1. A-F Rating and State Accountability System
HB 2804, 84th Texas Legislature
December 2016

2. Background Information
84th Legislative session, 2015, passed this
Thought to be more easily understood by public
Goes into effect in the school year
We get a sneak peek of ratings for school year
Ends Index Scores after
A-F will replace the Indexes
Will still keep Academic Achievement Distinctions Designations, System Safeguards, PBMAS
16 states, primarily in the South, rate by A-F.
Legislature believes that this will be more transparent and easier for parents to understand than the former accountability system.

3. Timeline December 1, 2016: December 16, 2016 December 30, 2016
Commissioner released basic recommendations and the timeline
December 16, 2016
Unmasked data tables and planned methodologies of ratings in TEASE
December 30, 2016
Districts and campuses receive A-F letter ratings based on 2016 data based on Domains 1-4.
Sent to the legislature before districts
January 4, 2017
TEA releases provisional A-F report with ratings through TEASE
January 6, 2017
TEA releases provisional A-F report with ratings to public on TEA website

4. Proposed A-F rating measurements
Ratings will be determined in three distinct categories:
STAAR/EOC
Postsecondary Readiness
Community and Student Engagement
Final recommendations for STAAR related data have not been made public.
Commissioner Recommendation:
Either Student Achievement or Student Progress = 35%
Closing Gaps = 20%
The “sneak peek” will not include the Community and Student Engagement piece.
The formulas for this will be sent to school districts Friday, December 16th.
We expected this on December 1st, so much disappointment.

5. Compare what we know to what is changing
It’s always better to start with what we know to understand what we need to know.

6. Index 1 to Domain 1: Index 1: Who passed STAAR content tests?
Domain 1: Who passed and who is Level II, Recommended?
# of Tests Passed # of Tests Taken All Subjects. All Grades. All Students. One Number. (ALL NISD met expectations in Index 1 for 2016)

7. Domain 1 What we need to know:
Students measured at passing standard. (Level II 2016)
Students measured at Final Level II standard. (Postsecondary Readiness standard according to STAAR)
Can bump up a letter grade if in the top quartile of comparison groupings. (Advanced, Level III counts here.)
This is designed to capture all three levels =of achievement on the STAAR.
Top Quartile = campus comparison groups. District will have a comparison group, too.
This aligns with the commissioner’s new public label of student scores. (DNM, Approaches, Meets, Masters)

8. Index 2 to Domain 2:
Index 2: Did all of our students improve their 2016 scores from their 2015 scores by X amount?
Domain 2: To what degree are students improving scores year-to-year?

9. Domain 2 What we need to know:
Growth is still rewarded
There may be a change in how growth is calculated
Can bump up a letter grade if in the top quartile of comparison groupings.

10. Index 3 to Domain 3: Focuses on Economically Disadvantaged Students
Index 3 – Are lower performing subpopulations improving each year?
Domain 3: Are all subpopulations passing?
Focuses on Economically Disadvantaged Students
AND Lowest Performing Race/Ethnicity Groups from Previous Year
Groups Must Meet Minimum Size of 25 Reading Tests AND 25 Math Tests last year AND this year
Campuses could have 0, 1, or 2 Race/Ethnicity groups
(see accountability manual for details)

11. Domain 3 What we need to know:
All subpopulations with 40 or more students tested will be included
Looks at “gaps” between the groups performance
Regression model will allow for some schools to increase their letter grade on this domain.

12. Calculation is a multiple step process:
Index 4 to Domain 4:
Index 4: Postsecondary Readiness.
Domain 4:
STAAR Component (% Met Final Level II on Two or More Tests). 8 student groups, all subject areas combined scoring Final Level II on two or more subjects. Elementary and Middle ONLY use this.
High school uses those plus:
STAAR Final Level II in 2+ Subjects: ALL Grade Levels
Graduation Rate: High Schools Only (Lagging indicator)
Recommended/Distinguished Graduates: High Schools Only (Lagging indicator)
College Ready Graduates: High Schools Only (Lagging indicator)
Calculation is a multiple step process:

13. Domain 4 need to know: Elementary schools: Middle schools:
will only be held accountable to the “chronic absenteeism rate”
* Chronic absenteeism based on stable, non-mobile students, enrolled 85% of the school year or more, with more 10% or more absent days.
Middle schools:
Chronic absenteeism rate
Annual 7-8 dropout rate
Preparation courses (after 2017)
High schools:
Percent of students meeting at least ONE of the following:
Complete CTE coherent sequence
Complete one or more AP/IB courses
Complete 12 hours or more of earned postsecondary credit
Achieve TSI benchmark on TSAI, SAT, or ACT
Graduation rate
Graduation Plan Rate

14. Community and Student Engagement (CaSE) to Domain 5
CaSE (HB5)
Domain 5
Self reports on all eight pieces of the rubric
HB5, 83rd legislative
Chooses 3 of 8 of the locally determined indicators
Will not be part of the “sneak peek”

16. Timeline December 1, 2016: December 16, 2016 December 30, 2016
Commissioner released basic recommendations and the timeline
December 16, 2016
Unmasked data tables and planned methodologies of ratings in TEASE
December 30, 2016
Districts and campuses receive A-F letter ratings based on 2016 data based on Domains 1-4.
Sent to the legislature before districts
January 4, 2017
TEA releases provisional A-F report with ratings through TEASE
January 6, 2017
TEA releases provisional A-F report with ratings to public on TEA website

17. Why this is a flawed accountability system:
It is not transparent and simple.
Regression models
Lagging data
Pages of statistical computations
Over half of the measurement is still based on standardized tests.
One day, one shot, one score; measured multiple ways.
Standardized tests were not designed to rank organizations
Postsecondary readiness is not well defined, particularly in elementary and middle schools.
Indirect measure of chronic absenteeism
Someone will lose.
Where you start often determines where you end.
System is set to over-penalize one year of inadequate results.