Accountability 2013 and Beyond Accountability Technical Advisory Committee

1. Accountability 2013 and BeyondAccountability Technical Advisory Committee

2. Accountability System Goals Texas will be among the top ten states in postsecondary readiness by 2020, by: • Improving student achievement at the post-secondary readiness performance level in the core subjects of the state curriculum; • Closing postsecondary readiness performance gaps among groups; • Closing the gaps among groups in the percentage of students graduating under the recommended high school program and the advanced high school program; • Progressing towards post-secondary readiness for all students; and • Rewarding excellence based on other indicators in addition to state assessment results.

3. ATAC Committee Charges • Develop a system that: • is designed to improve student performance, • focuses on preparing students for success after high school, • uses safeguards to minimize unintended consequences, • is understandable and provides results that are relevant, meaningful, and easily accessible, and • complies with statutory requirements.

4. Accountability Alignment • March 5, 2012 – the ATAC accepted the Commissioner’s charge for the scope of their work that includes development of recommendations that allow Texas to align the state and federal accountability systems to the greatest extent possible. • This may take the form of: • Aligned Accountability, or • Single Integrated Accountability

5. Framework Selected • Performance Index framework • Four separate indexes • Each measure within each index contributes points to that specific index score. • Score points/percentages for each of the four indexes will be considered collectively to result in a single campus or district rating. • Resulting ratings reflect overall performance rather than the weakest areas.

6. Legislative Requirements • Components • Acceptable versus Unacceptable • Distinction Designations – “Recognized or Exemplary” • Distinction Designations for Top 25% Student Progress and Closing Performance Gaps • Distinction Designations for Academic Achievement (to be developed by different appointed committee) – fine arts, physical education, 21st Century Workforce, and second language acquisition

7. Legislative Requirements: Student Groups • Statute requires that “indicators used for ratings be calculated for race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status student groups as well as all students.” • Where listed, ATAC has recommended student groups include: African American, American Indian, Asian, Hispanic, Pacific Islander, White, and 2 or more subject to minimum size criteria.

8. Note: No decisions are final until published in the Accountability Manual

11. Sample Performance Index

13. Important Reminder • As we review each of the different indexes, in a performance index framework, one indicator cannot keep you from achieving a rating. • Unlike the old cell system, indicators will contribute to the index scores…which then combined to result in the campus or district rating.

14. Index 1: Student Achievement • Results will be summed across tests, grades, and subjects; credit will be given for the number of students meeting the final Level II standard divided by the number of students tested. • Measure: % Met Level II Satisfactory • All students Reading • All students Writing • All students Math • All students Science • All students Social Studies • Participation rate

15. Index 1: Assessments • 2013 and Beyond • STAAR Grades 3-8 English & Spanish • EOC primary – spring and previous fall & summer • STAAR Modified & Alternate (with possible caps) • STAAR L: to be based on the ATAC ELL Workgroup recommendations • TAKS Grade 11 at Met Standard for 2013 • Retest results for Grades 5 & 8 • Accountability Subset • Minimum Size = 20 / Special analysis if less than 10 students

16. Index 2: Student Progress Student Progress to Satisfactory or Advanced Performance Levels • Across grade levels (4, 5…) • By subject area (Reading and Mathematics: Writing for EOC only; Science and Social Studies for EOC only if growth measures available) • All Students and for 7 Race & Ethnicity groups subject to minimum size criteria • Students must have a prior year and current year score for the subject

17. ATAC Recommends Use of a Transition Table Assume 6 transition bands on the STAAR scale. All current students would be designated into a transition band based on their prior year scores. The Progress Measure will calculate what percent of students transitioned to a higher band.

18. Sample Transition Table Model (7 Bands)

19. Index 2: Progress Measure For students who retake an assessment, the highest prior year performance will be compared to highest current year performance within the subject area. • Grades 5 & 8 - first or second administration • EOC - the highest (July 1 – June 30) • Two tests in same subject in same year (i.e. Algebra I & Geometry) - the highest score is compared • Retest - highest prior yr. score compared to highest current yr. score

20. Check for Understanding 1. What questions do you have regarding Index 1 or 2? 2. What are you thinking so far?

21. Index 3: Closing Performance Gap • Achievement Gaps Measured for Satisfactory and Advanced Levels • Credit given for percent of students who did not meet Level II at final standard in the prior year (Gap II students) who meet Satisfactory (Level II) at final standard in the current year • Same for students not meeting Level III in prior year (Gap III students) who meet Level III standard in current year

22. Index 3: Closing Performance Gap • By Subject Area (Reading/ELA, Mathematics, Writing, Science, and Social Studies) • Same Assessments Used in Index I • Student Groups still under discussion

23. Index 4: Postsecondary Readiness • Three Measures • Level III Performance (grades 3-EOC) • Graduation Rate (or 9-12 Dropout Rate for campuses with no graduating class) • Percent Recommended High School Program/Advanced High School Program graduates

24. Index 4: Postsecondary Readiness • Measure 1: Level III Performance in 2014 and beyond • Points earned for Level III performance combined over all subjects • All Students and each Race/Ethnicity evaluated in Index 2 • Same assessments used in Index 1 at final Level III performance standard

25. Index 4: Postsecondary Readiness • Measure 2: Graduation Rate for campuses serving grades 9-12 • State definition with statutorily required exclusions beginning with class of 2011 • Four-year and five-year graduation rates - will use the higher for evaluation • All students and 7 race/ethnicity groups; OR

26. Index 4: Postsecondary Readiness • AnnualDropout Rate for campuses who do not have graduation rates despite serving students in grades 9, 10, 11, or 12 • State definition used for graduation will be used for dropout • Applies only to campuses that do not have graduation rate or do not meet minimum size criteria for graduation rate • Will not apply to grades 7 & 8 • All students and 7 race/ethnicity groups

27. Index 4: Postsecondary Readiness • Measure 3: Recommended High School Program / Advanced High School Program • Points earned for the percent of graduates in the four-year graduation rate who were reported as having satisfied the course requirements and the EOC cumulative score requirements for the respective programs beginning in 2015 – prior to that year will be based on TAKS

28. Safeguards • Apply Safeguards to Specific Performance Indexes, as needed • Report performance by student group, performance level, subject, and grade • Implement Interventions focused on weak areas • Apply Minimum performance requirements or floors • Apply Participation Rate targets • Evaluate Leaver Data Quality • Incorporate Grade 7-8 Annual Dropout Rate

29. Major Tasks Still Left • Index Evaluation and Standards • Determine whether to apply cap for Modified and Alternate • Finalize minimum size of 20/no percent • Determine system safeguards • Distinctions • Alternative Education Accountability • Develop ELL Progress Measure

30. Transition Plan • 2013 will include: • “Acceptable” and “Unacceptable” • Academic Achievement Designation • No “Recognized” or “Exemplary” • No Top 25% for Student Progress or Gap Closure • 2014 and Beyond: • All four components will be fully in place

31. What is not clear to you? What is one strength of the performance index design? One challenge/weakness? Do you feel like this system favors one type of campus/district over another (high poverty vs. affluent; elementary vs. high school, etc.)? Do we need to strengthen expectations of elementary and middle school performance to better support student success on EOC’s and college readiness? If yes, what might be added/revised? What suggestions or advice do you have for committee members to take back to the next committee meeting?