Introduction to the A-F Accountability System

Introduction to the A-F Accountability System
Presented by: Micki Wesley, Director of Accountability and Compliance Kara Fluty, School Improvement / ESSA Specialist

Gain an understanding of the A-F system
Gain ability to explain the system to stakeholders Analyze current district / campus data to predict domain scores

The Implementation of House Bill 22
The purpose of this TETN is to provide greater details on the development on the new accountability system and get your feedback then have you use this same presentation to provide the same training to your districts, so we can get their feedback as well. This is the first of three planned TETNs. Today, we will provide a brief overview of the entire system, then look at the Student Achievement domain. The TETN scheduled for September 14 is a hold date incase we don’t finish everything today. We’ll go into detail of the School Progress domain at the TETN in late September. We’ll go into detail of the Closing the Gaps domain at the TETN in October. Collaborating to Build a Better accountability system

A B C D or F A–F Accountability: Legislative Context
HB 2804 HB 22 House Bill 22, 85th Texas Legislature “The commissioner shall evaluate school district and campus performance and assign each district and campus an overall performance rating of” House Bill 22, just like HB 2804 (its predecessor) requires the commissioner to evaluation district and campus performance and assign grades of A, B, C, D, or F. A B C D or F

Best of Student Achievement or School Progress
Three Domains: Combining to Calculate Overall Score Closing The Gaps School Progress Student Achievement Best of Student Achievement or School Progress 70% 30% Page 3 To calculate the overall grade, TEA will use the best of the Student Achievement domain or School Progress domain and combine it with the grade of the Closing the Gaps domain, which must account for at least 30% of the overall grade. This can only be applied to districts or campuses that do not have an F in either the student achievement or school progress domain. If a district or campus receives an F in either of those two domains, TEA will use a grade of no greater than B for that portion of the overall grade. Student Achievement evaluates performance across all subjects for all students, on both general and alternate assessments, College, Career, and Military Readiness (CCMR) indicators, and graduation rates. School Progress measures district and campus outcomes in two areas: the number of students that grew at least one year academically (or are on track) as measured by STAAR results and the achievement of all students relative to districts or campuses with similar economically disadvantaged percentages. Closing the Gaps uses disaggregated data to demonstrate differentials among racial/ethnic groups, socioeconomic backgrounds and other factors. The indicators included in this domain, as well as the domain’s construction, align the state accountability system with the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). 5

Design Approach: Philosophical Commitments
“The commissioner shall ensure that the method used to evaluate performance is implemented in a manner that provides the mathematical possibility that all districts and campuses receive an A rating.” 1 No forced distribution Law switched from annually to periodically We WANT stability in the model; we do not want the bar to keep changing. We want to commit to something so the bar will remain static for five years, so the rules don’t change. 2

A = Exemplary Performance B = Recognized Performance
A–F Accountability: New Labels/Grades A = Exemplary Performance B = Recognized Performance C = Acceptable Performance D = In Need of Improvement F = Unacceptable Performance Page 3

Who is Rated? Districts Campuses
School districts and charter schools are rated based on the aggregate results of students in their campuses. Districts without any students enrolled in the grades for which STAAR assessments are administered (3–12) are assigned the rating label of Not Rated. Campuses Campuses and open-enrollment charter schools, including alternative education campuses (AECs), are rated based on the performance of their students. For the purposes of assigning accountability ratings, campuses that do not serve any grade level for which the STAAR assessments are administered are paired with campuses in their district that serve students who take STAAR.

Rating Labels- Districts
Page 4 Rating Labels- Districts Districts A, B, C, or D: Assigned for overall performance and for performance in domain to districts (including those evaluated under alternative education accountability [AEA]) that meet the performance target for the letter grade F: Assigned for overall performance and for performance in each domain to districts (including AEAs) that do not meet the performance target to earn at least a D Not Rated: Assigned to districts that—under certain, specific circumstances—do not receive a rating

Single Campus Districts- 2018
Single campus districts will not receive a district letter grade rating in 2018. The campus rating of Met Standard or Improvement Required will be also be assigned to the district. Page 4

Rating Labels- Campuses
Page 5 Rating Labels- Campuses Met Standard: Assigned for overall performance and for performance in each domain to campuses that meet the performance targets Improvement Required: Assigned for overall performance and for performance in each domain to campuses (including AECs) that do not meet the performance targets Met Alternative Standard: Assigned for overall performance and for performance in each domain to alternative education campuses evaluated under AEA provisions that meet the performance targets Not Rated: Assigned to campuses that—under certain, specific circumstances—do not receive a rating

Campus Type Determination
Found in the 2018 Accountability Manual Chapter 1, page 4 Page 5

Accountability Subset Rule
A subset of assessment results is used to calculate each domain. The calculation includes only assessment results for students enrolled in the district or campus in a previous fall, as reported on the TSDS PEIMS October snapshot. Three assessment administration periods are considered for accountability purposes: Page 6

Campus Accountability
The 2018 accountability subset rules apply to the STAAR performance results evaluated across all three domains. Grades 3–8: districts and campuses are responsible for students reported as enrolled in the fall (referred to as October snapshot) in the spring assessment results. End-of-Course (EOC): districts and campuses are responsible for Summer 2017 results for students reported as enrolled in fall 2016 snapshot; Fall 2017 results for students reported as enrolled in the fall 2017 snapshot; and Spring 2018 results for students reported as enrolled in the fall 2017 snapshot.

EOC Retesters EOC retesters are counted as passers based on the passing standard in place when they were first eligible to take any EOC assessment.

EOC Retesters For students who enrolled and tested at a different district or campus during the 2017–18 school year, the student’s single best result for each EOC is selected. If all results have the same level of performance, the most recent result is selected for calculations. The selected result is applied to the district and campus that administered the assessment if the student meets the accountability subset rule. Page 6

Data Collections- Graduation Rate
Page 7 2018 TSDS PEIMS-Based Indicators One of the primary sources for data used in the accountability system is the TSDS PEIMS data collection. The TSDS PEIMS data collection has a prescribed process and timeline that offer school districts the opportunity to correct data submission errors or data omissions discovered following the initial data submission. TSDS PEIMS data provided by school districts and used to create specific indicators are listed below.

Data Collections- CCMR
Page 7 Data Collections- CCMR 2018 TSDS PEIMS-Based Indicators

Data Collections- Other Assessments
Page 7 Data Collections- Other Assessments 2018 Other Assessment Indicators The CCMR component of the accountability system includes data from ACT, Advanced Placement (AP), International Baccalaureate (IB), SAT, and Texas Success Initiative (TSI) assessment results.

Student Achievement School Progress Closing The Gaps
Approaches or Above Meets or Above Masters 20

40% 40% 20% Domain Indicators Page 9
Elementary School Middle School 100% elementary and MS 40% STAAR 40% CCMR 20% Grad rate Page 9 40% College, Career, Military Ready (CCMR) Graduation Rates 40% High School 20%

STAAR Component: Methodology
One point is given for each percentage of assessment results that are at or above the following: • Approaches Grade Level or above • Meets Grade Level or above • Masters Grade Level The STAAR component score is calculated by dividing the total points (cumulative performance for the three performance levels) by three resulting in an overall score of 0 to 100 for all districts and campuses. The STAAR component score is rounded to the nearest whole number. Page 9

Substitute Assessments
STAAR Component—Substitute Assessments Qualifying results on substitute assessments are included in the Student Achievement domain at the Meets Grade Level standard. The required equivalency standards for the eligible substitute assessment are found in 19 Texas Administrative Code (TAC), § , available online at Calculated as a “Meets Grade Level” performance. ACT/SAT is most recent result, TSIA is best result. Page 10

Student Achievement Score
STAAR Component Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board By 2030, at least 60 percent of Texans ages 25–34 will have a certificate or degree. Student Achievement Score A All Students Total Tests 3,212 # Approaches Grade Level or Above 2,977 # Meets Grade Level or Above 1,945 # Masters Grade Level 878 % Average of 3 Page 11 / 3 = 60.2 Approaches Grade Level or Above 92.7% Meets Grade Level or Above 60.6% Masters Grade Level 27.3% 25

STAAR Component All tests (STAAR with and without accommodations and STAAR Alternate 2) combined All subjects combined ELs (except in their first year in US schools) Specific EL performance measures for year two in US schools only Three Performance Levels Approaches Grade Level and Meets Grade Level are required by HB 22. Masters Grade Level standard encourages districts and campuses to push high performing students to excel more. The average of three levels is very close to the percentage of students who achieve the Meets Grade Level standard. Meets Grade Level equates to a 60% chance of completing one year of college without remediation. Masters equates to a 75% chance. Page 11 26

STAAR Component: High Schools/Districts
Elementary School Middle School College, Career, Military Ready (CCMR) Graduation Rates High School

CCMR Indicators Computational Logic Denominator is annual graduates.
Student who accomplishes any one is in numerator. All CCMR indicators lag by one year. (CCMR data used in 2017–18 accountability will be from the 2016–17 school year.) Page 12

Student Achievement Domain
Page 12 Student Achievement Domain Career Ready CTE coherent sequence coursework completion and credit aligned with approved industry-based certifications (one-half point credit) Earn industry-based certification Graduate with completed IEP and workforce readiness (graduation type code of 04, 05, 54, or 55) Military Ready Enlist in the United States Armed Forces *New requirement: SB 1843 requires districts to administer the ASVAB to all grade students at least one time. See attached list of courses and pathways for CTE half-point credit See explanation of graduation type code of 04, 05, 54, 55 11/11/ Texas Education Agency | Academics | Performance Reporting

College Ready Meet criteria of 3 on AP or 4 on IB examinations (any subject) Meet TSI criteria (SAT/ACT/TSIA/College Prep course) in reading and mathematics (see chart for criteria) Complete a course for dual credit 9 hours or more in any subject or 3 hours or more in ELAR/ mathematics Earn an associate’s degree See attached list of courses and pathways for CTE half-point credit See explanation of graduation type code of 04, 05, 54, 55 Page 13 11/11/ Texas Education Agency | Academics | Performance Reporting

Future CCMR Indicators
Successful completion of an OnRamps course beginning in the school year. Admission to a postsecondary industry certification program (school year TBD) Meeting standards on a composite of indicators that indicate college preparation (school year TBD) Page 13

CCMR One point is given for each annual graduate who accomplishes any one of the CCMR indicators, except for CTE coherent sequence graduates. One-half point is given for each CTE coherent sequence graduate who completes coursework aligned to the approved list of industry-based certifications.* Number of Graduates Who Accomplish Any One of the CCMR Indicators Number of 2017 Annual Graduates *This is for graduates who meet no other CCMR indicator. Page 14 11/11/ Texas Education Agency | Academics | Performance Reporting

CTE Coherent Sequence to Industry-Based Certifications Transition Plan For 2018 and 2019, CTE coherent sequence graduates who complete and receive credit for at least one course aligned with CTE industry-based certification earn one-half point. (See attached list) For 2020 and 2021, CTE coherent sequence graduates who complete and receive credit for a pathway of courses toward an industry-based certification earn one-half point. For 2022 and beyond, only graduates who earn an industry-based certification earn one point. Page 14 11/11/ Texas Education Agency | Academics | Performance Reporting

Example Calculation: CCMR Score
Page 14

Graduation Rate High school graduation rates include the four-year, five-year, or six-year longitudinal graduation rate (with state exclusions) or annual dropout rate, if the graduation rate is not available. Small numbers analysis will be conducted on the All Students group if the number of students in the class of 2017 is fewer than 10. A three year aggregate average using the class of 2017, 2016 and 2015. Page 15 11/11/ Texas Education Agency | Academics | Performance Reporting

Graduation Rate Calculation
Page 15

Graduation Rate Report in TEASE

Calculating the Score : Current Model
= 100% of domain score Elementary School = 100% of domain score Middle School College, Career, Military Ready (CCMR) Graduation Rates High School

All three components available
Calculating the Score : Current Model Elementary School Middle School All three components available = 40% of domain score CCMR Graduation Rates = 40% of domain score = 20% of domain score High School

Exceptions: If no graduation rate is available, the CCMR and STAAR components will be weighted at 50% each. For Districts and Campuses that lack a CCMR component, STAAR will be weighted 100%. Page 15

Common Questions: Student Achievement Domain
Q: Will there be a new ELL progress measure? A: No, an EL-specific performance measure will be developed for ELs in year two in US schools. Q: In 2018 when districts receive A–F ratings and campuses receive Met Standard or Improvement Required ratings, will campuses be evaluated using the three domains or the current indices? A: Campuses will be evaluated using the same three domains that will be used to evaluate districts. Q: Will campuses receive Met Standard or Improvement Required ratings for each domain and overall? A: Yes. Q: In the Student Achievement domain, to earn credit for TSI, must a student pass both mathematics and reading or pass either mathematics or reading? A: Both reading and mathematics Q: Will state exclusions be used for graduation rates? A: Yes, graduation rates (with exclusions) will be used in the Student Achievement domain. Q: Will the ELL progress measure be in the Student Achievement domain? A: No.

Common Questions: Student Achievement Domain
Q: Is TEA planning to release another “What if” report in January 2018? A: No. Q: Are graduation plan rates included in the Student Achievement domain? A: No, but they will continue to be used to award postsecondary-readiness distinction designations. Q: If a student meets any one of the CCMR indicators, are they considered college ready? A: Yes. Q: Can a student meet TSIA on STAAR? A: No, STAAR does not have a TSIA threshold. Q: For the TSIA indicator, must a student meet the criteria in reading and mathematics on the same test? A: No, a student can meet the reading criterion on one text and the criterion for mathematics on a different test. Q: Do you anticipate changes in how SSI and EOC retesters are included in accountability? A: No. Q: Will a grade of D invoke interventions? A: Yes. For information, please contact the Division of School Improvement and Support (512)

https://rptsvr1. tea. texas. gov/perfreport/account/2018/scaling_tool

DMAC Users: Click Demographic Reports
Page 16 DMAC Users: Click Demographic Reports Change the indicators button to “State” Options: Enter campus type and Eco Disadvantage % Select the 1st box – State Indicator – Student Achievement Generate

Academic Progress: Growth
Student Achievement Closing The Gaps School Progress The School Progress domain is the second of the three domains established by House Bill 22

Part A: Academic Growth
School Progress: Two Aspects to Progress Part A: Academic Growth Part B: Relative Performance When we think about School Progress, we think about the impact on students: how much are they growing House Bill 22 establishes two ways to evaluation this. Student Growth: how much has each individual student grown academically over last year—longitudinal student growth While this is really good information to have, this metric has some limitations: because there are no STAAR test until third grade, we can’t determine level of growth using this metric until fourth grade, and high school has only a few STAAR test, so it’s not a very effective measure there either. Relative performance is a different way of looking at growth by comparing the performance of similar campuses against each other.

Part A: Academic Growth
School Progress: Two Aspects to Progress Part A: Academic Growth Part B: Relative Performance We’ll start our look at the School Progress domain by exploring Part A: Student Growth

STAAR: Test Inclusion Methodology
Includes all tests (STAAR with and without accommodations and STAAR Alternate 2) combined Combines reading and mathematics Uses STAAR Progress Measure Includes ELs (except in their first year in US schools) Uses same STAAR Progress Measure for ELs and non-Els Because the first STAAR tests are given in third grade, we can’t assess growth using the STAAR Progress Measure until fourth grade In high school, there are limitations to measuring growth with STAAR. It can only possibly be done for 9th graders who take Algebra I, and then only for 9th and 10th graders taking English I or English II First, what are we including in Part A: what test do we have to make accurate conclusions about student growth Part A includes all types of STAAR tests, those without accommodations, with accommodations, and STAAR Alt 2 The subjects included are reading and mathematics, and we combine the tests, we don’t report them separately. Part A takes into account the STAAR Progress Measure (the same one that we been using for several years)—it’s the same progress measure for ELs and non-ELs; we no longer use the ELL progress measure. This is new this year. Because the first STAAR tests are given in third grade, we can’t assess growth using the STAAR Progress Measure until fourth grade. We can’t measure growth in high school using the STAAR Progress Measure because high schools have very few STAAR tests. At this point, only Part B: Relative Performance will be analyzed in high school. Page 18 51

Part A: Academic Growth: Methodology
School Progress, Part A includes all assessments with eligible growth measures. In order to receive a STAAR progress measure in 2018, a student must meet ALL of the following criteria within the same content area (ELA/reading or mathematics): Has a valid score from the previous year and the current year. Has tested in successive grade levels or EOC assessments in the previous year and the current year. Students who took the same grade‐level or EOC assessment in the previous year and the current year will not receive a progress measure. Students who take STAAR assessments and have skipped a grade level between the previous year and the current year will receive a progress measure. Page 19

Part A: Academic Growth: Methodology
Has taken a STAAR assessment in the previous year and a STAAR assessment in the current year. For STAAR reading assessments, has taken assessments in the same language in the previous year and the current year (i.e., English or Spanish). For STAAR Algebra I and English II, has taken the assessment for the first time. For students taking a STAAR Alternate 2 test in current year, must have taken a STAAR Alternate 2 in the previous year. Page 19

STAAR Performance Level
Academic Growth: Measuring Advancement Exceeds Masters Masters + 1 Point Awarded For meeting or exceeding expected growth Expected Meets Meets + .5 Points Awarded For maintaining proficiency but failing to meet expected growth STAAR Performance Level Maintains Approaches Approaches Limited + 0 Points Awarded For falling to a lower level Does Not Meet Does Not Meet Here are a few examples of how Part A works. The design of the new growth model is to reward students who achieve expected growth (1 point) and also reward students who stay at the same performance level year over year even if they don’t meet growth expectations. A student who was at Approaches Grade Level last year and achieves the Meets Grade Level this year earns one point A student who was at Approaches Grade Level last year, stays at Approaches Grade Level this year, but meets the STAAR Progress Measure expectation also earns one point. A student who was at Approaches Grade Level last year, stays at Approaches Grade Level this year, but does not meet the STAAR Progress Measure expectation earns half a point for maintaining proficiency. And a student who moves to a lower performance level between years earns no points. We no longer award two points for exceeding STAAR Progress Measure expectations. This is very different from what we’ve done in recent years. 3rd Grade Example 4th Grade Example 54

STAAR: With and Without Accommodations
Page 19

STAAR Alternative 2

Limited/Expected Growth
STAAR data files include values to calculate School Progress, Part A. While the data file does indicate whether the student achieved Limited, Expected or Accelerated on the STAAR progress measure (indicated by a 0, 1, or 2, respectively), it does not show the one-half point that is awarded for those students who do not meet or exceed the progress measure but maintain proficiency. Similarly, the consolidated accountability file released in late summer will not include this value. The calculation is conducted by TEA; therefore, it is not included in data files created by the testing contractor. When calculating growth, the student may achieve 0, ½, or 1 point.

? 200 Student Growth: Sample Calculation One Hundred Students
Each with reading and mathematics results for last year and this year Denominator = 200 STAAR Progress Measures ? 200 Page 20 This is an example of how we calculate the score for Part A. Let’s imagine the following scenario: a campus with one hundred students, each of whom took both reading and mathematics STAAR tests last year and this year. That would give us 200 STAAR Progress Measures: that’s the denominator

Student Growth: Sample Calculation
No Points Does Not Meet to Does Not Meet (without meeting growth expectations) Approaches to Does Not Meet (without meeting growth expectations) Masters to Meets Previous Year Current Year Count of Tests 20 + 15 + 14 Twenty tests remain at the Does Not Meet proficiency level and don’t meet the STAAR Progress Measure expectations Fifteen tests went from Approaches last year to Does Not Meet this year And 14 test went from Masters Grade Level Last year to Meets Grade Level this year. That’s 49 tests that don’t earn any points. 49 Page 21

Half Point Does Not Meet to Approaches (without meeting growth expectations) Approaches to Approaches (without meeting growth expectations) Previous Year Current Year Count of Tests 7 + 10 17 Seven tests went from Does Not Meet last year to Approaches this year without meeting the STAAR Progress Measure expectations And 10 test stayed at Approaches Grade Level an did not meet STAAR Progress Measure expectations That’s 17 test that earned half a point. Page 21

One Point Does Not Meet to Does Not Meet (meeting/exceeding growth expectations) Approaches to Does Not Meet (meeting/exceeding growth expectations)* Approaches to Approaches (meeting/exceeding growth expectations) *Very rare but statistically possible Previous Year Current Year Count of Tests 23 + 7 + 22 Twenty-three tests stayed at the Does Not Meet proficiency level, but met the STAAR Progress Measure expectations Seven tests fell from Approaches Grade Level last year to Does Not Meet this year, but met the STAAR Progress Measure expectations (This is rare but possible when a student skips a grade.) Twenty-two tests stayed at Approaches Grade Level, but met the STAAR Progress Measure expectations 52 Page 21

One Point Meets to Meets Meets to Masters Masters to Masters Previous Year Current Year Count of Tests 33 + 32 + 17 Thirty-three tests stayed at Meets Grade Level Thirty-two test went from Meets Grade Level last year to Masters Grade Level this year And 17 test stayed at Masters Grade Level 82 Page 21

49 results that earned no points 17 results that earned half a point 134 results that earned one point (49× 0)+(17 × .5) +(52 × 1) +(82× 1) 200 142.5 200 71 = = In this case, we loosely conclude that 71% of students have gained a year academically. Technically, however, this is the percentage of tests taken, with some adjustment for maintaining proficiency. Page 21 That a total of 134 tests that earn one point. Here’s how we add it up. 49 test earn no points, plus 17 test that earned half a point, plus 134 test that earned one point equals points. Divide that by total number of STAAR Progress Measures (the total number of possible points) to get the score for Part A: 71. In this case, we loosely conclude that 71% of students have gained a year academically. Technically, however, this is the percentage of tests taken, with some adjustment for maintaining proficiency.

School Progress: Two Aspects to Progress
Part A: Student Growth Part B: Relative Performance Part B of this domain looks at relative performance.

Part B Relative Performance: Methodology
Page 21 Elementary and Middle Schools For elementary and middle schools, School Progress, Part B evaluates the overall student performance on the Student Achievement STAAR component compared to campuses with similar percentages of economically disadvantaged students, as reported in the TSDS PEIMS fall snapshot. High Schools, K–12 Campuses, and Districts with CCMR Component For high schools, K–12 campuses, and districts, School Progress, Part B evaluates the average of the Student Achievement STAAR component and the College, Career, and Military Readiness (CCMR) component compared to districts or campuses with similar percentages of economically disadvantaged students, as reported in the TSDS PEIMS fall snapshot.

Relative Performance: AEAs
Alternative education campuses and alternative education accountability charter schools are not evaluated on School Progress, Part B due to the small number of districts and campuses available for comparison.

Disadvantaged Students
Relative Performance: Measuring School Progress Higher Levels of Student Achievement Student Achievement Domain Score for All Students Includes STAAR & CCMR for districts and campuses that have that data The second part of the School Progress domain is relative performance, comparing the Student Achievement domain score against the percentage of students who are economically disadvantaged, then comparing that performance against like campus types. The left axis is the score in the Student Achievement domain. For elementary schools and middle schools, STAAR is the only component. For high schools and districts, it’s STAAR, CCMR, and graduation rates Along the bottom is the percentage of students who are considered economically disadvantaged Each dot in this example represents an elementary campus, where each one falls is determined by its score in the Student Achievement domain and its percentage of students who are considered economically disadvantaged Higher Rates of Economically Disadvantaged Students % Economically Disadvantaged Students 67

Relative Performance: Measuring School Progress Higher Levels of Student Achievement Student Achievement Domain Score for All Students Includes STAAR & CCMR for districts and campuses that have that data Average Line So how can we compare performance of the green-dot campus and the red-dot campus? It looks like the green-dot campus is out performing the red-dot campus in terms of proficiency, but is that really true in terms of the impact it has on students? If we draw a line of best fit, it turns out that each campus is precisely average for all elementary campuses in Texas Higher Rates of Economically Disadvantaged Students % Economically Disadvantaged Students 68

Relative Performance: Measuring School Progress Higher Levels of Student Achievement Page 22 A campus with fewer economically disadvantaged students on average has higher levels of student achievement. Student Achievement Domain Score for All Students Includes STAAR & CCMR for districts and campuses that have that data Average Line We know that, generally, a campus with fewer economically disadvantaged students has higher levels of student achievement. And, generally, a campus with more economically disadvantaged students tends to have lower levels of student achievement. But poverty is not destiny. A campus with more economically disadvantaged students tends to have lower levels of student achievement. Higher Rates of Economically Disadvantaged Students % Economically Disadvantaged Students 69

Relative Performance: Measuring School Progress Higher Levels of Student Achievement Page 22 A campus with fewer economically disadvantaged students on average has higher levels of student achievement. Student Achievement Domain Score for All Students Includes STAAR and CCMR rates for districts and campuses that have that data Average Line Look at the orange dot. This campus clearly is outstanding in School Progress. The last thing we want to do is set up an accountability system that has low expectations for economically disadvantaged students With the approach of Part B, we are able to identify the campuses that are really excelling at progress so we can learn from them; the schools at the top right of this plane are “A” schools. The green and red dots are not “A” schools in terms of School Progress, even though the green dot has a high level of student achievement. A campus with more economically disadvantaged students tends to have lower levels of student achievement. Higher Rates of Economically Disadvantaged Students % Economically Disadvantaged Students 70

Relative Performance: Measuring School Progress
Higher Levels of Student Achievement A B Student Achievement Domain Score for All Students C From that average line, we draw bands that determine grades. We’re still working to determine where the cut points should be. The slope of the lines will all be the same; grades will be determined by how far above or below the average line a district or campus falls. This is an area where we would like feedback When we run this for accountability, we’re planning several different scatterplots: one for elementary schools, one for middle schools, one for high schools/K–12, one for AEAs and one for districts. We’ve looked at whether to use other characteristics in addition to percentage of economically disadvantaged students (English learners, Special Ed, etc.), but research has shown that the one characteristic that matters more than any other is the percentage of economically disadvantaged students. We’re going to fix a distribution for the 2017–18 school year using data from 2016–17 accountability, then we’ll hold those cut points for hopefully five years. D F Higher Rates of Economically Disadvantaged % Economically Disadvantaged Students 71

Change the indicators button to “State” Options: Enter campus type and Eco Disadvantage % Select the 2nd and 3rd Reports Generate

Common Questions: School Progress Domain
Q: Does the Student Achievement domain score (y-axis in relative performance) include CCMR? A: Yes, for schools that have that data. Q: House Bill 22 specifically says that the method used to evaluate performance should provide for the mathematical possibility that all districts and campuses receive an A, but this looks like a forced distribution that guarantees a set percentage of schools will get Ds and Fs. A: Once the cut points are set using 2016– 17 accountability data, the cut points will stay fixed for five years. That way any district or campus will be able to earn an A. Here are a few common questions that we get about Part B. The one on the right is especially important; we’re hearing that there is a lot of misunderstanding about this in the field.

Closing the Gaps: Ensuring Educational Equity
Student Achievement School Progress Closing The Gaps A quick review: The new accountability system has three domains: Student Achievement, School Progress, and Closing the Gaps. To calculate the overall grade, we’ll take the best of the first two domains and combine that grade with the grade in the Closing the Gaps domain. A campus that earns a grade of C, B, or A is eligible to be assigned a grade based, in part, on a local accountability system. Today, we’re going to explore the Closing the Gaps domain.

All Students Continuously Enrolled and Mobile English Learners (ELs) Economically Disadvantaged Race/Ethnicity Special Education This domain disaggregates data by student group, and is how we are planning to meet the requirements of ESSA For this domain, we will look at fifteen individual student groups. x x

Student Groups All Students African American Hispanic White American Indian Asian Pacific Islander Two or More Races Economically Disadvantaged Current Special Education Former Special Education Current and Monitored English Learners Continuously Enrolled Non-Continuously Enrolled Indicators Academic Achievement in Reading and Mathematics (at meets or above level) Growth in Reading and Mathematics (Elementary and Middle Schools) 4 year Federal Graduation Rates (HS, K-12, Districts) English Learner Language Proficiency Status College, Career, and Military Readiness Performance (HS, K-12, District) Student Achievement Domain Score (Elem/MS) Page 25 These are the student groups and indicators we are evaluating for each student group. I won’t read through the list of student groups. They are the same student groups that we use for accountability now, with two exceptions: former special education, continuously enrolled. Academic achievement indicators based on STAAR scores in reading, math, writing, science, and social studies. Growth based on STAAR scores for elementary schools and middle schools. This will be the same methodology used in the School Progress domain. Graduation rates are specific to high schools. English learner proficiency status College, career, and military readiness. (high schools) Grade level proficiency specific to reading and math. (elementary and middle schools)

Closing the Gaps: Student Groups
Current and Former Special Education Defined by HB 22 Formerly receiving special education services The student was reported in PEIMS in any of the preceding three years as enrolled at the campus and participating in a special education program. The student is reported (PEIMS and STAAR answer documents) as enrolled at the campus in the current year and not participating in a special education program. Let’s take a look at a few of the new student groups that we will be using: House Bill 22 requires tracking current and former Special Ed students. This will be the first time that former special education students are looked as a student group in the accountability system. The challenge is that there are rarely enough kids to measure this at the campus level. Currently modeling shows us that, when minimum-size criteria is applied, only six campuses and 110 districts has sufficient data for this indicator. Our current modeling uses two years of former special education data. This is a feedback opportunity: for how long in the past should we look to include them in this group? Two, three, four, more? Page 26

Page 26 Continuously Enrolled and Non-Continuously Enrolled Continuously Enrolled if….. Districts Grades 4–12: Enrolled at a district in the Fall snapshot in the current school year and each of the three previous years Grade 3: Enrolled at a district in the Fall snapshot in the current school year and each of the previous two years Campuses Grades 4–12: Enrolled at a campus in the Fall snapshot in the current school year and in the same district in each of the three previous years Grade 3: Enrolled at a campus in the fall snapshot in the current school year and in the same district each of the previous two years HB 22 also requires us to look at students who are continuously enrolled. This is a tentative definition and we welcome feedback on how to improve it. This is a difficult measure especially at the campus level because of the number of different grade spans that the 8,600 or so campuses in Texas serve. Here is how it works for districts: If a student in fourth grade or higher is in the district on the snapshot date, we look back at each of the previous three years (four years total) to see if they were in the district on the snapshot date in each of those years. If he or she was, then he or she is counted as continuously enrolled. If not then the student is not counted as continuously enrolled. For students that are in third grade, we look at the current year and the previous two. Students in kindergarten, first grade, and second grade are not considered continuously enrolled. Here is how it works for campus: If a student in fourth grade or higher is on the campus on the snapshot date, we look at back at each of the previous three years (four years total) to see if they were in the district on the snapshot date in each of those years. A student on a campus on the snapshot date and in the district in each of the previous three years is counted as continuously enrolled for the campus. If not then the student is not counted as continuously enrolled. For students that are in third grade, we look at the current year and the previous two. Students in kindergarten, first grade, and second grade are not considered continuously enrolled.

Closing the Gaps: Continuously Enrolled in District
2017 2016 2015 2014 Here’s an example for a district. Moving left to right, the student is in the district on the snapshot date in 2017 and was also in the PEIMS snapshot for the previous three years. This student is considered continuously enrolled. 10th Grade 9th Grade 8th Grade 7th Grade Continuously Enrolled

2017 2016 2015 2014 Moving left to right, this student was in the district on the snapshot date in 2017 (10th grade) and was also in the PEIMS snapshot for only the previous two years. This student is considered non-continuously enrolled. 10th Grade 9th Grade 8th Grade Non-Continuously Enrolled

2017 2016 2015 Page 27 If, however, the student is in the third grade in the current year, we look back only two years. This student is considered continuously enrolled. 3rd Grade 2nd Grade 1st Grade Continuously Enrolled

2017 2016 2015 Page 27 The 3rd grader in this slide is considered non-continuously enrolled because he or she does not have three continuous years in the district. 3rd Grade 1st Grade Non-Continuously Enrolled

Closing the Gaps: Continuously Enrolled at a Campus
2017 2016 2015 2014 Here’s an example for a campus. Moving left to right, the student is on the campus on the snapshot date in 2017 and was also in the PEIMS snapshot for the district for the previous three years. This student is considered continuously enrolled. 10th Grade 9th Grade 8th Grade 7th Grade Page 27 Continuously Enrolled

2017 2016 2015 2014 Moving left to right, this student was on the campus on the snapshot date in 2017 (10th grade) and was also in the PEIMS snapshot for the district for only the previous two years. This student is considered non-continuously enrolled. Page 27 10th Grade 9th Grade 8th Grade Non-Continuously Enrolled

2017 2016 2015 Page 28 If, however, the student is in the third grade in the current year, we look back only two years. This student is considered continuously enrolled. 3rd Grade 2nd Grade 1st Grade Continuously Enrolled

2017 2015 Page 28 The 3rd grader in this slide is considered non-continuously enrolled because he or she does not have three continuous years in the district. 3rd Grade 1st Grade Non-Continuously Enrolled

Current and Monitored ELs Allowed by ESSA Current ELs ELs through their fourth year of monitoring. For 2018 accountability, a proxy is used to determine which students are in year 3 and year 4 of monitored status based on whether they were reported as monitored year 1 or year 2 in the previous years. For 2019 accountability, TSDS PEIMS codes will be added to collect year 3 and year 4 of monitored status. Page 28 Current modeling looks at both current ELs and current and monitored Els in two different groups. The combinations of “current and monitored” is required by federal law. We are not required by federal law to track current EL alone. There are opportunities for feedback here regarding whether we need to track current ELs separately or just track what is required by the federal requirement and for how long out we should track monitored EL students?

Closing the Gaps: Components
Academic Achievement STAAR performance (percentage at or above MEETS Grade Level) Substitute assessments at the Meets Grade Level standard Targets by subject area English Language Arts/Reading Mathematics Minimum Size Criteria All Students group has a minimum size of 10 or more assessments in the subject area. Student groups are evaluated if there are 25 or more assessments in the subject area. Page 29 Now let’s look at the indicators in this domain. For the academic achievement indicator, we use performance on STAAR at the Approaches Grade Level performance standard for all subjects. Targets will be held constant for five years, and safe harbor is available for each indicator; we’ll look at safe harbor in greater detail in a few moments.

Methodology: Each student group is evaluated by subject area on the percentage of assessment results that are at the Meets Grade Level or above standard. Each student group’s performance is then compared to the 2018 Academic Achievement performance targets. The Academic Achievement calculation is expressed as a percentage. Now let’s look at the indicators in this domain. For the academic achievement indicator, we use performance on STAAR at the Approaches Grade Level performance standard for all subjects. Targets will be held constant for five years, and safe harbor is available for each indicator; we’ll look at safe harbor in greater detail in a few moments. Page 29

Texas Education Agency | Academics | Performance Reporting
Academic Achievement: District Example Elementary School Weight Page 29 11/11/ Texas Education Agency | Academics | Performance Reporting

Academic Achievement: Elementary School Example High School Weight 11/11/ Texas Education Agency | Academics | Performance Reporting

Growth/Graduation Rate Academic Growth Status Elementary and Middle Schools* (School Progress domain) ELA/Reading Mathematics Targets by student group and subject area Must have a minimum of five indicators that meet minimum size * If Federal Graduation Status is not available for a high school, K–12, or district, Academic Growth Status will be used. Page 30 11/11/ Texas Education Agency | Academics | Performance Reporting

Minimum Size Criteria- Academic Growth All Students group has a minimum size of 10 or more progress measures in ELA/reading and mathematics, considered separately. Student groups are evaluated if there are 25 or more progress measures in ELA/reading and mathematics, considered separately. Methodology- Academic Growth: Each student group is evaluated by subject area on the percentage of assessment results that maintained proficiency or met growth expectations. Each student group’s performance is then compared to the 2018 Academic Growth Status performance targets. The Academic Achievement calculation is expressed as a percentage. Page 30 Now let’s look at the indicators in this domain. For the academic achievement indicator, we use performance on STAAR at the Approaches Grade Level performance standard for all subjects. Targets will be held constant for five years, and safe harbor is available for each indicator; we’ll look at safe harbor in greater detail in a few moments.

Growth/Graduation Rate Federal Graduation Status High Schools, K–12, Districts 4-year Federal Graduation Rate (without exclusions) Targets by student group Must have at least one indicator that meets minimum size If Federal Graduation Status is not available, Academic Growth Status will be used. Page 30 11/11/ Texas Education Agency | Academics | Performance Reporting

Minimum Size Criteria- Federal Graduation Status All students group has a minimum size of 10. Small numbers analysis is used if class of is fewer than 10 students (3 year average). Student groups are evaluated if there are 25 or more students from the group in the class. (Small numbers analysis is not applied.) Methodology- Federal Graduation Status: Each student group is evaluated using the four-year federal graduation rate without state exclusions. Follows the cohort of a group of students who begin grade 9 for the first time in the same school year, plus students who, in the next three years enter the school in the grade level expected for the cohort. The Academic Achievement calculation is expressed as a percentage. Page 30 Now let’s look at the indicators in this domain. For the academic achievement indicator, we use performance on STAAR at the Approaches Grade Level performance standard for all subjects. Targets will be held constant for five years, and safe harbor is available for each indicator; we’ll look at safe harbor in greater detail in a few moments.

Federal Graduation Status: District Example High School Weight Page 31 11/11/ Texas Education Agency | Academics | Performance Reporting

Academic Growth Status: Elementary School Example Elementary School Page 31 11/11/ Texas Education Agency | Academics | Performance Reporting

English Language Proficiency Status Current EL’s Note: Asylees, refugees, and students with interrupted formal education (SIFEs) are not included in state accountability until their sixth year of enrollment in U.S. schools. WAIVER??? TELPAS progress rate measures performance from prior to current year as demonstrated by increasing levels on the TELPAS. TELPAS is changing; the listening and speaking portions are now administered online. Should we postpone our integration of TELPAS given these changes? We would have to adjust this domain in year two to address this. We have to supply the feds with something this year that measures English language proficiency status.

EL Progress reflects an English Learner’s progress towards achieving English language proficiency. Data source is TELPAS results. Accountability subset rule is applied. A student is considered having made the EL Progress if he/she advances by at least one score of the composite rating from the prior year to the current year, or his/her result is “Advanced High.” If the prior year composite rating is not available, second or third year prior are used. The minimum size is 25. Small number analysis is applied if there are fewer than 25 current EL students. Page 32 Here’s how we calculate the progress of ELs. [Read Slide]

School Quality or Student Success Elementary and Middle Schools Student Achievement Domain Score Substitute assessments are included in this component at the Meets Grade Level standard. For the school quality and student success indicator, we are using the same CCMR indicator that we use in the Student Achievement domain for high schools. For elementary and middle schools, we will be using the Meets Grade Level standard for reading and math. The targets should be stable for five years. Safe harbor is available. Page 32

Page 32 Closing the Gaps: Components Minimum Size Criteria- Student Success (EL/MS) All Students group has a minimum size of 10 or more assessments in the subject area. Student groups are evaluated if there are 25 or more assessments in the subject area. Methodology- Student Success (EL/MS): Each student group is evaluated on the average of the percentage of assessment results that are approaches, meets, and masters. Each student group’s performance is then compared to the 2018 Student Achievement Domain score: STAAR Component Only performance targets. The calculation is expressed as a percentage. Now let’s look at the indicators in this domain. For the academic achievement indicator, we use performance on STAAR at the Approaches Grade Level performance standard for all subjects. Targets will be held constant for five years, and safe harbor is available for each indicator; we’ll look at safe harbor in greater detail in a few moments.

School Quality or Student Success High Schools, K–12, and Districts College, Career, and Military Readiness (includes all students enrolled in the last six weeks in 12th grade, not just graduates) Page 33 For the school quality and student success indicator, we are using the same CCMR indicator that we use in the Student Achievement domain for high schools. For elementary and middle schools, we will be using the Meets Grade Level standard for reading and math. The targets should be stable for five years. Safe harbor is available.

Minimum Size Criteria- School Quality CCMR Performance Status: All Students group has a minimum size of 10 or more students in the class. (Small numbers analysis is not used.) Student groups are evaluated if there are 25 or more students in the class. Methodology- School Quality CCMR Performance Status: Each student group is evaluated on the percentage of students who meet the CCMR Performance Status targets. Each student group’s performance is then compared to the 2018 Student Achievement Domain score: STAAR Component Only performance targets. The calculation is expressed as a percentage. Now let’s look at the indicators in this domain. For the academic achievement indicator, we use performance on STAAR at the Approaches Grade Level performance standard for all subjects. Targets will be held constant for five years, and safe harbor is available for each indicator; we’ll look at safe harbor in greater detail in a few moments. Page 33

School Quality: District Example Page 33 11/11/ Texas Education Agency | Academics | Performance Reporting

Student Success: Elementary School Example Page 34 11/11/ Texas Education Agency | Academics | Performance Reporting

Participation Status Adjusted Academic Achievement Performance Calculation Example The campus’s participation rate for ELA/reading is 93 percent. 93 scored answered documents 100 scored, absent, or other answer documents The performance denominator must be adjusted to include enough assessments to meet the 95 percent target. Page 34 11/11/ Texas Education Agency | Academics | Performance Reporting

Closing the Gaps Domain
Page 34 Closing the Gaps Domain Adjusted Academic Achievement Performance Calculation Example (cont’d.) Original ELA/Reading Academic Achievement Performance Calculation: 53 assessments at Meets Grade Level or Above standard 93 scored assessments that meet accountability subset Adjusted ELA/Reading Academic Achievement Performance Calculation: 95 assessments (93 scored plus 2 absent/other) =57% =56% 11/11/ Texas Education Agency | Academics | Performance Reporting

Approximately 120 different data points!
Closing the Gaps: Ensuring Educational Equity Student Group Achievement Target % of Student Groups that meet target Page 35 Overall Grade Approximately 120 different data points! Those are the student groups and indicators that we are planning to use to align the state accountability system with the requirements of ESSA. For districts and campuses that have data for each of the student groups and each of the indicators will have something like 120 different data points. One way to assign a grade for this domain is by looking at the percentage of data points that meet or exceed a target, but that doesn’t address by how much a target is missed. Here’s a feedback opportunity: should we consider by how much a target is missed or just the percentage of targets that are missed.

Closing the Gaps Domain: Minimum Number of Evaluated Indicators Elementary, Middle, High Schools, K–12, and Districts The following components must have a minimum of five indicators that meet minimum size to be included in the Closing the Gaps calculation: Academic Achievement, STAAR Growth Status, and Student Achievement Domain Score: STAAR Component Only The remaining components only require one evaluated indicator. Percentages for each component are then weighted based on the district or campus type to calculate an overall domain score. Page 35 11/11/ Texas Education Agency | Academics | Performance Reporting

Closing the Gaps Domain: Minimum Number of Evaluated Indicators Page 36 11/11/ Texas Education Agency | Academics | Performance Reporting

Closing the Gaps: Sample Status Report
*MSR Page 36 This is one possible way to report outcomes. It shows the 120 different points for which a school or district may have data. It looks a lot like the system safeguard report that we use now. This slide shows only a few of the student groups for which we will collect data.

Elementary/Middle Schools Weight1 Academic Achievement 30% % STAAR Growth Status % % English Language Proficiency % Student Achievement Domain Score: 10% % STAAR Component Only Due to changes to the TELPAS, Texas will request a waiver from the U.S. Department of Education to waive the English Language Proficiency component for 2018 accountability. If granted, the English Language Proficiency component weight will be distributed proportionally. Page 37 11/11/ Texas Education Agency | Academics | Performance Reporting

Closing the Gaps: Elementary School Example Domain Score=57 Scaled Score=72 Met Standard Page 37 CTG Scaled Scored CTG Domain Score Elementary 59 73 58 57 72 56 55 54 53 71 52 51 50 Elementary School Weight 11/11/ Texas Education Agency | Academics | Performance Reporting

High Schools, K–12, AEAs, and Districts Weight1 Academic Achievement % % Federal Graduation Status 10% % (If not available, STAAR Growth Status) English Language Proficiency % College, Career, and Military Readiness 30% % (If not available, Student Achievement Domain Score: STAAR Component Only) 2 Due to changes to the TELPAS, Texas will request a waiver from the U.S. Department of Education to waive the English Language Proficiency component for 2018 accountability. If granted, the English Language Proficiency component weight will be distributed proportionally. Page 38 11/11/ Texas Education Agency | Academics | Performance Reporting

Closing the Gaps: District Example Domain Score=64 Scaled Score=81 B Page 38 CTG Scaled Scored CTG Domain Score Non-AEA District 69 82 68 67 66 81 65 64 63 80 62 61 79 60 11/11/ Texas Education Agency | Academics | Performance Reporting

Closing the Gaps: Small District Example Domain Score=44 Scaled Score=74 C Page 39 CTG Scaled Scored CTG Domain Score Non-AEA District 49 76 48 75 47 46 45 44 74 43 42 41 73 40 11/11/ Texas Education Agency | Academics | Performance Reporting

Page 39 DMAC Users: Click Demographic Reports Change the indicators button to “State” Options: Enter campus type and Eco Disadvantage % Select the 4th box – State Indicator – Closing the Gaps Generate

Small Campuses Index System Domain System¹ 97 campuses² did not meet minimum size for Index 1 103 campuses² did not meet minimum size for Student Achievement 24 campuses² did meet minimum size for Index 1 but did not for Index 4 37 campuses² did meet minimum size for Student Achievement but did not for Closing the Gaps ¹ The campus counts for the domain system are based on 2017 modeling data. ² DAEPs, JJAEPs, and paired campuses are not included in these counts. 11/11/ Texas Education Agency | Academics | Performance Reporting

Think Time and Questions

Closing the Gaps: Aligning Accountability Systems
For the first time in 15 years, we will have only one accountability system. Federal and state requirements both will be met in our new accountability system. The Closing the Gaps domain will be used to meet ESSA requirements.

Comprehensive, Targeted, and Additional Targeted Support and Improvement 11/11/ Texas Education Agency | Academics | Performance Reporting

Comprehensive Support and Improvement Comprehensive Support Identification The Closing the Gaps domain scaled score will be used to rank and identify schools for comprehensive support. TEA will identify at least the lowest five percent of Title I, Part A campuses, based on the scaled score, for comprehensive support. Campuses that do not rank in the bottom five percent of the Closing the Gaps domain for two consecutive years and have increased a letter grade (for example, from F to D or from D to C) on the Closing the Gaps domain will be considered as having successfully exited comprehensive support status. Page 41 11/11/ Texas Education Agency | Academics | Performance Reporting

Comprehensive Support and Improvement Comprehensive Support Identification (cont’d.) If a campus does not obtain a 67 percent four-year graduation rate for the all students group, the campus will be automatically identified for comprehensive support and improvement. Any Title I campus identified for targeted support and improvement for three consecutive years will be identified for comprehensive support and improvement the following school year. TEA will annually identify campuses for comprehensive support and intervention beginning with the August 2018 accountability release, which is based on school year 2017–18 performance data. Page 41 11/11/ Texas Education Agency | Academics | Performance Reporting

Comprehensive Support and Improvement Rank Title I Campuses CTG Scaled Score 88 Cruise HS 71 89 Tate MS 90 Elise EL 70 91 Rae HS 69 92 Elaine EL 65 93 Hess MS 94 Delgado EL 61 95 Brady EL 56 96 Crowe HS 42 97 Stahl MS 98 Smalley EL 99 Charles EL 38 100 Cranford HS 33 Example: There are 100 Title I campuses. These are the lowest 13 ranked by CTG scaled score. Page 41 Elementary School Weight These campuses would be identified for Comprehensive Support and Improvement. Lowest 5% 11/11/ Texas Education Agency | Academics | Performance Reporting

Targeted Support and Improvement Targeted Support and Improvement Identification (beginning with 2018–19 ratings) Student group achievement will be monitored annually through the Closing the Gaps domain. Any campus with one or more consistently underperforming student groups will be identified for targeted support and improvement. TEA defines “consistently underperforming” as a school having one or more student groups that do not meet interim benchmark goals for three consecutive years. Campuses will be identified annually for the first time in August 2019 based on 2017, 2018, and 2019 data. Page 42 11/11/ Texas Education Agency | Academics | Performance Reporting

Additional Targeted Support and Improvement Page 42 Additional Targeted Support and Improvement Identification Any campus that is not identified for comprehensive or targeted support will be identified for additional targeted support if an individual student group’s percentage of evaluated indicators met is at or below the percentage used to identify that campus type for comprehensive support. To exit, any consistently underperforming student group must meet at least 50 percent of the indicators evaluated and meet the targets for Academic Achievement component in both reading and mathematics. Identification will begin with the August 2018 school ratings and will occur on an annual basis. 11/11/ Texas Education Agency | Academics | Performance Reporting

Additional Targeted Support Identification Rank Title I Campuses CTG Scaled Score HS CTG Domain Score MS CTG Domain Score EL CTG Domain Score 88 Cruise HS 71 34 89 Tate MS 90 Elise EL 70 49 91 Rae HS 69 27 92 Elaine EL 65 37 93 Hess MS 20 94 Delgado EL 61 26 95 Brady EL 56 96 Crowe HS 42 4 97 Stahl MS 98 Smalley EL 9 99 Charles EL 38 6 100 Cranford HS 33 1 Using the Comprehensive Support Identification cut point, find the unscaled score by campus type. Elementary School Weight Lowest 5% 11/11/ Texas Education Agency | Academics | Performance Reporting

Additional Targeted Support Identification Example Using this example, any* campus with a student group at or below the following percentage of indicators met would be identified for Additional Targeted Support. Elementary: 9% Middle: 4% High Schools: 4% Elementary School Weight *Additional Targeted Support is not limited to Title I campuses. 11/11/ Texas Education Agency | Academics | Performance Reporting

Additional Targeted Support Identification Example (EL) Page 43 Elementary School Weight 11/11/ Texas Education Agency | Academics | Performance Reporting

Additional Targeted Support Identification Example (EL) This campus would be identified for Additional Targeted Support. Elementary School Weight Page 43 11/11/ Texas Education Agency | Academics | Performance Reporting

Calculating an Overall Rating
micki

Calculating an Overall Rating: Scaling
Districts Scaled scores were created to align letter grades and scores used in the A–F academic accountability system to the common conception of letter grades. Campuses Scaled scores were established by campus type. Page 44

Calculating an Overall Rating: Weighting
Step 1: Determine the better outcome of the Student Achievement and the School Progress domain scaled scores. Step 2: Weight the better outcome of the Student Achievement or the School Progress domain scaled score at 70 percent. Step 3: Weight the Closing the Gaps domain scaled score at 30 percent. Step 4: Total the weighted outcome of the two scaled scores to calculate the overall score. Page 44

Calculating an Overall Rating: Example
Page 44

Distinction Designations
Campuses that receive an accountability rating of Met Standard are eligible to earn distinction designations. Distinction designations are awarded for achievement in several areas and are based on performance relative to a group of campuses of similar type, size, grade span, and student demographics. The distinction designation indicators are typically separate from those used to assign accountability ratings. Districts that receive a rating of A, B, C, or D are eligible for a distinction designation in postsecondary readiness. Page 45

Distinction Designations
For 2018, distinction designations are awarded in the following areas: • Academic Achievement in English Language Arts/Reading (campus only) • Academic Achievement in Mathematics (campus only) • Academic Achievement in Science (campus only) • Academic Achievement in Social Studies (campus only) • Top 25 Percent: Comparative Academic Growth (campus only) • Top 25 Percent: Comparative Closing the Gaps (campus only) • Postsecondary Readiness (district and campus) Page 45

Campus Comparison Groups
Each campus is assigned to a unique comparison group comprised of Texas schools that are most similar to it. To determine the campus comparison group, each campus is identified by school type then grouped with 40 other campuses from anywhere in Texas that are most similar in grade levels served size percentage of students who are economically disadvantaged mobility rate percentage of English learners percentage of students receiving special education services percentage of students enrolled in an Early College High School program *Each campus has only one unique campus comparison group. There is no limit on the number of comparison groups to which a campus may be a member. It is possible for a campus to be a member of no comparison group other than its own or a member of several comparison groups. Page 46

Extra-Curricular Activities
Local Accountability Plan Local Accountability *Example Sa *Example Student Achievement School Progress Closing The Gaps Extra-Curricular Activities Local Assessments HB 22 also established local accountability systems. The use of a local accountability system is not required. Using a local accountability system is at each district’s discretion but is limited to campuses. Only campuses with an overall letter grade of A, B or C can use the local accountability system to improve a letter grade.

Local Accountability Plan: Purpose and Requirements
To allow districts (at their option) to rate campuses using locally developed domains and accountability measures More Requirements for Districts Auditable calculations Campus score card that can be displayed on TEA’s website Publicly available explanation of the methodology used to assign ratings Plans submitted to TEA for approval Requirements for Districts Local plans must include the TEA-assigned three domain performance ratings (at least 50% of the overall rating). Locally developed domain and measures must provide for the assignment of A–F grades and be reliable and valid. Page 48

Local Accountability Plan: Getting the Plan Approved
Authority The commissioner has authority to develop the process to approve requests to assign campus performance ratings. One Condition A locally developed accountability system can only be used for campuses not assigned an overall rating of D or F by TEA. Requirements for Approval The agency determines whether the plan meets the minimum requirements. An audit conducted by the agency verifies calculations included in the plan. A review panel approves the plan. Page 48

New Indicator: Extracurricular/Cocurricular
Feasibility Study Determine the feasibility of incorporating indicators that account for extracurricular and cocurricular student activity. The commissioner may establish an advisory committee. Report A report to the legislature on the feasibility of these indicators is due by December 1, 2022, unless a similar indicator is adopted prior to December 1, Page 48 HB 22 also requires a study of the feasibility of using an extracurricular or cocurricular indicator in the A-F system.

A–F Timeline: Implementation of HB 22
Start of pilot group to design local accountability (Fall 2017) Campuses: A–F labels take effect and local accountability system is incorporated (August 2019) Rules adopted for local accountability system and application window opens (Fall 2018) HB 22 Passed by the 85th Texas Legislature (May 2017) Rules finalized for three domain system (Spring 2018) Page 49 Task Force launches on how to incorporate extracurricular activities (Winter 2017) Three domain system rates all campuses and districts. Takes effect as follows: Districts: A–F Rating Labels Campuses: Improvement Required or Met Standard (August 2018) ”What If” report on campus performance, based on data used to assign ratings. (January 2019) 144144

Please contact us if you need more information:
Thank you for coming! Please contact us if you need more information:

Introduction to the A-F Accountability System

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Introduction to the A-F Accountability System"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback

Log in

Auth with social network:

Introduction to the A-F Accountability System

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Introduction to the A-F Accountability System"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback