Overview of Performance
Indexes Used for State
Accountability
APAC Meeting | January 22, 2014
Texas Education Agency | Office of Assessment and Accountability
Division of Performance Reporting
Accountability System Design
Accountability Goals
3
Texas will be among the top 10 states in postsecondary readiness by 2020, by:




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.*
Rewarding excellence based on other indicators in addition to state
assessment results.
* These goals are specified in Chapter 39.053(f) of the Texas Education Code.
Accountability Framework
4
Factors Considered in Selecting the Performance Index Framework:
Accountability System Goals and Guiding Principles
Statutory Requirements of House Bill 3 (2009):
 Focus on
Postsecondary Readiness
 Inclusion of Student Progress
 Emphasis on Closing Achievement Gaps
STAAR program with EOC-based tests for middle schools and high schools
Lessons learned from previous Texas public schools’ 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 of student performance contributes points to an index score.
Districts and campuses are required to meet one accountability target for each
index— the total index score.
A Performance Index provides a rating that reflects the overall performance of
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, an accountability framework of four Performance
Indexes includes a broad set of measures that provide a comprehensive
evaluation of the 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
Index 1: Student Achievement
7
Index 1: Student Achievement provides an overview of student performance
based on satisfactory student achievement across all subjects for all
students.
 Combined over All Subjects: Reading, Mathematics, Writing, Science, and
Social Studies.
 Student Groups: All Students.
 Performance Standards: Phase-in 1 Level II (Satisfactory).
Index 1: Student Achievement
8
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 meet the Phase-in 1 Level II Standard.
Each percent of students meeting the Phase-in 1 Level II performance standard
contributes one point to the index. Index scores range from 0 to 100 for all
campuses and districts.
Example: 2013 Index 1
Reading
Students Met
or Exceeded
Phase-in 1
Level II
50
Students
Tested
100
Index 1 Score
Mathematics
+
+
38
100
Writing
+
+
19
42
Social
Studies
Science
+
+
10
40
+
+
19
23
Total
=
=
% Met
Phase-in 1
Level II
Index
Points
45%
45
136
305
45
Index 2: Student Progress
9
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).
Points based on weighted performance:

One point given for each percentage of tests at the Met progress
level.

Two points given for each percentage of tests at the Exceeded
progress level.
Index 2: Student Progress
10
Index 2: Construction – Table 1
STAAR Weighted Progress
All
African Amer.
Rate
Students Amer. Indian
Example Calculation for
Reading Progress
Number of Tests
Performance Results:
Met or Exceeded
Progress
Number
Percent
Exceeded Progress
Number
Percent
Reading Weighted Progress
Rate
Asian Hispanic
Pacific
White
Islander
Two or
More
Races
ELL
100
50
40
30
80
80%
40
80%
40
100%
20
67%
20
20%
20
40%
30
75%
5
17%
100
120
175
84
Special
Ed.
Total
Points
Max.
Points
479
800
Index 2: Student Progress
11
Index 2: Construction – Table 2
STAAR Weighted
Progress Rate
All
African Amer.
Students Amer. Indian
Asian Hispanic
Pacific
White
Islander
Two or
More
Races
ELL
Special Total
Ed.
Points
Max.
Points
Reading
Weighted Progress
100
120
175
84
479
800
Mathematics
Weighted Progress
85
98
150
160
493
800
Writing
Weighted Progress
140
170
310
400
1282
2000
Total
Index 2 Score (total points divided by maximum points)
64
Index 3: Closing Performance Gaps
12
Index 3: Closing Performance Gaps emphasizes advanced academic
achievement of economically disadvantaged students and the two lowest
performing race/ethnicity student groups.


Points based on weighted performance:

Phase-in 1 Level II satisfactory performance (2013 and beyond):
One point for each percent of tests meeting the Phase-in 1 Level II
satisfactory performance standard.

Level III advanced performance (2014 and beyond):
Two points for each percent of tests meeting the Level III advanced
performance standard.
The calculation of the STAAR weighted performance rate was modified in
2013 because statute prohibited the inclusion of STAAR Level III advanced
performance until 2014.
Index 3: Closing Performance Gaps
13


By Subject Area: Reading, Mathematics, Writing, Science, and Social Studies.
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
prior-year assessment results).
Index 3: Closing Performance Gaps
14
Index 3: Construction – Table 1
STAAR Weighted
Performance Rate
Example Calculation for
Reading Weighted
Performance
Number of Tests
Performance Results:
Phase-in 1 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
14
Index 3: Closing Performance Gaps
15
Index 3: Construction – Table 2
STAAR Weighted
Performance Rate
Economically
Disadvantaged
Lowest Performing
Lowest Performing
Race/Ethnic Group - 1 Race/Ethnic Group - 2
Total
Points
Maximum
Points
Reading Weighted
Performance
150
50
200
400
600
Mathematics Weighted
Performance
125
100
90
315
600
Writing Weighted
Performance
80
90
125
295
600
Science Weighted
Performance
120
40
90
250
600
Social Studies Weighted
Performance
50
40
80
170
600
1430
3000
Total
Index 3 Score (total points divided by maximum points)
48
Index 4: Postsecondary Readiness
16
Index 4: Postsecondary Readiness emphasizes the importance of earning a high
school diploma that provides students 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 were not included
in accountability in 2013).
Combined over All Subjects: Reading, Writing, Mathematics, Science,
and Social Studies.
Index 4: Postsecondary Readiness
17
Index 4: Construction
Graduation Score: Combined performance across the graduation and dropout rates for
Grade 9-12
Grade 9-12
Four-Year Graduation Rate for All Students and all student groups; OR
Five-Year Graduation Rate for All Students and all student groups, whichever
contributes the higher number of points to the index.
RHSP/DAP Graduates: 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
18
Index 4: Construction
Indicator
All
African Amer.
Students Amer. Indian
Asian
Hispanic
Pacific
White
Islander
Two or
More
Races
ELL
Special
Ed.
Total
Points
Max.
Points
4-year graduation
rate (Gr 9-12)
84.3%
78.8%
78.8%
91.6%
86.0%
44.2%
69.8%
533.5
700
5-year graduation
rate (Gr 9-12)
85.1%
78.8%
80.0%
92.1%
84.0%
48.9%
77.5%
546.4
700
RHSP/DAP
82.7%
76.4%
83.6%
83.0%
325.7
400
872.1
1100
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 4 Score (average of Graduation Score and STAAR Score: 79 + 30 / 2 = 55)
55
System Safeguards
19
Safeguard Measures and Targets:


Reporting system disaggregates performance by student group, performance
level, subject area, and grade.
Performance rates are calculated from the assessment results used to
calculate Index 1: Student Achievement.

Targets for the disaggregated system-safeguard results:

STAAR performance target corresponds to Index 1 (50%);

STAAR participation target required by federal accountability (95%);

Federal graduation rate targets and improvement calculations for 4-year rate
(78%) and 5-year rate (83%); and

Federal limit on use of alternate assessments (1% and 2%).
System Safeguards
20
2013 Accountability System Safeguard Measures and Targets
Indicator
Performance Rates*
Reading
Mathematics
Writing
Science
Social Studies
Participation Rates
Reading
Mathematics
All
African Amer.
Students Amer. Indian
Asian Hispanic
Pacific
White
Islander
Two or
Eco.
More
Disadv.
Races
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
* Targets for 2013 correspond to the performance target for Index 1: Student Achievement.
System Safeguards
21




Results will be reported for any group that meets accountability minimum size
criteria.
Failure to meet the safeguard target for any reported group must be
addressed in the campus or district improvement plan.
Performance on the safeguard measures will be incorporated into the Texas
Accountability Intervention System (TAIS).
Detailed information is available in the Performance Index Technical
Description at
http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport/account/2013/materials.html
Resources
22




2013 Accountability Rating System
http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport/account/2013/index.html
Performance Reporting Home Page
http://www.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport
Performance Reporting E-mail
performance.reporting@tea.state.tx.us
Division of Performance Reporting Telephone
(512) 463-9704