Towards High Performance Schools Next Generation of Assessment and Accountability Domain Framework and A-F Accountability Towards High Performance Schools Core Elements of a System-Wide Strategic Approach Presentation for Region One School Board Association by Division of Instructional, School Improvement, and College Readiness Support May 19, 2017

Overview of State and Federal Accountability Systems Through 2016-1017

State Accountability Timeline August 7, 2017 Data used to calculate the 2017 accountability ratings are released to districts and campuses via TEASE August 14, 2017 Accountability ratings, distinction designations, systems safeguards are released to districts and campuses through TEASE website August 15, 2017 Public release via TEA Website Early November 2017 Final accountability ratings that reflect the outcome of ratings appeals are released to the public via TEA website

2017 State Accountability Ratings To attain a Met Standard rating, district and campuses must meet the target on the following indexes for which it has performance data in 2017. Index 1 or Index 2 Index 3 Index 4 Met Standard

2017 Targets Assessments Evaluated 2016 Index 1 Index 2 Index 3 Index 4 STAAR Grades 3-8 STAAR EOC Assessments (5 Tests) STAAR EOC Substitute Assessments N/A STAAR L (Via the ELL Progress Measure) STAAR A STAAR Alternate 2

2017 Targets District and Campus Unchanged from 2016 2017 Targets District and Campus Standard Accountability Targets District/Campus Type Index 1 Student Achievement Index 2* Student Progress Index 3* Closing Performance Gaps Index 4 Postsecondary Readiness Target All Components Targets STAAR Components District 60% 22 28 13% Elementary School 32 NA 12% Middle School 30 26 High School/ K-12 Campus 17 21% *Targets for non-AEA campuses are set at about the fifth percentile of non-AEA 2017 campus performance by campus type. Targets for non-AEA districts correspond to about the fifth percentile of non-AEA 2017 campus performance across all campus types.

Assessments Evaluated in 2016 vs. 2017 Index 1 Index 2 Index 3 Index 4 Summer and Fall 2016 Spring 2017 STAAR Grades 3–8 (all subjects)*  n/a (all subjects*, with and without accommodations) STAAR EOC (5 tests) STAAR EOC (5 tests, with and without accommodations) including substitute assessments (1) STAAR L (evaluated in the ELL progress measure) X (2) STAAR L EOC (evaluated in the ELL progress measure)** STAAR L (evaluated in the ELL progress measure)** STAAR A STAAR A EOC** STAAR A** STAAR Alternate 2 : Used in accountability X: Available but not used in accountability n/a: Not available (1) Substitute assessments apply to the Meets Grade Level performance standard only and progress measures are not calculated. (2) ELL students in their first four years in U.S. schools who took STAAR L were excluded from Index 3 and Index 4. * Index 2 is evaluated using ELA/reading and mathematics only. ** Beginning with the spring 2017 administration, STAAR L and STAAR A assessments will be replaced with online versions of STAAR with accommodations.

2017 Targets District and Campus Alternative Education Accountability District Type Campus Type Index 1 Student Achievement Index 2 Student Progress Index 3 Closing Performance Gaps Index 4 Postsecondary Readiness Target Both Components* Graduation/ Dropout Rate ** AEA Campus 35% At or about 5th percentile (8) (13) 33% 45% *STAAR Post Secondary Readiness Standard and Graduation Score/Annual Dropout ** If graduation score/annual dropout are not available, do not evaluate Index 4

Index Framework Accountability Rating Acceptable Performance: Met Standard Met Alternative Standard Unacceptable Performance: Improvement Required

HB 2804 House Bill (HB) 2804 (84th Texas Legislature, 2015) requires changes to the state public school academic accountability system, effective with the 2017–18 school year. The changes include creating five domains of indicators to measure district and campus progress toward meeting three main goals: Preparing students for postsecondary success Reducing achievement gaps among students from different racial and ethnic groups and socioeconomic backgrounds Informing parents and the community about district and campus performance TEA Provisional Ratings Report, January 2017

HB 2804 Beginning in August 2018, districts and campuses will receive a rating of A, B, C, D, or F for overall performance, as well as for performance in each of these five domains: Domain I: Student Achievement Domain II: Student Progress Domain III: Closing Performance Gaps Domain IV: Postsecondary Readiness Domain V: Community and Student Engagement TEA Provisional Ratings Report, January 2017

Domain Framework Accountability Rating Letter Grade Rating: Domain Level A-F Overall Level A-F

Texas Education Agency A-F Overview Document The STAAR test was built and validated by actual student performance so that achieving a Final Level II proficiency rate is indicative of a student who, if that proficiency level is maintained through high school, has a better than 60% chance of passing freshman college level math & English courses. The Advanced Level III proficiency rate is indicative of a student who has a better than 75% chance of passing those courses. (This latter standard is used by SAT & ACT). The Phase-in Level II rate is about 1 standard deviation below Final Level II, and as such works to indicate a student who has not quite reached grade level proficiency. TEA Student Testing and Accountability, January 2017

Domain I Model (HB 2804 Requirements and Commissioner Recommendations) Performance Index Framework Index 1 Level of Performance 2016-2017 Five Domain Framework Domain I Levels of Performance 2017-2018 Level III Domain I Advanced Level III Final Level II Level II Satisfactory Standard Index 1 Level II Satisfactory Standard

Achievement Level Expectations for High Performance Campus Performance Index Framework Approaches: 90% Domain Framework Meets: 60% Meets: 60% Masters: 30%

Texas Education Agency A-F Overview Document To determine an appropriate goal for what would constitute an “A”, the agency tried to identify an appropriate benchmark based on what would best position students for success. The state’s 60X30TX plan provides that benchmark and is aligned to work being done in colleges throughout Texas and to the needs of the workforce. The goal of the plan is straightforward: by the year 2030, 60% of Texans aged 25–34 should possess some form of post-secondary credential. To align with this plan, the bar for high student achievement – performance at an “A” rating in Domain I – is set at 60% of students being on pace for likely success in a post-secondary setting, be it a trade school, community college, or four-year university. The STAAR® provides a valid method of identifying this. TEA Student Testing and Accountability, January 2017

Texas Higher Education Strategic Plan: 2015-2030

: Economic Status is Major Factor for Completion

© 2017 Region One Education Service Center Texas 85th Legislative Session and Proposed Changes to the A-F Accountability System Michael Waraksa, 2013 REACHING NEW HORIZONS © 2017 Region One Education Service Center

Impact of 85th Legislative Session

House Bill 22 Implications The official implementation of the A-F system would be pushed back from August 2018 to August 2019. Schools and districts would be graded on three domains instead of five. These domains are Student Achievement, School Progress and School Climate. Domains would focus less on standardized testing. The Student Achievement domain would be limited to incorporating standardized tests as only 50 percent of its overall score. Indicators within each domain will be geared toward different factors for students in high school compared with students in middle and elementary schools. In the previous system, the TEA would intervene in schools awarded a cumulative D or F score. In the new system, the TEA would get involved only with schools awarded F grades.

Senate Bill 2051 Implications The official implementation of the A-F system would be moved up from August 2018 to September of this year. Schools and districts would be graded on three domains instead of five. These domains are Student Achievement, School Performance and School Climate. One of the indicators for the School Performance domain would measure how well a district performs compared with other similar school districts. Indicators within each domain will be geared toward different factors for students in high school and will remove factors for students in middle and elementary schools.

Community and Student Engagement DOMAIN V: Community and Student Engagement Michael Waraksa, 2013

School District Evaluation of Performance Community and Student Engagement (C.a.S.E) HB 5 2015-2016 TAA Guidance on C.a.S.E 2016-2017 TAA Guidance on C.a.S.E http://www.esc1.net/Page/3104

District Requirements School District Evaluation of Performance Community and Student Engagement; Compliance District Requirements District Assigns and Reports Ratings District Reports Compliance Overall Performance Statutory Reporting and Policy Requirement for district and each campus Category and Programs Fine arts Wellness and physical education Community and parental involvement 21st century workforce development Second language acquisition program Digital learning environment Dropout prevention strategies Educational programs for gifted and talented 0 – No (Not in Compliance) 1 – Yes (In Compliance) No later than August 8 of each year, the district shall report each performance rating to the agency and make the performance ratings publicly available as provided by the commissioner rule. REACHING NEW HORIZONS Texas Education Code, §39.0545 Exemplary Recognized Acceptable Unacceptable © 2017 Region One Education Service Center

Community and Student Engagement; Compliance Tool HB5 Tool https://prodev.esc1.net/surveys/LandingPage.aspx HB5 Page REACHING NEW HORIZONS http://www.esc1.net//site/Default.aspx?PageID=2100 © 2017 Region One Education Service Center

1 Complete Steps 1, 2 & 3 3 2 http://www.esc1.net//site/Default.aspx?PageID=2100

Automatic Confirmation and email will be sent

HB5: the Transition to Domain V CASE Year Submission Dates Deadline for Districts to Post Ratings   HB 5 2013-2014 First Submission: No later than June 26 Resubmission: No later than July 24 August 8 2014-2015 No later than June 25 No later than July 23 2015-2016 No later than June 23 No later than July 21 August 7  2016-2017 No later than June 22 No later than July 20 TEA Required to Report Local Performance on TEA Website Categories Self-Rated Ratings Region One Rating Tool   No later than October 1 Fine arts Wellness and physical education Community and parental involvement The 21st Century Workforce Development program The second language acquisition program The digital learning environment Dropout prevention strategies Educational programs for gifted and talented students      Exemplary Recognized Acceptable Unacceptable Statutory Reporting and Policy Requirement for district and each campus (Yes or No)    Collaboratively created tool with Region One and districts, with indicators

Domain V 2017-2018 HB5 and HB 2804 (Domain V) C.a.S.E. Year Submission Dates TSDS Data Element Deadline for Districts to Submit Ratings Districts and Campuses still Required to Rate all C.a.S.E Indicators       HB5 and HB 2804 (Domain V) 2017-2018 First Submission: No later than June 22 Resubmission: No later than July 20 First-Case-Choice-Code Indicates the first choice of three of the eight community and student engagement indicators Second-Case-Choice-Code Indicates the second choice of the three of the eight community and student engagement indicators Third-Case-Choice-Code Indicates the third choice of the three of the eight community and student engagement indicators CaSE Ratings-Criteria-Link Indicates the internet website link to the CaSE ratings criteria that are used by the LEA and campuses to determine the ratings for the LEA and campuses Final Due Date May 4, 2018 Fine arts Wellness and physical education Community and parental involvement The 21st Century Workforce Development program The second language acquisition program The digital learning environment Dropout prevention strategies Educational programs for gifted and talented students Statutory Reporting and Policy Requirement for district and each campus (Yes or No)

CASE Timeline for 2016-2017 June 22/July 20, 2017 TSDS Submission No later than August 8, 2017 No later than October 1, 2017 Data for SY 16-17 Data for SY 17-18 Districts Report Ratings on Website TEA Reports ratings publicly Districts submit 8 categories Ratings for 2016-2017 Exemplary Satisfactory Acceptable Unacceptable Districts Indicate internet website link to CASE Ratings Districts Indicate internet website link to CASE Ratings Districts submit overall CASE Rating Districts indicate 1st, 2nd, 3rd CASE Choice Districts indicate statutory reporting and policy compliance

CASE Domain V Timeline for 2017-2018 June 22/July 20 2017 TSDS Submission May 4, 2018 TSDS Submission No later than August 8, 2018 No later than October 1, 2018 Districts indicate 1st, 2nd, 3rd CASE Choice Districts submit 8 categories Ratings Exemplary Satisfactory Acceptable Unacceptable Districts Report Ratings on Website TEA Reports ratings publicly Districts Indicate internet website link to CASE Ratings Districts submit overall CASE Rating Districts indicate statutory reporting and policy compliance Districts Indicate internet website link to CASE Ratings TEA assigns A-F on district-selected three categories

Selecting Domain V CASE Ratings Example: District June 22/July 20 TSDS Submission for 2017-2018 School Year

Selecting Domain V CASE Ratings: Campus and District June 22/July 20 TSDS Submission For 2017-2018 School Year These three selections can be different for the LEA And each of the campuses After districts report 3 selected CASE Ratings in Submission 3, no changes can be made to the CASE Ratings that were selected New selections cannot be made at the end of the Year for the following school year

Assigning Domain V CASE Ratings: Campus and District TEA Assigns A-F Rating based on District Self-Assigned Rating

References Rosenshine, B., (2012). Principles of instruction: Research-based practices that all teachers should know. American Educator, 36(1). p. 12 - 19, 39. Scott, Terrance M. & Susan B. Barrett (2004). Using Staff and Student Time Engaged in Disciplinary Procedures to Evaluate the Impact of School-Wide PBS. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions. Thomas, W. & Collier, V. (2001) A National Study of School Effectiveness for Language Minority Students’ Long Term Academic Achievement. Center for Research on Education, Diversity and Excellence. Wong, Harry (1998). First Days of School: How to be an Effective Teacher. Mountainview, California. Harry K. Wong Publications.

Division of Instructional, School Improvement, and College Readiness Support Dr. Eduardo Cancino, Deputy Director 956-984-6022 ecancino@esc1.net Dr. Belinda S. Gorena, Administrator School Improvement, Accountability and Compliance 956-984-6173 bgorena@esc1.net Kelly K. VanHee, Administrator Curriculum, Instruction and Assessment 956-984-6151 kkvanhee@esc1.net Carmen Garcia, Director Brownsville Extension Office 956-984-6231 cagarcia@esc1.net Dr. Darlene M. Rogers, Director Laredo Extension Office 956-795-0000 drogers@esc1.net REACHING NEW HORIZONS © 2017 Region One Education Service Center