1
Accountability Update
District Testing Coordinator
Advisory Committee Meeting
March 20, 2014
2
What’s New (Well, since last year)
• State Accountability
▫ Changes to Index System
▫ Who Counts and How
▫ System Safeguards and other Targets
• Federal Accountability
▫ Priority and Focus Schools
▫ System Safeguards
▫ Focus School Tool
• Data Validation – Student Assessment
3
Accountability Development Timeline
Advisory
Group
ATAC
APAC
ATAC
Meeting Date
Purpose
The Accountability Technical Advisory Committee (ATAC) addressed
December 5-6, a variety of technical issues related to 2014 accountability.
2013
Preliminary recommendations and meeting materials are posted
online under 2014 Accountability Development.
January 22,
2014
February 11,
2014
Newly designated members of the Accountability Policy Advisory
Committee (APAC) reviewed the 2013 development process for the
performance index framework, indicators, and distinction
designations. Meeting materials are posted online under 2014
Accountability Development.
The ATAC recommended preliminary 2014 ratings criteria and
targets, which are scheduled for review by the APAC in March
2014.
4
Accountability Development Timeline
Advisory
Group
APAC
AADDC
AADDC
COE
Meeting Date
Purpose
APAC will make final recommendations on the accountability
March 6, 2014 ratings criteria for 2014, and performance index targets for 2014,
2015, and 2016, subject to commissioner approval.
The Academic Achievement Distinction Designation Committee
March 7, 2014 (AADDC) for science and social studies will convene to develop
preliminary recommendations on the 2014 criteria for science and
social studies distinction designations.
Mid March
2014
The AADDC will finalize recommendations on the 2014 science and
social studies distinction designation criteria.
End of March
2014
Commissioner will announce accountability ratings and distinction
designation criteria for 2014 and final 2014 targets, preliminary
2015 targets, and preview 2016 targets.
5
Index 1: Student Achievement
Index 1: 2013 vs. 2014 Comparison
2013





Combined over All Subjects: Reading, Mathematics, Writing,
Science, and Social Studies.
Student Groups: All Students.
Performance Standards: Phase-in 1 Level II (Satisfactory).
STAAR End-of-Course (EOC) Assessments (15 total):









English l – Reading; English ll – Reading; English lll – Reading
Combined over All Subjects: Reading, Mathematics,
Writing, Science, and Social Studies.
Student Groups: All Students.
Performance Standards: Phase-in 1 Level II (Satisfactory).
STAAR EOC Assessments (5 total):

English l – Writing; English ll – Writing; English lll – Writing



Algebra l; Geometry; Algebra ll
Biology; Chemistry; Physics
World Geography; World History; US History
English Language Learners (English and Spanish tests):


Proposed 2014
Students in US schools Year 1 - Year 3 excluded
Students in US schools Year 4 and beyond included

English l (combined tests); English ll (combined tests)
beginning in spring 2014
Algebra l
Biology
US History
English Language Learners (English and Spanish tests):



Students in US schools Year 1 excluded
Students in US schools Year 2 and beyond included
ELL Progress Measure included for those tested in
English
Shaded areas are new for 2014
6
Index 2: Student Progress
 Progress Measures by Subject Area and School Type
2013
Elem. School
Middle School
Proposed 2014
High School
READING
Elem. School
Middle School
High School
READING
Gr. 4 Reading
Gr. 6 Reading
English l Reading
Gr. 5 Reading
Gr. 7 Reading
English ll Reading
_
Gr. 8 Reading
_
_
English l Reading
_
Gr. 4 Reading
Gr. 6 Reading
_
Gr. 5 Reading
Gr. 7 Reading
_
Gr. 8 Reading
_
_
_
_
_
MATHEMATICS
MATHEMATICS
Gr. 4 Mathematics
Gr. 5 Mathematics
Gr. 6 Mathematics
Algebra l
Gr. 7 Mathematics
_
_
Gr. 8 Mathematics
_
_
Algebra l
_
WRITING
_
_
English ll Writing
Gr. 4 Mathematics
Gr. 6 Mathematics
Algebra l
Gr. 5 Mathematics
Gr. 7 Mathematics
_
_
Gr. 8 Mathematics
_
_
Algebra l
_
WRITING
_
_
_
7
Index 3: Closing Performance Gaps
7
Index 3: Closing Performance Gaps emphasizes advanced academic achievement of economically
disadvantaged students and the two lowest performing race/ethnicity student groups.
Proposed 2014
2013



Student Groups:


Economically Disadvantaged
Lowest Performing Race/Ethnicity:
The two lowest performing race/ethnicity student
groups on the campus or within the district, based on
2012 assessment results.
Points based on STAAR performance:



Phase-in 1 Level II satisfactory performance:
One point for each percent of tests at the Phase-in 1
Level II satisfactory performance standard.
By Subject Area:
Reading, Mathematics, Writing, Science, and Social
Studies.
Student Groups:



Points based on STAAR performance:



Economically Disadvantaged
Lowest Performing Race/Ethnicity:
Select the two lowest performing student groups if
both the prior year reading and mathematics subject
area test results each have at least 25 tests.
Phase-in 1 Level II satisfactory performance:
One point for each percent of tests at the Phase-in 1
Level II satisfactory performance standard.
Level III advanced performance:
Two points for each percent of tests at the Level III
advanced performance standard.
By Subject Area:
Reading, Mathematics, Writing, Science, and Social
Studies.
Shaded areas are new for 2014
8
Index 4: Postsecondary Readiness
Index 4: 2013 vs. 2014

2013
Graduation Score: Combined performance across the
graduation and dropout rates for:





Grade 9-12 Four-Year Graduation Rate for All Students
and all student groups; or
Grade 9-12 Five-Year Graduation Rate for All Students
and all student groups, whichever contributes the
higher number of points to the index.
RHSP/DAP Annual Graduates: All Students and
race/ethnicity student groups.
2014
Graduation Score: Combined performance across the
graduation and dropout rates for:



Grade 9-12 Four-Year Graduation Rate for All Students
and all student groups; or
Grade 9-12 Five-Year Graduation Rate for All Students
and all student groups, whichever contributes the
higher number of points to the index.
RHSP/DAP Graduates Based on Longitudinal Cohort: All
Students and race/ethnicity student groups.
STAAR
STAAR Score:
Score: STAAR
STAAR Percent
Percent Met
Met Final
Final Level
Level llll on
on one
one or
or
more
tests
for
All
Students
and
race/ethnicity
student
more tests for All Students and race/ethnicity student
groups.
groups.
Additional
Additional Indicators
Indicators Required
Required by
by House
House Bill
Bill 55 (83rd
(83rd Texas
Texas
Legislature,
2013)
Legislature, 2013)
 Texas
Texas Success
Success Initiative
Initiative college
college readiness
readiness benchmarks.
benchmarks.

Number
Number of
of students
students who
who earn
earn postsecondary
postsecondary credit
credit
required
for
a
foundation
high
school
program,
required for a foundation high school program, an
an
associate’s
associate’s degree,
degree, or
or an
an industry
industry certification.
certification.
Shaded areas are new for 2014
9
2013 and 2014 Index Targets
for Non-AEA Campuses and Districts
To receive a Met Standard rating, non-AEA campuses and districts met the
following accountability targets on all indexes for which they had performance
data in 2013.
2014 Index targets will be based on recommendations from accountability
advisory groups and finalized by the commissioner in spring 2014.
Performance Index
Index 1: Student Achievement
Non-AEA Campuses
2013
2014
50
High School
Index 2: Student Progress
2013
2014
TBD
50
TBD
TBD
21
TBD
17
Middle School 29
Elem School
Non-AEA Districts
30
Index 3: Closing Performance Gaps
55
TBD
55
TBD
Index 4: Postsecondary Readiness
75
TBD
75
TBD
10
2013 and 2014 Index Targets
for AEA Campuses and Charters
To receive a Met Alternative Standard rating, AEA campuses and charters met the
following accountability targets on all indexes for which they had performance
data in 2013.
2014 Index targets will be based on recommendations from accountability
advisory groups and finalized by the commissioner in spring 2014.
Performance Index
Index 1: Student Achievement
AEA Campuses
2013
2014
AEA Charter Districts
2013
2014
25
TBD
25
TBD
9
TBD
9
TBD
Index 3: Closing Performance Gaps
30
TBD
30
TBD
Index 4: Postsecondary Readiness
45
TBD
45
TBD
Index 2: Student Progress
11
Distinction Designations
2013 Distinction Designations
2014 Distinction Designations
 Student Progress (based on Index 2)  Student Progress (based on Index 2)
 Closing Performance Gaps (based on Index 3)
 Academic Achievement in:
 Academic Achievement in:
 Reading/English Language Arts
 Reading/English Language Arts
 Mathematics
 Mathematics
 Science
 Social Studies
 Postsecondary Readiness
for campuses and
districts
Shaded areas are new for 2014
Per Texas Education Code (TEC) §39.201, alternative education campuses (AECs)
evaluated under AEA provisions are not eligible for distinction designations.
12
Distinction Designations
Districts and Campuses Postsecondary Readiness: House Bill 5 (83rd Texas
Legislature, 2013) expanded distinction designations to both districts and
campuses for outstanding performance in attainment of postsecondary
readiness.
Criteria must include indicators based on percentages of students who:
 Achieve college-readiness standards on STAAR;
 Earn nationally or internationally recognized business/industry
certification;
 Complete a coherent sequence of CTE courses;
 Complete dual credit courses or a postsecondary course for local credit;
 Achieve college readiness standards on SAT, ACT, PSAT, or ACT-PLAN
examinations; and
 Earn college credit based on AP/IB performance.
13
Indicator
Entity
ELL
Special Ed.
Performance Rates*
State
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
Federal
75%
75%
n/a
n/a
75%
n/a
75%
n/a
75%
75%
75%
State
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
Federal
75%
75%
n/a
n/a
75%
n/a
75%
n/a
75%
75%
75%
Writing
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
Science
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
Social Studies
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
Reading
95%
95%
95%
95%
95%
95%
95%
95%
95%
95%
95%
Mathematics
95%
95%
95%
95%
95%
95%
95%
95%
95%
95%
95%
Reading
Mathematics
Participation Rates
Federal Graduation Rates (including improvement targets)
4-year
78%
78%
78%
78%
78%
78%
78%
78%
78%
78%
78%
5-year
83%
83%
83%
83%
83%
83%
83%
83%
83%
83%
83%
District Limits on Use of Alternative Assessment Results
Reading
Modified
2%
Not Applicable
Alternate
1%
Not Applicable
Modified
2%
Not Applicable
Alternate
1%
Not Applicable
Mathematics
* Targets for 2013 correspond to the performance target for Index 1: Student Achievement.
2013 Accountability System Safeguard Measures and Targets
All
African Amer.
Pacific
Two or More Eco.
Asian Hispanic
White
Students Amer. Indian
Islander
Races
Disadv.
14
Designation Criteria
Lowest performing schools based on
combined “All Student” reading and
math performance
188
schools
Schools with a graduation rate
less than 60%
36
schools
Current Tier I & Tier II TTIPS
73
schools
15
Priority School Interventions
Assign a District
Coordinator of School
Improvement (DCSI)
Engage in the Texas
Accountability
Intervention System
(TAIS) continuous
improvement process
Evaluate current
campus staff
Attend required
trainings
Create a plan which
addresses the ESEA
Turnaround Principles
Title I schools ranked by the widest gaps
between reading/math performance of the
federal student groups (7) and safeguard
targets of 75%.
Focus School Gap Tool
• Calculates Focus School Gap
▫
▫
▫
▫
Region 4 Website
Click on Services
Click on Accountability
Click on Visit our Accountability Portal
CDC #:
District:
State:
#N/A
Title I:
#N/A
#N/A
Campus:
#N/A
State Stage:
Fed. Acct.:
#N/A
#N/A
State Index System #
Index 1
Index 2
Index 3
Index 4
Enrollment
Met Index Standard
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
1. The performance rates for Reading and math are collected for the federally required student groups
(Percentages below the AMO Target of 75% are highlighted).
CDC
Campus Name
0
Subj.
All Stu.
Af.Am.
Hisp.
White Eco.Dis
SWD
ELL
Math
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
Reading
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
2. The number of tests take by each student group is analyzed to determine if the minimum size
requirements were met. Student groups not meeting the minimum size requirements are marked in red
below (25 tests AND 10% of total or 200 tests).
CDC
Campus Name
0
Subj.
All Stu.
Af.Am.
Hisp.
White Eco.Dis
SWD
ELL
Math
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
Reading
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
3. Calculate the gap between the performance rate and the 75% AMO target for each student group. Gaps
are not calculated where the performance meets or exceeds the AMO target or minimum size was not met.
CDC
Campus Name
0
Subj.
All Stu.
Af.Am.
Hisp.
White Eco.Dis
SWD
ELL
Math
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
Reading
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
4. Focus gaps were calculated by totalling the reading and math performance gaps and dividing by the
number of student groups meeting the size requirements (up to 14 groups total).
CDC
Campus Name
0
#N/A
Math
Reading
Total
Number of Groups
Focus Gap
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
0
#N/A
5. Focus Gaps at PROPOSED 2014-15 Standards (79% System Safeguards) if no change from 2013 data.
CDC
Campus Name
0
CDC
CDC
Subj.
All Stu.
Af.Am.
Hisp.
White Eco.Dis
SWD
ELL
Math
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
Reading
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
Math
Reading
Total
Number of Groups
Focus Gap
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
0
#N/A
#N/A
Campus Name
Campus Name
19
Entity
All
African Amer.
Pacific
Two or More Eco.
Asian Hispanic
White
Students Amer. Indian
Islander
Races
Disadv.
ELL
Special Ed.
Performance Rates*
State
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
Federal
79%
79%
n/a
n/a
79%
n/a
79%
n/a
79%
79%
79%
State
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
Federal
79%
79%
n/a
n/a
79%
n/a
79%
n/a
79%
79%
79%
Writing
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
Science
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
Social Studies
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
Reading
95%
95%
95%
95%
95%
95%
95%
95%
95%
95%
95%
Mathematics
95%
95%
95%
95%
95%
95%
95%
95%
95%
95%
95%
Reading
Mathematics
Participation Rates
Federal Graduation Rates (including improvement targets)
4-year
80%
80%
80%
80%
80%
80%
80%
80%
80%
80%
80%
5-year
85%
85%
85%
85%
85%
85%
85%
85%
85%
85%
85%
District Limits on Use of Alternative Assessment Results
Reading
Modified
2%
Not Applicable
Alternate
1%
Not Applicable
Modified
2%
Not Applicable
Alternate
1%
Not Applicable
Mathematics
* Targets for 2014 correspond to the performance target for Index 1: Student Achievement.
2014 Accountability System Safeguard Measures and Targets
Indicator
Data Validation –
Student Assessment
• Staging information not released.
• DVM Manual available on TEA website
▫ http://www.tea.state.tx.us/pbm/DVManuals.aspx
• Posted to ISAM when available
Questions???
ELL Progress Measure Calculation
• Step 1 – Determine eligibility for ELL Progress
Measure
• Step 2 – Determine Plan for Student
• Step 3 – Determine Progress Measure for
student
▫ Did not Meet Standard
▫ Met Standard
▫ Exceeded the Standard
Step 1 – Determine Eligibility
•
•
•
•
Must have valid STAAR Score
Student is classified as LEP
No Parental Denial
Took English-language version of STAAR
▫ Includes STAAR and STAAR-L
▫ No Modified, Alternate, or Spanish
• Student not exceeded the number of years in
plan (determined after Step 2)
Step 2 – Determine Plan
• From SAME Administration
▫ # Years in US Schools
▫ TELPAS Composite Rating
▫ Extenuating Circumstances
 Unschooled asylee/refugee
 Student with interrupted formal education
• Plan determined by chart
Step 3 – Determine ELL Progress
• Use Plan and Appropriate table to detemine
• Compare Scale Score with appropriate score in
table
▫ < Met - Did Not Meet Standard
▫ Met <score<Exceeded - Met Standard
▫ >=Exceeded - Exceeded the standard
Questions???