1. Accountability Update

2. New Performance Definitions! Proposed, Public Hearing Jan 13
Under A-F we will have new performance level definitions, not to be confused with performance level descriptors. The performance level descriptors come from these definitions. It is being proposed that the definitions be changed for the different performance levels in STAAR. These new definitions provide a better understanding of where students are currently with their performance. For instance, the level I definition is publicly understood to mean unsatisfactory (meaning the student did not meet the passing standard). The new public label for level 1 would be does not meet expectations. Next is the current Phase-in level 2 definition. For students taking EOC, Phase in level 2 is based upon the first year the student took that particular test. For 3-8 students taking STAAR, phase in level 2 is based upon the year the student is tested. Publicly, phase in level 2 is called satisfactory. The new label being proposed is approaches grade level. Meaning the students have met the passing standard for that particular year, but they are not ready for the next grade level without additional supports and interventions. Final Level 2, meaning students have met the final passing standard, is being proposed to be changed to meets grade level expectations. And finally, the current level 3 is being proposed to be changed to masters, meaning masters grade level expectations. Again, these definition changes are currently only at the proposed and public hearing stage.

3. PLDs and PLDs
This slide contrast performance level descriptors and definitions. On the left you see the current performance level definitions. On the right you see the performance level descriptors for STAAR grade 5 science. There is a performance level descriptor document for every grade level and subject that has a STAAR test. The purpose of these descriptors documents is to explain to parents, students and teachers what students at each performance level know and can do. For instance, the bulleted items listed below students achieving Level I unsatisfactory performance (meaning the student did not meet the passing standard) are descriptors of what these students know and can do. So level I is a lower level of student thinking (or rigor) than levels II and III. The new performance level descriptors under A-F will have 4 levels to align with the performance level definitions.
The documents on the right will be updated in the future per Julie Guthrie at TEA.

4. Domain V Domain V is self reported by the district.
Your district will choose 3 indicators for the 8 possible community and student engagement indicators to submit in your May or June 2017 district PEIMS submittion.
Districts have been reporting these indicatiors for a number of years.
The difference now is that districts will be selecting 3 of the 8 indicators to submit in PEIMS.
Who will choose these indicators and how that is determind has not yet been decided.

5. Domain V Big Ideas
You choose 3 indicators and report to TEA before school starts
Who chooses and how is that determined?
We still continue to report all indicators on old system.

7. 2017 Accountability Calendar
Date
Activity
Tuesday, February 14
Release of final 2017 accountability decisions (public web)
March 27–April 7
AEA campus registration process (TEASE)
April
2017 Accountability Manual, Chapters 2–9 released (public web)
April 21–May 21 (Tentative)
Public comment period for the 2017 Accountability Manual (public web)
Late Spring
2017 Accountability Manual, Chapter 1, Chapter 10, and appendices A–J released (public web)
May 1–May 12
Campus pairing process (TEASE)
June
List of 2017 campus comparison groups released (TEASE)
Confidential lists of college and career ready graduates for 2017 state accountability released (TEASE)
Appendix K of the 2017 Accountability Manual released (public web)
April- release of 2017 accountability manual-

8. 2017 Accountability Calendar
Date
Activity
Monday, August 7
2017 performance index tables without rating labels released (TEASE)
Monday, August 14
2017 accountability tables with rating labels, distinction designations, and system safeguards released (TEASE)
Campuses identified under PEG criteria for 2018–19 school year released (TEASE)
Tuesday, August 15
2017 accountability tables with rating labels, distinction designations, and system safeguards released (public web)
Campuses identified under PEG criteria for 2018–19 school year released (public web)
August 15–September 15
2017 appeals application available to districts (TEASE)
All of these dates are in alignment with calendar from last 3 yrs or more.

9. 2017 Accountability Calendar
Date
Activity
Friday, September 15
2017 appeals deadline
By October 1
2017 Consolidated School Rating Report (state-assigned academic and financial ratings and locally-assigned community and student engagement ratings) released (public web)
November
TEA notifies districts of accountability appeal decisions (mail and TEASE)
Preliminary longitudinal cohort reports released (TEASE)
2017 final ratings released after resolution of appeals (TEASE and public web)
2016–17 Texas Academic Performance Reports released (TEASE and public web)
December
2017 Texas School Accountability Dashboard released (public web)
2016–17 School Report Card released (public web)

10. Collection of CaSE Ratings and Letter Grades
Information
PEIMS Collection
School Year
Accountability Year
2017
Three CaSE programs to be used in Domain V along with rating criteria*
Three (June 2017)
2017–18
2018
Community and Student Engagement Ratings (HB5)
2016–17
Community and Student Engagement Ratings (HB5), letter grades for CaSE programs, and overall Domain V grade
May (TSDS submission)
Three (June 2018)
2018–19
2019
May (TSDS submission)
Three (June 2019)
2019–20
2020
* Ratings criteria for three CaSE programs used in Domain V will be collected in PEIMS; districts and campuses will report the internet website link to the CaSE ratings criteria that are used to determine the ratings.
We have two tracks of CASE ratings- beginning in June 2017 districts will report the 3 CASE indicators for A-F and at the same time they will report all 8 CASE indicators under HB5-

11. HB 5 Community and Student Engagement
CaSE ratings were introduced by HB 5 in 2013.
Districts and campuses rate their own performance in eight areas:
Fine Arts
Wellness and Physical Education
21st Century Workforce Development program
Second Language Acquisition Program
Digital Learning Environment
Dropout Prevention
Educational Programs for Gifted/Talented Students
Community and Parental Involvement
2 + 2 = 4
Texas Education Agency | Academics | Performance Reporting

12. HB 5 Community and Student Engagement
Districts use local committees to develop the criteria that will be used to assess performance.
District rate themselves and their campuses either Exemplary, Recognized, Acceptable, or Unacceptable.
Districts report ratings in PEIMS.
TEA publishes CaSE ratings in the Texas Consolidated School Ratings report by October 1.
HB 2804 made CaSE ratings part of academic accountability ratings.
2 + 2 = 4
Texas Education Agency | Academics | Performance Reporting

13. Domain V: Community and Student Engagement
Districts and campuses select three indicators from the list of Community and Student Engagement indictors created by HB 5.
Districts and campuses report to the TEA which indicators they are going to use and the criteria they will use to rate themselves.
Districts and campuses assign to themselves grades of A, B, C, or D/F for each of the three indicators and for Domain V overall and report them to the TEA.
Domain V rating is 10% of a district’s or campus’s overall rating.
2 + 2 = 4
Texas Education Agency | Academics | Performance Reporting

14. From Here to August 2018 e = mc2
Continuing advisory group meetings—throughout 2017
Commissioner visits to ESCs—throughout 2017
Commissioner meets with superintendents—throughout 2017
Administrative rule adoption (including a public comment period)— spring 2018
Districts report Domain V ratings—summer 2018
e = mc2
Texas Education Agency | Academics | Performance Reporting

15. Q: Will the 85th Texas Legislature modify the current statutory requirements for state accountability?
A: If there are any statutory changes, we will not know what they are until early June. Ongoing accountability development continues based on current requirements of HB 2804 (84th Texas Legislature).
c = 2πr
Texas Education Agency | Academics | Performance Reporting

16. December 30 Legislative Report
What changes are currently planned for the chronic absenteeism calculation?
Issue
December 30 Legislative Report
2017–18 A–F System
Grades Evaluated
PK, K, and 1 through 12
1 through 12
Students Evaluated
All Students
Exclude certain students with disabilities, such as medically fragile, if possible.
Types of Absences
Excused and Unexcused
TBD
There as been some discussion to include only unexcused absences, problem is districts tend to define unexcused absences differently.
c = 2πr
Texas Education Agency | Academics | Performance Reporting

17. Performance in Community and Student Engagement; Compliance Survey
$ – (up to 3 campuses)
Performance Survey for additional campus
$50 ea. per additional campus to be rated
Cheryl Grier
PNP School/LEA Liaison
Instructional Services Division

18. Contacts Gretchen Kroos, Accountability Team Lead gkroos@esc11.net
Jim Phillips, Coordinator
Sharon Norwood, Title 1 and School Improvement
Laura Creamer, Assessment and School Improvement
Wes Jackson, Leadership Development