March 7, 2013 Texas Education Agency | Office of Assessment and Accountability Division of Performance Reporting Accountability Policy Advisory Committee (APAC)

Meeting Objectives 2  Ensure APAC understands proposed Performance Indexes and Indicators  Review ATAC Recommendations for proposed Performance Indexes and Indicators  Discuss and Compile Alternative Recommendations from APAC on proposed Performance Indexes and Indicators  Review ATAC Recommendations for 2013 Rating Criteria and Targets  Develop APAC Recommendations for 2013 Rating Criteria and Targets  Discuss Plan for 2014 Rating Criteria and Targets

Accountability System Design

Accountability Goals 4  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 (f) of the Texas Education Code.

Proposal for Accountability Framework 5 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 6 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 7 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. Accountability System Student Achievement Index I Student Progress Index 2 Closing Performance Gaps Index 3 Postsecondary Readiness Index 4 Student Achievement Index I Student Progress Index 2 Closing Performance Gaps Index 3 Postsecondary Readiness Index 4

Overview of Proposed Performance Index Framework (Sample Campus) 8

Index 1: Student Achievement 9 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)

10 Index 1: Student Achievement Example ReadingMathematicsWritingScience Social Studies Total % Met Level II Students Met Phase-in Level II =136 45%45 Students Tested =305 Index Score45 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.

Index 1 Construction ReadingMathematicsWritingScience Social Studies Total % Met Level II Students Met Phase-in Level II =136 45%45 Students Tested =305 Index Score45 11 Index 1: Student Achievement

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

IndicatorAll African Amer. Amer. Indian AsianHispanic Pacific Islander White Two or More ELL Special Ed. Total Points Max. Points Example Calculation for Reading Number of Tests Did Not Met Expectation Number Met Expectation Number Percent 60 60% 20 40% 10 25% 15 50% Exceeded Expectation Number Percent 20 20% 20 40% 30 75% 5 17% Weighted Results: Met Expectation (one point credit) 60 (60% x 1) 40 (40% x 1) 25 (25% x 1) 50 (50% x 1) Exceeded Expectation (two point credit) 40 (20% x 2) 80 (40% x 2) 150 (75% x 2) 34 (17% x 2) Reading Weighted Growth Rate Index 2 Construction – Table 1 Index 2: Student Progress

IndicatorAll African Amer. Amer. Indian AsianHispanic Pacific Islander White Two or More ELL Special Ed. Total Points Max. Points STAAR Reading Weighted Growth Rate STAAR Mathematics Weighted Growth Rate STAAR Writing Weighted Growth Rate Total Index Score (total points divided by maximum points)64 14 Index 2 Construction – Table 2 Index 2: Student Progress * Science and Social Studies will be evaluated if growth measures are developed for these subjects.

IndicatorAll African Amer. Amer. Indian AsianHispanic Pacific Islander White Two or More ELL Special Ed. Total Points Max. Points Example Calculation for Reading Number of Tests Did Not Met Expectation Number Met Expectation Number Percent 60 60% 20 40% 10 25% 15 50% Exceeded Expectation Number Percent 20 20% 20 40% 30 75% 5 17% Weighted Results: Met Expectation (one point credit) 60 (60% x 1) 40 (40% x 1) 25 (25% x 1) 50 (50% x 1) Exceeded Expectation (two point credit) 40 (20% x 2) 80 (40% x 2) 150 (75% x 2) 34 (17% x 2) Reading Weighted Growth Rate Index 2 Construction – Table 1 Index 2: Student Progress

IndicatorAll African Amer. Amer. Indian AsianHispanic Pacific Islander White Two or More ELL Special Ed. Total Points Max. Points STAAR Reading Weighted Growth Rate STAAR Mathematics Weighted Growth Rate STAAR Writing Weighted Growth Rate Total Index Score (total points divided by maximum points)64 16 Index 2 Construction – Table 2 Index 2: Student Progress * Science and Social Studies will be evaluated if growth measures are developed for these subjects.

17  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 final 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 Index 3: Closing Performance Gaps Index 3: Closing Performance Gaps emphasizes advanced academic achievement of economically disadvantaged students and the two lowest performing race/ethnicity student groups.

Index 3: Closing Performance Gaps 18  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).

19 Index 3: Closing Performance Gaps 19 Index 3 Construction STAAR Reading Weighted Performance Rate Economically Disadvantaged Lowest Performing Race/Ethnic Group - 1 Lowest Performing Race/Ethnic Group - 2 Total Points Maximum Points Example Calculation for Reading Number of Tests Performance Results: Phase-in Level II Satisfactory and above Number Percent % 20 50% % Level III Advanced Number Percent 40 50% 0 0% % Reading Weighted Performance Rate

STAAR Weighted Performance Rate Economically Disadvantaged Lowest Performing Race/Ethnic Group - 1 Lowest Performing Race/Ethnic Group - 2 Total Points Maximum Points Reading Weighted Performance Rate Mathematics Weighted Performance Rate Writing Weighted Performance Rate Science Weighted Performance Rate Social Studies Weighted Performance Rate Total Index Score (total points divided by maximum points)48 20 Index 3 Construction Index 3: Closing Performance Gaps

21 Index 3: Closing Performance Gaps 21 Index 3 Construction STAAR Reading Weighted Performance Rate Economically Disadvantaged Lowest Performing Race/Ethnic Group - 1 Lowest Performing Race/Ethnic Group - 2 Total Points Maximum Points Example Calculation for Reading Number of Tests Performance Results: Phase-in Level II Satisfactory and above Number Percent % 20 50% 0 0% Level III Advanced Number Percent 40 50% 0 0% % Reading Weighted Performance Rate

STAAR Weighted Performance Rate Economically Disadvantaged Lowest Performing Race/Ethnic Group - 1 Lowest Performing Race/Ethnic Group - 2 Total Points Maximum Points Reading Weighted Performance Rate Mathematics Weighted Performance Rate Writing Weighted Performance Rate Science Weighted Performance Rate Social Studies Weighted Performance Rate Total Index Score (total points divided by maximum points)48 22 Index 3 Construction Index 3: Closing Performance Gaps

Index 4: Postsecondary Readiness 23 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

24 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/AHSP 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

25 Index 4: Postsecondary Readiness IndicatorAll African Amer. Amer. Indian AsianHispanic Pacific Islander White Two or More ELL Special Ed. Total Points Max. Points 4-year graduation rate 84.3%78.8% 91.6%86.0%44.2%69.8% year graduation rate 85.1%78.8%80.0%92.1%84.0%48.9%77.5% RHSP/AHSP82.7%76.4%83.6%83.0% Graduation Total Graduation Score (graduation total points divided by maximum points) and beyond: STAAR % Met Final Level II on one or More Tests 29%16%40%23%38%36% STAAR Score (STAAR total points divided by maximum points)30 Index Score (average of Graduation Score and STAAR Score: / 2 = 55)55 Index 4 Construction

IndicatorAll African Amer. Amer. Indian AsianHispanic Pacific Islander White Two or More ELL Special Ed. Total Points Max. Points 4-year graduation rate 84.3%78.8% 91.6%86.0%44.2%69.8% year graduation rate 85.1%78.8%80.0%92.1%84.0%48.9%77.5% RHSP/AHSP82.7%76.4%83.6%83.0% Graduation Total Graduation Score (graduation total points divided by maximum points) and beyond: STAAR All Subjects* % Met Level III 29%16%40%23%38%36% STAAR Score (STAAR total points divided by maximum points)30 Index Score (average of Graduation Score and STAAR Score: / 2 = 55)55 26 Index 4: Postsecondary Readiness Index 4 Construction

27  Eligibility Criteria  Ten former eligibility criteria  AEC of choice must serve secondary students in Grades 6-12  Residential facilities not evaluated in 2013  Modified Indicator Definitions and Index Construction  Index 3: Closing Performance Gaps: Credit for EOC minimum score  Index 4: Postsecondary Readiness o Graduation Rate – Credit for GED recipients – Four-year, five-year, and six-year rates o RHSP/AHSP bonus points o Graduation and GED Rates = 75% Final Level II Rates = 25% Summary of AEA Calculation

28  Rating Criteria, Labels, and Targets  Same rating labels: Met Standard / Improvement Required  Modified rating criteria  Modified targets  Distinction Designations  AEC campus comparison groups  Academic Achievement Distinction Designations for Reading and Mathematics  Top 25% of Campuses in Student Progress  Accountability Development  Dropout recovery credit  Credit accrual for high school students  District credit of AEC graduation and GED rate Summary of AEA Calculation

System Safeguards 29 Apply Safeguards to Specific Performance Indexes as needed:  Ensure reporting system disaggregates performance by student group, performance level, subject area, and grade;  Meet all state and federal accountability requirements;  Implement interventions focused on specific areas of weak performance:  STAAR performance,  STAAR participation,  Federal graduation rates,  Limits on use of alternate assessments.

30 Federal Accountability for 2013  Texas Education Agency submitted a waiver request to the United States Department of Education (USDE) on February 28,  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.

Top 25% Student Progress Distinction

32 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 Top 25% Student Progress Distinction