1. Accountability 2017 and Beyond
Region 6
Superintendent’s Meeting
October 19, 2016

2. Accountability Technical Advisory Committee (ATAC)
ATAC Member Duties
Members of the ATAC are Texas public school educators who will work with TEA staff and national experts to develop recommendations or options related to the state accountability system. ATAC members may participate in one or more small work groups formed around specific topics. Members will also solicit comment on committee issues from peers within their geographic region.

3. September 2016 ATAC Meeting Objectives
Review the preliminary 2016 accountability results
Begin discussion related to 2017 Accountability
Begin to consider options for the implementation of the A-F system prescribed by House Bill 2804

4. Overview of Accountability Results
District Ratings by Rating Category
Campus Ratings by Rating Category
COMMITTEE CONCERNS: Influence of grades 3-8 mathematics and STAAR A inclusion in certain indexes

7. State Assessment Update
STAAR A and L will be administered for the final time in December
Moving forward, accommodations will be available through an individualized online testing platform-Individual accommodations decided prior to test administration
CONCERN: Cost of specialized equipment (noise cancelling headphones w/ microphone)-New TELPAS assessment and accommodated STAAR test
ALL students can online test
Recommendation: Students need “best of both worlds”-online and paper copy
To The Administrator Addressed
September 6, 2016: Important Changes to the TX Assessment Program
September 14, 2016: STAAR Online Administrations Beginning in March 2017

8. 2017 Accountability
Postponed discussion of index targets until Commissioner of Education released forthcoming information about the STAAR passing standards
Unanimously recommended removing Writing (and any ELL Progress Measure for Writing) from Index 2. *Eng I/II continue to be included (combined assessment)
Want to investigate the possibility of options for multi-year Required Improvement for each index.
Expressed reservations of term “Required Improvement”/too closely resembles the unrelated “Improvement Required” rating

9. 2017 Accountability
Expressed concerns regarding the equity of including campuses of choice (Early College HS/Charter Schools) in campus comparison groups
Methodology used to construct campus comparison groups will be reevaluated as the A-F system is being built. (Workgroup formed)
Proposed that the 70% target for the district postsecondary readiness distinction designation be reevaluated for the 2017 accountability cycle; suggestion of a “tiered” system with regard to eligible indicators in order to provide an equitable opportunity for smaller districts to earn postsecondary readiness distinction.
and will be most comparable

10. Overview of 2017-18 Accountability (A-F)/ Every Student Succeeds Act
(ESSA)

16. Point system for students who meet the Level II satisfactory standard, Level II college readiness standard, and Level III advanced standard.
Commissioner of Education expectation is that, ultimately, 90% of students reach the satisfactory standard, 60% of students reach the college-readiness standard, and 30% of students reach the advanced standard.
Point ranges should conform to public expectations (A=100-90, etc.) to ensure public understanding
Discussed how multi-year Required Improvement could work for Domain I if the underlying data are comparable across years.

17. "Accountability has to be about 'how much did we grow them,' not 'how much did they come in with'" – Commissioner Morath, TASA/TASB Convention, September 2016
This domain is most likely going to receive the most weight of the 55% demanded by statute.
One of the things we learned from the past index system is that if you will focus on growth a lot of the system will take care of itself.
It is reasonable to expect a different kind of students growth measure than what was in the previous system.

18. How to measure “differentials” is the real issue in creating a policy decision.
Economically disadvantaged students will still be used inside the indicator. Research is clear that poverty is a substantial inhibitor of performance.
Unsure of how Level III students will be used.
This indicator could give you a bump up in the other two domains if a high score is achieved.

19. STAAR cannot be used inside this indicator per the statute.
Coming up with other required indicators and creating an equitable target score around these is perhaps the most challenging piece of the legislation.
Graduation rate will be a substantial part of the indicator.
The design is to push increase in SAT/ACT scores, students graduating with college credit, and industry certifications.

20. Self-report…..

21. Provisional A-F Report January 1, 2017
Recommendations:
TEA produce a thorough report-possibly beyond requirements of statute-in interest of transparency
Report show the effect of increased standards, looking forward to 2018 standards when A-F officially begins instead of current 2016 standards.
District to see the report (via TEASE) before it is formally submitted to legislature and released to the public.
Release to districts a “frame message” to assist in explaining/describing the report and how each letter grade was determined (Staff, Parents, and Public)

22. Director of C & I, Special Programs, and Accountability Onalaska ISD
Laura Redden
Director of C & I, Special Programs,
and Accountability
Onalaska ISD
Next ATAC Meeting: January 11, 2017