1. 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

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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.

6. 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

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

8. 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

9. 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

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

11. 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

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

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

15. 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

16. Texas Higher Education Strategic Plan: 2015-2030

17. : Economic Status is Major Factor for Completion

18. © 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

19. Impact of 85th Legislative Session

20. 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.

21. 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.

22. © 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

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

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

25. 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

26. Teacher Focus Content and Pedagogy Assessment for Learning
Learning Community

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

28. What impact does my teaching have on student learning?

29. Student Response to Instruction

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

31. The Fourth Grade Story Teacher Request

32. The Fourth Grade Story Data Analysis
Revising & Editing

33. 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?

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

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

36. The Fourth Grade Story Differentiating Instruction – Anchor Charts

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

38. 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

39. Student Focus AFTER DUR ING BEFORE Academic Supports
Behavioral Supports

40. *Hattie Ranking
*using Cohen’s d formula for reporting effect sizes

41. 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:

42. 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

43. acceleration remediation

44. A rising tide lifts all boats.
John F. Kennedy

45. 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

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

47. https://exoplanets.nasa.gov/trappist1

48. 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.

49. 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

50. 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

51. References
Buffum, A., Mattos, M., & Weber, C. (2010). The Why Behind RTI. Educational Leadership, 68 (2), 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), 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

52. References
Brier, N. (1995). Predicting antisocial behavior in youngsters displaying poor academic achievement: A review of risk factors. Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, 16, Hattie's new #1 effect size: Collective teacher efficacy [Video file]. (2017, March 09). Retrieved March 7, 2019, from 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, Riffel, Laura ( ). Keynote for Positive Interventions and Effective Strategies.

53. References
Rosenshine, B., (2012). Principles of instruction: Research-based practices that all teachers should know. American Educator, 36(1). p , 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.

54. Division of Instructional, School Improvement, and College Readiness Support
Dr. Eduardo Cancino, Deputy Director
Dr. Belinda S. Gorena, Administrator
School Improvement, Accountability and Compliance
Kelly K. VanHee, Administrator
Curriculum, Instruction and Assessment
Carmen Garcia, Director
Brownsville Extension Office
Dr. Darlene M. Rogers, Director
Laredo Extension Office
REACHING NEW
HORIZONS
© 2017 Region One Education Service Center