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

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 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) X 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.

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.

© 2017 Region One Education Service Center System-Wide Strategic Approach to Support High Performance Schools Michael Waraksa, 2013 REACHING NEW HORIZONS © 2017 Region One Education Service Center

Domain I: A-F Rating System Expected Student Performance Where are we? Mastery Learning

Student Achievement Factors Affecting Higher Expectations Fewer Resources Where do we focus the work?

System Focus Leader Student Teacher Learning for Mastery Through Prevention-Based District-Improvement Framework Academic Supports Behavioral Supports Content and Pedagogy Assessment for Learning Learning Community Culture of Success Turn-Around Competencies Monitoring for Learning Strategy Shared Vision Learning Designs Environment System Focus Leader Student Teacher

Teacher Focus Content and Pedagogy Assessment for Learning Learning Community

Making Learning a Reality for Every Student Targeted Instruction Time Learning Bloom, B. (1984) Buffum, Mattos, & Weber (2010)

What impact does my teaching have on student learning?

Student Response to Instruction

Mastery Learning Group Interventions Instruction Unit 2 Enrichment Activities Instruction Unit 1 Formative Assessment A Corrective Actions B Gusky, T.R. (1997)

The Fourth Grade Story Teacher Request

The Fourth Grade Story Data Analysis Revising & Editing

The Fourth Grade Story Pre Assessment – What do they know? Pre Assessment Questions What is a sentence? How do you know? What is a subject? What is a predicate? Is this example a sentence? Explain why or why not? What is the best way to combine these sentences?

The Fourth Grade Story Getting Poolside Understanding & Listening to Student Thinking

The Fourth Grade Story Differentiating Instruction – Graphic Organizers brown dog is jumping over the fence.

The Fourth Grade Story Differentiating Instruction – Anchor Charts

The Fourth Grade Story Checking for Understanding after Corrective Action New Understanding?

Student Achievement Rethinking Interventions Typical Teacher Decisions & Actions What do I do when students do master the content? What do I do when students do not master the content? Observation & Feedback Student Misconceptions Errors in teacher understanding Achievers respond different Key Understandings Use Quantitative Data Use Qualitative Data (Observations) Examine separators by achiever groups

Student Focus AFTER DUR ING BEFORE Academic Supports Behavioral Supports

*Hattie Ranking *using Cohen’s d formula for reporting effect sizes https://visible-learning.org/nvd3/visualize/hattie-ranking-interactive-2009-2011-2015.html

Average teacher gets ½ year’s growth “Hinge Point” Average teacher gets ½ year’s growth Naturally-occurring due to maturation Negative Effects on student Achievement Image URL: https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-kws582g1VIk/V4ehNeg8azI/AAAAAAAACPs/J-ygPfTka-QOSMyNJG1BsVtVMcYROln0gCLcB/s1600/Hattie%2Bbarometer.PNG

Rating Implications - 0.02 + Cause harmful effects on student achievement .1 Students experience one-fourth of a years’ growth in one year 0.2 Students experience half a years’ growth in one year 0.4 Students experience one years’ growth in one year 0.8 Students experience two years’ growth in one year 1.2 Students experience three years’ growth in one year 1.6 Students experience four years’ growth in one year 1.6 + More than four years’ growth in one year

acceleration remediation

A rising tide lifts all boats. John F. Kennedy

Instructional Episode High Quality Enrichment/Extension Activities: Instructional Approaches for Mastery Students Instructional Episode Diagnostic Opportunities to Pursue Interests Extend Understanding Peer Projects Academic Games

Tic Tac Toe Extend Under- standing Peer Projects Differentiated Interventions Opportunity to pursue interests Extend Under- standing Peer Projects Academic Games

https://exoplanets.nasa.gov/trappist1

Write an epilogue to the story that tells what happens next. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Create a new character that can be added to the story. How will this character change the outcome of the story. Working with a partner, Produce a 3-min video news report about an incident in the story involving 1 or more characters. Design a report card for at least 3 characters. Include grades for each criteria and comments to support the grade Create a new continent. What kind of climate, crops, government, currency, and inhabitants will it have? Create a geometric character analysis of several characters using different shapes to represent the character. Examine your favorite play, dress up and role play a new ending to the story. Create a new plant. What purpose will this new plant serve? How will it benefit humans? Write an epilogue to the story that tells what happens next. Read it to the class. Write a letter to a historical figure in which you address the impact his/her decisions had on society.

A Cheetah Metaphor The cheetah is the fastest animal on earth. Is it still a cheetah? When we think of cheetahs we are likely to think first of their speed. It's flashy. It is impressive. It's unique. And it makes identification incredibly easy. Since cheetahs are the only animals that can run 70 mph, if you clock an animal running 70 mph, IT'S A CHEETAH! If a cheetah has only 20 mph rabbits to chase for food, it won't run 70 mph while hunting. If it did, it would flash past its prey and go hungry! …when given only rabbits to eat the hunting cheetah will run only fast enough to catch a rabbit. Stephanie S. Tolan, 1996

System Focus Leader Student Teacher Learning for Mastery Through Prevention-Based District-Improvement Framework Academic Supports Behavioral Supports Content and Pedagogy Assessment for Learning Learning Community Culture of Success Turn-Around Competencies Monitoring for Learning Strategy Shared Vision Learning Designs Environment System Focus Leader Student Teacher

References Buffum, A., Mattos, M., & Weber, C. (2010). The Why Behind RTI. Educational Leadership, 68 (2), 10-16. Doubet, K. & Hockett, J.A. (2015). Differentiation in the middle and high school: Strategies to engage all learners. Alexandria, VA: ASCD Gregory, G.H. & Chapman, C. (2002). Differentiated Instructional strategies: One size doesn’t fit all. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press Inc. Guskey, T.R. (1997). Implementing Mastery Learning. Wadsworth: Cengage Learning. Guskey, T. (2010). Lessons of Mastery Learning. Educational Leadership, 68 (2), 52-57. Popham, W. J. (2008). Transformative Assessment. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Tomlinson, C. & McTighe, J. (2006). Integrating differentiated instruction and understanding by design: Connecting content and kids. Alexandria, VA: ASCD. Tomlinson, C. (2014). The differentiated classroom: Responding to the needs of all learners. Alexandria, VA: ASCD. Tomlinson, C. & Allan, S. D. (2000). Leadership for differentiating schools and classrooms. Alexandria, VA: ASCD. English, F.W. & Steffy, B.E. (2002) Deep Curriculum Alignment: Creating a Level Playing Field For All Children on High Stakes Tests and Accountability. Lanhan, MD. Scarecrow Press, Inc. Texas Curriculum Management Program Cooperative. (2016). TEKS Resource System. Tucker, C. (2014). Five Musts for Mastery. Educational Leadership, 71 (4), 56-60

References Brier, N. (1995). Predicting antisocial behavior in youngsters displaying poor academic achievement: A review of risk factors. Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, 16, 271-276. Hattie's new #1 effect size: Collective teacher efficacy [Video file]. (2017, March 09). Retrieved March 7, 2019, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KY6erhLDOdE&feature=youtu.be Hattie, J., Masters, D., & Birch, K. (2015). Visible learning into action. New York, NY: Routledge. Hoy, A. W. (2000) Changes in teacher efficacy during the early years of teaching. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research. McEvoy, A., & Welker, R. (2000). Antisocial behavior, academic failure, and school climate: A critical review. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 8, 130-141. Riffel, Laura (2014-2015). Keynote for Positive Interventions and Effective Strategies. www.behaviordoctor.org

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