reported t

ways present

ngs to be led

o give directio

M team memb

take action w

r the first yea

ure categorie

or $6,037,064

curriculum tra

for working a

tional hour be

positions acc

rs, including

pact projects

cation option

ent training, d

ellaneous exp

ns. agine 2020 Bu

2%8%

riate. Tier 3 s

e absences,

3 definition co

SAM teams s

that meetings

t, preventing

d by an adm

on to others o

bers such as

without leader

ar of Imagine

es. Staffing f

4. Each camp

aining and te

additional hou

efore or after s

counted for

urban specia

represented

s, social wo

dropout and

penditures ($6

udget, by Expe

%

tudents were

and four or m

ould be referr

should be a p

s were poorly

staff from tak

inistrator. Pri

on the SAM te

counselors,

ship consent.

2020 was $8

for the 21 ca

pus received a

acher leaders

urs under the

school to prov

$1,056,305.

alists, colleg

$1,072,897

ork support

truancy prev

675,000) inclu

enditure Categ

68%

Imagine 2020

e referred to t

more adminis

red based on

point of focus

y attended a

king necessa

incipals and

eam and follo

instructional

.

8,841,266. Fig

ampuses ma

at least one a

ship. The sch

e extended s

vide academ

These posit

e and caree

in expenditu

for at-risk s

vention work

uded curriculu

gory

0 Initiative Fin

the SAM team

strator discipli

need.

for Imagine

and that princ

ary next steps

assistant pri

ow up to see

coaches, or

gure 15 summ

ade up the la

additional ass

hools also rec

chool day, in

ic support and

tions include

er readiness

res. These in

students, pa

k, and enhan

um support, b

Campus

Central

Collectiv

Other

nal Report 20

m because of

ne referrals.

2020 leaders

cipals or ass

s. There was

incipals are i

that those a

urban speci

marizes the b

argest expen

sistant princip

ceived funds t

n which camp

d enrichment

ed student se

coordinators

ncluded expa

rent engage

nced psycholo

bus transport

s Staffing

Staff

ve Impact

13-14

16

f three

Other

ship in

sistant

clear

in the

ctions

alists,

budget

nditure

pal, as

to pay

puses

t.

ervice

s, and

anded

ement,

ogical

tation,


17

How was the Student Services focus of the Imagine 2020 Initiative

implemented?

Methodology

There were 16 student services positions added to the Imagine 2020 campuses for the 2013-14

school year: two student advocate coordinators, six urban specialists, four school psychologists, two

student support social workers, and two college and career readiness coordinators. The student advocate

coordinators and urban specialists reported to the director of Student Discipline. The school psychologists

and student support social workers reported to the director of Psychological Services. The student

support social workers reported to the director of Counseling Services. The college and career readiness

coordinators reported to the executive director of College and Career Readiness.

This section of the evaluation report reviews the roles and responsibilities of the additional

student services staff members assigned to the Imagine 2020 campuses. Focus group interviews yielded

data on the implementation of student support services from the perspective of the individuals tasked with

providing those services.

The results were based on five focus groups (a total of 14 staff members) conducted in late

February and early March 2014 with student advocate coordinators, urban specialists, psychologists,

social workers, and college and career readiness coordinators assigned to Imagine 2020 campuses. The

Director of Psychological Services participated in the focus group with Imagine 2020 psychologists, which

could have influenced their responses and/or limited their participation. The director’s comments were not

included in the analyses.

There were four main sections to the focus groups: roles and responsibilities, performance goals

and measurement, student impact, and barriers to student services. The focus group protocol can be

found in Appendix B.

A review of the additional positions can be found in the Imagine 2020 Initiative Snapshot

(Appendix F) under the heading “School Staff (Support)” and section titled “Student Services.”

Results

Roles and Responsibilities

Student services staff described their roles and responsibilities on Imagine 2020 campuses, how

many students they served, and how service delivery differed from that of campuses not participating in

the Imagine 2020 Initiative.

Overall, the additional student services staff members assigned to the Imagine 2020 campuses

were there to identify the social service needs of students (with the exception of the college and career

readiness coordinators) so that they could provide wrap-around services that would support the students

and increase their ability to be successful in school. The college and career readiness coordinators

worked with students to help them realize their potential for the future and increase their likelihood of


18

success in school and later in college and the workplace. The student services staff members carried

varying caseloads and served the individualized needs of their campuses. In addition to working with

students, the staff worked with parents and teachers to give students the best chances for success. They

were able to provide services designed to prevent students from falling through the cracks as they might

have in non-Imagine 2020 campuses that may not have access to additional personnel.

Student Advocate Coordinators – The student advocate coordinators worked on all Imagine 2020

campuses, but focused primarily on the elementary schools. Their main responsibility was to provide

classroom management training to teachers, as well as work with students individually on discipline

issues. The Imagine 2020 campus administrators assigned certain students and teachers to the

coordinators. The student advocate coordinators worked with parents, individually and in groups, on

attendance issues. They conducted home visits when necessary to deal with truancy concerns. The

coordinators also attended Student Advocacy Management (SAM) meetings for those students they

served. Student advocate coordinators would refer students to school psychologists or to other resources

when appropriate. In some instances, the coordinators worked with community groups to bring in

additional resources for students.

The student advocate coordinators had varying student and teacher caseloads depending on

campus needs; however, they kept a consistent schedule with the students on their caseloads to

establish rapport.

Coordinators reported that non-Imagine 2020 campuses were less likely to have the time and

resources to investigate the root causes of student discipline problems. The student advocate

coordinators had the additional time at the Imagine 2020 campuses to observe classroom behavior and

visit with students and parents to diagnose possible causes of discipline issues. They considered

themselves to be advocates for the students and coached them in an effort to help them be successful.

The student advocate coordinators were also an additional resource for teachers, a service not available

on non-Imagine 2020 campuses. While instructional coaches worked on instruction and fulfilled district

requirements for course curriculum, the student advocate coordinators could observe the classroom and

help the teachers make changes to the physical environment of their classrooms in an effort to improve

classroom management.

Urban Specialists – The urban specialists had a similar role to that of the student advocate

coordinators, except that the urban specialists were each assigned to a single campus (either a middle

school or high school campus) and did not float among campuses. The urban specialists focused on

addressing behavior problems and the social service needs of students. The urban specialists also

provided some classroom management training to teachers when necessary, though the urban

specialists had little formal training in this area. Urban specialists worked with parents to address truancy

issues and conducted home visits to address attendance concerns when necessary. They also acted as

mentors and advocates for the students on their campuses, and as a support system for teachers and


19

administrators. Overall, the urban specialists’ services prevented students from falling through the cracks

which may have been more likely at campuses without the additional resources.

School Psychologists – Imagine 2020 school psychologists met with students individually and in

groups to identify problems, provide interventions and resources, provide counseling services, refer

students to other resources (i.e., Youth and Family Centers), and/or create behavior plans and contracts.

Psychologists also conducted home visits when appropriate, mostly to address truancy or course

performance issues. Psychologists participated in Student Advocacy Management (SAM) meetings as

well.

The psychologists reported that they worked with about 10-12 students individually on a daily

basis, and conducted some group sessions. In addition, they sometimes gave presentations to teachers

on classroom management and dealing with behavior issues in the classroom.

The services Imagine 2020 psychologists provided, compared with what was available on

non-Imagine 2020 campuses, were more comprehensive. The psychologists reported that the Imagine

2020 campuses had access to more resources, more administrators, the urban specialists, and more

security staff. Because there were more staff members on the Imagine 2020 campuses, the psychologists

indicated that they got more referrals as a result. As a result, students on Imagine 2020 campuses

received support when students on non-Imagine 2020 campuses might not have.

Student Support Social Workers – Social workers on Imagine 2020 campuses had varying roles

and responsibilities. They dealt with referrals to provide counseling and guidance to students with

behavioral and emotional issues. Social workers conducted classroom observations and teacher trainings

to coach teachers on how best to interact with students. They conducted home visits when appropriate

and dealt with attendance issues. In some cases, the social workers met with parents to provide training.

The number of students served per day was between 6 and 15. This number varied depending on

the need and the time spent with teachers and parents. The social workers reported that their work with

students mainly consisted of helping students with social skills and behavioral challenges.

Working on Imagine 2020 campuses required more involvement. The social workers reported that

they had more meetings and consultations than they had on non-Imagine 2020 campuses. The SAM

meetings also provided social workers with more information about what was going on with students.

College and Career Readiness Coordinators – Providing college and career information to

students and parents was the main responsibility of the college and career readiness coordinators

(CCRCs). They conducted parent workshops about the college and career process, including financial aid

and financial literacy. Their work with students involved discussing career choices, the new House Bill 5

high school endorsement requirements, college visits and career days, scholarships and financial aid

workshops, and assistance with applications. Their work was not limited to secondary schools; they also

worked with elementary school students to get them more excited about school and talked to them about

the importance of good behavior and grades. CCRCs worked with school counselors and college access


20

program providers to provide services. In addition, the CCRCs sometimes worked with Advancement Via

Individual Determination (AVID) teachers to provide services.

The college and career readiness coordinators worked with between 10 and 30 students per day,

depending on whether they were doing individual or group sessions.

Performance Goals

Student services staff reported on the performance goals set for their positions, how they tracked

their work, and how they knew they were meeting their goals. All student services staff members had

performance goals, which they tracked electronically.

Student Advocate Coordinators – The main performance goals for the student advocate

coordinators were to improve attendance, reduce dropouts, reduce discipline referrals, and conduct

parent and teacher workshops. The student advocate coordinators used an Excel spreadsheet to track

their work with students. They used an additional log to track teacher and parent interactions, and kept

sign-in sheets for training sessions. The coordinators checked the attendance rate after each six-week

period and compared it to the same time last year to measure their success with improving attendance.

Urban Specialists – The urban specialists had performance goals which included increasing the

attendance rate by at least five percent, reducing the number of referrals by at least two percent, holding

at least four parent workshops and holding classroom management sessions for teachers. They were

able to track their work using the same Excel spreadsheet the student advocate coordinators used, as

well as an additional log for more contextual information. The urban specialists used their six-week

reports to monitor their progress towards their goals.

School Psychologists – School psychologists were required to provide services to 150

unduplicated students per year and document their work in the Review 360 program. They reported that

they could review their caseloads in Review 360 to determine whether they were meeting departmental

requirements.

Student Support Social Workers – Like the psychologists, social workers were required to see

150 unduplicated students per year and document their work in the Review 360 program.

College and Career Readiness Coordinators – The CCRCs identified one main goal for their

positions: to provide parent workshops. In addition, the CCRCs wanted to provide mentoring programs

and college transition programs to students. The CCRCs recorded their work in a log that was due to the

executive director of College and Career Readiness each month. They kept track of presentations,

workshops and attendance.

Student Impact

Student services staff gave examples and told stories that explained the impact they made on

students. The most common themes in measuring student impact were decreases in discipline referrals,

increases in attendance rates, and improvements in course grades. In addition, staff members reported

that there were many immeasurable ways in which they knew they were successful: reports from

administrators and teachers about changes in student behavior, contact with parents who indicated their


21

children had a new outlook on school, and interactions with students themselves who connected with

these staff members as mentors and advocates.

Student Advocate Coordinators – The student advocate coordinators reported that it was often

the unrecorded information that helped them know they were successfully impacting students. They gave

examples of students who were happy to see them when they came on the campuses, students who

reported being exposed to new experiences because of the coordinators, and reports from principals and

other staff about good behavior from their students. Case management forms also allowed the

coordinators to look back at student behavior over time and see improvements.

Urban Specialists – The urban specialists reported that improvements in attendance, reductions

in student discipline referrals and improved course grades were good measures of their impact on

students. Urban specialists were able to indirectly influence course grades by increasing attendance. In

some instances, the urban specialists would refer students to additional academic tutoring resources. The

urban specialists had access to Chancery to review students’ report cards to monitor course performance.

School Psychologists – Psychologists reported that decreasing numbers of referrals was one way

in which they knew they had an impact on students, more specifically, discipline referrals. When behavior

improved, students’ grades would go up; thus, academic performance was an indirect measure of

success. Parents and teachers sometimes noticed improvement in performance and/or observed

behavioral or emotional changes and reported that to Imagine 2020 psychologists. Attendance was also

likely to improve as a result of successful intervention.

Student Support Social Workers – Positive feedback from parents and teachers, direct feedback

from students, and fewer students identified as Tier 3 were all indicators of success according to the

Imagine 2020 social workers.

College and Career Readiness Coordinators – Evidence of success included reports from

students and feedback from parents telling the CCRCs that they now knew things about college and

career readiness that they did not know before.

Barriers to Student Services

Student services staff identified barriers to providing students services on Imagine 2020

campuses. The most common barriers to successfully serving students were a misunderstanding of the

roles and responsibilities of the student services staff members, and ineffective SAM meetings.

Student Advocate Coordinators – The student advocate coordinators identified three main

barriers to their success: a lack of sufficient counseling staff on the campuses, administrator and teacher

misunderstanding of the coordinator role, and insufficient staff member training on the SAM team

requirements. The coordinators reported that having a counselor on campus less than fulltime hindered

student service provision. They indicated that administrators who were unclear what the coordinator’s role

was requested the coordinators perform inappropriate duties which took time away from work with

students and teachers. A lack of understanding about how to run SAM meetings and the inability of the


22

SAM team to have all of the appropriate staff in the room during meetings prevented the groups from

performing effectively and efficiently.

Urban Specialists – The two main barriers to success identified were principals who did not

understand the roles and responsibilities of the urban specialists and had not communicated the urban

specialists’ role sufficiently to staff, and a lack of physical resources, such as computers, printers, and

telephones. In some cases, the urban specialists reported that they were asked to cover duties for staff

members who were not sufficiently fulfilling the requirements of their own positions. The urban specialists

also reported that SAM teams did not meet on a regular basis, depending on the campus, and that the

meetings were not run efficiently or effectively. They indicated that the most appropriate staff members

were not always present in SAM meetings. In addition, the urban specialists requested formal training on

classroom management techniques to allow them to better serve teachers.

School Psychologists – Because of the higher volume of student services staff on the Imagine

2020 campuses, school psychologists reported that there was some redundancy in the work. Additionally,

they reported that not having SAM meetings regularly and the most appropriate staff not being at all

meetings prevented them from serving students effectively.

Student Support Social Workers – When asked to identify barriers to success, the social workers

reported that parent availability could be an issue. They indicated that parents sometimes did not show up

for meetings or resisted service plans.

College and Career Readiness Coordinators – The CCRCs reported some resistance from

principals to provide workshops to parents and students. They reported that there was some duplication

of services among CCRCs, counselors, and college access program vendors. The CCRCs indicated that

it took some time for campus administrative and teaching staff, as well as parents, to understand what

Imagine 2020 was and what their roles on the campuses were. This understanding of the initiative

improved as the school year progressed.

How was the accelerated instruction program of Imagine 2020 implemented

and what were the outcomes?

Methodology

Dallas ISD added an accelerated instruction (AI) program at Billy Earl Dade and Thomas A.

Edison middle schools as part of the Imagine 2020 initiative. The AI program was designed to help move

overaged 6th and 7th grade students to the 8th grade, allowing them to complete a compacted and

accelerated curriculum so that they could be promoted to the 9th grade in the 2014-15 school year and

become on track toward on-time high school graduation.

This section of the evaluation report describes the accelerated instruction program at Dade and

Edison. A review of the accelerated instruction program can be found in the Imagine 2020 Initiative


23

Snapshot (Appendix F) under the heading “Curriculum & Instruction (Innovate)” and section titled

“Standard Expectations”.

Evaluation and Assessment department evaluators reviewed demographic data from a Chancery

Student Records file retrieved on April 14, 2014. Evaluators also analyzed attendance and discipline data

from the 2012-13 and 2013-14 school years. Dade and Edison staff members sent lists of students

participating in the accelerated instruction programs on each campus. The evaluators compiled the

demographic file, Dade and Edison accelerated instruction program participant list, and attendance and

discipline data.

In addition to analyzing quantitative data, the evaluators conducted classroom observations,

student interviews, and teacher focus groups in April 2014 at Edison and Dade. Nine of 26 students

(35%) participated in interviews, and three of four teachers (75%) participated in a focus group at Edison.

Two of five teachers (40%) participated in a focus group, and five of 19 (26%) students participated in a

focus group at Dade. The student interviews and teacher focus groups had three sections: academics,

social support, and campus environment. The observations focused on classroom environment, and

student and teacher attitudes in class. The student interview protocol, teacher focus group protocol, and

observation form can be found in Appendices C, D, and E, respectively.

Results

Student Demographics

Table 1 shows demographic information for AI students at Dade and Edison. The majority of

Edison and Dade AI students were 14 or 15 years old, African-American or Hispanic, and male. All

students in the AI program were in the 8th grade, with the exception of one student at Edison who was

classified as 7th grade. Table 1: Age, Race/Ethnicity, Sex, and Grade Level – Program Participants

Edison AI Dade AI N % N % Age 12 0 0.0 0 0.0 13 4 15.4 0 0.0 14 12 46.2 2 10.5 15 7 26.9 16 84.2 16 3 11.5 1 5.3 Race/Ethnicity African-American 13 50.0 14 73.7 Hispanic 13 50.0 5 26.3 Sex Female 10 38.5 5 26.3 Male 16 61.5 14 73.7 Grade Level 7th 1 3.8 0 0.0 8th 25 96.2 19 100.0 Total 26 100.0 19 100.0


24

Table 2 shows the count and percentage of AI at Edison and Dade by English proficiency,

socioeconomic status, and grade level retention. Most AI students at both campuses were English

proficient, had low socioeconomic status, and had not been retained. Table 2: English Proficiency, Low SES, and Retention – Program Participants

Edison AI Dade AI N % N % English Proficiency English Proficient 19 73.1 15 78.9 Limited English Proficient 7 26.9 4 21.1 Low Socioeconomic Status (SES) Low SES 25 96.2 16 84.2 Not Low SES 1 3.8 3 15.8 Retained 2012-13 Not retained 23 88.5 16 84.2 Retained 3 11.5 1 5.3 Unknown 0 0.0 2 10.5 Total 26 100.0 19 100.0

Accelerated Instruction Classroom

The Accelerated Instruction programs at Dade and Edison consisted of the four core courses:

English/language arts, science, math, and social studies. Students attended these courses with other AI

students, but went to elective courses with students outside the AI program. The programs followed a

Blended Learning approach, combining direct instruction and online coursework (Gradpoint). Edison

students rotated among four classrooms, all in the same section of a hallway at the school. AI students at

Dade stayed in one classroom while the teachers rotated. Edison assigned its four department heads to

teach the accelerated instruction students. Dade had four core content teachers, as well as one teacher

assigned as a Gradpoint Administrator who stayed with the students during each AI class to handle any

program issues and assist the core content teacher. Edison had one yearlong program while Dade had

two semester-long programs serving two groups of students.

Classrooms were clean; some, but not all, rooms were decorated with study materials and

motivational posters. At Dade, students had access to desks and computers. The computers seemed to

be in good condition. Students at Edison worked at desks and used Chromebooks for some coursework.

The evaluators observed six AI classes and observed varying levels of quality of instruction and

classroom management. In all cases, the teachers were respectful of students. Teachers dealt with

differing levels of student engagement (i.e., students talking, being off task, not working, asking for

passes to leave class, or leaving without permission). In some cases, teachers were dealing with students

who did not want to work and were disrupting the class. How successfully teachers were able to deal with

these issues varied. The teachers redirected students to their work, motivated and encouraged them, and

offered stern warnings when necessary.


25

Student Perceptions

When asked how they found out they would be in an accelerated instruction program, students at

Edison reported that they participated in an interview with counselors and the principal prior to entering

the program. Students at Dade indicated that the counselors gave them their schedules. The students

interviewed were excited about the opportunity to catch up to their appropriate grade level and liked the

self-paced nature of the program. They reported that teachers were respectful of them and that they had

a teacher or other staff member they could go to if they were having problems outside of school. Students

reported that there was before- and after-school tutoring, and Saturday school available if they needed

additional help with academics, though most students reported not using these services. The students

interviewed indicated that discipline problems persisted in their classes and that not all students were

equally committed to the work. In some cases, classroom disturbances prevented students from making

the progress they hoped for each day.

Teacher Experiences

The teachers in the Edison and Dade accelerated instruction programs reported that they had

little or no experience working in alternative education. Edison used its department chairs to teach the AI

classes. The teachers combined direct instruction and computer-based learning. For example, the

teachers might begin a lesson with a review of the previous day’s material and an introduction to the

current day’s lesson before sending the students to the computers to work on assignments. The teachers

reported that the AI students required a different approach when it came to instruction. They indicated

that because these students were used to failure, it was necessary to establish a classroom in which

students felt safe making an effort. Establishing rapport and being consistent were important components

to helping these students succeed in the classroom.

The teachers indicated that smaller class sizes and adapted class schedules (i.e., students often

disappeared after being dismissed for lunch) would help improve the classroom instruction they were able

to provide. Teachers dealt with discipline issues in class that negatively impacted their ability to teach.

With this population of students, discipline referrals were not the preferred way to deal with behavior

concerns, as dismissing the students from class would only hinder their ability to catch up.

Increased support from parents and the campus community would benefit the program. Teachers

reported that being able to work with parents and with the additional campus staff provided through the

Imagine 2020 Initiative (i.e., social workers, psychologists, urban specialists) would strengthen their ability

to help students. One teacher recommended that a consistent selection criteria and process for the

program would ensure that only the students who understood the necessary commitment and were ready

to do the work could participate in the program.

Attendance and Discipline

Figure 16 shows the attendance rates for the 2012-13 and 2013-14 school years for AI students.

Edison AI students had lower attendance rates than did Dade AI students. Attendance rates remained the

same for Dade AI students (around 88%); the attendance rate increased about one and a half percentage


26

points for Edison AI students (from 80.7% to 82.2%). The evaluator ran a paired samples t-test

(comparing the means of two variables for a single group) to compare Dade and Edison’s attendance

percentages for the 2012-13 and 2013-14 school years. The change in attendance rates between years

was not significant for either campus. Figure 16: Program Participants – Average Attendance Rates for 2012-13 and 2013-14

Figure 17 shows the percentage of AI students at Dade and Edison who had discipline referrals

during the 2012-13 and 2013-14 school years. The percentage of Edison AI students with at least one

discipline referral was higher than for Dade AI students for both 2012-13 and 2013-14. The evaluator ran

a paired samples t-test to compare Dade and Edison’s average discipline referrals counts for the 2012-13

and 2013-14 school years. Edison AI students’ average number of referrals went from 1.54 during

2012-13 to 1.08 during 2013-14. Dade AI students’ average number of referrals declined from 1.00 during

2012-13 to 0.68 during 2013-14. The paired samples t-test revealed that the change in the average

number of referrals between years was not statistically significant for either campus.

80.7%

88.3%

82.2%

88.9%

76.0%

78.0%

80.0%

82.0%

84.0%

86.0%

88.0%

90.0%

Edison AI Dade AI

2012-13 2013-14


27

Figure 17: Program Participants –Number of Discipline Referrals for 2012-13 and 2013-14

Students in Accelerated Instruction at Edison and Dade improved their STAAR performance in

reading and math at higher rates than nonparticipants. As shown in Figure 18, AI students had lower

performance levels than other students but showed gains in proficiency rates of greater than 50 percent.

The analysis could not control for other factors that may affect STAAR performance; therefore, it is

unclear how much of their improvement can be attributed to participation in accelerated instruction. Figure 18: STAAR Proficiency Rates for AI and non-AI Students, 2013 and 2014

23.1% 26.9%47.4% 47.4%

15.4%

46.2%15.8%

36.8%46.2%

19.2%26.3%

15.8%15.4% 7.7% 10.5%

0.0%10.0%20.0%30.0%40.0%50.0%60.0%70.0%80.0%90.0%

100.0%

2012-13 2013-14 2012-13 2013-14

Edison AI Dade AI

No Referrals 1 Referral 2 Referrals 3 or More Referrals

24.4%

39.5%

19.5%

30.2%

55.9% 54.6%

42.0% 42.3%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

Reading 2013 Reading 2014 Math 2013 Math 2014

Participants

Nonparticipants


28

How was the optional extended day for students implemented?

Methodology

Program documents and interviews with Imagine 2020 management yielded details on the

implementation of the optional extended day component. In addition, the evaluation team attended

Imagine 2020 meetings that included presentations by campus principals on the implementation of the

initiative at their schools. All Imagine 2020 schools were asked to provide data on student participation in

the optional extended day component of the Imagine 2020 initiative. Because of the lack of a systematic

format for collecting and organizing the data, data on student attendance and participation in the optional

extended day were unwieldy. Some schools did not keep records of student participation in this Imagine

2020 component, while others provided only hard copy sign-in sheets, which were too numerous to

manually enter into a spreadsheet for analysis. As a result, the evaluation team selected three campuses

at random for analysis. In addition to collecting extended school day attendance, the evaluation team

extracted data on demographics, school attendance, and STAAR results for participants and

nonparticipants in the optional extended day.

Results

Background

The Optional Extended Day component of Imagine 2020 attempted to offer additional learning

opportunities by adding an additional hour to the school day (either before or after the regular instructional

day). The additional hour was mandatory for campus staff; however, student participation was optional.

Requiring student participation in a longer school day would require a policy change approved by the

Dallas ISD Board of Trustees.

According to the National Center on Time and Learning, a school day longer than seven hours is

considered extended (Kolbe, et al, 2011). Dallas ISD schools follow a seven-hour day: 8 a.m. to 3 p.m. for

elementary; 8:45 a.m. to 3:45 p.m., middle schools; and 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., high schools. Under the

extended learning initiative of Imagine 2020, schools could offer the additional hour in the morning or in

the afternoon.

The optional extended day reflected a broader policy trend of using extended learning time as a

means for improving student academic performance. Time is a resource and in that context, the quantity

of instructional time can be viewed as an important educational resource (SEDL, 2011). Extended

learning time as a means of improving student performance is not a new idea. Programs such as 21st

Century Community Learning Centers and Supplemental Educational Services extended learning time

through after-school programs and tutoring outside of regular classroom instruction.

Extended learning time programs operate under a belief that the additional time allows educators

to deepen instruction, meet the instructional needs of individual students, and provide enrichment

activities. However, a review of research on extended learning time by Patall, Cooper, and Allen (2010)

found few controlled studies that would enable researchers to draw firm conclusions about the impact of


29

such efforts. Much of the literature consisted of case studies. Many extended learning initiatives are

embedded in larger reform efforts, which further complicates efforts to isolate the effects of a longer

school day or year on student academic performance. Despite these issues, Patall, Cooper, and Allen

(2010) wrote that the research at least suggests that extending the school day can support students who

are at risk of failure. Because the extended day initiative in the Imagine 2020 schools was optional,

attendance and participation in the longer school day by students at risk of academic failure is a minimal

requirement for the component to have any effect on this population.

Student Characteristics

The three campuses selected for analysis of the extended school day program included one high

school and two elementary campuses. Data for the analysis consisted of 1,650 students, of which 825

(50%) participated in the optional extended day program. Participants included 264 high school students

and 561 elementary students. As shown in Table 3 below, nearly 99 percent of participating students

were Hispanic or African American, with Asians, Whites, and other ethnicities comprising the remaining 1

percent. More than 90 percent of participating and nonparticipating students were economically

disadvantaged, defined as eligible for free or reduced-price lunch. Table 3: Characteristics of Extended Day Participants and Nonparticipants

Extended Day

Nonparticipants Extended Day Participants

N % N % Race/Ethnicity Hispanic 592 71.8 575 69.7 African American 218 26.4 241 29.2 White/Other 15 1.8 9 1.1 Sex Female 413 50.1 436 52.8 Male 412 49.9 389 47.2 Socioeconomic Status Economically Disadvantaged 749 90.8 752 91.2 Not Economically Disadvantaged 76 9.2 73 8.8 Total 825 100.0 825 100.0

Students who participated in the optional extended day program in Imagine 2020 performed at

lower levels in both reading and math on the STAAR in the 2012-13 school year than their peers who did

not participate, as shown in Table 4. This is an important indication that the extended learning opportunity

reached at least some of the students it was designed to serve. Table 4: 2012-13 STAAR Results, Extended Day Participants and Nonparticipants

Extended Day

Nonparticipants Extended Day Participants

N % N % STAAR Reading Satisfactory 127 87.0 165 69.6 Unsatisfactory 19 13.0 72 30.4 Total 146 100.0 237 100.0 STAAR Math Satisfactory 116 79.5 127 53.6 Unsatisfactory 30 20.5 110 46.4 Total 146 100.0 237 100.0


30

Implementation

The extended learning time of one hour before or after the regular school day was mandatory for

campus staff, but optional for students. The instructional foci during the extended learning period included

credit recovery and acceleration in secondary campuses, tutoring, mentoring, and enrichment activities,

including clubs and activities. In addition to before- and after-school tutoring and enrichment, Imagine

2020 schools also offered Saturday school to provide additional academic support for students who

needed it. Enrichment offered at the Imagine 2020 schools included sports activities, arts, chess, Boys

and Girls clubs, and other activities.

During a presentation to the School Leadership department on the implementation of Imagine

2020, Imagine 2020 principals spoke favorably about the optional extended day component, and some

wished it could be mandatory for students. At some schools, transportation issues hampered student

attendance in the extended learning times. Dallas County Schools, the agency which handles bus

transportation for Dallas ISD, based its routes before and after school on student participation and did not

offer transportation for some routes where there was low student participation. Student participation in the

extended learning periods fluctuated throughout the school year, with participation much higher in the

elementary and middle school campuses than in high school, according to the Imagine 2020 executive

director.

Outcomes

The next series of charts display 2014 STAAR results for the optional extended day participants

and nonparticipants that were selected for analysis. Figure 19 displays grade 3 STAAR passing rates for

participants and nonparticipants in the Optional Extended Day component of Imagine 2020. As shown

below, third grade participants in extended learning achieved satisfactory performance in reading and

math at lower rates than students who did not participate, indicating that the intervention served students

in need of greater assistance. Figure 19: Grade 3 STAAR Passing Rates, by Optional Extended Day Participation

61.3%

40.0%

86.7%81.3%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

Reading Math

Participants

Nonparticipants


31

Among students in grades 4 and 5, participants in the Optional Extended Day performed at lower

levels than nonparticipants, but improved over the previous school year at a higher rate, especially in

math. As shown in Figure 20, the percentage of participants who achieved a satisfactory score on the

STAAR math test increased 26.4 percent, from 50.3 percent in 2013 to 63.6 percent in 2014. In reading,

participants improved 3.7 percentage points (5.7%). In reading, nonparticipants’ passing rates declined

slightly but remained near 90%. In math, nonparticipants’ passing rates increased four percentage points

(a 4.6% increase).

It is unclear to what extent the improved passing rates by Optional Extended Day participants can

be attributed to the additional instructional time provided by this component. It is important to remember

that the extended learning time was only one component of Imagine 2020, which offered an array of other

services, including in-school tutoring, social-emotional support, and other required and optional services.

Because the extended learning time was part of a broader school improvement initiative, it is difficult to

isolate improved student achievement to a specific component. Figure 20: STAAR Passing Rates for Grades 4 and 5, by Optional Extended Day Participation

Figure 21 displays 2014 STAAR End of Course (EOC) exam results in English I and Algebra I for

Optional Extended Day participants and nonparticipants. In contrast to the elementary results, high school

students who participated in the extended learning time offered under the Optional Extended Day

component achieved satisfactory performance at higher rates than students who did not participate. This

suggests that high schools may have been less successful in getting the students most in need of

additional help to participate in extra instructional time.

65.1%68.8%

50.3%

63.6%

91.4% 89.8%86.7%

90.7%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

Reading, 2013 Reading, 2014 Math, 2013 Math, 2014

Participants

Nonparticipants


32

Figure 21: STAAR EOC Passing Rates for Grades 9, by Optional Extended Day Participation

What curriculum and instruction components, including optional initiatives,

were implemented in the Imagine 2020 schools?

Methodology

The evaluation team collected and reviewed optional initiative documents and data, including lists

of optional initiatives, program descriptions and target populations. A member of the evaluation team met

with Imagine 2020 staff to collect information on the outreach activities of the Perot Museum of Nature

and Science, one of the initiatives implemented in Imagine 2020 schools.

Results

Optional and required Imagine 2020 Initiative programs fit into four categories: math and science

(i.e., science, technology, engineering, and mathematics - STEM), reading, social studies and other

(programs focusing on non-core or multiple core course areas). Tables 5-8 list the programs used during

the 2013-14 school year on Imagine 2020 campuses and the grade levels they served. There was no

up-to-date list of which campuses were implementing which programs and to what level of fidelity. There

also was no tracking of professional development sessions regarding these programs. Tracking has

already begun for the 2014-15 school year.

Math/Science

There were approximately 10 math- or science-focused programs implemented in Imagine 2020

schools during the 2013-14 school year. Some focused on building math skills (Reasoning Mind and

50.7%

69.2%

30.2%

60.0%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

English I Algebra I

Participants

Nonparticipants


33

Think Through Math, for example), while others strived to train teachers in STEM subjects (National

Alliance for Partnerships in Equity, or NAPE). Table 5: Imagine 2020 Curriculum and Instruction, Math and Science Programs

Math and Science Programs Grade Level Reasoning Mind 2nd through 4th grade Think Through Math 3rd through 8th grade EverFi – Vault: Understanding Money 4th and 5th grade EverFi – Campus Instructional Coach Conference (All schools) 3rd through 12th grade STEM Day Pre-K through 12th grade Blue Sky Education Foundation: Science of Flight 4th and 5th grade National Alliance for Partnerships in Equity (NAPE) – Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) Equity Pipeline

6th through 8th at Quintanilla, Dade, Edison and DESA (Training for 50 STEM teachers)

Perot Museum – Spark 101 9th through 12th grade Perot Museum – Outreach Programs & Field Experiences Pre-K through 12th grade Blended Learning – Dedicated PD Coordinator Training (Chromebooks)

6th and 9th grade math and science teachers at all secondary schools

One important math and science initiative in the Imagine 2020 schools involved a partnership

between Dallas ISD and the Perot Museum of Nature and Science. The district and the Perot Museum

collaborated in a partnership to provide engaging, hands-on science programs, campus-based teacher

support, and science- and math-based family enrichment activities and opportunities. The program

focused on increasing student understanding of science; increasing the number of college- and

career-ready students, and increasing family involvement with students.

The program included student field trips to the Perot Museum, educational films, and traveling

exhibits from the museum. Outreach efforts included lessons and presentations by Perot Museum

representatives. Many of the activities took place during selected science classes or during parent night

events. The college and career readiness coordinators hired as part of the additional student staff for

Imagine 2020 coordinated the Perot Museum activities in the Imagine 2020 schools. Information from the

coordinators indicated that these activities mainly involved on-campus presentations by museum

representatives.

Activities associated with the Perot Museum were intended to take place throughout the 2013-14

school year, but were delayed until the 2014 spring semester, in part because of an issue regarding

background checks for museum representatives visiting district campuses. Background checks are

required for district vendors’ employees who visit campuses. Perot Museum employees had already

undergone background checks and were unwilling to pay the district for an additional background check.

To resolve the matter, the Perot Museum donated its services to the Imagine 2020 schools, eliminating

the need for further background checks.

Reading

During the 2013-14 school year, there were four reading programs implemented in Imagine 2020

schools. Most of the programs targeted elementary students, but some, such as Comprehension Toolkit

and iStation, included middle school students.


34

Table 6: Imagine 2020 Curriculum and Instruction, Reading Programs Reading Programs Grade Level Comprehension Toolkit Kindergarten through 6th grade I-Station – Reading Intervention Pre-K through 8th grade iRead Backpack Program Kindergarten only Leveled Libraries

Social Studies

There were approximately four social studies programs implemented in Imagine 2020 schools

during the 2013-14 school year. Most focused on high school students, except for the Dedicated Social

Studies Specialist, which served all grade levels, prekindergarten through grade 12. Table 7: Imagine 2020 Curriculum and Instruction, Social Studies Programs

Social Studies Programs Grade Level Dedicated Social Studies Specialist Pre-K through 12th grade EverFi – Commons: Digital Town Square 9th and 10th grade EverFi – African American History 306 9th through 12th grade E-Mentoring Program (Dallas Bar Association) 9th through 12th grade

Other

There were two other types of programs implemented in Imagine 2020 schools (Table 8).

Mandarin Chinese instruction was available at five elementary campuses: Rhoads, Stevens Park, Lanier,

Dunbar, and Carver. Table 8: Imagine 2020 Curriculum and Instruction, Other Programs

Other Programs Grade Level Mandarin Instruction at Rhoads, Stevens Park, Lanier, Dunbar and Carver. There was one teacher to share between the five campuses.

Pre-K only

NovaNet Courseware for Accelerated Instruction (Dade and Edison) 8th grade only

How was the Imagine 2020 parent and community engagement program

implemented?

Methodology

The evaluation team collected and reviewed parent and community engagement documents and

data, including goal tracking forms, calendars of events, Parent Portal registration information, PREP

University Workshops for Families attendance and parent surveys, and parent focus group protocols.

Results

The mission of the Office of Family and Community Engagement (OFCE) is to successfully

develop and implement programs to engage parents and the community in collaborative

parent-school-community partnerships aimed at continually improving the academic performance of

students. The department provides:

• Additional Parent Universities and fairs

• District- and community-based opportunities for parent engagement determined by feeder pattern

and school needs


35

• Workforce Development Resources

• English-as-a-Second-Language (ESL) and General Education Development (GED) classes

• Employment preparation workshops

• Support and information on urban issues (gangs, drugs, teen pregnancy, homelessness, etc.)

• Information about possible signs of at-risk activities

Imagine 2020 Initiative Goals

The goals and progress indicators of the Parent and Community Engagement component of the

Imagine 2020 Initiative are outlined in Table 9 below. The OFCE showed great success on Imagine 2020

campuses. The program met all of its goals except one, which was just four percentage points below the

goal. Table 9: 2013-14 Imagine 2020 Parent Engagement Goals

Indicator of Success Goals Progress as of

June 2014

Produce a monthly campus newsletter 80% of campuses by November 2013 100%

Parent representative sitting on the District Parent Advisory Council (DPAC) 66% of campuses 100%

Increase percentage of parents registered for Parent Portal Increase by 45% 86% of campuses met goal1

Identify and launch a parent center 80% of campuses by June 2014 76%

Imagine 2020 campuses will have an active Parent Teacher Association (PTA), an independent Parent Teacher Organization (PTO) or parent group

70% of campuses by June 2014 100%

Note: 1 Lorenzo De Zavala Elementary School increased the percentage of parents enrolled on Parent Portal from 71% to 100%; this represented a 39% increase in enrollment. Arcadia Park Elementary School increased its enrollment percentage by 20% (from 60% to 72%). Dallas Environmental Science Academy increased its Parent Portal enrollment from 63% to 90%; a 44% increase.

Parent Portal

The Dallas ISD Parent Portal is a resource available in English and Spanish for

parents/guardians to use and become more involved in their children’s education. The Portal provides

secure access to: grades, assignments and attendance; alerts of absences and grade average changes;

and two-way communication between parents and teachers. The Office of Family and Community

Engagement provides staff training on Parent Portal to share best practices for parent registration and

train participants on locating resources on district pages and how to hold successful registration events.

Figures 22 and 23 show the percentage of parents of children enrolled at Imagine 2020 campuses who

registered for Parent Portal at the beginning and end of the 2013-14 school year. The largest increases in

enrollment were at Lincoln High School, Thomas A. Edison and Raul Quintanilla Sr. middle schools, and

Martin Luther King and C.F. Carr elementary schools. Figure 22: Percentage of Imagine 2020 High School and Middle School Parents Registered for Parent Portal at the Beginning and End of the 2013-14 School Year


36

Figure 23: Percentage of Imagine 2020 Elementary School Parents Registered for Parent Portal at the Beginning and End of the 2013-14 School Year

PREP University

The Office of Family and Community Engagement invited Dallas ISD family members to attend

the PREP University educational family workshops. These workshops were free to all parents, and

included childcare. PREP University workshops were designed to empower parents with strategies and

resources to support children academically, emotionally and socially. The workshop series began in

October 2013 and ran through June 2014. Workshops were offered in the evenings from 6:00 to 7:30

p.m. During the 2013-14 school year, the Office of Family and Community Engagement also launched a

new Super Saturday Series. Sessions were offered in English, and Spanish interpretation services were

23% 26%21%

11%

63%

32%26%

77%

45%40%

23%

90% 87%80%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Lincoln HS Madison HS Pinkston HS Dade MS DESA MS Edison MS QuintanillaMS

% Registered 08/26/13 % Registered 06/08/14

4% 7% 8% 6% 4%

72%60%

5% 4%

21%

4% 8% 4%10%

100%

51% 47% 46% 42%

100%

72%62% 59% 58% 56% 54%

48% 45%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

MLK

ES

Rob

erts

ES

Ric

e E

S

Dun

bar E

S

Rho

ads

ES

DeZ

aval

a ES

Arc

adia

Par

k E

S

Ste

vens

Par

k E

S

Mar

tinez

ES

Lani

er E

S

Car

r ES

Alle

n E

S

Car

ver E

S

Ear

hart

ES

% Registered 8/26/13 % Registered 6/8/14

available.

up.

T

total of 81

are includTable 10: 2TransitioninParent PorResume WAttendanceSTAAR TipCollege anHome to SCulturally R

Reasoning

How to HeSchool

T

attending

around 17

others tha

about res

such as w

other sess

A

was eitheFi

There was n

here were 15

19 attendees

ded in Table 12013-14 PREPng 101 rtal

Writing Skills e and Truancy ps and Resourcd Career Readchool Commun

Responsive Te

g Mind: Tools to

lp Your Child a

he Office of

the PREP U

7 items, one

at solicited le

spondent dem

what the resp

sions would b

About 93 perc

r “Good” or “Eigure 24: Imag

Excellent; 58

no cost to atte

5 PREP Univ

, though pare

0. P University Wo

ces diness nication

eaching

o Help Your Ch

at Home to Ens

Family and

University wor

of which sol

evels of agre

mographics; w

pondent found

be helpful. No

cent of respon

Excellent” (Figgine 2020 Par

8%

Overall,

end the works

versity worksh

ents could ha

orkshop Topics

hild Excel in Ma

sure Success a

Community

rkshops. A to

icited informa

eement on wo

workshop loc

d most or lea

ot all responde

nding parents

gure 24). rent PREP Univ

how helpful w

shops and chi

hops held dur

ave attended

s Taking aSetting uTeachinCommuEngaginJob SeeBuildingHouse BPlans

ath AdvanciStudents

at ReadersLevel; R

Engagemen

otal of 326 su

ation about o

orkshop spec

ation and tim

ast helpful, ho

ents answere

s indicated th

versity Worksh

Adequat

was the works

Imagine 2020

ildcare was a

ring the 2013

more than o

a Stand againsup a Budget g Responsibilitnicating with yo

ng your Child deking Skills for A Motivation

Bill 5: How it wi

ng Academics s s to Leaders: H

Reading: Tips a

nt administere

urveys were r

overall helpful

cifics. The ot

me; and gene

ow they hear

ed all question

he PREP Univ

hop Helpfulne

te; 7%

shop (n=277)?

0 Initiative Fin

available for c

3-14 school y

one workshop

st Bullying

ty our Child uring the SummAll

ll Impact your C

for Early Child

How to Read atand Resources

ed a paper

returned. The

lness of the w

ther items so

eral “mark al

rd about the

ns.

versity works

ss

Good;

nal Report 20

children ages

year. There w

p. Workshop t

mer

Child’s Gradua

dhood Bilingual

t or Above Gradfor Parents

survey to pa

e survey cont

workshop an

olicited inform

l that apply”

session, and

shop they atte

35%

13-14

37

3 and

were a

topics

ation

l

de

arents

tained

nd five

mation

items

d what

ended


38

Approximately 88 percent or more of parents responding to the survey indicated that they

“Agreed” or “Strongly Agreed” with the items presented in Figure 25. Figure 25: Imagine 2020 Prep University Workshop, Agreement Items

When asked what aspects of the workshops parents found most helpful (respondents could

select more than one), the top two selections were presentations (46%) and topics (38%). When reporting

what they found least helpful, 25 percent of respondents indicated that the length of time was least helpful

(Figure 26, charts a and b). About 42 percent of parents wanted more workshops on College and Career

Readiness (Figure 27) Figure 26 (a and b): Imagine 2020 Prep University Workshops, Identifying what was Most and Least Helpful

6% 6% 7% 6% 7%1% 1% 6% 3% 3%

92% 92% 88% 91% 91%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

The workshoppresenter(s)effectively

communicated withthe participants

(n=279).

Workshop attendeeshad an opportunity toparticipate and askquestions (n=270).

The district offersadequate workshops

and resources tosupport your child's

education in the home(n=265).

Attending thisworkshop has mademe want to becomemore involved in my

child's education(n=273).

The workshop wasthe appropriate length

of time (n=275).

Strong Disagree/Disagree Neither Agree nor Disagree Strong Agree/Agree

46%38%

27% 25% 23%18%

2%0%

10%20%30%40%50%

a) What did you find most helpful about the workshop?

25%

10% 7% 6%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Length oftime

Topic Location Other

b) What did you find least helpful about the workshop?


39

Figure 27: Imagine 2020 Prep University Workshops, What Other Topics Would you be Interested in?

The OFCE created a Parent Engagement Toolkit for campuses. The toolkit includes information

about how to build campus-based PREP University workshop series in the hopes that campuses will be

able to determine which workshops fit their parent population best and offer them at their convenience.

The Toolkit includes action items such as selecting workshop content, securing the date, contacting

speakers, and solidifying logistics. It also includes a resource list, session checklists, sample agendas,

sample speaker forms and checklists, sample workshop and childcare sign-in sheets, and a list of

previous topics covered in the series.

Parent Centers

Parent Centers are offices, classrooms or designated areas within a campus building where

parents can go to get important information about their child’s education. The OFCE encouraged Imagine

2020 campuses without Parent Centers to schedule focus groups with the Site-Based Decision Making

teams, campus staff, and parent groups (i.e., PTAs or PTOs) to brainstorm ideas and gather feedback;

visit campuses with established centers; identify space on the campus; create a list of necessary

resources such as materials, furniture or supplies; identify a team to run the center (this could be a parent

liaison, community liaison, volunteer coordinator, parent volunteer, parent organization, or counselor);

and develop a communications plan for marketing the new Parent Center to parents and the community.

The OFCE also provided a list of steps for building and maintaining the Parent Centers, sample

compacts/contracts, information on stimulating parent involvement, and a resource link list.

The Parent Center can be a single computer station in the library if necessary, as long as parents

can access Parent Portal, College and Career Readiness pamphlets, TAKS and STAAR testing

information, emotional/behavioral health education brochures, home learning materials, information about

free tutoring opportunities on the campus, Parent-Teacher Conference dates, and PREP University

workshop information.

42%

30% 29%26%

23%

16%

0%5%

10%15%20%25%30%35%40%45%50%

College andCareer

Discipline FinancialAid, FAFSA

PeerPressure

Bullying SocialMedia

What other topics would you be interested in?


40

How was in-school tutoring in Imagine 2020 schools implemented?

Methodology

The evaluation team met with representatives of the three in-school tutoring providers to discuss

data collection needs. The three organizations provided data on student participation, including length

and frequency of tutoring sessions, to enable the evaluators to assess the program’s implementation

across providers and participating campuses. A member of the evaluation team matched the student

identification numbers of students in the program with district databases to gather additional data,

including students’ performance on the STAAR and STAAR EOC exams.

To examine the effects of the in-school tutoring program on students’ academic performance in

reading and math, the evaluation team extracted STAAR and STAAR EOC data from district databases,

and matched students who participated in the program with their test scores. This section of the Imagine

2020 evaluation reports the proportion of in-school tutoring participants who performed at a satisfactory

level or higher on the test. STAAR results applied only to students tutored by Group Excellence and

Reading Partners. Readers 2 Leaders tutored students in grades K-2, who are not subject to STAAR

testing. Students in these grade levels took the norm-referenced Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS).

In addition, the evaluation team analyzed changes in STAAR EOC performance for high school

students who received tutoring from Group Excellence by using an independent samples t-test. Similar

tests could not be conducted on students tutored by Reading Partners and Readers 2 Leaders because

of smaller sample sizes.

Results

Program Design

All 21 Imagine 2020 schools participated in the in-school tutoring component of the initiative.

Three organizations provided tutoring services to the schools: Reading Partners and Readers 2 Leaders

provided tutoring services to the elementary campuses, while Group Excellence served the seven

secondary campuses. Because of funding issues, most tutoring services did not begin until late October

or early November of 2013. Services were under way at all Imagine 2020 campuses by February 2014.

Tutoring did not begin until January and February of 2014 at three campuses in the Pinkston feeder

pattern because of funding issues and to allow Readers 2 Leaders, the provider serving these schools,

more time to initiate services.

Students at the Imagine 2020 schools were enrolled in the in-school tutoring program based on

teacher recommendations. The Dallas ISD superintendent wanted students who received in-school

tutoring under Imagine 2020 to be tutored at least three days a week, preferably in pull-out sessions, in

which tutoring is provided outside the regular classroom setting. In addition, the superintendent and the

Department of School Leadership wanted tutoring sessions to be no larger than three students per single

tutor. Bec

Imagine 2

pull-out a

environme

shown in

In

campuses

academic

componen

Group Exc

G

schools, a

tutored a

American

students t

11. Figure

Table

SchLincMadPinkDadDESEdisQuinTot

A

the level

cause of fund

2020, most in

and inclusion

ent. In additio

this section o

n-school tutor

s. Some prin

c subjects in

nt.

cellence

Group Excelle

and Dade, Ed

total of 4,0

(see Figure

tutored (24%

e 28: Group Ex

e 11: Group Ex

hool coln dison kston e

SA son ntanilla al

As shown in F

preferred by

58%

ing and the n

n-school tutor

models. Un

on, student-tu

of the Imagine

ring focused o

ncipals and fe

which their

ence provided

dison, DESA

60 students,

28). Quinta

), followed by

xcellence, Perc

xcellence, Num

Figure 29, Gro

Imagine 202

%

2%

numerous oth

ring sessions

nder an inclu

utor ratios va

e 2020 evalua

on reading in

eeder pattern

students ca

d math tutori

A, and Quinta

of which 58

nilla Middle S

y Pinkston H

centage of Stu

mber of Stude

No. of Stude377158757702393692

981 4,060

oup Excellenc

20 managem

7%

er activities b

took place tw

usion model,

aried across c

ation report.

the elementa

n executive d

n receive tut

ng to studen

nilla middle s

8 percent we

School accou

igh School a

udents Tutored

ents Tutored by

ents Served

ce tutored stu

ent and the

Imagine 2020

being implem

wo days a we

, tutoring is

campuses an

ary campuses

directors requ

toring throug

nts at Lincoln

schools. Duri

ere Hispanic

unted for the

nd Dade Mid

d by Ethnicity

y Campus

Grade L9-129-129-126-86-86-86-8

udents at a h

Dallas ISD S

33%

0 Initiative Fin

ented simulta

eek and used

integrated in

nd tutoring pr

s and on mat

uested great

gh this Imagi

n, Madison, a

ing 2013-14,

and 33 per

e largest num

ddle School, a

Levels 2228888

higher student

School Leade

Afric

Hisp

Othe

Miss

nal Report 20

aneously as p

d a combinat

nto the class

roviders, as w

th in the seco

er flexibility i

ine 2020 pro

and Pinkston

Group Exce

rcent were A

mber of seco

as shown in

Percent

9 4

19 17 10 17 24

100

t-to-tutor ratio

ership depart

can American

panic

er

sing

13-14

41

part of

tion of

sroom

will be

ondary

in the

ogram

n high

llence

African

ondary

Table

o than

tment.

Group Ex

Imagine 2

preferred Figure 2

T

Initially, Im

tutoring. D

week, bet

reason tut

tutoring s

minutes in

average vTable 12:

School Lincoln MadisonPinkstonDade DESA Edison QuintaniTotal

Readers 2

R

elementar

the 2013-

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

xcellence’s tut

2020 seconda

by the superi29: Average Gr

he number of

magine 2020

Data from Gr

tween late O

toring was pr

sessions rang

n length. Stud

varying acrossAverage Lengt

No.

lla

2 Leaders

Readers 2 Lea

ry schools in

14 school yea

0

0

0

0

0

0

6.8

toring model

ary campuses

intendent androup Excellenc

f days per we

0 leadership

roup Excellen

October of 201

rovided two d

ged from 40

dents attende

s campuses, th and Numbeof Students Tutored

377 158 757 702 393 692 981

4,060

aders is a W

the Imagine

ar, Readers 2

7.6

used a stude

s, the student-

d School Leadce Student-to-T

eek in which t

wanted stude

nce indicated

13 and early

ays a week in

to 50 minute

ed an average

ranging from er of Group Exc

West Dallas-ba

2020 initiativ

2 Leaders tuto

8.4

4.0

ent-tutor ratio

-tutor ratio wa

dership. Tutor Ratio, by

tutoring occu

ents to recei

d that the ven

May of 2014

nstead of thre

es in length,

e of 15 tutorin

7 at DESA acellence Tutor

Average SesLength (in Min

48 48 41 53 77 50 53 53

ased organiza

ve: Allen, Arc

ored 201 first

0

8.0

Imagine 2020

o that ranged

as about 7:1,

y Campus

rred also diffe

ive a minimu

ndor provided

4. Funding is

ee. As shown

except at D

ng sessions d

nd Quintanillaring Sessions,ssionnutes)

ation that pro

cadia Park, C

t- and second

7.1

0 Initiative Fin

from 5:1 to 7

in contrast to

ered from dis

um of three

d tutoring ses

ssues appear

n in Table 12

ESA, where

during the sc

a to 42 at Ma by Campus

AveraSessions

ovided in-sch

Carr, Carver, a

d-grade stude

7.0 7

nal Report 20

7:1. At most

o the 3:1 max

strict specifica

days per we

ssions two d

red to be the

below, most s

they average

chool year, wi

dison.

age No. of s per Student

17 42 12 10

7 10

7 15

ool tutoring a

and Lanier. D

ents across th

7.0

13-14

42

of the

ximum

ations.

eek of

ays a

main

single

ed 77

th the

at five

During

he five

campuses

AmericanFigur

R

specificat

preferred

session. CFigure 31:

W

its service

Lanier in

per week

organizati

distributed

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

s. As shown

s (37%). re 30: Readers

Readers 2 Lea

ions regardin

3:1 maximum

Carver, at 1.9 Readers 2 Le

While Readers

es were slow

January 2014

k varied. Rea

ion worked w

d, whether in

57%

Allen

2.3

n in Figure 3

s 2 Leaders, S

aders’ in-sch

ng student-tu

m. Arcadia P

students pereaders Tutor-to

s 2 Leaders’

er to roll out.

4, and at Arc

aders 2 Lead

with individua

n two 1-hour

1.5%

Arcadia Park

3.0

30, Hispanics

Students Tutor

ool tutoring s

tor ratios, as

ark had the h

r tutor, had tho-Student Rati

tutoring serv

. Tutoring beg

cadia Park an

ders’ program

al campuses

r sessions p

1% 3.5%

Carr

2.8

s represented

red by Ethnicit

services were

s shown in

highest avera

e lowest averio by Campus

vices followed

gan at Allen

nd Carr in Ma

m called for

to set a sch

per week, thr

%

Carver

1.9

Imagine 2020

d the majori

ty

e consistent w

Figure 31. A

age ratio, at

rage student-

d district prefe

Elementary i

arch 2014. Th

two hours o

hedule for ho

ree 40-minut

37%

Lanier

2.1

0 Initiative Fin

ity (57%), fo

with Imagine

Average ratio

three studen

-tutor ratio pe

erences on s

n October 20

he number o

of tutoring p

ow those two

e sessions,

Africa

Hispa

Ame

White

Othe

Overall

2.4

nal Report 20

ollowed by A

2020 leader

os were withi

ts to one tuto

r session.

student-tutor r

013, at Carve

of tutoring ses

per week, an

o hours shou

or four 30-m

an American

anic

rican Indian

e

er

l

13-14

43

African

rship’s

in the

or per

ratios,

er and

ssions

nd the

uld be

minute

sessions.

provided

as well asTable 13: R

Campus

Allen Arcadia PaCarr Carver Lanier Total

Reading P

R

elementar

beginning

in 2013-1

Earhart, M

Reading P

the tutorin

Evaluation

by matchi

students,

other ethn

R

provider

Imagine 2Fig

Imagine 202

at least three

s the averageReaders 2 Lea

s Name N

ark

Partners

Reading Partn

ry students in

g in January 2

4, Reading P

Martinez, Ma

Partners did n

ng file to the

n and Assess

ng on studen

there were 1

nic groups (Fi

Reading Partn

indicated tha

2020 schools gure 32: Read

20 leadership

e days a wee

number of seders Tutoring

No. of StudentTutored

42 40 41 40 38

201

ners is a natio

n Title I scho

2012 at Georg

Partners tutore

artin Luther

not include st

district stude

sment analyst

nt names. Thr

148 African A

gure 32).

ners’ tutoring

at the organi

they served. ing Partners S

40%

p and the Sc

k. Table 13 d

essions per sSession Detais Grade L

Serv1

1-21-21-21-21-2

onal nonprofit

ools. Reading

ge W. Truett a

ed 356 stude

King, O.M. R

udent identifi

nt database.

t matched da

rough this pro

Americans (5

g model calls

zation follow

Students Rece

2%

chool Leader

details the av

tudent. ilsLevels ved

Av

2 2 2 2 2

organization

g Partners’ ha

and Roger Q.

ents across ni

Roberts, Rho

cation numbe

A member o

ata from Read

ocess, 253 of

8%), 100 His

s for a 1:1 s

wed this appr

iving Tutoring,

Imagine 2020

rship departm

verage length

vg. Session Le(in minutes

57 30 34 58 30 42

that provides

as a history o

. Mills elemen

ine elementa

oads, Rice, a

ers, making it

of the Imagine

ding Partners

356 students

spanics (40%

student-tutor

roach, tutorin

, by Ethnicity

58%

0 Initiative Fin

ment preferre

in minutes o

engths)

Avg

s tutoring ser

of serving Da

ntary schools.

ry schools: D

and Stevens

t difficult to m

e 2020 evalu

to the distric

s were matche

%), and five s

ratio. Sign-i

ng students

African

Hispanic

Other Et

nal Report 20

ed that tutorin

of a single se

g. No. of SessStudent

37 28 54 24 40 37

rvices in read

allas ISD stud

. For Imagine

De Zavala, Du

s Park. Data

atch students

ation team a

t student data

ed. Among th

students (2%)

in forms from

individually i

American

c

thnicities

13-14

44

ng be

ssion,

sions per

ding to

dents,

e 2020

unbar,

from

s from

nd an

abase

he 253

) from

m the

n the


45

The number of students tutored per campus averaged about 40, ranging from 31 at Earhart to 52

at Rhoads (Table 14). Reading Partners tutored students in grades 2-5 at most of the nine schools, while

Rice focused on K-2 and Stevens Park on 1-2. Table 14: Reading Partners, Number of Students Tutored by Campus

School No. of Students Served Grade Percent

DeZavala 42 2-5 12 Dunbar 42 2-5 12 Earhart 31 3-5 8 Martinez 33 2-5 9 MLK 37 1-5 10 Roberts 34 2-4 10 Rhoads 52 2-3 15 Rice 43 K-2 12 Stevens Park 42 1-2 12

Total 356 100

Reading Partners conducted two tutoring sessions per week, on average, each for 45 minutes in

duration, for an average of 90 minutes of tutoring each week. Reading Partners’ tutoring model

recommended at least 20 sessions per student over the course of a school year. Students in the nine

Imagine 2020 Reading Partners schools attended an average of 25 sessions between late October 2013

and mid-May 2014 (see Table 15). Table 15: Reading Partners Tutoring Session Details

Campus Name

No. Tutored

Session Length(in minutes)

Dates of Tutoring Sessions

Avg. Sessions per Student

DeZavala 42 45 Oct. 22-May 19 26 Dunbar 42 45 Oct. 30-May 19 23 Earhart 31 45 Oct. 29-May 12 30 Martinez 33 45 Nov. 6-May 16 24 MLK 37 45 Oct. 29-May 15 25 Roberts 34 45 Oct. 29-May 16 30 Rhoads 52 45 Oct. 22-May 19 18 Rice 43 45 Oct. 23-May 8 26 Stevens Park 42 45 Nov. 4-May 15 20 Total 356 45 25

What were the first-year outcomes for in-school tutoring?

Methodology

To assess the first-year academic outcomes of the in-school tutoring program, a member of the

evaluation team accessed results of the State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness (STAAR)

for students in grades 3-12. For students in grades K-2, the evaluator accessed results of the Iowa Test

of Basic Skills (ITBS) reading comprehension test and the Logramos.

Results

Table 16 displays STAAR math and STAAR EOC results in Algebra for middle and high school

students who received in-school tutoring services from Group Excellence, which was contracted to

provide math tutoring in the Imagine 2020 schools. The table also reports those students’ passing rates


46

for the STAAR test they took in 2012-13. As shown in Table 16, eighth grade students participating in

Group Excellence tutoring showed a 1.9 percent increase in their STAAR passing rates, from 53 percent

as seventh graders in 2012-13 to 54 percent in 2013-14. Students taking the Algebra EOC, meanwhile,

had a passing rate of 63 percent, 21.2 percent higher than their passing rates in grade 8 the previous

year. Grades 6 and 7 showed declines over the previous year’s performance.

Whether these gains (or declines) can be attributed to in-school tutoring is unclear. Multiple

factors influence student academic performance, and Imagine 2020 offered a range of student supports,

including instructional and social-emotional interventions. For these reasons, it is difficult to isolate

changes in academic performance to a specific program or support, including the in-school tutoring

program. Table 16: STAAR Math and Algebra EOC Results for Group Excellence Students

Test/ 2013-14 Grade Level 2012-13 2013-14 Pct. Pt. Change % Change STAAR Math, Grade 6 76 51 -25 -33% STAAR Math, Grade 7 58 52 -6 -10.3% STAAR Math, Grade 8 53 54 1 1.9% Algebra I EOC 52 63 11 21.2%

Table 17 reports 2013-14 STAAR results in reading and math for students who received tutoring

services from Reading Partners in 2013-14. In addition, the table displays 2012-13 STAAR results for

these students. In grades 4 and 5, students’ rates of satisfactory performance in 2013-14 showed

improvements over their results for the previous year. As discussed previously, it is unclear to what extent

these improvements can be attributed to in-school tutoring. Table 17: 2012-13 and 2013-14 STAAR Results for Reading Partners Students in Imagine 2020 Schools

Grade Level

Reading Math

2012-13

2013-14 Pct. Pt. Change

% Change 2012-13 2013-14

Pct. Pt. Change

% Change

3 N/A 29 N/A N/A N/A 35 N/A N/A 4 26 29 3 11.5% 26 39 13 50.0% 5 28 61 33 117.5% 16 54 38 237.5%

To better understand whether the amount of tutoring received had any impact on student test

scores, the evaluation team conducted an independent samples t-test on students who took the Algebra I

EOC. There were a total of 4,060 students in Imagine 2020 middle and high schools who received

tutoring from Group Excellence in math. Of this number, 722 students took the Algebra I test. The number

of tutoring sessions attended ranged from 1 to 118, for a median of 16 tutoring sessions. The analysis

divided these students into two groups, based on tutoring sessions attended: those with 16 or more

sessions, and those with 15 or fewer sessions. As shown in Table 18, students with 16 or more tutoring

sessions had lower scale scores than students with fewer tutoring sessions. They also trailed the district

average scale score.

Results of the independent samples t-test indicated a statistically significant difference between

students with less than 16 tutoring sessions and those with 16 or more sessions (see Table 19). Because

the in-school tutoring program was based on need for additional instructional support, students were


47

enrolled in the program based on teacher recommendations. Students who attended more sessions might

have been lower performing academically and in need of additional support. Table 18: Average Algebra I EOC Scale Scores for In-School Tutoring Participants and District

Group N Average Scale Score 1-15 Tutoring Sessions 350 3,648 16 or more Tutoring Sessions 372 3,494 District 9,524 3,582

Table 19: Independent Samples T-Test Results for In-School Tutoring Participants Tested on Algebra I EOC

In-School Tutoring Group

Algebra I EOC t

Sig. Mean S.D. Difference

1-15 Sessions 3648.42 648.7 16 or more Sessions 3493.81 451.0 154.61 3.736 .000

Students in grades 1 and 2 who received in-school tutoring generally performed at lower levels

than other grade 1 students in the Imagine 2020 campuses. Tables 20 and 21 display the percentage of

students in grades 1 and 2, respectively, who scored at the 40th percentile or higher on the ITBS reading

comprehension test, as well as campuswide results for the same grade levels. It is important to consider

that students chosen for the in-school tutoring program were academically lower performing than their

peers. It is hoped that sustained exposure to in-school tutoring, combined with other supports and

interventions under Imagine 2020, will lead to improved performance by these students. First grade

students at Carr and Martin Luther King, and second grade students at Rice performed at higher levels on

the ITBS than their fellow students. A smaller number of students at two campuses – Carr and Stevens

Park – took the Logramos test, as shown in Table 22. Table 20: ITBS Reading Results (40th Percentile or Above) for Grade 1 In-School Tutoring, by Campus

In-School Tutoring Participants

Other Students Pct. Pt.

Difference Campus N Pct. N Pct. Allen 39 10.3 66 36.4 -26.1 Arcadia Park 20 15.0 57 59.6 -44.6 Carr 12 25.0 9 22.2 2.8 Carver 18 11.1 61 47.5 -36.4 Lanier 21 4.8 39 28.2 -23.4 Stevens Park 0 N/A 55 36.4 N/A Rice 9 44.4 57 52.6 -8.2 MLK 3 66.7 38 57.9 8.8

Table 21: ITBS Reading Results (40th Percentile or Above) for Grade 2 In-School Tutoring, by Campus In-School Tutoring

Participants Other Students

Pct. Pt. Difference Campus N Pct. N Pct.

Allen N/A N/A 58 50.0 N/A Arcadia Park 20 5.0 51 31.4 -26.4 Carr 15 6.7 21 19.0 -12.3 Carver 18 11.1 65 29.2 -18.1 Lanier 13 0.0 38 42.1 -42.1 Stevens Park 13 7.7 38 34.2 -26.5 Rice 9 88.9 97 73.2 15.7 MLK 5 0.0 55 41.8 -33.8


48

Table 22: Logramos Results (40th Percentile or Above) for Grades 1-2 In-School Tutoring, by Campus In-School Tutoring

Participants Other Students

Pct. Pt. Difference Campus N Pct. N Pct.

Carr, Grade 2 12 91.7 24 91.7 0.0 Stevens Park, Grade 2 2 100.0 61 98.4 1.6

What were the Year 1 outcomes of the Imagine 2020 Initiative?

Methodology

The Texas Education Agency (TEA) released 2014 accountability ratings for all Texas public

schools in August 2014. This section will report those results, as well as those of the previous year. In

addition, the evaluation team extracted results for the State of Texas Assessments of Academic

Readiness (STAAR) exams from the Dallas ISD’s MyData Portal site, comparing 2014 results with those

for the previous year to estimate the extent to which Imagine 2020 schools improved from 2013 to 2014.

The analysis uses the percentage of students who demonstrated Level 2 satisfactory performance or

higher, based on the phase-in standard. STAAR tables in this section include passing rates by Imagine

2020 campus, as well as the campuses in the South Oak Cliff High School feeder pattern and the district

overall. The South Oak Cliff feeder was scheduled to become part of Imagine 2020 in the 2014-15 school

year.

In addition to examining STAAR results, the evaluation also attempted to gauge students’

noncognitive skills, habits, and attitudes. The evaluation team developed and administered a 20-item

survey to students in grades 6, 8, 9, and 11 during the fall 2013 and spring 2014 semesters. The data

were analyzed using factor analysis, a data reduction technique popular in survey analysis. Factor

analysis examines patterns in survey responses to identify factors – unmeasured variables – that may

influence responses to survey questions.

Results

Performance Ratings

As shown in Figure 33, 14 of the 21 Imagine 2020 schools received “Met Standard” ratings for

2014, while seven received “Improvement Required” ratings. One campus – Oran M. Roberts – was not

rated in 2013 because it was a new school.


49

Figure 33: Imagine 2020 State Accountability Ratings, 2013 and 2014

Table 23 displays performance ratings by campus for 2013 and 2014. Three campuses – Dunbar,

Earhart, and Stevens Park – improved their ratings over the year, moving from “Improvement Required” in

2013 to “Met Standard” for 2014. Table 23: 2013 and 2014 State Accountability Ratings for Imagine 2020 Campuses

Campus 2013 2014 Lincoln Met Standard Improvement Required Pinkston Improvement Required Improvement Required Madison Met Standard Met Standard Dade Improvement Required Improvement Required Quintanilla Met Standard Met Standard DESA Met Standard Met Standard Edison Improvement Required Improvement Required Allen Met Standard Met Standard Arcadia Park Met Standard Met Standard Carr Improvement Required Improvement Required Carver Improvement Required Improvement Required MLK Met Standard Met Standard Dunbar Improvement Required Met Standard Earhart Improvement Required Met Standard Lanier Met Standard Met Standard Rhoads Met Standard Met Standard Rice Met Standard Met Standard Stevens Park Improvement Required Met Standard DeZavala Met Standard Met Standard Martinez Met Standard Met Standard Roberts N/A Improvement Required

12

14

87

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

2013 2014

Met Standard

Improvement Required


50

STAAR

Third grade results in both reading and math on the STAAR were mixed. As shown in Table 24,

the majority of Imagine 2020 campuses showed declines in the percentage of third grade students

demonstrating satisfactory performance on the STAAR reading test. In math, half of the Imagine 2020

campuses showed improvements over the previous year. In this table, as well as subsequent tables,

improvement gains among Imagine 2020 schools are shown in green, while gains exceeding 10 percent

are in blue. Declines are in red. These results for the Imagine 2020 elementary schools are generally

consistent with the district overall, which showed a 5.3 percent decline in reading and a 3 percent

increase in math. Among the elementary campuses in the South Oak Cliff feeder, which was scheduled to

become part of Imagine 2020 in the fall of 2014, just under half showed improved performance in third

grade reading, and most improved their performance in math. Table 24: 2013 and 2014 STAAR Results (English and Spanish) in Reading and Math for Grade 3

School/Grade 2013

Reading 2014

Reading Pct. Pt. Change

Pct. Change

2013 Math

2014 Math

Pct. Pt. Change

Pct. Change

Allen 69.0 51.9 -17.1 -24.8% 56.2 48.1 -8.1 -14.4% Carr 41.7 42.5 0.8 1.9% 45.1 28.8 -16.3 -36.1% Carver 44.7 46.3 1.6 3.6% 34.2 41.7 7.5 21.9% DeZavala 71.9 70.6 -1.3 -1.8% 52.6 49 -3.6 -6.8% Earhart 46.4 71.4 25 53.9% 21.4 62.9 41.5 193.9% Lanier 84.6 78.1 -6.5 -7.7% 71.8 76.4 4.6 6.4% Martinez 73.2 80.0 6.8 9.3% 53.5 94.2 40.7 76.1% Arcadia Park 80.0 72.5 -7.5 -9.4% 77.6 62.7 -14.9 -19.2% Stevens Park 57.6 50.5 -7.1 -12.3% 47.3 48.4 1.1 2.3% Rhoads 71.6 48.6 -23 -32.1% 45.9 65.4 19.5 42.5% Rice 80.0 62.3 -17.7 -22.1% 74.3 59.4 -14.9 -20.1% Dunbar 61.5 47.2 -14.3 -23.3% 43.6 54.2 10.6 24.3% MLK 76.4 53.8 -22.6 -29.6% 74.5 63.5 -11 -14.8% Roberts 66.2 51.7 -14.5 -21.9% 57.4 47.1 -10.3 -17.9% Bushman (SOC) 33.8 33.3 -0.5 -1.5% 21.9 37.8 15.9 72.6% Jordan (SOC) 61.6 55.0 -6.6 -10.7% 45.2 48.8 3.6 8.0% Holland at Lisbon (SOC) 60.5 63.2 2.7 4.5% 47.4 47.4 0 0.0% Marsalis (SOC) 59.5 61.4 1.9 3.2% 35.7 55.4 19.7 55.2% Oliver (SOC) 60.0 40.8 -19.2 -32.0% 42 20 -22 -52.4% Pease (SOC) 59.0 39.1 -19.9 -33.7% 34.2 32.2 -2 -5.8% Russell (SOC) 62.2 61.6 -0.6 -1.0% 41.2 46.4 5.2 12.6% R.L. Thornton (SOC) 70.8 75.0 4.2 5.9% 62.5 78.3 15.8 25.3% Young (SOC) 44.9 64.6 19.7 43.9% 25.3 48.4 23.1 91.3% Dallas ISD 68.6 63.3 -5.3 -7.7% 57.3 59.0 1.7 3.0%

Imagine 2020 campuses had greater success in grade 4 reading and math STAAR, as indicated

by Table 25. More than half of the 14 campuses improved their passing rates in reading over last year,

and five campuses showed improvements of greater than 10 percent. In math, 9 of the 14 Imagine 2020

campuses showed improved performance in math. Overall, the district showed a small improvement in


51

reading and a small decline in math. South Oak Cliff feeder pattern elementary campuses demonstrated

more improvement in math than in reading among grade 4 students.

Table 25: 2013 and 2014 STAAR Results (English and Spanish) in Reading and Math for Grade 4

School/Grade 2013

Reading 2014


Pct. Change

2013 Math

2014 Math

Pct. Pt. Change

Pct. Change

Allen 56.0 62.3 6.3 11.3% 49.3 65.2 15.9 32.3% Carr 39.2 43.4 4.2 10.7% 20.8 34.0 13.2 63.5% Carver 39.0 37.0 -2 -5.1% 21.0 28.8 7.8 37.1% DeZavala 65.5 61.2 -4.3 -6.6% 52.8 49.0 -3.8 -7.2% Earhart 52.0 53.3 1.3 2.5% 32.0 26.7 -5.3 -16.6% Lanier 75.6 81.1 5.5 7.3% 73.7 76.6 2.9 3.9% Martinez 71.2 69.6 -1.6 -2.2% 55.8 76.1 20.3 36.4% Arcadia Park 74.0 72.0 -2 -2.7% 63.0 65.1 2.1 3.3% Stevens Park 45.3 49.0 3.7 8.2% 36.8 59.6 22.8 62.0% Rhoads 39.3 46.6 7.3 18.6% 39.3 43.8 4.5 11.5% Rice 76.7 77.9 1.2 1.6% 69.0 58.2 -10.8 -15.7% Dunbar 40.0 51.6 11.6 29.0% 45.0 71.0 26 57.8% MLK 74.5 86.3 11.8 15.8% 67.3 60.8 -6.5 -9.7% Roberts 59.7 55.2 -4.5 -7.5% 62.9 40.4 -22.5 -35.8% Bushman (SOC) 55.0 28.6 -26.4 -48.0% 50.6 58.9 8.3 16.4% Jordan (SOC) 61.2 65.7 4.5 7.4% 64.2 51.4 -12.8 -19.9% Holland at Lisbon (SOC) 67.5 69.7 2.2 3.3% 70.0 72.7 2.7 3.9% Marsalis (SOC) 61.7 44.8 -16.9 -27.4% 34.4 45.7 11.3 32.8% Oliver (SOC) 53.5 50.0 -3.5 -6.5% 37.2 57.1 19.9 53.5% Pease (SOC) 44.7 51.4 6.7 15.0% 26.7 40.5 13.8 51.7% Russell (SOC) 56.1 47.7 -8.4 -15.0% 49.0 53.1 4.1 8.4% R.L. Thornton (SOC) 75.0 56.5 -18.5 -24.7% 76.6 50.7 -25.9 -33.8% Young (SOC) 55.4 55.7 0.3 0.5% 45.7 48.5 2.8 6.1% Dallas ISD 61.7 59.9 -1.8 -2.9% 57.3 58.8 1.5 2.6%

Grade 5 students in the Imagine 2020 schools had mixed results in reading and math on the

STAAR, with passing rates varying across campuses (see Table 26). Six of the Imagine 2020 campuses

demonstrated improved performance in reading over 2013, while eight improved their math performance.

Six campuses demonstrated improvements of greater than 10 percent in their passing rates. Districtwide,

grade 5 students showed a 3.6 percent decline in reading and a slight decline in math (0.5%). Two-thirds

of South Oak Cliff feeder elementary campuses had lower performance in reading, while four of the nine

schools had decreases in math.


52

Table 26: 2013 and 2014 STAAR Results (English and Spanish) in Reading and Math for Grade 5

School/Grade 2013

Reading 2014


Pct. Change

2013 Math

2014 Math

Pct. Pt. Change

Pct. Change

Allen 66.2 72.2 6 9.1% 61.2 73.6 12.4 20.3% Carr 76.9 56.3 -20.6 -26.8% 74.6 66.7 -7.9 -10.6% Carver 58.7 59.3 0.6 1.0% 54.7 65 10.3 18.8% DeZavala 80.9 75 -5.9 -7.3% 83 67.8 -15.2 -18.3% Earhart 72.1 81.5 9.4 13.0% 53.5 81.5 28 52.3% Lanier 95.5 89.4 -6.1 -6.4% 90.4 92.1 1.7 1.9% Martinez 82 76.6 -5.4 -6.6% 76.5 81.3 4.8 6.3% Arcadia Park 80.7 93.4 12.7 15.7% 85.3 96.7 11.4 13.4% Stevens Park 70.2 66.3 -3.9 -5.6% 81 66.3 -14.7 -18.1% Rhoads 88.7 91.7 3 3.4% 93.4 84.3 -9.1 -9.7% Rice 100 94.4 -5.6 -5.6% 98.4 91.5 -6.9 -7.0% Dunbar 70.8 66.2 -4.6 -6.5% 69.2 81.5 12.3 17.8% MLK 80.4 88 7.6 9.5% 66.1 79.6 13.5 20.4% Roberts 77.2 64 -13.2 -17.1% 78.9 78.7 -0.2 -0.3% Bushman (SOC) 65.9 82.1 16.2 24.6% 81.8 79.1 -2.7 -3.3% Jordan (SOC) 78.6 77 -1.6 -2.0% 62.9 78.4 15.5 24.6% Holland at Lisbon (SOC) 82.1 78 -4.1 -5.0% 89.2 78.6 -10.6 -11.9% Marsalis (SOC) 86.1 72.2 -13.9 -16.1% 79.7 72.2 -7.5 -9.4% Oliver (SOC) 81.6 79.6 -2 -2.5% 71.4 76 4.6 6.4% Pease (SOC) 49.1 60 10.9 22.2% 47.3 52.9 5.6 11.8% Russell (SOC) 85.7 78.2 -7.5 -8.8% 92 77.2 -14.8 -16.1% R.L. Thornton (SOC) 81 83.1 2.1 2.6% 89.7 95 5.3 5.9% Young (SOC) 82.2 79.1 -3.1 -3.8% 86.5 90.8 4.3 5.0% Dallas ISD 82.9 79.9 -3.0 -3.6% 81.4 81.0 -0.4 -0.5%

Table 27 displays rates of satisfactory performance for students in grades 6-8 in the Imagine

2020 schools, the South Oak Cliff feeder pattern middle schools, and the district. Overall, results in

grades 6 and 8 were more positive than in grade 7, where all campuses listed and the district showed

declines in reading. In grades 6-8, three of the four Imagine 2020 middle school campuses showed

improvements in reading in grades 6 and 8. In grade 7, all four Imagine 2020 middle schools showed

declines, consistent with the districtwide decline of 10.1 percent from 2013. Results were more mixed in

STAAR math.


53

Table 27: 2013 and 2014 STAAR Results (English and Spanish) in Reading and Math for Grades 6-8

School/Grade 2013

Reading 2014


Pct. Change

2013 Math

2014 Math

Pct. Pt. Change

Pct. Change

Grade 6 Dade 44.3 42.8 -1.5 -3.4% 52.7 39.6 -13.1 -24.9% Quintanilla 54 57.6 3.6 6.7% 54.5 51.3 -3.2 -5.9% DESA 97.9 100 2.1 2.1% 97.9 99.2 1.3 1.3% Edison 27.7 42.2 14.5 52.3% 33.9 37.9 4 11.8% B. Storey (SOC) 48.5 42 -6.5 -13.4% 52.3 45.1 -7.2 -13.8% Zumwalt (SOC) 43.3 41.5 -1.8 -4.2% 31.0 33.1 2.1 6.8% Dallas ISD 57.7 63.1 5.4 9.4% 60.6 64.3 3.7 6.1%

Grade 7 Dade 60.8 47.3 -13.5 -22.2% 32.3 40.3 8 24.8% Quintanilla 65 57.5 -7.5 -11.5% 53.4 52.5 -0.9 -1.7% DESA 100 97.8 -2.2 -2.2% 96 97.8 1.8 1.9% Edison 58.5 42.3 -16.2 -27.7% 43.6 31.2 -12.4 -28.4% Storey (SOC) 57.7 49 -8.7 -15.1% 41.9 39.1 -2.8 -6.7% Zumwalt (SOC) 67.3 42.6 -24.7 -36.7% 42.2 25.3 -16.9 -40.0% Dallas ISD 67.3 60.5 -6.8 -10.1% 59.9 55.1 -4.8 -8.0%

Grade 8 Dade 77.1 79.7 2.6 3.4% 58.8 61.8 3 5.1% Quintanilla 75.4 75.6 0.2 0.3% 66.2 66.8 0.6 0.9% DESA 100 100 0 0.0% * 91.7 * * Edison 76.1 68.8 -7.3 -9.6% 65.2 56.6 -8.6 -13.2% Storey (SOC) 74.1 65.8 -8.3 -11.2% 69.7 55.2 -14.5 -20.8% Zumwalt (SOC) 84.4 74.1 -10.3 -12.2% 91.6 66.7 -24.9 -27.2% Dallas ISD 82.7 81.5 -1.2 -1.5% 74.0 73.2 -0.8 -1.1%

Performance rates on the STAAR science test (administered in grades 5 and 8) were mixed

among Imagine 2020 schools, as shown in Table 28. In grade 5 science, eight of the schools

demonstrated improved performance, with four showing gains of greater than 25 percent over the

previous year. In addition, the majority of South Oak Cliff feeder pattern elementaries showed

improvements in science. In grade 8 science, Dade and Edison showed declines, while Quintanilla and

DESA showed small gains. DESA’s passing rate in science was close to 100 percent for 2013 and 2014.

The two South Oak Cliff feeder middle schools and the district showed lower performance in science.


54

Table 28: 2013 and 2014 STAAR Results (English and Spanish) in Science for Grades 5 and 8

School/Grade 2013

Science 2014

Science Pct. Pt. Change Pct. Change

Grade 5 Allen 40.3 64.9 24.6 61.0% Carr 56.3 47.9 -8.4 -14.9% Carver 21.3 37.0 15.7 73.7% DeZavala 72.3 40.7 -31.6 -43.7% Earhart 53.5 55.6 2.1 3.9% Lanier 81.0 70.6 -10.4 -12.8% Martinez 66.0 68.1 2.1 3.2% Arcadia Park 83.5 85.7 2.2 2.6% Stevens Park 48.2 50.0 1.8 3.7% Rhoads 82.0 75.9 -6.1 -7.4% Rice 95.0 78.9 -16.1 -16.9% Dunbar 49.2 67.2 18 36.6% MLK 59.3 74.5 15.2 25.6% Roberts 58.9 32.2 -26.7 -45.3% Bushman (SOC) 65.9 71.9 6 9.1% Jordan (SOC) 42.9 46.6 3.7 8.6% Holland at Lisbon (SOC) 54.1 61.0 6.9 12.8% Marsalis (SOC) 74.0 48.1 -25.9 -35.0% Oliver (SOC) 31.4 38.0 6.6 21.0% Pease (SOC) 34.5 35.3 0.8 2.3% Russell (SOC) 79.5 69.6 -9.9 -12.5% R.L. Thornton (SOC) 72.4 88.3 15.9 22.0% Young (SOC) 53.3 63.5 10.2 19.1% Dallas ISD 68.6 63.3 -5.3 -7.7%

Grade 8 Dade MS 50.0 44.5 -5.5 -11.0% Quintanilla MS 67.8 70.4 2.6 3.8% DESA MS 98.5 98.9 0.4 0.4% Edison MS 48.3 31.6 -16.7 -34.6% Zumwalt (SOC) 54.7 53.5 -1.2 -2.2% Storey (SOC) 50.3 43.1 -7.2 -14.3% Dallas ISD 61.7 59.9 -1.8 -2.9%

Among the four Imagine 2020 middle schools, Dade showed a decrease of 38.5 percent in

science, while the other three campuses showed improvements (Table 29). In the South Oak Cliff feeder,

both Zumwalt and Storey had lower performance, as did the district.

Table 29: 2013 and 2014 STAAR Results (English and Spanish) in Social Studies for Grade 8

School/Grade 2013 Soc.

Studies 2014 Soc. Studies

Pct. Pt. Change Pct. Change

Dade MS 55.6 34.2 -21.4 -38.5% Quintanilla MS 57.9 67.8 9.9 17.1% DESA MS 95.6 96.6 1.0 1.0% Edison MS 26.9 27.9 1.0 3.7% Zumwalt (SOC) 37.2 21.0 -16.2 -43.5% Storey (SOC) 49.7 26.4 -23.3 -46.9% Dallas ISD 59.3 53.5 -5.8 -10.8%


55

In writing, which the STAAR assesses in grades 4 and 7, improvements outweighed declines

among the Imagine 2020 elementary schools, with nine campuses showing increased performance (see

Table 30). Four schools showed improvements exceeding 25 percent over 2013. In the South Oak Cliff

feeder elementary schools, the majority showed declines in the proportion of fourth grade students with

satisfactory performance. The district showed a slight increase in writing over last year.

In grade 7, only DESA – where more than 90 percent of students were satisfactory – showed an

improvement in writing among the Imagine 2020 middle schools. In the South Oak Cliff feeder, both

Zumwalt and Storey showed declines in satisfactory performance in writing. Districtwide achievement in

writing declined as well. Table 30: 2013 and 2014 STAAR Results (English and Spanish) in Writing for Grades 4 and 7

School/Grade 2013

Writing 2014

Writing Pct. Pt. Change Pct. Change

Grade 4 Allen 58.1 63.8 5.7 9.8% Carr 39.2 41.5 2.3 5.9% Carver 50.6 49.3 -1.3 -2.6% DeZavala 50.9 55.1 4.2 8.3% Earhart 50.0 40.6 -9.4 -18.8% Lanier 68.4 89.2 20.8 30.4% Martinez 78.8 80.0 1.2 1.5% Arcadia Park 85.7 74.7 -11 -12.8% Stevens Park 35.4 47.5 12.1 34.2% Rhoads 51.2 65.3 14.1 27.5% Rice 84.5 85.3 0.8 0.9% Dunbar 38.0 64.5 26.5 69.7% MLK 84.3 78.8 -5.5 -6.5% Roberts 66.1 45.6 -20.5 -31.0% Bushman (SOC) 57.4 44.6 -12.8 -22.3% Jordan (SOC) 65.7 70.4 4.7 7.2% Holland at Lisbon (SOC) 71.4 62.5 -8.9 -12.5% Marsalis (SOC) 59.3 49.0 -10.3 -17.4% Oliver (SOC) 63.6 60.7 -2.9 -4.6% Pease (SOC) 53.9 52.6 -1.3 -2.4% Russell (SOC) 57.7 66.9 9.2 15.9% R.L. Thornton (SOC) 68.8 80.9 12.1 17.6% Young (SOC) 54.8 54.6 -0.2 -0.4% Dallas ISD 63.2 63.4 0.2 0.3%

Grade 7 Dade MS 44.4 40.6 -3.8 -8.6% Quintanilla MS 55.9 48.0 -7.9 -14.1% DESA MS 93.9 94.4 0.5 0.5% Edison MS 47.0 28.6 -18.4 -39.1% Zumwalt (SOC) 52.1 45.8 -6.3 -12.1% Storey (SOC) 53.0 36.5 -16.5 -31.1% Dallas ISD 57.1 54.6 -2.5 -4.4%


56

STAAR End of Course (EOC) Exams

Table 31 displays STAAR EOC exam results for the three Imagine 2020 high schools – Lincoln,

Pinkston, and Madison, the high school slated to join Imagine 2020 in 2014-15 (South Oak Cliff), and the

entire district. Texas high school graduation requirements state that students must satisfactorily complete

the following five EOCs to graduate from high school: English I and II, Biology, Algebra I, and U.S.

History. The English I and II EOCs were revamped for 2014 to show one score, where in years past,

there were separate reading and writing scores. For this reason, year-to-year comparisons for English I

and II could not be made. As shown in Table 31 below, students in the Imagine 2020 high schools, as

well as South Oak Cliff, trailed the district in rates of satisfactory performance in English I. The district rate

was 50.9 percent, while rates among the four high schools shown ranged from 28.8 percent at South Oak

Cliff to 39.7 percent at Lincoln. The Imagine 2020 high schools and South Oak Cliff also trailed the district

in English II.

On the Algebra I EOC, Madison showed a decline, while the other high schools and the district

showed increases. Lincoln and Pinkston demonstrated improvements exceeding 10 percent. In Biology,

Pinkston, South Oak Cliff, and the district showed increases, while Lincoln and Madison declined.

Passing rates on the U.S. History EOC ranged from 76.8 percent (Lincoln) to 92 percent (district). Table 31: 2013 and 2014 STAAR EOC Results (English and Spanish) for Imagine 2020, SOC, and District

EOC/Year Lincoln Pinkston Madison S. Oak Cliff Dallas ISD English I

2013 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 2014 39.7 32.9 36.4 28.8 50.9 Pct. Pt. Change n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Pct. Change n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

English II 2013 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 2014 39.2 34.0 31.1 38.9 54.8 Pct. Pt. Change n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Pct. Change n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Algebra I 2013 58.2 47.8 72.0 49.2 72.5 2014 66.1 59.5 65.6 50.7 78.0 Pct. Pt. Change 7.9 11.7 -6.4 1.5 5.5 Pct. Change 13.6% 24.5% -8.9% 3.0% 7.6%

Biology 2013 75.9 68.5 81.9 70.4 84.8 2014 75.0 86.6 80.2 75.1 89.8 Pct. Pt. Change -0.9 18.1 -1.7 4.7 5.4 Pct. Change -1.2% 26.4% -2.1% 6.7% 6.4%

U.S. History 2013 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 2014 76.8 90.6 86.2 82.6 92.0 Pct. Pt. Change n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Pct. Change n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a


57

College Readiness Measures

Improving student readiness for college and careers is another goal of Imagine 2020. Important

measures of college readiness include student performance on college entrance exams and whether they

completed applications for admission and financial aid. The district’s Destination 2020 improvement plan

calls for increasing the percentage of high school seniors who meet or exceed district benchmarks for

college readiness on the SAT and ACT college entrance exams. Those benchmarks are 21 composite on

the ACT and 990 in reading and math combined on the SAT. The composite score of the ACT is the

average of scores on the following four ACT tests: reading, math, English, and science. ACT’s college

readiness benchmarks for these four tests are 18 for English; 22, math; 21, reading; and 24, science. The

composite score of the four tests is 21. A concordance study by ACT Inc. and College Board, which

administers the SAT, found that an SAT score between 980 and 1010 is comparable to an ACT

composite of 21. The Destination 2020 goal is for at least 40 percent of seniors to meet the benchmarks

by the year 2020.

Applying for admission and financial aid are additional measures of college readiness and

access. For the first year of Imagine 2020, leadership set a goal for 95 percent of seniors in the three high

schools to complete an ApplyTexas application, other college admission form, or military entrance form.

ApplyTexas is the state’s common application form for college admission, and is accepted by all public

institutions of higher education in Texas, as well as many private institutions. The Imagine 2020

leadership also set a goal for at least 50 percent of seniors to complete the Free Application for Federal

Student Aid (FAFSA) form.

Figure 34 displays results for the Imagine 2020 high schools and the district on these measures

of college and career readiness. On the SAT and ACT, all three high schools lagged behind the district,

with fewer than 10 percent in most cases meeting the Destination 2020 benchmarks for the SAT and

ACT. Pinkston had the highest rate, with 10.7 percent of seniors meeting the ACT benchmark. For the

ApplyTexas (or other college admission form) completion rate, all three high schools exceeded the 95

percent goal. In FAFSA completion, only Madison High School exceeded the 50 percent completion rate

goal. Figure 34: College and Career Readiness Measures for Imagine 2020 High Schools, 2013-14

4.7% 5.2% 5.8%

22.9%

2.3%10.7%

0.0%

20.1%

100.0% 95.1% 97.1%86.7%

25.0%

38.0%

52.7%

38.9%

0.0%10.0%20.0%30.0%40.0%50.0%60.0%70.0%80.0%90.0%

100.0%

Lincoln Pinkston Madison Dallas ISD

SAT

ACT

ApplyTexas

FAFSA


58

Student Survey on Noncognitive Factors

Student academic success is a complex phenomenon, one that is affected by a broad range of

characteristics and factors, both internal to students themselves and in their external environment,

including school and home. A growing body of literature (Duckworth, 2007; Dweck, 2010; and Farrington,

Roderick, Allensworth, Nagaoka, Keys, Johnson, and Beechum, 2012, to name only a few highlight the

crucial nature of noncognitive factors in student success. Duckworth (2007) uses the term “grit” to

describe the extent to which students stay focused on a goal despite obstacles. Dweck (2010) uses the

term “academic tenacity” for mindsets and skills that allow students to look toward long-term goals and

withstand challenges to persevere toward achieving those goals. Farrington, Roderick, et al (2012) state

that, in addition, to content knowledge and academic skills, students need to develop behaviors, attitudes,

and skills that are crucial to academic success but may not be reflected in test scores. They apply the

label “noncognitive factors” to these behaviors, attitudes, and skills. Examples of these noncognitive

factors include attendance, time management, study skills, self-control, and the motivation to learn

(Farrington, Roderick, et al, 2012).

Although the research agrees on the importance of noncognitive factors, less consensus exists

on how to measure them. One popular method involves the use of survey instruments. To measure these

skills in secondary students in the Imagine 2020 schools, the evaluation team developed a brief survey

instrument that was administered to students in grades 6, 8, 9, and 11 in the seven Imagine 2020

secondary campuses. In response to wishes for measures of these skills before and after the

implementation of the various programs and supports offered under Imagine 2020, the survey was

administered twice. The first administration occurred in October 2013, when Imagine 2020 was early in its

implementation; the second, in May 2014, near the end of the school year.

The survey consisted of 20 items, of which 16 related to behaviors and habits conducive to

academic success. The remaining four questions related to expectations about attending college. The

evaluator labeled the first 16 items the “academic tenacity” scale and the last four the “college knowledge”

scale. The survey used a four-point Likert scale for responses, asking students to indicate the extent to

which they agreed or disagreed with each item. Responses were scaled as follows: Strongly Disagree, 1;

Disagree, 2; Agree, 3; and Strongly Agree, 4.

To gauge the reliability of the academic tenacity and college knowledge scales, an evaluator

calculated Cronbach’s Alpha scores for each scale. Cronbach’s Alpha is a measure of item consistency

that indicates how well the items in an index are measuring the same variable or concept. Cronbach

Alpha scores range from 0 to 1, with 0.70 or higher indicating a reliable scale. Through this analysis, three

of the 20 items were found to be unreliable and removed, leaving 17 items. The analysis indicated that

the academic tenacity and college knowledge scales were reliable. The Cronbach’s Alpha scores were as

follows: Academic Tenacity scale: 0.824; College Knowledge scale: 0.779

To further test the validity of the scale, the evaluation team used factor analysis, a data reduction

and analysis method commonly used in survey research. Factor analysis uncovers patterns in item


59

responses to identify unmeasured factors that influence respondents’ answers to survey items. A cluster

of intercorrelated variables is considered a factor. Applying the technique to this survey resulted in four

clusters, or four factors. The correlated items and their factor loadings are shown in Table 32. Items with

factor loadings below 0.3 were removed, so as not to clutter the results with low correlations that may

have little meaning.

Together, the four factors accounted for more than half of the total variance. The evaluation team

labeled the first factor academic behaviors. It consisted of seven items with factor loadings ranging from

0.378 to 0.730. The second and third factors (college expectations and mastery orientation, respectively)

consisted of four items. The final factor, research attitudes, consisted of two items. Table 32: Factor Analysis of Survey Items

Survey Item How much do you agree with the following:

Factor I (Academic Behaviors)

Factor 2 (College

Expectations)

Mastery Orientation (Factor 3)

Research Attitudes (Factor 4)

I often schedule extra time for studying challenging topics. 0.730 I set aside time to do my homework and study. 0.679 I often outline my thoughts on paper before writing a paper. 0.620 If I need to study, I do not go out with my friends. 0.596 Before I hand in an assignment, I check it for completeness and accuracy.

0.574

I generally study just enough to pass a test. 0.430 I complete my homework before every class. 0.378 My teachers and counselors expect me to go to college. 0.803 My school promotes all students going to college. 0.779 My family expects me to go to college. 0.683 I understand the requirements for being admitted to college. 0.648 One of my goals is to learn as much as I can. 0.761 I like to learn new ways of doing things. 0.687 There are some topics in my classes that I would like to know more about. 0.665 It is important that I thoroughly understand my class work. 0.620 I enjoy doing research in the library. 0.723 I enjoy doing research on the Internet. 0.680

To determine whether students’ perceptions of their noncognitive factors differed between the

early part of the school year and the end of it, a paired samples t-test was used. Results of the paired

samples t-tests are shown in Table 33. Although students demonstrated some small gains in these

noncognitive factors, the differences were not statistically significant, meaning they could have been just

the result of random chance. It is important to consider, however, that changes in the skills, behaviors,

and attitudes that comprise noncognitive factors occur over a long period of time and that such changes

may not be observed in a single school year. It is hoped that sustained exposure to a culture of high

expectations, improved instruction, and the social-emotional support provided under Imagine 2020 will

help foster gains in these noncognitive factors in the coming years.


60

Table 33: Paired Samples t-test Results for Student Noncognitive Factors Survey Factor May 2014 Oct. 2013 Mean

t Sig. Mean S.D. Mean S.D Difference Academic Behaviors 19.91* 3.78 19.38 4.12 0.53 1.19 0.238 College Expectations 14.05* 2.57 13.95 1.87 0.10 0.32 0.744 Mastery Orientation 13.43* 2.45 13.53 2.31 -0.10 -0.32 0.754 Research Attitudes 5.88* 1.27 5.81 1.32 0.07 0.37 0.714 *Note: Means in this table are the sums of the items in the four scales. For Academic Behaviors (7 items), the possible maximum score was 28; College Expectations, 16; Mastery Orientation, 16; and Research Attitudes, 8.

District Climate Survey

The annual Dallas ISD school climate survey was administered to all campus professional and

support staff in the spring of 2014. The survey’s purpose was to contribute to organizational improvement,

gain feedback from campus personnel, and align systems to student outcomes. Individual item responses

on the climate survey were grouped into scales, with Likert Scale responses ranging from 1 (strongly

disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The items were grouped into four scales, which are described below:

• School’s Beliefs and Priorities: The school bases its actions on the District’s Core Beliefs and

follows a set of campus key actions that are student-focused and understood by school staff,

priorities of school leadership and staff are aligned, and staff members believe the school is

moving in the right direction.

• College-Going Culture: Teachers focus on preparing students for college and expect most of their

students to attend college. They provide feedback and support to prevent students from giving up

and expect them to give their full effort.

• Culture of Feedback and Support (teachers only): Effective campus leadership provides support

and feedback that improves job performance, and helps staff understand recent changes.

Campus leadership specifically provides feedback and support that improves the quality of

instruction, and encourages teachers to develop leadership potential. Professional development

and teamwork with colleagues help teachers improve instruction.

• Positive Culture and Environment: The school environment is clean and safe, with consistent and

effective student discipline. Staff members work in an environment of respect and are satisfied

with recognition for doing their jobs well. Staff look forward to their work each day, would

recommend the school as a workplace to others, and would stay with Dallas ISD even if offered a

comparable job elsewhere. Morale at the school has improved during the year.

Figure 35 below displays the average proportion of staff members at Imagine 2020 and other

Dallas ISD campuses who gave positive ratings (agree or strongly agree) for the items in each of the four

scales. As shown in this figure, Imagine 2020 schools were slightly below other Dallas ISD campuses in

giving positive ratings.

Figure 35:

Attendan

F

for 2012-1

it was a n

Elementa

Empower

school we

D

included i

year. The

W.W. Bus

P. Russe

dividing th

figure repFigure 36:

0.0%10.0%20.0%30.0%40.0%50.0%60.0%70.0%80.0%90.0%

100.0%

75.0%

80.0%

85.0%

90.0%

95.0%

100.0%

Percentage o

ce

igures 36-38

13 and 2013-

new school.

ry Disciplina

ring Youth (LA

ere not include

Data for the S

n the 2013-1

e SOC feeder

shman, H.I. H

ell, Robert L.

he average n

resents the a Attendance P

%%%%%%%%%%%

Beliefs anPriorities

74.7%

88.2%

92.9

Lincoln HS

of Staff Giving

display avera

-14. One elem

Data for Ora

ary Alternativ

ACEY) middl

ed in the ana

South Oak C

4 Imagine 20

r includes: So

Holland, Barba

Thornton, a

umber of day

average numbPercentages, 2

nds

College-Cultu

77.9%76.2%

92.3%9%

S Madis

Positive Ratin

age attendan

mentary camp

an Roberts w

ve Education

e school and

lyses.

Cliff (SOC) fe

020 Initiative,

outh Oak Clif

ara Jordan, C

nd Whitney

ys in attendan

ber of days in 2012-13 and 2

-Goingure

CuFeed

Su

%65

80.9%

% 992.7%

son HS P

2012-13

ngs on Climate

ce rates for I

pus, Oran Ro

ere included

n Program

d the School

eder pattern

but was sche

ff High Schoo

Clara Oliver, E

M. Young el

nce by the av

attendance d2013-14, Imag

lture ofdback andupport

Pos

E

5.6% 66.4%

91.2% 92.3%

Pinkston HS

3 2013-14

Imagine 2020

e Survey Items

magine 2020

oberts, was no

for the 2013

(DAEP), Lea

Community

are included

eduled to be

ol; Storey and

Elisha M. Peas

lementaries.

verage numb

divided by thegine 2020 Hig

sitive Cultureand

Environment

59.5% 62.9

88.2%90.

S. Oak Cliff

0 Initiative Fin

s

0 schools and

ot included in

3-14 school y

arning Altern

Guidance Ce

d in the figur

included in th

d Zumwalt m

se, Thomas L

Attendance w

er of days en

e total numbegh Schools an

9%

Im

O

93.2%.3%

ff HS District

nal Report 20

d the district o

n 2012-13 bec

year. Data fo

native Cente

enter (SCGC

res. SOC wa

he 2014-15 s

middle schools

L. Marsalis, C

was calculate

nrolled. The d

r of school dad District

magine 2020

Other Schools

% 94.1%

t HS Total

13-14

61

overall

cause

or the

er for

) high

as not

school

s; and

Clinton

ed by

district

ays.


62

Figure 37: Attendance Percentages, 2012-13 and 2013-14, Imagine 2020 Middle Schools and District

Figure 38: Attendance Percentages, 2012-13 and 2013-14, Imagine 2020 Elementary Schools and District

Discipline

Figures 39-41 include all classes of offenses committed during the 2013-14 school year. Offenses

range in severity from least severe (Level I) to most severe (Level IV). Examples of Level I offenses

93.7%

98.1%

95.5%93.5% 94.2%

92.0%

95.6%93.5%

97.3%95.0%

93.1%94.2%

92.6%

95.1%

75.0%

80.0%

85.0%

90.0%

95.0%

100.0%

Dade MS DESA MS Quintanilla MS Edison MS Storey MS Zumwalt MS District MS Total

2012-13 2013-14

96.4

%

96.7

%

94.1

%

94.4

%

97.2

%

96.8

%

96.9

%

96.4

%

95.8

%

95.5

% 96.2

%

94.7

%

95.9

% 96.8

%

96.6

%

96.0

%

96.1

%

95.9

%

95.6

%

95.3

%

95.2

%

94.0

%

96.8

%

96.9

%

96.8

%

95.0

%

95.0

%

94.9

%

97.3

%

97.0

%

96.9

%

96.5

%

96.0

%

95.9

%

95.8

%

95.2

%

95.2

%

96.9

%

96.6

%

96.4

%

96.2

%

96.1

%

96.0

%

95.7

%

95.6

%

93.6

%

96.3

%90.0%

91.0%

92.0%

93.0%

94.0%

95.0%

96.0%

97.0%

98.0%

99.0%

100.0%

2012-13 2013-14


63

include classroom disruption or offensive language. Examples of Level II offenses include bullying or

using profane language or obscene gestures towards personnel. An example of a Level III offense would

be assault on a student. Level IV offenses are either violations of state law or behaviors that seriously

disrupt the educational process, such as assaulting school personnel or bringing a prohibited weapon to

campus.

Disciplinary consequences vary with the severity of the offense and include In-School Suspension

(ISS), Out-of-School Suspension (OSS), Off-Campus Disciplinary Alternative Education Program

placement (DAEP), and Off-Campus Juvenile Justice Alternative Education Program placement (JJAEP).

Data for the Elementary Disciplinary Alternative Education Program (DAEP), Learning Alternative

Center for Empowering Youth (LACEY) middle school and the School Community Guidance Center

(SCGC) high school were not included in the analyses.

Data for the South Oak Cliff (SOC) feeder pattern are included in the figures. SOC was not

included in the 2013-14 Imagine 2020 Initiative, but was scheduled to be included during 2014-15.

The Imagine 2020 high schools had relatively similar rates of students with disciplinary referrals

with the district overall. Billy Earl Dade, and Thomas A. Edison middle schools had higher rates of

discipline referrals than the district. Most of the elementary campuses had lower rates of disciplinary

referrals than the district, with the exception of four campuses which had higher rates of referrals: O.M.

Roberts, Paul L. Dunbar, Gabe P. Allen, Sidney Lanier and C. F. Carr elementary schools. Figure 39: Number of Referrals for 2013-14, Imagine 2020 High Schools and District

84.9% 81.4% 84.7% 83.4% 87.6%

15.1% 18.6% 15.3% 16.6% 12.4%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

Lincoln HS Madison HS Pinkston HS S. Oak Cliff HS DISTRICT HS

No Referrals 1 or More Referrals


64

Figure 40: Number of Referrals for 2013-14, Imagine 2020 Middle Schools and District

Figure 41: Number of Referrals for 2013-14, Imagine 2020 Elementary Schools and the District

60.7%

98.8%

82.0%

61.4%73.2%

61.6%

78.1%

39.3%

1.2%

18.0%

38.6%26.8%

38.4%

21.9%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

Dade MS DESA MS Quintanilla MS Edison MS Storey MS Zumwalt MS DISTRICT MS


98.3

%

97.9

%

97.7

%

89.9

%

89.1

%

92.5

%

99.8

%

99.5

%

98.8

%

97.9

%

97.6

%

94.9

%

91.8

% 96.7

%

96.5

%

96.4

%

95.5

%

95.1

%

93.4

%

88.8

%

86.9

%

76.5

%

96.5

%

1.7%

2.1%

2.3%

10.1

%

10.9

% 7.5%

0.2%

0.5%

1.2%

2.1%

2.4%

5.1%

8.2%

3.3%

3.5%

3.6%

4.5%

4.9%

6.6%

11.2

%

13.1

%

23.5

%

3.5%

70.0%

75.0%

80.0%

85.0%

90.0%

95.0%

100.0%



65

Tables 34-36 show change in the number of disciplinary referrals from 2012-13 to 2013-14. The

results were mixed, with 11 Imagine 2020 campuses showing reductions in the number of disciplinary

referrals and seven campuses showing increases in the number of referrals. Results were also mixed for

the South Oak Cliff feeder pattern.

Table 34: Number of Referrals for 2012-13 and 2013-14, Percent Change, Imagine 2020 High Schools and District

Campus 2012-13 2013-14 % Change Direction of

Change Lincoln HS 280 128 -54% Pinkston HS 614 312 -49%

Madison HS 45 167 271%

S. Oak Cliff HS 550 317 -42%

District HS Total 10,649 8,328 -22% Table 35: Number of Referrals for 2012-13 and 2013-14, Percent Change, Imagine 2020 Middle Schools and District


Change Lincoln/Madison Feeder

Dade MS 765 1011 32% Pinkston Feeder

Quintanilla MS 452 422 -7% DESA MS 0 6 NA NA1 Edison MS 1758 772 -56%

S. Oak Cliff Feeder Storey MS 364 496 36% Zumwalt MS 145 424 192%

District MS Total 25,120 19,895 -21%

Note: 3 NA=Not Applicable, Percent change cannot be calculated when the starting number is zero.

DESA had no disciplinary referrals for the 2012-13 school year.


66

Table 36: Number of Referrals for 2012-13 and 2013-14, Percent Change, Imagine 2020 Elementary Schools and District


Change Lincoln/Madison Feeder

MLK ES 26 14 -46%

Rhoads ES 33 20 -39%

Rice ES 9 9 0% NC1 Dunbar ES 87 92 6% Roberts ES NA2 309 NA3 NA

Pinkston Feeder Martinez ES 24 5 -79%

Arcadia Park ES 100 23 -77%

Carver ES 83 58 -30%

Stevens Park ES 38 37 -3%

Lanier ES 33 45 36%

Allen ES 63 97 54%

Carr ES 47 84 79%

DeZavala ES 1 2 100%

Earhart ES 0 2 NA3 NA S. Oak Cliff Feeder

Bushman ES 3 331 10,933%

Jordan ES 64 34 -47%

Holland at Lisbon ES 11 14 27%

Marsalis ES 8 138 1,625%

Oliver ES 80 70 -13%

Pease ES 30 97 223%

Russell ES 33 43 30%

Thornton ES 181 32 -82%

Young ES 93 52 -44%

District ES Total 6,049 5,755 -5%

Note: 1 NC=No Change 2 NA=Not Applicable, Oran Roberts was opened in 2013

3 NA=Not Applicable, Percent change cannot be calculated when the starting number is zero.

Earhart had no disciplinary referrals for the 2012-13 school year.


67

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Summary During the 2013-14 school year, the Dallas ISD began a pilot for transforming the entire district in

accordance with the district improvement plan, Destination 2020. The Imagine 2020 Initiative was made

up of three high-needs feeder patterns – the Pinkston High School feeder in west Dallas, and the Lincoln

and Madison high school feeders in south Dallas. These three feeder patterns were comprised of 21

campuses total: 14 elementary, 4 middle, and 3 high schools. The Imagine 2020 Initiative focused on

three areas: school staffing, curriculum and instruction, and parent and community

engagement. Additional personnel and other resources were injected into these campuses to produce

improvements in instruction, student achievement, student support, and school climate.

Feeder Pattern and School Characteristics

More than 98 percent of the students in the Imagine 2020 schools were African American or

Hispanic, and the majority was economically disadvantaged. Students in most of the Imagine 2020 middle

and high schools generally trailed the district in proficiency rates on the STAAR and STAAR EOC tests in

2012-13. Results varied at the elementary level in 2012-13, with about half of the schools performing at

lower levels than the district and others showing higher performance rates. Far fewer seniors in the

Imagine 2020 high schools than other high schools met district benchmarks on the SAT and ACT exams.

Attendance rates in most of the Imagine 2020 schools were lower than the districtwide average, and

nearly half of the schools had higher rates of disciplinary referrals.

Programs and Components

All of the activities outlined in the Imagine 2020 Snapshot – a document summarizing activities

under this initiative – were implemented to some extent during 2013-14, though not without difficulties or

barriers. The district had difficulty finding qualified applicants for some positions. There also were

communication and collaboration barriers between School Leadership and Teaching and Learning, in part

because of siloed communication and separate office locations. Because of funding problems, in-school

tutoring implementation was delayed. The Student Advocacy Management (SAM) teams needed more

active leadership by campus administrators, who have the authority to direct other team members to carry

out certain tasks.

Student Services

To improve the availability of social and emotional supports that help foster academic

achievement, 16 new student services positions served the Imagine 2020 campuses in 2013-14. The

positions consisted of two student advocate coordinators, six urban specialists, four school psychologists,

two student support social workers, and two college and career readiness coordinators. The student

advocate coordinators and urban specialists reported to the director of Student Discipline. Their specific

duties varied, but overall, their roles (with the exception of the college and career readiness coordinators)


68

involved identifying the social service needs of students so that they could provide wrap-around services

that would support the students and increase their ability to be successful in school. The college and

career readiness coordinators provided college and career information, and worked with students to help

them realize their potential and increase their likelihood of success in school and later in college and the

workplace.

The additional personnel made it possible for Imagine 2020 schools to respond proactively to

issues that hamper success in school, such as attendance and discipline problems, and prevent students

from falling through the cracks as they might have in non-Imagine 2020 campuses that may not have

access to additional personnel. In focus group interviews, student services staff related anecdotes and

described examples of their impact on students. Common themes in measuring student impact included

decreases in discipline referrals, higher attendance rates, and better course grades. In addition, staff

members described less tangible indicators of impact, such as reports from administrators and teachers

about changes in student behavior, contact with parents who indicated their children had a new outlook

on school, and interactions with students themselves, some of whom connected with these staff members

as mentors and advocates.

Student services staff also identified barriers to service delivery. These included a

misunderstanding of the roles and responsibilities of student services staff members, and ineffective SAM

meetings.

Accelerated Instruction

The accelerated instruction programs at Dade and Edison were designed to help over-aged 6th,

7th and 8th grade students catch up to their appropriate grade level using a compressed and accelerated

curriculum delivered through direct instruction and self-paced, online learning. The majority of Edison and

Dade AI students were 14 or 15 years old, African American or Hispanic, and male. Most AI students

were proficient in English, had a low socioeconomic status, and were not retained during the 2012-13

school year.

AI students attended English/language arts, math, science, and social studies courses as part of

the program. They went to electives with other students from the campuses. Classrooms were clean and

somewhat decorated, and had all of the necessary equipment for teaching and learning. While teachers

were respectful of students, student discipline was a concern. Issues ranged from being off task to

students walking out of class. Teachers dealt with these issues by redirecting students to their work,

motivating and encouraging them, and offering stern warnings when necessary.

Students reported that they were glad to have the opportunity to catch up to the appropriate

grade level. They liked the self-paced nature of the work and felt like their teachers respected them. They

reported that student discipline issues were disruptive and distracted them from their work at times.

Though the AI teachers reported that they had little to no training or experience working in alternative

education, they understood that establishing rapport and being consistent were important factors in being

able to help their students succeed. Teachers requested additional support from campus staff, such as


69

social workers, psychologists and urban specialists, in dealing with student discipline issues and

attendance. Additional support from parents was also suggested as a way to improve the effectiveness of

the program.

Optional Extended Day

The Imagine 2020 campuses offered students an opportunity for additional help with school work

by staying open an extra hour each day. Participation in the extended day program was optional for

students, but required for campus staff members. Evaluation of this Imagine 2020 component was

hampered in part by the lack of a uniform data collection method. However, analysis of participation data

from a sample of campuses indicated that elementary students who participated in the extended

instruction improved their STAAR scores at higher rates than nonparticipants. However, students who

participated in the optional extended day had generally lower performance than nonparticipants and still

passed the tests at lower rates. It was unclear to what extent the improved performance by extended day

participants could be attributed to participation in this element of Imagine 2020. At the secondary level,

extended day participants passed the English I EOC at higher rates than nonparticipants, suggesting that

the secondary schools might have been less successful at getting lower-performing students to attend

extended day instruction.

Curriculum and Instruction

The Imagine 2020 Initiative included adding optional and required programs in math, science,

reading, social studies, and other non-core subject areas. There were 10 math- or science-related

programs, four reading programs, four social studies programs and two non-core programs (Mandarin

language courses and an accelerated instruction curriculum). An important math and science initiative on

Imagine 2020 campuses was the Perot Museum of Nature and Science’s partnership with Dallas ISD to

provide hands-on science programs, math-based family enrichment activities. The program focused on

increasing students’ understanding of science, increasing the number of college- and career-ready

students, and increasing family involvement with students.

Parent and Community Engagement

The Office of Family and Community Engagement (OFCE) implemented programs to serve

parents and the community through parent universities and fairs, workforce development resources,

employment preparation workshops, and other district- and community-based opportunities for parent

engagement. The department’s goals for the 2013-14 school year were to increase the percentage of

Imagine 2020 campuses producing a monthly newsletter, ensure that a parent representative was sitting

on the District Parent Advisory Council, increase the percentage of parents registered for Parent Portal,

increase the percentage of campuses with Parent Centers, and assist campuses in developing active

Parent Teacher Organizations or Parent Teacher Associations. The OFCE met four of the five goals and

was just a few percentage points below meeting the final goal (i.e., launching parent centers). Imagine

2020 campuses made several improvements with regards to parent engagement: there were increases


70

on every campus in the percentage of parents registered for Parent Portal, there were 15 parent

university workshops (93% of attendees responding to a survey rated the workshops as “Excellent” or

“Good”), and all Imagine 2020 campuses had a monthly campus newsletter established by the end of the

year.

In-School Tutoring

Three providers conducted in-school tutoring in the Imagine 2020 campuses in 2013-14. Reading

Partners and Readers 2 Leaders provided tutoring in reading for elementary students, while Group

Excellence tutored secondary students in math. Students were selected for in-school tutoring on teacher

and principal recommendations. Implementation of the in-school tutoring varied across campuses and by

providers, with the frequency of sessions and student-tutor ratios sometimes differing from the preferred

guidelines established by the district superintendent and Imagine 2020 leadership. Year 1 outcomes of

the in-school tutoring program were mixed. In math, students in grades 8 and 9 showed more

improvement than students in grades 6 and 7; however, it was unclear whether and to what extent the

improvement could be attributed to in-school tutoring. In reading, students tutored by Reading Partners

showed sizable improvements over the previous year.

Year 1 Outcomes

Fourteen of the 21 Imagine 2020 campuses received “Met Standard” ratings in 2014, two more

than in 2013. The number of “Improvement Required” campuses decreased by one. STAAR results

among the Imagine 2020 elementary campuses were mixed across tested subjects and grade levels.

Overall, schools had greater success in math than reading, with more campuses showing improvements

in the proportions of students demonstrating satisfactory performance. All Imagine 2020 campuses

showed increases in attendance from the 2013-14 school year. Attendance at the middle school and

elementary schools remained fairly stable. Discipline referrals decreased at two of the three (67%)

Imagine 2020 high school campuses, 67 percent of middle schools, and 55 percent of elementary

schools. On college readiness measures, the Imagine 2020 high schools demonstrated higher rates of

admission and financial aid application completions than the district as a whole, but trailed in the

proportion of students meeting readiness benchmarks on the SAT and ACT.

Recommendations The following are recommendations based on the findings of the Program Components and Early

Implementation component of the evaluation:

1. The Imagine 2020 initiative would benefit from further clarifying goals and expectations.

2. It should be a goal for the Imagine 2020 initiative to continue to streamline, combine, and

increase data tracking.

3. Review staff responsibilities for potential redundancies and clarify expectations.

4. Create lines of communication that include all Imagine 2020 staff members and look for

opportunities for different departments to collaborate to meet initiative goals.


71

5. Review SAM team activities to determine what additional effort is needed to increase the

effectiveness of these teams.

The following are recommendations based on the findings of the Student Services component of

the evaluation:

6. The Imagine 2020 initiative would benefit from clarifying the roles and responsibilities of student

services staff members. These roles and responsibilities should be clearly communicated to all

campus staff members.

7. Review staff responsibilities for potential redundancies. It might be useful to design an online

record keeping system to assist staff with complementary roles in tracking which services

students have received.

8. Create lines of communication that include all Imagine 2020 staff members and look for

opportunities for different departments to collaborate to meet initiative goals.

9. Review SAM team activities to determine what additional effort is needed to increase the

effectiveness of these teams. SAM procedures should require that a campus administrator attend

each meeting because only campus administrators can delegate tasks to campus staff members

and ensure goals are met. In addition, all SAM chairs should attend the SAM training offered by

the director of counseling services.

The following are recommendations based on the findings of the Accelerated Instruction

component of the evaluation:

10. The accelerated instruction program would benefit from clearly identifying criteria for selecting

students for participation.

11. Imagine 2020 campuses with accelerated instruction programs should utilize their campus

support staff such as psychologists, social workers and urban specialists to target attendance and

discipline among students participating in the accelerated instruction programs.

The following are recommendations based on the findings of the Curriculum and Instruction

component of the evaluation:

12. Document which programs are implemented on which Imagine 2020 campuses.

13. Document when professional development sessions occur and keep attendance.

14. Document which students are participating in programs and consider measuring dosage (i.e., the

amount of time each student spends in the program).

The following recommendations are based on findings in the Optional Extended Day component

of the evaluation:

15. The evaluation team and Imagine 2020 leadership should collaborate to develop a data collection

method for the schools to consistently gauge student participation.


72

REFERENCES

Duckworth, A.L., Peterson, C., Matthews, M.D., and Kelly, D.R. (2007). Grit: Perseverance and passion for long-term goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 1087-1101.

Dweck, C.S., Walton, G.M., and Cohen, G.L. (2011). Academic tenacity: Mindsets and skills that promote ong-term learning. White paper prepared for the Gates Foundation. Seattle, WA.

Farrington, C. A., Roderick, M., Allensworth, E., Nagaoka, J., Keyes, T. S., Johnson, D. W., & Beechum, N. O. (2012). Teaching adolescents to become learners. The role of noncognitive factors in shaping school performance: A critical literature review. Chicago: University of Chicago Consortium on Chicago School Research.

Kolbe, T., Partridge, M., & O’Reilly, F. (2011). Time and learning in schools: A national profile. Boston, MA: National Center on Time & Learning. Retrieved from http://www.timeandlearning.org/sass

Patall, E.A., Cooper, H., & Allen, A.B. (2010). Extending the school day or school year: A systematic review of research (1985-2009). Review of Educational Research, 80(3), 401-436. SEDL (2012). Impact of Class Time on Student Learning. Austin, TX: SEDL. Retrieved from http://txcc.sedl.org/resources/briefs/number6/


73

APPENDICES


74

Appendix A

STAAR Level II Passing Rates by Campus and Student Subgroup Table 1: STAAR EOC Level II Passing Rates for Lincoln, Pinkston, and Madison HS, 2013-2014 English I English II Algebra Biology U.S. History N % N % N % N % N %Lincoln All 204 39.7 158 39.2 124 66.1 124 75.0 112 76.8Af. American 165 41.2 136 39.7 108 65.7 108 75.9 96 75.0Hispanic 36 33.3 20 40.0 16 38.8 16 68.8 15 86.7Econ. Disadv. 164 38.4 127 37.0 103 65.0 99 75.8 90 74.4Spec Ed 12 8.3 3 - 15 40.0 15 40.0 2 -ELL 24 25.0 13 30.8 12 66.7 10 50.0 6 83.3Pinkston All 414 32.9 282 34.0 200 59.5 238 86.6 180 90.6Af. American 105 31.4 75 33.3 53 45.3 63 85.7 41 97.6Hispanic 302 33.4 198 34.3 144 65.3 173 86.7 134 88.8Econ. Disadv. 344 32.6 230 33.9 163 59.5 199 88.4 146 89.7Spec Ed 18 5.6 6 16.7 12 33.3 9 44.4 6 100.0ELL 123 17.9 73 17.8 50 56.0 58 77.6 49 77.6Madison All 184 36.4 132 31.1 96 65.6 116 80.2 109 86.2Af. American 132 33.3 102 29.4 66 66.7 78 80.8 93 84.9Hispanic 45 46.7 27 37.0 27 63.0 34 79.4 16 93.8Econ. Disadv. 172 34.9 118 30.5 89 66.3 109 80.7 92 83.7Spec Ed 18 5.6 10 20.0 10 30.0 10 40.0 6 66.7ELL 17 17.6 12 16.7 11 63.6 11 63.6 4 -Note. Student group tested less than six are not reported. ELL: English Language Learner


75

Table 2: STAAR Level II Passing Rates for Dade and DESA MS, 2013-2014 All Af. American Hispanic Econ. Disadv. Spec. Ed. LEP

N % N % N % N % N % N %Dade Grade 6 Reading 243 42.8 173 38.7 68 52.9 222 43.2 11 9.1 49 46.9Math 240 39.6 173 35.3 65 50.8 219 40.6 11 27.3 46 45.7Grade 7 Reading 239 47.3 159 47.2 80 47.5 221 48.0 19 15.8 64 37.5Math 236 40.3 159 37.1 77 46.8 221 40.7 19 21.1 61 39.3Writing 239 40.6 160 41.3 79 39.2 221 41.6 19 10.5 63 30.2Grade 8 Reading 227 79.7 152 79.6 73 79.5 181 80.1 17 41.2 46 69.6Math 199 61.8 133 54.1 65 76.9 157 58.0 17 52.9 41 70.7Science 220 44.5 149 40.3 69 52.2 194 44.8 16 18.8 43 44.2Social Studies 219 34.2 148 34.5 69 31.9 193 35.8 16 0.0 43 25.6DESA Grade 6 Reading 131 100.0 11 100.0 105 100.0 102 100.0 2 - 31 100.0Math 131 99.2 11 100.0 105 99.0 102 99.0 2 - 31 96.8Grade 7 Reading 180 97.8 29 96.6 139 97.8 157 97.5 - - 14 78.6Math 180 97.8 29 96.6 139 97.8 157 97.5 - - 14 100.0Writing 180 94.4 29 89.7 139 95.7 157 94.9 - - 14 78.6Grade 8 Reading 90 100.0 10 100.0 74 100.0 61 100.0 - - - -Algebra I 12 100.0 2 - 9 100.0 7 100.0 - - - -Science 89 98.9 10 90.0 73 100.0 67 100.0 - - - -Social Studies 89 96.6 10 90.0 73 98.6 67 100.0 - - - -Note. LEP: Limited English Proficiency


76

Table 3: STAAR Level II Passing Rates for Quintanilla and Edison MS, 2013-2014

All Af. American Hispanic Econ. Disadv. Spec. Ed. LEP N % N % N % N % N % N %

Edison Grade 6 Reading 180 42.2 78 35.9 100 47.0 175 41.7 4 - 55 38.2Math 177 37.9 78 24.4 97 48.5 172 37.8 5 - 52 44.2Grade 7 Reading 175 42.3 62 37.1 110 44.5 169 42.6 7 14.3 56 25.0Math 175 31.2 61 23.0 106 34.9 164 31.7 8 37.5 51 29.4Writing 175 28.6 63 27.0 109 29.4 169 28.4 7 14.3 56 19.6Grade 8 Reading 240 68.8 84 61.9 155 72.3 222 68.5 3 - 56 50.0Math 196 56.6 76 46.1 120 63.3 185 57.3 3 - 42 52.4Science 228 31.6 86 22.1 141 36.9 223 31.8 4 - 44 15.9Social Studies 229 27.9 86 25.6 142 28.9 224 28.6 4 - 44 13.6Quintanilla Grade 6 Reading 356 57.6 13 38.5 336 57.7 346 57.5 16 25.0 206 53.9Math 347 51.3 13 30.8 327 52.0 337 51.0 16 18.8 196 51.5Grade 7 Reading 407 57.5 13 46.2 388 58.5 382 57.6 9 22.2 207 45.4Math 400 52.5 13 38.5 382 53.1 377 53.1 10 0.0 201 39.3Writing 408 48.0 13 30.8 389 49.1 382 49.0 10 20.0 208 31.7Grade 8 Reading 347 85.0 11 81.8 331 84.9 321 84.6 3 - 124 66.1Math 308 76.9 12 41.7 292 78.4 281 76.5 7 71.4 113 75.2Science 335 70.4 9 44.4 321 70.7 323 70.0 5 - 112 51.8Social Studies 335 67.8 9 44.4 321 67.9 323 67.5 5 - 113 48.7


77

Table 4: STAAR Level II Passing Rates for Rhoads, Rice, and Dunbar ES, 2013-2014 All Af. American Hispanic Econ. Disadv. Spec Ed LEP

N % N % N % N % N % N %Rhoads Grade 3 Reading 107 48.6 62 59.7 45 33.3 106 49.1 5 - 36 27.8Math 107 65.4 62 77.4 45 48.9 106 66.0 5 - 36 44.4Grade 4 Reading 73 46.6 44 36.4 28 64.3 72 47.2 - - 20 75.0Math 73 43.8 44 36.4 28 57.1 72 43.1 - - 20 70.0Writing 72 65.3 43 65.1 28 67.9 71 64.8 - - 20 75.0Grade 5 Reading 84 91.7 50 92.0 34 91.2 80 91.3 1 - 31 90.3Math 83 84.3 50 78.0 33 93.9 79 83.5 - - 30 96.7Science 83 75.9 50 66.0 33 90.9 79 77.2 1 - 30 90.0Rice Grade 3 Reading 69 62.3 65 63.1 4 - 62 62.9 2 - 1 -Math 69 59.4 65 58.5 4 - 62 58.1 2 - 1 -Grade 4 Reading 68 77.9 64 76.6 3 - 65 76.9 2 - 1 -Math 67 58.2 63 55.6 3 - 64 56.3 2 - 1 -Writing 68 85.3 64 84.4 3 - 65 84.6 1 - 1 -Grade 5 Reading 71 94.4 63 93.7 6 100.0 66 93.9 1 - 4 -Math 71 91.5 63 90.5 6 100.0 66 92.4 1 - 4 -Science 71 78.9 64 78.1 6 83.3 68 79.4 1 - 4 -Dunbar Grade 3 Reading 72 47.2 56 48.2 16 43.8 71 46.5 3 - 11 45.5Math 72 54.2 56 55.4 16 50.0 71 53.5 3 - 11 54.5Grade 4 Reading 62 51.6 45 53.3 16 50.0 60 51.7 - - 11 45.5Math 62 71.0 45 64.4 16 93.8 60 70.0 - - 11 100.0Writing 62 64.5 45 64.4 16 68.8 60 63.3 - - 11 72.7Grade 5 Reading 65 66.2 51 64.7 13 69.2 61 65.6 - - 10 70.0Math 65 81.5 51 80.4 13 84.6 61 80.3 - - 10 90.0Science 64 67.2 50 64.0 13 76.9 62 69.4 - 10 100.0


78

Table 5: STAAR Level II Passing Rates for King and Roberts ES, 2013-2014 All Af. American Hispanic Econ. Disadv. Spec Ed LEP

N % N % N % N % N % N %King Grade 3 Reading 52 53.8 41 56.1 8 37.5 52 53.8 1 - 8 37.5Math 52 63.5 41 65.9 8 50.0 52 63.5 1 - 8 50.0Grade 4 Reading 51 86.3 39 87.2 12 83.3 46 87.0 - - 9 77.8Math 51 60.8 39 64.1 12 50.0 46 63.0 - - 9 33.3Writing 52 78.8 40 77.5 12 83.3 48 81.3 - - 9 77.8Grade 5 Reading 50 88.0 40 95.0 9 66.7 44 86.4 - - 8 62.5Math 49 79.6 39 79.5 9 88.9 43 76.7 - - 8 87.5Science 47 74.5 37 81.1 9 55.6 41 75.6 - - 8 50.0Roberts Grade 3 Reading 87 51.7 9 33.3 76 53.9 77 49.4 3 - 44 54.5Math 87 47.1 9 22.2 76 50.0 77 44.2 3 - 44 36.4Grade 4 Reading 87 55.2 8 25.0 77 58.4 71 53.5 5 - 56 57.1Math 89 40.4 8 12.5 79 43.0 73 38.4 6 33.3 58 44.8Writing 90 45.6 8 12.5 80 48.8 74 44.6 6 33.3 60 55.0Grade 5 Reading 89 64.0 8 50.0 81 65.4 85 63.5 4 - 57 61.4Math 89 78.7 8 87.5 81 77.8 84 78.6 4 - 57 75.4Science 89 32.2 8 25.0 82 32.9 86 30.2 4 - 58 29.3


79

Table 6: STAAR Level II Passing Rates for Stevens Park, Allen, and Carr ES, 2013-2014 All Af. American Hispanic Econ. Disadv. Spec Ed LEP

N % N % N % N % N % N %Stevens Park Grade 3 Reading 111 50.5 4 - 150 50.5 108 50.0 1 - 70 58.6Math 62 48.4 4 - 56 48.2 59 47.5 - - 21 61.9Grade 4 Reading 100 49.0 6 16.7 94 51.1 90 46.7 2 - 59 55.9Math 99 59.6 6 0.0 92 64.1 89 58.4 3 - 57 71.9Writing 99 47.5 7 16.7 93 49.5 89 46.1 1 - 59 45.8Grade 5 Reading 89 663. 5 - 82 65.9 78 69.2 3 - 53 71.7Math 89 66.3 5 - 82 68.3 78 67.9 3 - 53 86.8Science 90 50.0 5 - 83 51.8 83 50.6 5 - 56 57.1Allen Grade 3 Reading 81 51.9 9 33.3 70 54.3 77 51.9 1 - 33 48.5Math 81 48.1 9 44.4 70 48.6 77 46.8 1 - 33 48.5Grade 4 Reading 69 62.3 2 - 65 63.1 68 61.8 3 - 33 69.7Math 69 65.2 2 - 64 65.6 68 64.7 3 - 34 64.7Writing 69 63.8 2 - 65 63.1 68 63.2 4 - 33 60.6Grade 5 Reading 72 72.2 7 28.6 63 77.8 67 73.1 1 - 31 74.2Math 72 73.6 7 28.6 63 79.4 67 73.1 1 - 31 87.1Science 74 64.9 7 28.6 65 70.8 69 65.2 1 - 31 67.7Carr Grade 3 Reading 73 42.5 26 46.2 46 39.1 72 43.1 2 - 37 35.1Math 73 28.8 26 26.9 46 30.4 72 29.2 2 - 37 32.4Grade 4 Reading 53 43.4 11 27.3 42 47.6 53 43.4 2 - 36 47.2Math 53 34.0 11 18.2 42 38.1 53 34.0 2 - 36 36.1Writing 53 41.5 11 18.2 42 47.6 53 41.5 2 - 36 47.2Grade 5 Reading 48 56.3 21 52.4 27 59.3 46 56.5 2 - 21 57.1Math 48 66.7 20 75.0 28 60.7 45 66.7 2 - 22 59.1Science 48 47.9 21 33.3 27 59.3 45 46.7 1 - 21 52.4


80

Table 7: STAAR Results for Carver, DeZavala, and Earhart ES, 2013-2014

All Af. American Hispanic Econ. Disadv. Spec Ed LEP N % N % N % N % N % N %

Carver Grade 3 Reading 72 47.2 55 47.3 17 47.1 72 47.2 - - 12 41.7Math 72 41.7 55 36.4 17 58.8 72 41.7 - - 12 58.3Grade 4 Reading 73 37.0 51 25.5 20 70.0 71 35.2 3 - 14 64.3Math 73 28.2 51 17.6 20 60.0 71 26.8 3 - 14 57.1Writing 73 49.3 51 39.2 20 80.0 71 47.9 3 - 14 71.4Grade 5 Reading 81 59.3 55 58.2 26 61.5 80 58.8 1 - 12 58.3Math 80 65.0 55 58.2 25 80.0 79 64.6 1 - 11 81.8Science 81 37.0 55 32.7 26 46.2 80 37.5 1 - 12 41.7DeZavala Grade 3 Reading 51 70.6 - - 49 71.4 51 70.6 3 - 30 76.7Math 51 49.0 - - 49 51.0 51 49.0 3 - 30 56.7Grade 4 Reading 49 61.2 1 - 48 60.4 48 62.5 - - 28 50.0Math 49 49.0 1 - 48 47.9 48 50.0 - - 28 53.6Writing 49 55.1 1 - 48 54.2 48 56.3 - - 28 60.7Grade 5 Reading 60 75.0 2 - 58 74.1 56 73.2 1 - 38 68.4Math 59 67.8 2 - 57 66.7 55 67.3 - - 38 63.2Science 59 40.7 2 - 57 38.6 55 40.0 1 - 38 39.5Earhart Grade 3 Reading 35 71.4 9 66.7 26 73.1 34 70.6 - - 18 77.8Math 35 62.9 9 55.6 26 65.4 34 61.8 - - 18 66.7Grade 4 Reading 30 53.3 9 22.2 20 65.0 29 55.2 - - 15 66.7Math 30 26.7 9 22.2 20 25.0 29 27.6 - - 15 26.7Writing 32 40.6 11 27.3 20 45.0 31 41.9 2 - 15 40.0Grade 5 Reading 27 81.5 7 71.4 20 85.0 25 84.0 - - 15 86.7Math 27 81.5 7 71.4 20 85.0 26 80.8 - - 15 100.0Science 27 55.6 7 71.4 20 50.0 25 56.0 - - 15 53.3


81

Table 8: STAAR Level II Passing Rates for Lanier, Martinez, and Arcadia Park ES, 2013-2014 All Af. American Hispanic Econ. Disadv. Spec Ed LEP N % N % N % N % N % N %

Lanier Grade 3 Reading 73 78.1 13 53.8 59 83.1 71 77.5 3 - 31 83.9Math 72 76.4 13 61.5 58 79.3 70 75.7 2 - 30 93.3Grade 4 Reading 111 81.1 21 66.7 81 82.7 99 78.8 2 - 35 80.0Math 111 76.6 21 61.9 81 77.8 99 73.7 2 - 35 77.1Writing 111 89.2 21 90.5 81 87.7 99 87.9 2 - 35 91.4Grade 5 Reading 141 89.4 26 84.6 106 90.6 120 89.2 4 - 46 87.0Math 139 92.1 24 91.7 106 92.5 118 92.4 2 - 46 93.5Science 143 70.6 27 66.7 107 71.0 124 69.4 6 33.3 46 65.2Martinez Grade 3 Reading 70 80.0 - - 70 80.0 65 78.5 3 - 35 74.3Math 69 94.2 - - 69 94.2 64 93.8 2 - 35 91.4Grade 4 Reading 69 69.6 1 - 68 69.1 66 69.7 - - 41 63.4Math 71 76.1 1 - 70 77.1 68 77.9 - - 43 74.4Writing 70 80.0 1 - 69 79.7 67 82.1 1 - 42 78.6Grade 5 Reading 47 76.6 - - 47 76.6 42 78.6 - - 28 67.9Math 48 81.3 - - 48 81.3 44 84.1 - - 28 75.0Science 47 68.1 - - 47 68.1 41 68.3 - - 27 59.3Arcadia Park Grade 3 Reading 102 72.5 4 - 98 73.5 102 72.5 3 - 64 68.8Math 102 62.7 4 - 98 64.3 102 62.7 3 - 64 65.6Grade 4 Reading 82 72.0 4 - 77 72.7 82 72.0 2 - 47 66.0Math 83 65.1 5 - 78 66.7 83 65.1 3 - 48 54.2Writing 83 74.7 4 - 77 77.9 82 75.6 3 - 48 75.0Grade 5 Reading 91 93.4 4 - 87 93.1 86 93.0 - - 61 91.8Math 90 96.7 4 - 86 97.7 85 96.5 - - 60 96.7Science 91 85.7 4 - 87 86.2 86 84.9 - - 61 80.3


82

Appendix B

2013-2014 Focus Group Protocol: Student Services

1. Date:

2. Interviewer Name:

3. Participant’s Name:

4. What is your position with Dallas ISD?

5. On which I2020 campuses do you work?

6. Please describe your roles and responsibilities.

a. On average, how many students do you work with per day?

b. What do you normally do with students?

7. Have you worked on a Dallas ISD campus other than I2020 participating campuses?

a. How does your work now differ from the work you have done on other campuses?

b. What additional benefits are you able to provide to students on I2020 campuses that

other students may not get?

8. Do you have set performance goals for your position? If so, what are they?

9. How do you know you are meeting those goals?

10. How do you track your work?

11. How do you know you are making an impact on students? Can you provide some examples?

12. Have you encountered any barriers to serving students in the Imagine 2020 campuses? If so,

what are they?


83

Appendix C

2013-2014 Student Interview Protocol: Accelerated Instruction

Introduction: Hi, my name is _____ and I work for the evaluation department of DISD. I’m trying to learn

more about what it’s like to go to this school. Would you please answer a few questions for me? It will

take about 5 minutes. I won’t share any of your answers with your teachers or anyone at the school.

Interviewer:

Date:

Campus:

1. [ON YOUR OWN] Participant is (male) or (female).

2. How old are you?

3. What school did you go to last year?

Academics:

4. What do you like or not like about your AI classes?

5. What kind of help can you get with your AI classes if you need it (academic help provided outside of the classroom)?

Social Support:

6. How often do you talk to teachers or other campus staff about help you might need outside of school (by help I mean help with food, clothing, housing, mental health issues)? Who do you talk to the most?

Environment:

7. What is the environment like in your AI classes?

a. Do students get along with one another? Do they respect one another? b. Do students get along with campus staff? Respect one another?


84

Appendix D

2013-2014 Teacher Interview Protocol: Accelerated Instruction

Hi, my name is ______ and I work for the evaluation department of DISD. I’m conducting focus groups

with I2020 accelerated instruction program staff to learn more about the services provided at the campus.

The focus group will take about 20 minutes. Your answers will remain confidential. No individual

information will be shared and results will only be presented in the aggregate.

Date:

Campus:

1. On what Dallas ISD campus did you teach last year? 2. How many years have you worked in alternative education?

Academics:

3. How is academic material provided in the accelerated instruction program (online, one-on-one, group work, project-centered, teacher-lead)?

4. What academic help (academic assistance outside of the classroom) is available to students in the accelerated instruction program?

5. Do students in the accelerated instruction program have differing academic support needs than other students? If so, how are they different?

6. What support do you need to improve the classroom instruction you provide to your students?

Student Discipline:

7. What behavioral and disciplinary issues do you deal with in you AI classroom? Are these issues any different from your other classroom experiences?

8. What support do you need to decrease the occurrence of behavioral and disciplinary issues?

Social Support:

9. How often do you talk to students about support services they might need? Daily? Weekly? Monthly?

10. Do students in the accelerated instruction program have different social support needs than other students? If so, how do they differ?


85

Appendix E

2013-2014 Classroom Observation Protocol: Accelerated Instruction

Evaluator Name:

Date:

Campus:

Time in:

Time out:

1. What are you observing (classroom, auditorium, cafeteria)?

2. Who is leading the activity?

3. Describe briefly what activity you are observing:

4. What are the attitudes of students?

5. What are the attitudes of staff?

6. What is the environment of the space like (clean, dirty, adequate materials)?


86

Appendix F

Imagine 2020 Initiative Snapshot

Dallas ISD Imagine 2020 SFP Initiative Snapshot

Year One: 2013-2014High Schools: Lincoln & Madison Feeder Patterns

Middle School: Dade

Elementary Schools: Rhoads, Rice, Dunbar, MLK and Oran Roberts

High School: Pinkston Feeder Pattern

Middle Schools: DESA, Edison & Quintanilla

Edison Elem Schools: Allen, Carr, Carver, DeZavala, Earhart, Lanier, Martinez

Quintanilla Elem. Schools: Arcadia Park & Stephens Park

We believe by changing SCHOOL STAFFING we will be able to improve our teaching and learning systems

resulting in greater SUPPORT for students, staff and parents.

Focus Responsible Brief Description

Administration Sylvia Reyna, Ph.D., Feeder Pattern Executive Directors, Principals and Sylvia E. Fuentes

30 additional Assistant Principals at ratio of 1:300 • Provides greater support to students and parents and facilitates principal as instructional leader

Instruction Feeder Pattern Executive Directors, Principals and Sylvia E. Fuentes

28 Department Chairs (Secondary Only)

• Assigned to support core content areas– Math, Science, Social Studies, English Language Arts • Teaching students ½ day and Mentoring/Coaching teachers ½ day

180 Team Leaders

• Assigned to support grade levels • Mentor/Coach teachers 1 period per day

SCHOOL STAFF

(Support)


87

38 Full Time Equivalent Teaching Units

• Account for Teacher Mentoring/Coaching periods and allows for Demonstration Teacher at Elementary • Ensure student/teacher ratios remain the same

Student Services Feeder Pattern Executive Directors,

Principals and Sylvia E. Fuentes

Connie Wilson

(Psychologists and Social Workers)

Linda Johnson

(College & Career Readiness Coordinators)

Charles Tuckey

(Student Advocates and Urban Specialists)

2 Student Support Social Workers (1: Lincoln/Madison Feeder Pattern and 1: Pinkston Feeder Pattern)

• Provide support for students, staff and parents focused on ensuring each child’s physical, social, emotional and educational needs are being met – also collaborates with professionals in the community

2 College & Career Readiness Coordinators (1: Lincoln/Madison and 1: Pinkston)

• Provide support for students, staff and parents focused on vertical alignment of college & career readiness programs

2 Student Advocate Coordinators (1: Lincoln/Madison and 1: Pinkston)

• Provide support for students and parents focused on truancy/dropout prevention and intervention 6 Urban Specialists (1 per Secondary School)

• Provide support for students, staff and parents focused on highest at-risk students 4 School Psychologists (2: Lincoln/Madison Feeder Pattern and 2: Pinkston Feeder Pattern)

• Provide support for students focused on psychological services inclusive of assessment, counseling and behavior management

General Program Sylvia Reyna, Ph.D., Cecilia Oakeley, Vincent Reyes and Sylvia E. Fuentes

2 Program Analysts

1 21st Century Curriculum Manager

1 Executive Director

Final Revision 9-11-2013


88

We believe by differentiating CURRICULUM & INSTRUCTION we will be able to better

individualize/personalize student education systems resulting in greater SUPPORT for students.

Focus Responsible Brief Description

Standard Expectations

Feeder Pattern Executive Directors, Principals, Vincent Reyes and Sylvia E. Fuentes

I2020 schools will focus on the following initiatives as the foundation of their teaching and learning:

The “Big Four” • Continued focus on Learning Objectives, Purposeful Instruction, Multiple Response Strategies and

Demonstration of Learning- coupled with additional supports including content, resources, PD and on-line training Math Initiative

• Reasoning Mind -Required of grades 2-4 at all elementary schools • New/Revised Math TEKS grades K-2

Reading Initiative • Literacy Across the Contents • Comprehension Toolkit grades K-5

Blended Learning • Use of online content/instruction and creation of authentic student content available anywhere, anytime on

any device • Special focus at grades 6 and 9 through the Google Chromebook Initiative

Habits of Mind [MOVED TO YEAR 2] • Focus on 8 of the 16 Habits of Mind

Accelerated Instruction (Middle School- Edison and Dade) • Focused, accelerated instruction at the middle school for students who are 2 or more years behind grade

level • Implementation of specially designed accelerated curriculum and on-line high school credit attainment

Optional Initiatives Feeder Pattern Executive Directors, Principals, Vincent Reyes and Sylvia E. Fuentes

I2020 schools will have the opportunity to participate in a variety of optional initiatives based on their campus needs. The following are a few examples:

• Science of Flight NAPE/STEM Equity Pipeline EverFi Digital Town Square In-School Tutoring Feeder Pattern Executive

Directors, Principals, Vincent I2020 schools will provide in-school tutoring at a 1:1-3 tutor-student ratio for select high-needs identified students.

CURRICULUM & INSTRUCTION

(Innovate)


89

Reyes, Regina Rice and Sylvia E. Fuentes

Math Focus at Secondary

• Principal selection of in-school tutoring services focused on Math support for targeted students during the school day

Reading Focus at Elementary

• Principal selection of in-school tutoring services focused on Reading support for targeted students during the school day

Optional Extended Day for Students

Feeder Pattern Executive Directors, Principals, Vincent Reyes, Jaime Sandoval and Sylvia E. Fuentes

The school day is extended by one hour mandatory for staff but optional for students. The instructional focus of this time may be spent on any one or more of the following:

Credit Recovery/ Acceleration

• Implementation of Apex, NovaNet and/or E2020 On-Line learning at Secondary Campuses Tutoring

• Lowered student/teacher ratio focused on critical academic needs Enrichment

• Hosting of special clubs and/or activities by campus and community providers Mentoring

• Implementation of “My Life My Power” at all Secondary Schools and self-selected Elementary Schools Final Revision 9-11-2013

SMM

PEE

Focus

Student Advocacy Management Model

Parent Engagement and Education

W

i

Respo

Feeder PatteDirectors, PrincipFuentes

Connie Wilson a(Student AdvocaModel)

Lynnie Smith

(Mentoring)

Charles Tuckey

(Urban Issues)

Feeder PatteDirectors, PrincipFuentes

Dora Moron

(HIPPY)

Elsa Pennell and J

(Parent Unive

e believe engagin

n the education o

onsible

rn Executive pals and Sylvia E.

and Sylvia Lopez acy Management

rn Executive pals and Sylvia E.

Jane Didear

rsities/Fairs &

ng PARENTS & C

of our children wil

Student A• Collabora

staff • Focus on• Provide P

Mentoring• Implemen

high needDifferentia

• Identify ta• Identify ta

Support Setc.)

• Provide s• Connect s• Train clas

with studeHome Visits

• Encourag• Target tru• HIPPY (H

Additional Parent U

• Host distrschool ne

Workforce Develop

• Provide E

PA

COMMUNITY me

ll result in greater

Advocacy Managemeative inclusive of pare

high impact academPositive Behavior Integ and Student Advocnt “My Life My Powerds students with one-ated Student Serviceargeted interventionsargeted interventionsStudents and Campu

students with approprstudents with district ssroom teachers on rents

ge home/school connuant students and thoHome Instruction for PUniversities and Fairs

rict and community beeds ment Resources

ESL Classes, Adult B

ARENTS &

(En

embers as meani

r SUPPORT for o

Brief Desc

ent Model Team ents, community mem

mic, social and emotioervention Support tracacy r” at all Secondary Sc-on-one mentoring es for over-age student for students in crisis

us Personnel in Urba

riate counseling suppand community reso

recognizing signs of u

nection by way of SAMose at-risk of droppinParents of Pre-Schoo

ased opportunities fo

Basic Education

& COMMUN

ngage)

Imagine 2020 In

ingful partners

our students.

cription

mbers, key campus p

onal interventions aining for campus per

chools and self-selec

ts s an Issues (gangs, dru

port ources urban issues and dev

M Team members anng out ol Youngsters) Imple

or parent engagemen

NITY

nitiative Final Rep

personnel and I2020

rsonnel

cted Elementary Scho

ugs, teen pregnancy,

veloping successful r

nd key campus perso

mentation

nt based on feeder pa

port 2013-14

90

specialized

ools to provide

homelessness

relationships

onnel

attern and


91

Workforce Development Resources)

Connie Wilson Sylvia Lopez

(Student Advocacy Management Model)

Charles Tuckey

(Urban Issues)

• Collaborate with Community Partners to conduct Employment Preparation Support and Educate Parents on Urban Issues (gangs, drugs, teen pregnancy, homelessness etc.)

• Educate parents on the possible signs of at-risk activities • Collaborate with parents to create personalized interventions for students • Connect parents with district and community resources

Out of School Programs

Feeder Pattern Executive Directors, Principals, Vincent Reyes, Jane Didear Jaime Sandoval and Sylvia E. Fuentes

Community Partnerships On-Campus

• Collaborate with community partners to provide direct services to students such as tutoring, mentoring and enrichment activities during the week either before or after regularly scheduled school hours

Community Partnerships Off-Campus

• Collaborate with community partners to provide direct services to students such as tutoring, mentoring and enrichment activities throughout the week either before or after regularly scheduled school hours and weekends as agreed upon by parents

Field Trips

• Special emphasis on Career and College Readiness connections at all levels Final Revision 9-11-2013

Documents

Imagine 20 20 -14 Final Report - Dallas Independent … ent. Imagine 2020 ... Report uation a 14-530-2 ust 2014 e Hall, Ph Douglas, P Zhang, Ph 020 I ... Imagine 2020 Initiative Final