Section II Accountability HB3 Transition Plan Section II Accountability

New Accountability Systems Development in 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 Alignment with the new provisions of House Bill (HB) 3 Emphasis on college- and career-ready performance on STAAR NEW!

STAAR & AYP Accountability “ “ The primary consideration that will guide development of the new AYP system will be alignment with the state accountability system to the greatest extent possible.

Statute requires that indicators combine results across grades. Indicators: State Requirements Performance on STAAR 3-8 Reading 3-8 Math 3-8 Science 5 & 8 Social Studies 8 Writing 4 & 7 Statute requires that indicators combine results across grades. 4

Indicators: State Requirements Performance on STAAR EOCs English I English II English III Algebra I Geometry Algebra II Biology Chemistry Physics World Geo. World Hist. U.S. History 5

Indicators: State Requirements  Percentage of students meeting the satisfactory performance standard or student progress standard  Percentage of students meeting the college-ready performance standard or college-ready student progress standard

Completion and Graduation Rates Indicators: State Requirements Other Indicators Dropout Rates Completion and Graduation Rates 7

Indicators: State Requirements Required Improvement Required Improvement will be a feature of the system. Date Effective for Satisfactory Performance: 2013 Date Effective for College Readiness Performance: 2014 Options: Improvement to Long-Term Goal Improvement to Annual Accountability Standard Reduction in Performance Gaps Increasing Annual Standards Improvement Across Multiple Years Any Improvement or No Decline Multi-Year Average Performance

Indicators: State Requirements Three Year Average Performance A new statutory provision gives districts and campuses the option to use three-year average performance to meet an accountability standard when current year performance does not meet the standard.  Performance Indicators Date Effective: TBD Dropout and District Completion Rates Date Effective: 2013 HS Graduation Indicator Commissioner Rule Three-Year Average Performance. A new statutory provision gives districts and campuses the option to use three-year average performance to meet an accountability standard when current year performance does not meet the standard. Date Effective for Performance Indicators: TBD Date Effective for Dropout and District Completion Rates: 2013 Commissioner will determine whether to apply this to HS graduation indicator as well

Indicators: Federal Requirements  Reading/ELA Performance Math Performance Federal caps on alternative assessments Reading/ELA Participation (95%) Math Participation (95%) Other Indicator

Options for Resolving Differences Add Science and Social Studies Performance Add Reading/ELA and Math Participation Implement federal caps on results of alternate assessments Some of the differences between the two accountability systems can be resolved under current state and federal statute. For example, science and social studies performance could be added to AYP to meet state accountability requirements. Likewise, reading/ELA and mathematics participation, required in AYP, could be included in the state accountability system. Implementing the federal cap on use of results from alternate assessments in the state accountability system would remove one of the primary differences in reading and mathematics performance indicator definitions.

Student Groups Required Groups Groups being Considered State: Evaluation based on race/ethnicity and SES Federal: Evaluation based on race, SES, SPED, and LEP Groups being Considered Additional race/ethnicity groups: Asian, Multiracial, Other Not Economically Disadvantaged LEP, At Risk, Special Education

Student Groups Additional Options: State Define student group membership longitudinally (Eco Dis and LEP) Expand the student groups evaluated New options for student groups similar to the All Student group Defining student group membership longitudinally is a consideration for some groups (Eco Dis and LEP). A longitudinal definition could assign a student to a group if the student was ever a member of that group since entering the Texas public school system. There is a new provision in statute that allows the commissioner to consider alternate performance criteria for student groups that are substantially similar to All Students. Options: removing student groups with substantially similar membership to other student groups, combining groups with overlapping membership, and limiting the number of groups to which a student is assigned. Expanding the student groups evaluated is one way to acknowledge the diversity of Texas school districts and campuses and better align the state accountability system with AYP. At the same time, additional student groups would disproportionately affect large, diverse school districts and campuses. Proposals to address this inequity could include limiting the number of student groups evaluated for any indicator, limiting the indicators for which student group performance is evaluated, phasing in evaluation of student group performance, and decreasing the percentage of indicators on which districts and campuses must meet accountability standards Report all seven categories and use any or all of the seven for which minimum size criteria are met. Report all seven categories and use the three largest groups that meet minimum size criteria for any campus or district. (Districts and campuses would be evaluated on different race / ethnicity student groups, up to three total.) Evaluate the current student groups (African American, Hispanic / Latino, and White) if minimum size criteria are met and collapse all other categories—Asian, Native Hawaiian / Pacific Islander, Native Indian/Alaska Native, and Two or More Races—into an “Other” category and evaluate as a fourth group if minimum size criteria are met.

College Readiness STANDARD SUBJECTS STUDENTS ANY HELP? TBD, Effective 2014 SUBJECTS Reading/ELA and Math Grades 3-8 and EOC STUDENTS Required for 5 student groups Evaluation of TAKS Commended Performance in 2011 will serve as an early warning for the use of college readiness standards that will be incorporated in the new accountability system in 2014. II-10 Two of the GPA indicators, TSI-HERC and College-Ready Graduates, were designed to measure preparation for postsecondary success. II-15 ANY HELP? Required Improvement, Effective 2014 Three-Year Average, Effective TBD

Satisfactory performance on these assessments may be used as a factor when determining whether the student satisfies the cumulative score requirement for graduation: AP IB SAT PSAT Pre ACT The commissioner will determine whether these results will be factored in the assessment results used for state accountability.

Dropout/Grad/Completion Rate State statute requires that six groups of students be removed from the dropout definition used for state accountability: Previous dropouts; Students who are not in membership for purposes of average daily attendance; Students who have been ordered by courts to attend GED programs but have not earned GED certificates; Students who are incarcerated in state jails and federal penitentiaries as adults and as persons certified to stand trial as adults; Students whose initial enrollment in a school in the United States in grades 7–12 was as unschooled refugees or asylees; and Students detained in county detention facilities that are located outside the students' home districts. Consideration will need to be given to the fact that, in the new system, dropout, completion, and graduation rates calculated for state accountability will no longer align with those calculated for federal accountability.

Dropout Rate Option 1 Option 2 Use a longitudinal dropout rate for first-time ninth graders to measure how many students drop out before graduating. Option 2 Use an annual dropout rate to measure how many students drop out in one school year. Option 2a: Use selected grades, i.e., grades 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and/or 12. Option 2b: Use selected grade spans, i.e., grades 7–8, grades 9–12, and/or grades 7–12.

Options for 2013 Accountability: Graduation Rate TEA currently uses a four-year graduation rate that measures early or on-time graduation. However, some students take longer than four years to graduate. Options for 2013 Accountability: 4-Year Rate Class of 2012 5-Year Rate Class of 2011 6-Year Rate Class of 2010 7-Year Rate Class of 2009

Completion Rate # Graduates + Continuers + GED Some advocate counting GED recipients as completers because a GED can be used for entrance into college and to obtain employment. A system control could be used that requires graduates to comprise a certain portion of the rate. # Graduates + Continuers + GED # Graduates + Continuers + GED + Dropouts

AEA Accountability Procedures NCLB requires that all campuses, including AECs, are evaluated in the federal accountability system. The state accountability system has the option of including AEA procedures designed specifically to evaluate AECs. Options include: Use Same Indicators and Standards as Regular Campuses. Use Same Indicators, but Different Standards, as Regular Campuses Develop Alternative Education Accountability Procedures Two possible timelines for the development of new AEA procedures: the first timeline delays implementing new AEA procedures until the 2014 ratings. The second allows for evaluation of registered AECs and charter districts in 2012–2013, possibly with a delayed release in fall 2013.

with Recognized & Exemplary Distinctions Ratings 2013 “Unacceptable” “Acceptable” Option A “Unacceptable” “Acceptable” “Recognized” “Exemplary” Option B “Unacceptable” “Acceptable” with Recognized & Exemplary Distinctions 2014 According to statutory changes in HB 3, the assignment of accountability ratings can proceed in one of two ways, either as A) four rating categories, or as B) only two ratings —“Acceptable” and “Unacceptable”— with additional distinction ratings, e.g., “Acceptable with Recognized Distinction.” 2013: Unacceptable or Acceptable only 2014: Add Recognized and Exemplary for meeting the highest college readiness/student progress standard on STAAR, or not. accountability standards for the acceptable performance rating will not be finalized until 2013—the standards will be set in spring 2013 after the advisory group has reviewed the STAAR grade 3–8 results with the assigned student passing standards. At that time, the 2014 and 2015 accountability standards for the acceptable performance rating will be projected.

Ratings “ Recognized and Exemplary ratings are distinction designations for meeting higher college- and career-ready performance standards, rather than higher performance on the same indicators used for accountability ratings. “

Campus Distinction Designations Top 25% in Annual Improvement on STAAR Top25% in Performance Gap Reduction on STAAR Satisfy Criteria in Academic Achievement A + Fine Arts Physical Education 21st 21st Century Workforce Development Second Language Acquisition Program

Performance Reports Report to District: Comparisons for Annual Performance Assessment Report to Parents: Similar to Confidential Student Reports Teacher Report Card Campus Report Card Performance Report : Similar to AEIS Reports Report to District: Comparisons for Annual Performance Assessment (§39.302). (This is new, but similar to legislation from 2007.) The agency, through the testing contractor, shall provide annual improvement information on assessments to districts. Report to Parents (§39.303). (New) The testing contractor shall provide to each parent or guardian student-level assessment information such as is currently reported on the Confidential Student Reports. Teacher Report Card (§39.304). (New) Districts are required to use Comparisons for Annual Performance Assessments (§39.302) to prepare a report for teachers at the beginning of the school year, to let them know how their students performed on assessments. Campus Report Card (§39.305). The language in statute describing this report is similar to the language used in prior statute to describe the current school/campus report cards. Performance Report (§39.306). The language in statute describing performance reports is similar to the language used in prior statute to describe the Academic Excellence Indicator System reports (AEIS). The agency will produce and disseminate these reports annually. Comprehensive Annual Report (§39.322). (The legislation is substantially the same as that which existed prior to HB 3.) Texas Education Code requires that the Comprehensive Annual Report on Texas Public Schools be released to the legislature by December 1 each year. Comprehensive Annual Report

Timeline Dec. 2012 STAAR 3-8 Standards are Set Nov. 2011 EOC Standards June 2012 EOC Results are Reported August 8, 2013 First Ratings are Reported 2010-11 Last Year for Statewide TAKS Testing Spring 2012 STAAR Testing Grades 3-9 Fall 2012 STAAR 3-8 Results are Reported Spring 2013 STAAR Testing Grades 3-10

Thank you! Arielle Arizpe 512-919-5131 | arielle.arizpe@esc13.txed.net