2013 Accountability
Overview and Update
TETN Session #18318 | August 29, 2013 | 1:00-3:00 p.m.
Texas Education Agency | Office of Assessment and Accountability
Division of Performance Reporting
Shannon Housson, Director
Review and Feedback on 2013 State
Accountability Release
2013 Accountability Ratings and Designations
3
Accountability Rating
(Districts and Campuses)
Distinction Designations
(Campuses Only)
Met Standard
Top 25%: Student Progress
and/or
Academic Achievement: Reading/ELA
and/or
Academic Achievement: Mathematics
Met Alternative Standard
(assigned to charter operators and
alternative education campuses (AECs)
evaluated under alternative
education provisions)
N/A
Improvement Required
N/A
2013 Performance Index Targets
4
2013 Index Targets for Non-AEA Campuses and Districts
To receive a Met Standard rating, non-AEA campuses and districts must meet the following
accountability targets on all indexes for which they have performance data in 2013.
Performance Index
Index 1: Student Achievement
Index 2: Student Progress
Campuses
Districts
50
50
High Schools:
17
Middle Schools:
29
Elementary Schools: 30
21
Index 3: Closing Performance Gaps
55
55
Index 4: Postsecondary Readiness
75
75
2013 Performance Index Targets
5
2013 Index Targets for AEA Campuses and Charters
To receive a Met Alternative Standard rating, alternative education campuses and charter
operators evaluated under AEA provisions must meet the following accountability targets on
all indexes for which they have performance data in 2013.
Performance Index
AEA Campuses
Districts
Index 1: Student Achievement
25
25
Index 2: Student Progress
9
9
Index 3: Closing Performance Gaps
30
30
Index 4: Postsecondary Readiness
45
45
2013 Accountability Report Updates
(posted August 29, 2013)
Accountability Reports with Drill-Down Features
7
The 2013 Accountability
Summary report has been
enhanced with clickable links
that drill-down to more detailed
data for the:
Performance Index Report,
Performance Index Summary,
Distinction Designation,
Campus Demographics, and
System Safeguards

Important Note: The data have
not changed. These reports
contain the same information
that was reported on August 8.
SAMPLE HS (000000000) – SAMPLE DISTRICT
Distinction Designation Summary
8


The 3-page Distinction
Designation Summary report
released on August 8 has been
enhanced with a 4th page that
details Numerators,
Denominators, Scores, Quartile
1 Minimum Scores, and Quartile
Scores for each of the Indicators
used in the calculation of
Distinction Designations.
Blank values for an Indicator
Score occur if the indicator is not
applicable to that campus or
does not meet minimum size of
10 students. Blank values for a
Quartile occur if there are less
than 20 campuses in the campus
comparison group for each
qualifying indicator.
SAMPLE HS (000000000) – SAMPLE DISTRICT
Campus Type – High School
System Safeguards
9

This 1-page System Safeguards
report released on August 8
has been enhanced with a 2nd
and 3rd page that details
Numerators, Denominators,
and Rates for each of the
subjects and student groups
used in the calculation of
Performance Rates,
Participation Rates,
Graduation Rates, and Federal
Limits on Alternative
Assessments.
SAMPLE HS (000000000) – SAMPLE DISTRICT
2013 Statewide Results
2013 Statewide Results
11
Districts (Including Charter Operators)


Of the 1,228 districts in the state, 1,136 (92.5%) achieved a Met
Standard or Met Alternative Standard rating.
A total of 80 (6.5%) districts were rated Improvement Required and 12
(1%) were labeled as Not Rated.
2013 Statewide Results
12
Campuses

Of the 8,555 campuses in the state, 7,206 (84.2%) achieved a Met
Standard or Met Alternative Standard rating.

778 (9.1%) were labeled Improvement Required.

571 (6.7%) were labeled as Not Rated.
2013 Statewide Results
13
Alternative Education Accountability (AEA) Campuses



Of the 396 campuses registered to be evaluated under AEA provisions,
220 (55.6%) achieved a Met Alternative Standard rating.
36 (9.1%) were labeled as Improvement Required.
140 (35.4%) were labeled as Not Rated, which comprise 53 AECs of
Choice and 87 Residential Facilities.
2013 Statewide Results
14
Distinction Designations



Only campuses that received a Met Standard rating are eligible for
Distinction Designations in 2013. Districts, charter operators, and
AEA campuses are not eligible to receive Distinction Designations.
Of the 8,555 campuses, 1,991 (23.3%) campuses received a distinction
for achieving the Top 25% in Student Progress.
2,323 (27.2%) received a distinction for reading/ELA and 1,906 (22.3%)
received a distinction for mathematics.

In total, 3,599 (42.1%) received one or more Distinction Designations.

759 (8.9%) received Distinction Designations in all three categories.
2013 Statewide Results
15
System Safeguards




Of the 55 performance indicators (five subject areas x 11 student groups)
evaluated in the system safeguards, 52 (94.5%) indicators achieved the
performance target of 50%.
All 22 of the participation indicators (two subject areas x 11 student
groups) achieved the participation target of 95%.
Of the 11 student groups, 9 (81.8%) achieved the graduation rate of
78% for the four-year rate, achieved 83% for the five-year rate, or
demonstrated sufficient improvement to achieve the goal of 90%.
The state did not exceed the federal limit of 1% on STAAR Alternate
or the 2% limit on STAAR Modified results.
Notice of Performance Requirements
Notice of Performance Requirements
17


Sections 39.361 and 39.362 of the Texas Education Code require districts
to do the following:

Requires districts to state whether the campus has been awarded a distinction
designation or is currently rated Improvement Required, and an explanation of the
significance of the information.

Requires districts by the 10th day of the new school year to have posted on the
district web site the current accreditation status and accountability ratings,
Performance Reports (formerly referred to as the AEIS reports), and School Report
Cards (SRC) as well as an explanation of the information.
An updated FAQ is available at the following link to help districts meet
these requirements:
http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport/3297_faq.html
2013 Appeals Process
Appeals Timeline
19
August 8 through
September 9, 2013
Districts must register their district and campus using the TEASE
Accountability website then submit the appeal with supporting
documentation via the mail.
Appeals not signed by the district superintendent will be denied. See
“How to Appeal” later in Chapter 8 of the 2013 Accountability Manual at
http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport/account/2013/manual/index.html
Appeals must be postmarked or hand delivered no later than 5:00 p.m.
September 9, 2013, in order to be considered.
September 9, 2013
Appeals postmarked or hand delivered past this time and date will
be denied.
Early November 2013
The commissioner’s decisions will be mailed in the form of response letters
to each appellant. Letters will be posted to the TEASE site.
Early November 2013
The outcome of all appeals will be reflected in the ratings update
scheduled for November 2013. At that time, the TEASE and public
websites will be updated.
Appeals Process
20



Districts may appeal for any reason. However, since the new state
accountability system relies on performance index calculations, the
state accountability appeal process will be limited to rare cases where
a data or calculation error is attributable to the testing contractor or TEA.
The compensatory nature of the index framework and other features
of the indexes, such as the use of multiple indicators to derive an overall
index score, minimize the possibility that district errors in coding student
demographic information in PEIMS or the STAAR assessment program
negatively impact the overall accountability rating.
Also, the use of online applications provided by the agency and
testing contractor ensures that districts are aware of data correction
opportunities. District responsibility for data quality is the cornerstone
of a fair and uniform rating determination.
Appeals Process
21
Special Circumstances




District requested that writing results be rescored. Include a copy of the dated
request to the test contractor and the outcome with the appeal. If the rescored
results impact the rating, the copies are necessary since rescored results may
not have been processed in time to be included in the assessment data that
determined the accountability ratings by August 8th.
Other serious problems found. Copies of correspondence with the test contractor
or the regional ESC should be provided with the appeal.
Errors based on STAAR or TELPAS online test submission. Errors must include
documentation of the administration of the assessment.
Campus shut down during a test administration. The issuance of a Not Rated
label is possible. In these cases, any affected results that may have been scored
are not evaluated. Also, no reliable rating can be issued based on available data.
Appeals Process
22
Not Rated: Other

Districts rated Not Rated: Other are responsible for appealing this rating by
the scheduled appeal deadline if the basis for this rating was a result of special
circumstance or error by the testing contractor that affected data used to
determine accountability ratings. If the agency determines that the Not Rated:
Other rating was assigned due to a unique circumstance, the agency will assign
an updated rating.
Distinction Designations

Academic Achievement Distinction Designations (AADD) cannot be appealed.
AADD indicators are reported for most campuses regardless of eligibility for a
designation outcome. Since campuses rated Improvement Required are not
eligible for an AADD outcome, campuses that appeal an Improvement Required
rating will automatically receive any Distinction Designation earned if their appeal
is granted and their rating is raised to Met Standard.
Appeals Process
23
Relationship to the Accountability System Safeguards and PBMAS



The Accountability System Safeguard measures, PerformanceBased Monitoring Analysis System (PBMAS) indicators, and
Program Monitoring and Interventions Division intervention
staging requirements will be considered when making decisions
on appeals.
School district data submitted through PEIMS or to the state
assessment contractor are also considered.
Please note that certain appeal requests may lead to Program
Monitoring and Interventions activities to address potential
concerns related to data integrity.
2012-13 Annual Performance Report
Performance Report and School Report Card
25




The Annual Performance Report, formerly known as the Academic
Excellence Indicator System (AEIS) report, will be released on the TEA
Secure Environment (TEASE) and TEA’s public website in November 2013.
The School Report Card (SRC) will report a subset of data that are
reported on the Performance Report.
The SRC and all its reporting requirements will be released on the web in
early December.
More information on the Annual Performance Report and School Report
Card will be disseminated during the November 14, 2013 TETN (#18319).
2014 Accountability Development
Accountability Advisory Committees
27



Accountability advisory groups will convene in fall 2013 to finalize
recommendations for accountability ratings criteria and labels for
2014 and beyond and performance index targets for 2014—2016.
Early December 2013 – Accountability advisory groups convene to develop
recommendations to commissioner for accountability ratings criteria and
labels for 2014 and beyond and performance index targets
for 2014, 2015, and 2016 accountability ratings.
Spring 2014 – commissioner announces accountability ratings
criteria for 2014 and beyond and final 2014 targets, preliminary 2015
targets, and preview 2016 targets.
Ratings Criteria & Targets for 2014 and Beyond
28
Index 3: Closing Performance Gaps
The percent of students at the specified student performance level
on the assessment is multiplied by the weight for that performance level.
The STAAR weighted performance rate calculation was modified for 2013
because STAAR Level III performance could not be included until 2014.
Phase-in 1 Level II (2013 and beyond) – one point for each percent of
students at the phase-in 1 Level II performance standard.
Level III Advanced (2014 and beyond) – two points for each percent of
students at the final Level III performance standard.
Ratings Criteria & Targets for 2014 and Beyond
29
Index 4: Postsecondary Readiness
STAAR Level II Performance for Index 4
In 2014 and beyond, credit will be given for final Level II performance on
the same assessments used in Index 1 at final Level III performance
standard.
Subjects Areas Evaluated for STAAR Performance in Index 4
All subject areas (reading, mathematics, writing, science, and social
studies) are combined. Subject areas are not evaluated separately.
Student Groups Evaluated for STAAR Performance in Index 4
Eight student groups are evaluated. All Students and the Seven
Racial/Ethnic groups: African American, American Indian, Asian, Hispanic,
Pacific Islander, White, and Two or More Races
Ratings Criteria & Targets for 2014 and Beyond
30
Index 4: Postsecondary Readiness for AEA Campuses and Charters
Some AEA campuses and charters serve a unique student population
that warrants alternative criteria and index targets in regards to Index 4.
Modifications to Index 4 will be reviewed with the accountability advisory
groups in fall 2013 to ensure all of the requirements of Senate Bill (SB) 1538
are met.
Graduation and General Educational Development (GED) Score will contribute
75 percent of the points to Index 4 and STAAR Score (Percent Met final Level II on
One or More Tests) will contribute 25 percent of the points.
Distinction Designations for 2014 and Beyond
31


Campus Top Twenty-Five Percent Distinction Designations
Will be based on performance on Index 2 and Index 3 in relation to campuses
in the comparison group.

2013 and Beyond: Top 25% Student Progress. Based on performance on
Index 2: Student Progress. Campuses in the top quartile of their campus
comparison group in performance on Index 2 earn this distinction
designation.

2014 and Beyond: Top 25% Closing Achievement Gaps. Based on
performance on Index 3: Closing Performance Gaps. Campuses in the top
quartile of their campus comparison group in performance on Index 3 earn
this distinction designation.
Academic Achievement Distinction Designations in Science and Social Studies
Campuses will be eligible for distinction designations in science and social
studies in 2014. Indicators will be determined based on input from advisory
groups that will be convened in fall 2013 and spring 2014.
Distinction Designations for 2014 and Beyond
32
New Academic Achievement Distinction Designations (AADD) Indicators in
Reading/ELA and Mathematics
Grade 10 (PSAT and PLAN) and Grade 11 (PSAT) Participation.
A student in grade 10 or 11 can take these measurements of college readiness. The
PSAT consists of three sections that assess a number of academic skill sets: critical
reading, mathematics, and writing. PLAN includes four multiple-choice tests:
English, math, reading, and science.
PSAT Grade 10 and Grade 11 Performance Indicators: ELA and Mathematics.
These measures of college readiness are typically taken by students in grades 10
and 11. Consists of three sections that assess a number of academic skill sets:
critical reading, mathematics, and writing.
PLAN Grade 10 Performance Indicators: English and Mathematics.
This is a measurement of college readiness typically taken by students in grades 10
and 11. A PLAN Performance indicator will be evaluated for both English and
mathematics.
Legislative Changes
33
During the 83rd legislative session, the following bills will affect the 2014
accountability system and beyond. These legislative changes will be reviewed
by accountability advisory groups in fall 2013 to develop recommendations to the
commissioner for implementation. See Chapter 13 of the 2013 Accountability Manual
for details.
http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport/account/2013/manual/index.html
HB 5
Relating to public school accountability, assessment, and curriculum
requirements.
HB 866
Relating to the administration to public school students in certain grades of
state-administered assessment instruments.
SB 306
Relating to consideration of a student receiving treatment in a residential
treatment facility for public school accountability purposes.
SB 377
Relating to considering the performance of certain students on state
assessment instruments in evaluating school district and campus performance.
SB 1538
Relating to evaluating the performance, including computing dropout and
completion rates, of public schools, including schools designated as dropout
recovery schools and residential facilities.
House Bill (HB) 5 Changes
34
House Bill 5 Accountability Provisions


Expands the postsecondary readiness indicators evaluated for state
accountability to include Texas Success Initiative (TSI) college readiness
benchmarks and the number of students who earn postsecondary credit
required for the foundation high school program, an associate’s degree, or
an industry certification.
Beginning in the 2016-17 school year, requires TEA to assign ratings of
A, B, C, D, or F to districts, and ratings of exemplary, recognized,
acceptable, or unacceptable to campuses.
House Bill (HB) 5 Changes
35
House Bill 5 - Community and Student Engagement



Beginning with the 2013-14 school year, districts will be required
to evaluate community and student engagement compliance for the
district and each of their campuses and assign a rating. The ratings are
required to be reported to TEA by August 8, 2014.
The statute requires that districts assign a performance rating of
exemplary, recognized, acceptable, or unacceptable based on locallydetermined criteria. These performance ratings must be based on criteria
developed by a local committee. Statute does not permit the Agency to
determine the criteria that can be used for these evaluations.
TEA is required to develop a data collection system that
allows districts to submit their locally-determined performance ratings
in nine possible categories for each campus in the district. TEA is also
required to report these ratings publicly by October 1, 2014.
Other Legislative Changes
36
Senate Bill 1538
TEC §39.0545 is added to require the evaluation of dropout recovery
schools that are defined as:
o serves students in grades 9-12;
o has enrollment of which at least 50 percent of the students
are 17
years of age or older as of September 1 of the school
year; and
o meets the eligibility requirements for and is registered under
alternative education accountability procedures adopted by the
commissioner.
Further modifications to the applicable indexes will be reviewed with
the accountability advisory groups in fall 2013 to ensure all of the
requirements of Senate Bill 1538 are met.
Calendar
37
September 9, 2013
Appeals must be postmarked and delivered by 5:00 p.m. CST
November 14, 2013
TETN update on state and federal accountability
November 2013
2012-13 Annual Performance Reports released
List of schools with Campus Improvement Plans (CIP) requirements released
December 2013
Public Education Grant (PEG) list posted on public website
2012-13 School Report Cards posted on public website
January 2014
NCLB Report Cards posted on public website
Resources
38




2013 Accountability Manual
http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport/account/2013/index.html
Frequently Asked Questions
http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport/account/2013/faq.html
STAAR Progress Measure Documents
http://www.tea.state.tx.us/student.assessment/staar/
Performance Reporting Home Page
http://www.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport