Legislative Requirements for State Accountability – 2013 and Beyond

1. Legislative Requirements for State Accountability – 2013 and Beyond Academic Achievement Distinction Designation Committee (AADDC)April 16, 2012 Texas Education Agency | Office of Assessment and Accountability Division of Performance Reporting

2. Overview • House Bill (HB) 3, passed during the 81st Legislative Session in 2009, made significant changes to parts of Chapter 39, Public School System Accountability, in the Texas Education Code (TEC). • Focus of the state accountability system shifts from meeting satisfactory standards to meeting both satisfactory (Level II) and college-ready (Level III) standards on new State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness (STAAR) assessments. • The information that follows is organized by the base ratings acceptable/unacceptable; then by the recognized/exemplary distinction designation ratings. • Within each of these categories the legislative mandates are listed first, followed by the items where there is TEA flexibility.

3. Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings Legislative Requirements

4. Calendar • Campus and district ratings of acceptable/unacceptable are to be issued by the commissioner on or before August 8th of each year. • Districts and campuses that received an unacceptable rating in the prior year must be notified by June 15 of an unacceptable rating for the current year.

5. Indicators: General • The following indicators must be used in determining accountability ratings: • STAAR grades 3-8 English, • STAAR grades 3-5 Spanish, • STAAR End-of-Course (EOC) assessments*including retests, • Dropout Rates grades 9-12 or district completion rates, and • High School Graduation Rates. • Grade 11 TAKS performance must also be included in the 2013 ratings. * EOC results for students enrolled below grade 9 must be combined with assessment results for other students in the same grade.

6. Indicators: Assessment • The assessment indicators must include evaluation of: • Level II performance, and for students who do not meet the Level II standard, progress toward the Level II standard. • Level III: performance, and for students who do not meet the Level III standard, progress toward the Level III standard. • Level III performance cannot be evaluated for acceptable/unacceptable ratings in 2013. • Progress measures will not be available for use in 2013. • 2013 accountability ratings will be based on Level II performance, and dropout/graduation rates. • Assessment indicators must combine performance across grades for each subject area.

7. Indicators: Leaver • The dropout, completion, and graduation rates refer to the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) dropout definition and No Child Left Behind (NCLB)graduation rate. • However, other provisions in statute require exclusions that are not allowed under the NCES dropout definition and NCLB graduation rate calculation. • Therefore, the leaver indicators used for state accountability will differ from the indicators used for federal accountability and federal reporting.

8. Indicators: Leaver • Statute requires the exclusion of certain groups of students from the district and campus rates used for state accountability: • previous dropouts; • students not in membership for purposes of average daily attendance; • students ordered by courts to attend GED programs, but have not earned GED certificates; • students incarcerated in state jails and federal penitentiaries as adults and certified to stand trial as adults; • students whose initial enrollment in a school in the U.S. in grades 7-12 was as unschooled refugees or asylees; and • students detained in county detention facilities located outside the students' home districts.

9. Student Groups • The indicators must include performance of race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status student groups, as well as all students.

10. Additional Features • Additional features are available to improve the rating outcome. Two are required and one is optional. • Statute specifies that additional features be used for the assessment and dropout/graduation indicators. • Additional features are: • Required Improvement (RI) over the prior year (required), or • Average performance of the last three years (required), or • Performance on 85 percent of the measures meets the standard (optional).

11. Additional Features: RI • For the assessment indicator, Required Improvement (RI) must be applied to the evaluation of both Level II and Level III performance. • RI does not apply to Level II or Level III progress measures. • For the dropout/graduation rate indicator, statute specifies that RI is the progress necessary for the campus or district to meet accountability targets.

12. Additional Features: 3-Year Average Performance • Districts and campuses have the option of meeting the acceptable accountability target (Level II or Level III) using either current-year performance or three-year average performance. • Three-year averaging does not apply to Level II or Level III progress measures. • Three-year average performance also applies to the dropout/graduation indicators.

13. 85 Percent Option • Statute does not require the commissioner to implement a proportional or exceptions provision. • See further discussion of this optional feature under “TEA Flexibility.”

14. Additional Features Summary * If implemented, statute specifies it applies to these indicators.

15. Targets • The commissioner is required to set accountability targets and RI targets. • The commissioner is required to set targets for the current year and the next two years. • Statute requires the commissioner to periodically raise the target for the Level III performance indicator. This requirement does not apply to Level III progress indicator.

16. Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings Texas Education Agency (TEA) Flexibility

17. Overall Framework • The commissioner has the authority to select the overall framework for the system design. A range of options from a system of “separate indicators” to a “performance index” may be selected and still satisfy statutory requirements. • The commissioner has authority to determine the number of rating levels and the labels associated with each rating level. • The commissioner has the authority to determine to what extent the state and federal AYP accountability systems are aligned. State statute neither requires nor prohibits the alignment of these systems.

18. Indicators: General • The commissioner may include additional indicators in the accountability system and set their targets.

19. Indicators: Assessment • The commissioner may include additional assessment results in the indicators, such as results from modified and alternate assessments, STAAR-L, and Texas English Language Proficiency Assessment System (TELPAS) results. • The modified and alternate assessments are required to be evaluated for the Recognized/Exemplary Distinction Designation ratings. • The requirement to combine performance across grade levels does not prohibit the commissioner from developing separate indicators for elementary, middle, and high school grade spans or separate indicators for STAAR grades 3-8 results and high school EOC results.

20. Indicators: Assessment • Though required for students who do not meet the standards, the progress indicator may also be used for students who do meet the Level II standard or the Level III standard. • The use of progress does not require that students who fail the test be counted as passing. • The commissioner has the authority to determine which EOC retest results are included in the assessment indicator. • The commissioner will determine whether other non-STAAR test results* will be used in the assessment indicator. * Advanced placement, international baccalaureate, or SAT subject area test or other test equal in rigor to a STAAR EOC test may be used in place of STAAR EOC results to meet graduation requirements.

21. Indicators: Leaver • The dropout rate requirement does not prohibit the commissioner from using a dropout rate indicator for students below grade 9.

22. Student Groups • The commissioner has the authority to determine which race/ethnicity student groups will be included in the ratings evaluation. • The commissioner has the authority to establish minimum size criteria to determine which student groups will be considered in the ratings evaluation.

23. Additional Features: RI • The commissioner shall determine how to apply RI to the indicators.

24. Additional Features: 3-Year Average Performance • The commissioner shall determine how to apply a three-year average to the indicators. • The statute does not require or prohibit use of two-year average performance to meet the target until three years of data are available.

25. 85 Percent Option • Statute allows the commissioner to implement a proportional or exceptions provision. • With this provision an acceptable rating can be assigned if the district or campus meets accountability targets on 85 percent of the assessments and dropout/graduation indicators on which it is evaluated. • If used, other criteria must be applied as safeguards.

26. 85 Percent Option • The commissioner may consider alternative criteria to • the 85 percent provision for campuses and districts with student groups that are substantially similar to all students. • The commissioner will determine the sequential priority assigned to the three additional features.

27. Targets • Authority to set accountability targets is assigned to the commissioner.

28. Recognized/Exemplary Distinction Designation Ratings Legislative Requirements

29. Calendar • The commissioner is required to assign recognized and exemplary distinction designation ratings to campuses and districts annually. • Higher level distinction designations must be awarded by August 8 each year—the same date as the ratings release. • Only campuses and districts rated as acceptable are eligible for distinctions.

30. Indicators: General • The following assessments must be used in determining recognized / exemplary distinction designation ratings: • STAAR grades 3–8 English, • STAAR grades 3–5 Spanish, • STAAR End-of-Course (EOC) assessments*, • STAAR Modified, and • STAAR Alternate • In addition to the STAAR assessment indicator, recognized/exemplary criteria must include other postsecondary readiness indicators. *Inclusion of EOC retests is not specified.

31. Indicators: Assessment • The assessment indicators must include evaluation of: • Level III performance, and • For students who do not meet the Level III standard, progress toward the Level III standard. • However, Level III performance may not be evaluated for ratings in 2013; therefore, the recognized and exemplary ratings cannot be issued until 2014. • Note that in 2013, Level III performance will be used to award academic achievement distinction designations in English language arts and mathematics. This is the only use of Level III performance in 2013. • Assessment indicators must combine performance across grade levels for each subject area.

32. Recognized/Exemplary Distinction Designation Ratings Texas Education Agency (TEA) Flexibility

33. Overall Framework • The commissioner has the authority to select the overall framework for the distinction designation system design. A range of options from a system of “separate indicators” to a “performance index” can be chosen and still satisfy the statutory requirements outlined above. • The commissioner has the authority to determine the number of distinction rating levels and the labels associated with each rating level. • The commissioner has the option of treating recognized and exemplary ratings as higher ratings or as additional acknowledgments attached to an acceptable rating.

34. Indicators: General • The commissioner has the authority to define the other “non-STAAR” indicators of postsecondary readiness. • The commissioner may require that recommended high school/distinguished achievement program graduation rates are evaluated for the recognized/exemplary distinction ratings.

35. Indicators: Assessment • The commissioner may include additional assessment results in the indicators, such as STAAR-L and TELPAS results. Inclusion of EOC retests is not prohibited. • The requirement to combine performance across grade levels does not prohibit the commissioner from developing separate indicators for elementary, middle, and high school grade spans or separate indicators for STAAR Grade 3-8 results and high school EOC results. • Combining EOC results for students enrolled below grade 9 with assessment results for other students in the same grade is not required but is also not prohibited. • The use of progress does not require that students who do not meet the standard be counted as meeting the standard.

36. Student Groups • The use of student group performance is neither required nor prohibited for the recognized and exemplary distinction designation ratings.

37. Additional Features • The commissioner has the authority to determine whether additional features, such as Required Improvement, are applied to the recognized/exemplary distinction ratings.

38. Targets • The commissioner has the authority to set the targets for these distinction designation ratings. While statute requires that Level III targets for acceptable/unacceptable be raised periodically, these same increases are not mandated for recognized/exemplary targets.