State Accountability Overview

1. State Accountability Overview Kelly Baehren Waller ISD Administrative Workshop July 28, 2015

2. Communicate with others as clearly as you can to avoid misunderstandings. Don Miguel Ruiz

3. 2015 Accountability There is a time to let things happen and a time to make things happen. Hugh Parker

4. Overview of Accountability

5. 2015 Accountability Rating System http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport/account/2015/index.html

6. Performance Index Criteria2015 Rating Labels • Met Standard:Met performance index targets on all indexes for which they have performance data in 2015. • Improvement Required: Did not meet one or more performance index targets.

7. 2015 Ratings Criteria To receive a Met Standard Rating all campuses and districts must meet the following accountability targets for: Index 1 OR Index 2 AND Index 3 AND Index 4

8. 2015 Accountability Snapshot The following snapshot table applies for accountability purposes: 10-25-13 10-31-14

9. 2015 Game Changers

10. Level II Satisfactory Phase-in 1 2015 = Final Year (1.0 SD below Final Standard)

11. Scale Score Cuts for Phase-in Standards

12. Performance Categories

13. Performance Index Framework 2015

14. Performance Index Framework

15. Index 1: Student Achievement Snapshot of performance across subjects, on both general and alternative assessments, at the satisfactory performance standard (Phase-in I Level II for 2015). • Subjects: Combined over Reading/ELA, Mathematics (Algebra I only), Writing, Science and Social Studies. • Student Groups: All Students only

16. Index 1: Student Achievement Performance Standards: Phase-in I Level II (Satisfactory), meets or exceeds the ELL Progress Measure, or meets equivalency standard on Substitute Assessment • STAAR Grades 3-8 English and Spanish (3-5) Spring 2015 (STAAR & STAAR L) • EOC Assessments (best results: highest score) Spring 2015, Fall 2014, and Summer July 2014 (STAAR& STAAR L)

17. Index 1: 2014 vs. 2015

18. Index 1: ELL Inclusion

19. Index 2: Student Progress Measures student progress by subject and provides opportunity to receive credit for improving student performance independent of overall student achievement. • Subjects: Reading, Writing (NEW) and Mathematics (Algebra I only) • Ten Student Groups Evaluated: • All Students • Students served by Special Education • English Language Learners (ELL) – Progress measure is used • Seven Racial/Ethnic Groups: African American, American Indian, Asian, Hispanic, Pacific Islander, White, and Two or More Races

20. Index 2: Student Progress Three Progress Indicators: • Did Not Meet Growth Progress • Met Growth Progress • Exceeded Growth Progress Points for progress in each subject are weighted: • One point credit for each percentage of tests that Met or Exceeded progress • One additional point for each percentage of tests that Exceeded progress

21. Index 2: 2014 vs. 2015

22. Index 2: ELL Inclusion

23. Index 3: Closing Performance Gaps Emphasizes theacademic achievement of economically disadvantaged students and the two lowest performing race/ethnicity students groups. • Subject Area: Reading, Mathematics (Algebra I only), Writing, Science and Social Studies • Student Groups: • Economically Disadvantaged • Lowest Performing Race/Ethnicity: Two lowest performing race/ethnicity student groups on the campus or district (based on 2014 assessment results)

24. Index 3: Closing Performance Gaps Points based on weighted performance: • One point for each percentage of tests meeting the phase-in satisfactory performance standard or above on the STAAR assessment • One additional pointis given for each percentage of tests meeting the advanced performance standard on the STAAR assessment.

25. Index 3: 2014 vs. 2015

26. Index 3: ELL Inclusion

27. Index 4: Postsecondary Readiness Emphasizes the role of elementary and middle schools in preparing students for the rigors of high school, and the importance of earning a high school diploma that provides students with the foundation necessary for success in college, the workforce, job training, or the military.

28. Index 4: 2014 vs. 2015

29. Index 4: ELL Inclusion

30. Index 4: Postsecondary Readiness ***Elementary & middle schools report only on STAAR results***

31. Index 4: Postsecondary Readiness STAAR Postsecondary Readiness Standard: • Percentage of students with STAAR test results at or above the final Level II performance standard on two or more subject area tests. • 8 Student Groups: All & 7 Racial/Ethnic Groups

32. Index 4: Postsecondary Readiness Graduation Rate Score: • Reflects the highest number of points possible from the combined performance across graduation rates for grades 9-12 (4-yr or 5-yr Grad Rate – Class of 2014 or Class of 2013) • 10 Student Groups: All, SPED, ELL & 7 Racial/Ethnic Groups

33. Index 4: Postsecondary Readiness Graduation Plan Score: • Based on an a longitudinal cohort of students graduating under the Recommended High School Program or Distinguished Achievement Program (RHSP/DAP). (Class of 2014) • 8 Student Groups: All & 7 Racial/Ethnic Groups

34. Index 4: Postsecondary Readiness Postsecondary Component: College and Career Readiness • College-ready graduate meeting or exceeding the Texas Success Initiative (TSI) criteria in both reading/English language arts(ELA) and mathematics on the TAKS Exit-level test, SAT, or ACT Test. (Class of 2014) • Completed and earned credit in at least two advanced/dual credit enrollment courses • Enrolled in a CTE-Coherent Sequence of Courses • 8 Student Groups: All and 7 Racial/Ethnic Groups

35. Index 4: Overall Index Score Example

36. System Safeguards 2015

37. System Safeguards • With the performance index framework, poor performance in one subject or one student group does not result in an Improvement Required Rating. • System safeguards are added to ensure that poor performance in one area or one student group is not masked in the performance index. • Texas Accountability Intervention System (TAIS) – District & Campus Leadership Teams & DIP/CIP Documentation

38. NCLB Waiver from USDE Submitted again 

39. State Accountability System Safeguards 2015

40. Federal AccountabilitySystem Safeguards 2015

41. System Safeguard Minimum SizeState vs. Federal

42. System Safeguard Sample

43. Distinction Designations 2015

44. Distinction Designations • Academic Achievement in Reading/ELA (campus only) • Academic Achievement in Mathematics (campus only) • Academic Achievement in Science (campus only) • Academic Achievement in Social Studies(campus only) • Top 25 Percent: Student Progress (campus only) • Top 25 Percent: Closing Performance Gaps(campus only) • Postsecondary Readiness (campus and district)

45. Distinction Designation Labels • Distinction Earned • No Distinction Earned • Not Eligible ***All distinction designations for campuses are based on performance in the top quartile (Q1) of its comparison group***

46. Campus Comparison Groups Grouped with 40 other schools that are similar: campus size, grade levels, % Low SES, mobility rate, and % ELL Q1 = Top 10 “Each campus is assigned to a unique comparison group of Texas schools that are most similar to it” Released June 2015

47. Academic Achievement in Reading/ELA HS = Must be in top quartile for 33% or more of their indicators JH & ELEM = Must be in top quartile for 50% or more of their indicators

48. 2014 Distinction Designation Summary – Reading/ELA Sample

49. Academic Achievement in Mathematics ***Exclusion of 3-8 math HS = Must be in top quartile for 33% or more of their indicators JH & ELEM = Must be in top quartile for 50% or more of their indicators

50. Academic Achievement in Science HS = Must be in top quartile for 33% or more of their indicators JH & ELEM = Must be in top quartile for 50% or more of their indicators