State and Federal
Accountability Overview
April 23, 2013
Texas Education Agency | Office of Assessment and Accountability
Division of Performance Reporting
Accountability System Design
Accountability Goals
3






Improving student achievement at all levels in the core subjects of the
state curriculum.*
Ensuring the progress of all students toward achieving Advanced
Academic Performance.*
Closing Advanced Academic Performance level gaps among groups.*
Closing gaps among groups in the percentage of students graduating under
the recommended high school program and advanced high school program.*
Rewarding excellence based on other indicators in addition to state
assessment results.
The committees adopted a set of Guiding Principles that will be used to
inform the accountability development process.
* These goals are specified in Chapter 39.053(f) of the Texas Education Code.
Accountability Framework
4
Primary Factors Considered for Selecting Performance Index Framework
Accountability System Goals and Guiding Principles
APAC/ATAC March 2012 Meeting outcome
Statutory Requirements of House Bill 3 (2009)
 Focus on
Postsecondary Readiness
 Inclusion of Student Progress
 Emphasis on Closing Achievement Gaps
New STAAR program with EOC-based assessments for middle schools
and high schools
Lessons learned from previous Texas public school accountability rating
systems (1994–2002 and 2004–2011)
Successful models used by other states (CA, CO, FL, GA, KY, OH, NC, and SC)
Performance Index Framework
5
What is a Performance Index?





Each measure contributes points to an index score.
Districts and campuses are required to meet one accountability target—
the total index score.
With a Performance Index, the resulting rating reflects overall performance
for the campus or district rather than the weakest performance of one
student group/subject area.
Multiple indexes can be used in the framework to ensure accountability for
every student.
Any number of indicators and student groups can be added to the system
without creating additional targets for campuses and districts to meet.
Performance Index Framework
6
For 2013 and beyond, a framework of four Performance Indexes will include
a broad set of measures that provide a comprehensive evaluation of the
entire campus or district.
Student
Student
Achievement
Achievement
Index II
Index
Postsecondary
Postsecondary
Readiness
Readiness
Index44
Index
Accountability
System
Closing
Closing
Performance
Performance
Gaps
Gaps
Index
Index 33
Student
Student Progress
Progress
Index
Index 2
2
Performance Index Criteria
7
Commissioner of Education Final Decisions on Accountability
Ratings Criteria and Targets for 2013





2013 Rating Labels:
Met Standard – met performance index targets
Met Alternative Standard – met modified performance index targets for
alternative education campuses and districts
Improvement Required – did not meet one or more performance index targets.
2013 Transition Year: The 2013 ratings criteria and targets will stand alone
because the performance index framework cannot be fully implemented in
2013.
Performance Index Criteria
8
Commissioner of Education Final Decisions on Accountability
Ratings Criteria and Targets for 2013

To receive a Met Standard rating, all campuses and districts must meet the
following accountability targets on all indexes for which they have
performance data in 2013.
Performance Index Targets
Index 1: Student Achievement
Index 2: Student Progress
Non-AEA
Campuses and AEA Campuses
Districts
and Districts
50
25
5th percentile* 5th percentile*
Index 3: Closing Performance Gaps
55
30
Index 4: Postsecondary Readiness
75
45
* Target will be set at about the fifth percentile of campus performance and will be applied to both campuses and districts.
Overview of Performance Index Framework
(Sample Campus)
9
Index 1: Student Achievement
10
Index 1 Student Achievement provides an overview of student performance
based on satisfactory student achievement across all subjects for all
students.

Subjects: Combined over Reading, Mathematics, Writing, Science, and
Social Studies.
 Student Groups: All Students only
 Performance Standards: Phase-in Level II (Satisfactory)
Index 1: Student Achievement
11
Index 1 Construction
Since Index 1 has only one indicator, the Total Index Points and Index Score are
the same: Index Score = Total Index Points. Total Index Points is the percentage
of assessments that met the Phase-in Level II Standard.
Each percent of students meeting the Phase-in Level II performance standard
contributes one point to the index. Index scores range from 0 to 100 for all
campuses and districts.
Example
Reading
Students Met
Phase-in
Level II
50
Students
Tested
100
Index Score
Mathematics
+
38
Writing
+
19
Social
Studies
Science
+
10
+
19
Total
=
% Met Level
II
136
45%
+
100
+
42
+
40
+
23
=
45
305
45
Index 2: Student Progress
12
Index 2: Student Progress focuses on actual student growth independent
of overall achievement levels for each race/ethnicity student group,
students with disabilities, and English language learners.
By Subject Area: Reading, Mathematics, and Writing for available grades.
Credit based on weighted performance:

One point credit given for each percentage of students at the Met
growth expectations level.

Two point credit given for each percentage of students at the
Exceeded growth expectations level.
Index 2: Student Progress
13
Index 2 Construction – Table 1
All
African
Amer.
100
50
40
30
20
10
0
10
60
20
10
15
20
20
30
5
80%
80%
100%
67%
Exceeded Expectation
20%
40%
75%
17%
Reading Weighted Growth
Rate
100
120
175
84
Indicator
Example Calculation for
Reading
Number of Tests
Did Not Meet Expectation
Number
Met Expectation
Number
Percent
Exceeded Expectation
Number
Percent
Percent of Tests:
Met or Exceeded
Expectation
Amer.
Indian
Asian Hispanic
Pacific
White
Islander
Two or
More
ELL
Special
Ed.
Total
Points
Max.
Points
479
800
Index 2: Student Progress
14
Index 2 Construction – Table 2
Indicator
All
African
Amer.
Amer.
Indian
STAAR Reading
Weighted Growth Rate
100
120
175
STAAR Mathematics
Weighted Growth Rate
85
98
150
STAAR Writing
Weighted Growth Rate
140
170
Total
Index Score (total points divided by maximum points)
Asian Hispanic
Pacific
White
Islander
Two or
More
Total
Points
Max.
Points
84
479
800
160
493
800
310
400
1282
2000
ELL
Special
Ed.
64
Index 3: Closing Performance Gaps
15
Index 3: Closing Performance Gaps emphasizes advanced academic
achievement of economically disadvantaged students and the two lowest
performing race/ethnicity student groups.


Credit based on weighted performance:

Phase-in Level II satisfactory performance (2013 and beyond)
One point for each percent of students at the phase-in Level II
satisfactory performance standard.

Level III advanced performance (2014 and beyond)
Two points for each percent of students at the Level III advanced
performance standard.
The STAAR weighted performance rate calculation must be modified for
2013 because STAAR Level III advanced performance cannot be included in
the indicator until 2014.
Index 3: Closing Performance Gaps
16


By Subject Area: Reading, Mathematics, Writing, Science, and Social Studies.
Student Groups

Socioeconomic: Economically Disadvantaged

Lowest Performing Race/Ethnicity: The two lowest performing race/
ethnicity student groups on the campus or district (based on
prior-year assessment results).
Index 3: Closing Performance Gaps
17
Index 3 Construction
STAAR Reading Weighted
Performance Rate
Example Calculation for
Reading
Number of Tests
Performance Results:
Phase-in Level II
Satisfactory and above
Number
Percent
Level III Advanced
Number
Percent
Reading Weighted
Performance Rate
Economically
Disadvantaged
Lowest Performing
Lowest Performing
Race/Ethnic Group - 1 Race/Ethnic Group - 2
80
40
25
80
100%
20
50%
25
100%
40
50%
0
0%
150
50
Total
Points
Maximum
Points
400
600
25
100%
200
17
Index 3: Closing Performance Gaps
18
Index 3 Construction
STAAR Weighted
Performance Rate
Economically
Disadvantaged
Lowest Performing
Lowest Performing
Total Points
Race/Ethnic Group - 1 Race/Ethnic Group - 2
Maximum
Points
Reading Weighted
Performance Rate
150
50
200
400
600
Mathematics Weighted
Performance Rate
125
100
90
315
600
Writing Weighted
Performance Rate
80
90
125
295
600
Science Weighted
Performance Rate
120
40
90
250
600
Social Studies Weighted
Performance Rate
50
40
80
170
600
1430
3000
Total
Index Score (total points divided by maximum points)
48
Index 4: Postsecondary Readiness
19
Index 4: Postsecondary Readiness emphasizes the importance for students to
receive a high school diploma that provides them with the foundation necessary
for success in college, the workforce, job training programs, or the military; and the
role of elementary and middle schools in preparing students for high school.
STAAR Percent Met Final Level II on One or More Tests
2014 and beyond (college-readiness performance standards are not included in
accountability in 2013)
Combined over All Subjects: Reading, Writing, Mathematics, Science,
and Social Studies
Index 4: Postsecondary Readiness
20
Index 4 Construction
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 for All Students and race/ethnicity student groups
STAAR Score:
STAAR Percent Met Final Level II on One or More Tests for All Students and
race/ethnicity student groups (2014 and beyond)
For high schools that do not have a graduation rate, the annual dropout rate and STAAR
Final Level II performance contribute points to the index. For elementary and middle
schools, only STAAR Final Level II performance contributes points to the index.
Index 4: Postsecondary Readiness
21
Index 4 Construction
All
African
Amer.
4-year graduation
rate
84.3%
78.8%
5-year graduation
rate
85.1%
RHSP/DAP
82.7%
Indicator
Amer.
Indian
Pacific
White
Islander
Two or
More
ELL
Special
Ed.
Total
Points
Max.
Points
78.8%
91.6%
86.0%
44.2%
69.8%
533.5
700
78.8%
80.0%
92.1%
84.0%
48.9%
77.5%
546.4
700
76.4%
83.6%
83.0%
325.7
400
872.1
1100
Asian
Hispanic
Graduation Total
Graduation Score (graduation total points divided by maximum points)
2014 and beyond:
STAAR % Met
Final Level II on
one or more tests
29%
16%
40%
23%
79
38%
36%
182
600
STAAR Score (STAAR total points divided by maximum points)
30
Index Score (average of Graduation Score and STAAR Score: 79 + 30 / 2 = 55)
55
Summary of AEA Calculation
22






Eligibility Criteria
Ten former eligibility criteria
AEC of choice must primarily serve secondary students in Grades 6-12
Residential facilities not evaluated in 2013
Modified Indicator Definitions and Index Construction
Index 4: Postsecondary Readiness
o Graduation Rate
– Credit for GED recipients
– Four-year, five-year, and six-year rates
o Bonus Points for RHSP/DAP graduates
o Bonus Points for Recovered Dropouts who Graduate or Earn GED
o Bonus Points for Continuing Students who Graduate or Earn GED
o Graduation and GED Rates = 75%, Final STAAR Level II Rates = 25%

Modified Ratings Targets
System Safeguards
23
Apply Safeguards to Specific Performance Indexes:


Ensure reporting system disaggregates performance by student group,
performance level, subject area, and grade;
Performance rates are calculated from the assessment results used to
calculate performance rates in the performance index (Index 1).

Target for the disaggregated results meet federal requirements:

STAAR performance target corresponds to Index 1,

STAAR participation target as required by federal accountability,

Federal graduation rate targets and improvement calculations,

Federal limit on use of alternate assessments.
System Safeguards
24
Accountability System Safeguard Measures and Targets
Indicator
Performance Rates
Reading
Mathematics
Writing
Science
Social Studies
Participation Rates
Reading
Mathematics
All
African Amer.
Amer. Indian
Asian Hispanic
Pacific
White
Islander
Two or
Eco.
More Disadv.
ELL
Special
Ed.
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
95%
95%
95%
95%
95%
95%
95%
95%
95%
95%
95%
95%
95%
95%
95%
95%
95%
95%
95%
95%
95%
95%
Federal Graduation Rates (including improvement targets)
4-year
78%
78%
78%
78%
5-year
83%
83%
83%
83%
78%
83%
78%
83%
78%
83%
78%
83%
78%
83%
78%
83%
78%
83%
District Limits on Use of Alternative Assessment Results
Reading
Modified
Alternate
Mathematics
Modified
Alternate
2%
1%
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
2%
1%
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
System Safeguards
25




Results will be reported for any cell that meets accountability minimum size
criteria.
Failure to meet the safeguard target for any reported cell must be addressed
in the campus or district improvement plan.
Performance on the safeguard indicators will be incorporated into the Texas
Accountability Intervention System (TAIS).
Detailed information is available in the Technical Description document at
http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport/account/2013/materials.html
System Safeguards
26
Sample District Performance Report
All
African
Amer.
Amer.
Indian
Asian
% at Phase-In
Level II or Above
50%
100%
*
% at Level III
(Advanced)
25%
100%
25
STAAR Reading
Hispanic
Pacific
Islander
White
Two or
More
Econ.
Disadv.
ELL
Special
Ed.
67%
50%
*
59%
58%
100%
36%
50%
*
33%
0%
*
32%
33%
50%
4%
32%
0
0
2
20
0
6
3
40
9
4
25
25
0
2
0
0
7
4
40
1
7
100
25
0
6
40
0
22
12
80
28
22
Percent of Tests
Number of Tests
# at Phase-in
Level II or Above
# at Level III
(Advanced)
Total Tests
System Safeguards (Sample District Outcome)
27
Accountability System Safeguards
Performance Indicators that meet Minimum Size Criteria
All
African
Amer.
Amer.
Indian
Asian
Hispanic
Pacific
Islander
White
Two or
More
Eco.
Disadv.
ELL
Special
Ed.
Indicators
Missed
Reading
50%
100%
n/a
n/a
50%
n/a
n/a
n/a
100%
36%
n/a
1 of 5
Mathematics
50%
50%
n/a
n/a
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
50%
50%
n/a
0 of 5
Writing
50%
n/a
n/a
n/a
50%
n/a
n/a
n/a
48%
n/a
n/a
1 of 3
Science
50%
100%
n/a
n/a
50%
n/a
n/a
n/a
50%
50%
n/a
0 of 5
Social Studies
50%
50%
n/a
n/a
50%
n/a
n/a
n/a
100%
50%
n/a
0 of 5
Indicator
Performance Rates*
* Targets for 2013 correspond to the performance rates and target for Index 1: Student Achievement.
System Safeguards (Sample District Outcome)
28
Accountability System Safeguards
Performance Indicators that meet Minimum Size Criteria (continued)
All
African
Amer.
Amer.
Indian
Asian
Hispanic
Pacific
Islander
White
Two or
More
Eco.
Disadv.
ELL
Special
Ed.
Indicators
Missed
Reading
95%
100%
n/a
n/a
95%
n/a
95%
n/a
100%
95%
95%
0 of 7
Mathematics
95%
100%
n/a
n/a
100%
n/a
95%
n/a
90%
95%
100%
1 of 7
85%
85%
n/a
n/a
78%
n/a
n/a
n/a
70%
78%
n/a
1 of 5
Indicator
Participation Rates
Federal Graduation Rates
4-year or 5-year
District Limits on Use of Alternative Assessment Results
Reading
1% /2%
or Both
0 of 1
Mathematics
Exceed
2%
1 of 1
Total System Safeguard Indicators Missed
5 of 44
Federal Accountability for 2013
29



Texas Education Agency submitted a waiver request to the United States
Department of Education (USDE) on February 28, 2013.
The waiver included a request to use the new state accountability
system (performance indexes and system safeguards) to evaluate campuses
and districts in place of federal Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) evaluations.
The proposed 2013 Texas Accountability Workbook was submitted with the
waiver request (Attachment 8) and may be accessed at
http://www.tea.state.tx.us/index2.aspx?id=25769803880.
Top 25% Student Progress Distinction
Top 25% Student Progress Distinction
31
Top 25% Student Progress Distinction
Campuses in the top 25% (top quartile) of their campus comparison group
on Index 2: Student Progress score are eligible for a distinction designation for
student progress.
Campuses only [statutory requirement]
Eligibility criteria – Met Standard rating [statutory requirement]
Campuses in the top 25% (top quartile) in student progress [statutory requirement]
Campus comparison groups from Academic Achievement Distinction Designations
Campuses evaluated under alternative education procedures are not eligible for distinction
designations, per TEC §39.201.
Academic Achievement Distinction Designations
Academic Achievement Distinction Designations
33
Distinction Designation Indicators
Twenty-two indicators will be used to determine outstanding academic
achievement and will vary by type of campus and by subject.
Indicators evaluated include performance at the STAAR Level III (Advanced)
standard for selected grades and subject areas in elementary and middle schools,
and indicators including SAT/ACT and AP/IB participation and performance for high
schools.
For details, refer to Final Decisions on Academic Achievement Distinction
Designations at http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport/account/2013/index.html.
Academic Achievement Distinction Designations
34
Distinction Designation Framework Steps

The framework for distinction designations uses four steps to determine a
campus distinction.

Step 1: Campus Comparison Group and Profile
A campus comparison group of 40 campuses is selected for each campus.
Campus performance on each distinction indicator, by subject, is reported.

Step 2: Top 25%
For each indicator, compare the performance of the target campus to the
performance of the campuses in the comparison group.
For example, Campus A is in the top 25% of campuses among
a 40 campus comparison group on a particular distinction indicator.
Academic Achievement Distinction Designations
35
Distinction Designation Framework Steps (continued)

Step 3: Campus Outcome by Subject
Generate a single outcome by subject for each campus based on the
percent of measures in the top quartile. For example, Campus A achieved
the top 25% in three of the six (50%) mathematics distinction indicators
that were evaluated for the campus.

Step 4: Apply State Target
The statewide evaluation of campus outcomes identify the top campus
distinction designations by subject. For example, campuses that
outperformed their peers on 50% or more of the mathematics distinction
indicators evaluated are qualified to receive an academic distinction in
mathematics.
Academic Achievement Distinction Designations
36
Recommended Targets




Campuses in the top 25% (top quartile) of their campus comparison group
in Step 2 are eligible for a distinction designation for that subject area.
Statewide Targets are designated by type of campus:
Elementary and middle school campuses in the top quartile on at least 50% of
their eligible measures are qualified to receive a distinction designation for
that subject area.
High schools and K-12 Campuses in the top quartile on at least 33% of their
eligible measures are qualified to receive a distinction designation for that
subject area.
2013 Accountability Development Website
37
Other postings to the 2013 development website include:

Detailed technical description of the indicators and construction of the four
performance indexes in the 2013 accountability system.
http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport/account/2013/index.html

Meeting outcome summaries for the APAC, ATAC, and AADDC meetings.
http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport/account/2013/materials.html
Resources
38






2013 Development Site
http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport/account/2013/index.html
Frequently Asked Questions About Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)
http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/ayp/faq/faq.html
Performance Reporting Home Page
http://www.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Home Page
http://www.tea.state.tx.us/ayp
Performance Reporting Email
performance.reporting@tea.state.tx.us
Division of Performance Reporting Telephone
(512) 463-9704