1. 2013 Accountability System Design Assessment & Accountability, Plano ISD

2. 2013 Accountability Goals 12/12/2012State Accountability Development 2013...2  Improving student achievement at all levels in the core subjects of the state curriculum.*  Ensuring the progress of all students toward achieving Advanced Academic Performance.*  Closing Advanced Academic Performance level gaps among groups.*  Closing gaps among groups in the percentage of students graduating under the recommended high school program and advanced high school program.*  Rewarding excellence based on other indicators in addition to state assessment results. * These goals are specified in Chapter 39.053(f) of the Texas Education Code.

3. Indicators Used in Accountability 12/12/2012State Accountability Development 2013...3  STAAR grades 3-8 English,  STAAR grades 3-5 Spanish,  STAAR End-of-Course (EOC) assessments* including retests,  Dropout Rates grades 9-12 or district completion rates, and  High School Graduation Rates.  Grade 11 TAKS performance must also be included in the 2013 ratings.  EOC results for students enrolled below grade 9 must be combined with assessment results for other students in the same grade.

4. Assessment Indicators Must Evaluate 12/12/2012State Accountability Development 2013...4  Level II performance, and for students who do not meet the Level II standard, progress toward the Level II standard.  Level III performance, and for students who do not meet the Level III standard, progress toward the Level III standard.  Level III performance cannot be evaluated in 2013.  Assessment indicators must combine performance across grades for each subject area.  Indicators must be based on information that is disaggregated by race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status.

5. Performance Index Framework 12/12/2012State Accountability Development 2013...5  With a Performance Index each measure contributes points to an index score.  Districts and campuses are required to meet one accountability target - the total index score for each index.  With a Performance Index, the resulting rating reflects overall performance for the campus or district rather than the weakest performance of one student group/subject area.

6. Performance Index Framework 12/12/2012State Accountability Development 2013...6  For 2013 and beyond, a framework of four Performance Indexes will include a broad set of measures that provide a comprehensive evaluation of the entire campus or district. Accountability System Postsecondary Readiness Index 4 Closing Performance Gaps Index 3 Student Progress Index 2 Student Achievement Index I

7. Index 1: Student Achievement 12/12/2012State Accountability Development 2013...7  STAAR Percent Met Level II Standard (2013 and Beyond)  STAAR Grades 3-8 English and Spanish at final Level II performance standard for assessments administered in the spring;  STAAR Grades 3-8 and EOC Modified and Alternate at final Level II performance standard;  EOC at final Level II performance standard for assessments administered in the spring and the previous fall and summer;  TAKS 2013: Grade 11 results at Met Standard performance 2014 and beyond: None

8. Index 1: Student Achievement 12/12/2012State Accountability Development 2013...8  STAAR Percent Met Level II Standard (2013 and Beyond)  Combined over all subject areas: Reading, Mathematics, Writing, Science, and Social Studies  Student groups: All Students only  Students below Grade 9 taking EOC courses: Administrative rules for the assessment program will require that students be administered the EOC test rather than the STAAR grade level assessment for the subject.

9. Index 1: Student Achievement 12/12/2012State Accountability Development 2013...9  Since Index 1 has only one indicator, the Total Index Points and Index Score are the same.  Total Index Points is the percentage of assessments that met the final Level II Standard.  Each percent of students meeting the final Level II performance standard contributes one point to the index. Index scores range from 0 to 100 for all campuses and districts. ReadingMathematicsWritingScience Social Studies Total % Met Level II Students Met Level II 50+38+19+10+19=136 45%45 Students Tested 100+ +42+40+23=305 Index Score45

10. Readin g Mathemati cs Writin g Scienc e Social Studie s Total % Met Level II Students Met Level II 50+38+19+10+19=136 45%45 Students Tested 100+ +42+40+23=305 Index Score45 Index 1: Student Achievement 12/12/2012State Accountability Development 2013...10

11. Index 1: Student Achievement - ELL 12/12/2012State Accountability Development 2013...11  2013:  Students in U.S. schools Year 1 through Year 3 excluded  Students in U.S. schools Year 4 and beyond - Included at final Level II performance standard  Exceptions: asylees/refugees in U.S. schools Year 1 through Year 5 excluded; immigrants entering at Grade 9 or above excluded  2014 and beyond:  Students in U.S. schools Year 1 excluded  Students in U.S. schools Year 2 through Year 4: - English-version tests included using ELL Development Model; - Spanish-version tests TBD  Students in U.S. schools Year 5 and beyond included at final Level II performance standard  Exceptions: asylees/refugees in U.S. schools Year 1 through Year 5 excluded; immigrants entering at Grade 9 or above excluded

12. Index 2: Student Progress 12/12/2012State Accountability Development 2013...12  STAAR Percent Met Growth Standard (2014 and Beyond)  The STAAR growth measure will not available in time for use in the 2013 accountability ratings.  This graphic is an example of a transition table that divides the three STAAR performance levels (Level I, Level II, and Level III) into performance bands.  The number of bands within a performance level may differ for the final growth measure adopted. Level III – HighLevel III - LowLevel II – HighLevel II – LowLevel I – HighLevel I - Low

13. Index 2: Student Progress 12/12/2012State Accountability Development 2013...13  Ten Student Groups Evaluated:  All Students  English language learners (ELLs)  Students with Disabilities  Race/Ethnicity:  African American  American Indian  Asian  Hispanic  Pacific Islander  White  Two or More Races

14. Index 2: Student Progress 12/12/2012State Accountability Development 2013...14  By Subject Area: Reading, Mathematics, and Writing  Credit given for meeting the student progress measure requirements for:  Progress toward Satisfactory performance (Level II)  or  Progress toward Advanced performance (Level III)

15. Index 2: Student Progress 12/12/2012State Accountability Development 2013...15 IndicatorAll African Amer. Amer. Indian AsianHisp. Pacific Isl. White Two or More ELL Special Ed. Total Points Max. Points STAAR Reading % Met Growth Standard 49%36%60%43%58%40%35%56%377800 STAAR Mathematics % Met Growth Standard 45%31%65%48%52%45%30%50%366800 STAAR Writing % Met Growth Standard 36%30%40%28%134400 STAAR Science % Met Growth Standard ************ STAAR Social Studies % Met Growth Standard ************ Total8772000 Index Score (total points divided by maximum points)44 * Science and Social Studies will be evaluated if growth measures are developed for these subjects.

16. IndicatorAll African Amer. Amer. Indian Asian Hispan ic Pacific Island er White Two or More ELL Specia l Ed. Total Points Max. Points STAAR Reading % Met Growth Standard 49%36%60%43%58%40%35%56%377800 STAAR Mathematics % Met Growth Standard 45%31%65%48%52%45%30%50%366800 STAAR Writing % Met Growth Standard 36%30%40%28%134400 STAAR Science % Met Growth Standard ************ STAAR Social Studies % Met Growth Standard ************ Total8772000 Index Score (total points divided by maximum points)44 Index 2: Student Progress 12/12/2012State Accountability Development 2013...16 * Science and Social Studies will be evaluated if growth measures are developed for these subjects.

17. Index 3: Closing Performance Gaps 12/12/2012State Accountability Development 2013...17  Two approaches to evaluating progress toward closing performance gaps:  Compare the performance of the lower performing student group to the performance of a higher performing student group over time, or  Compare the performance of the lower performing student group to an external target, the performance target that is tied to the statutory and accountability goal that Texas will be among the top ten states in postsecondary readiness by 2020 with no significant achievement gaps by race, ethnicity, or socioeconomic status.  Index 3 takes the second approach through a weighted performance index.

18. Index 3: Closing Performance Gaps 12/12/2012State Accountability Development 2013...18 STAAR Weighted Performance (2013 and beyond)  Index 3 ensures that individual student groups are not ignored within the performance index framework.  Credit based on weighted performance:  Level II satisfactory performance (2013 and beyond) One point for each percent of students at the final Level II satisfactory performance standard.  Level III advanced performance (2014 and beyond) Two points for each percent of students at the final Level III advanced performance standard.

19. Index 3: Closing Performance Gaps 12/12/2012State Accountability Development 2013...19  Assessment results include all assessments that are included in the Index 1 student achievement indicator.  By Subject Area: Reading, Mathematics, Writing, Science, and Social Studies.  Student Groups  Socioeconomic: Economically Disadvantaged  Lowest Performing Race/Ethnicity: The two lowest performing race/ ethnicity student groups on the campus or district (based on prior-year assessment results).  The STAAR weighted performance rate calculation must be modified for 2013 because STAAR Level III advanced performance cannot be included in the indicator until 2014.

20. STAAR Reading Weighted Performance Rate Economically Disadvantaged Lowest Performing Race/Ethnic Group - 1 Lowest Performing Race/Ethnic Group - 2 Total Points Maximum Points Example Calculation for Reading Number of Tests 804020 Performance Results: Level II Satisfactory Number Percent 40 50% 20 50% 0 0% Level III Advanced Number Percent 40 50% 0 0% 20 100% Weighted Results: Level II Satisfactory (one point credit) 50 (50% x 1) 50 (50% x 1) 0 (0% x 1) Level III Advanced (two point credit) 100 (50% x 2) 0 (0% x 2) 200 (100% x 2) Reading Weighted Performance Rate 15050200400600 Index 3: Closing Performance Gaps 12/12/2012State Accountability Development 2013...20

21. STAAR Weighted Performance Rate Economically Disadvantaged Lowest Performing Race/Ethnic Group - 1 Lowest Performing Race/Ethnic Group - 2 Total Points Maximum Points Reading Weighted Performance Rate 15050200400600 Mathematics Weighted Performance Rate 12510090315600 Writing Weighted Performance Rate 8090125295600 Science Weighted Performance Rate 1204090250600 Social Studies Weighted Performance Rate 504080170600 Total14303000 Index Score (total points divided by maximum points)48 Index 3: Closing Performance Gaps 12/12/2012State Accountability Development 2013...21

22. Index 4: Postsecondary Readiness 12/12/2012State Accountability Development 2013...22  STAAR Percent Met Level III (2014 and beyond)  Level III performance is not included in accountability in 2013  Combined over All Subjects:  Reading, Writing, Mathematics, Science, and Social Studies

23. Index 4: Postsecondary Readiness 12/12/2012State Accountability Development 2013...23  STAAR Percent Met Level III  Eight Student Groups Evaluated:  All Students  Race/Ethnicity:  African American  American Indian  Asian  Hispanic  Pacific Islander  White  Two or More Races

24. Index 4: Postsecondary Readiness 12/12/2012State Accountability Development 2013...24  High School Graduation  Four-year Graduation Rate or Five-year Graduation Rate  No Grad. Rate, then Annual Dropout Rate used  100 – (Gr. 9-12 Annual Dropout Rate x 10), with a floor of zero  Ten Student Groups Evaluated:  All Students  English language learners (ELLs)  Students with Disabilities  Race/Ethnicity:  African American  American Indian  Asian  Hispanic  Pacific Islander  White  Two or More Races

25. Index 4: Postsecondary Readiness 12/12/2012State Accountability Development 2013...25  Recommended High School Program/Advanced High School Program  RHSP/AHSP indicators are calculated for campuses and districts for which a graduation rate is calculated.  Eight Student Groups Evaluated:  All Students  Race/Ethnicity:  African American  American Indian  Asian  Hispanic  Pacific Islander  White  Two or More Races

26. Index 4: Postsecondary Readiness 12/12/2012State Accountability Development 2013...26  Graduation Score: Combined performance across the graduation and dropout rates for  Grade 9-12 Four-Year Graduation Rate for All Students and all student groups OR  Grade 9-12 Five-Year Graduation Rate for All Students and all student groups, whichever contributes the higher number of points to the index.  One of the two rates is used, not a mix of Four-Year Graduation Rate for one student group and Five-Year Graduation Rate for another student group.  RHSP/AHSP Graduates for All Students and race/ethnicity student groups  STAAR Score: STAAR Percent Met Level III for All Students and race/ethnicity student groups (2014 and beyond)  For high schools that do not have a graduation rate, the annual dropout rate and STAAR Level III performance contribute points to the index.  For elementary and middle schools, only STAAR Level III performance contributes points to the index.

27. Index 4: Postsecondary Readiness 12/12/2012State Accountability Development 2013...27 IndicatorAll Af. Am. Am. Ind. AsianHisp. Pac. Isl. White Two or More ELL Sp. Ed. Total Max. Points 4-year graduation rate 84.3%78.8% 91.6%86.0%44.2%69.8% 533. 5 700 5-year graduation rate 85.1%78.8%80.0%92.1%84.0%48.9%77.5% 546. 4 700 RHSP/AHSP82.7%76.4%83.6%83.0% 325. 7 400 Graduation Total 872. 1 1100 Graduation Score (graduation total points divided by maximum points)79 2014 and beyond: STAAR All Subjects* % Met Level III 29%16%40%23%38%36%182600 STAAR Score (STAAR total points divided by maximum points)30 Index Score (average of Graduation Score and STAAR Score: 79 + 30 / 2 = 55)55

28. IndicatorAll African Amer. Amer. Indian AsianHispanic Pacific Islander White Two or More ELL Special Ed. Total Points Max. Points 4-year graduation rate 84.3%78.8% 91.6%86.0%44.2%69.8%533.5700 5-year graduation rate 85.1%78.8%80.0%92.1%84.0%48.9%77.5%546.4700 RHSP/AHSP82.7%76.4%83.6%83.0%325.7400 Graduation Total872.11100 Graduation Score (graduation total points divided by maximum points)79 2014 and beyond: STAAR All Subjects* % Met Level III 29%16%40%23%38%36%182600 STAAR Score (STAAR total points divided by maximum points)30 Index Score (average of Graduation Score and STAAR Score: 79 + 30 / 2 = 55)55 Index 4: Postsecondary Readiness 12/12/2012State Accountability Development 2013...28

29. Index 4: Postsecondary Readiness 12/12/2012State Accountability Development 2013...29 Sample Elementary – STAAR Level III Only IndicatorAll Af. Am. Am. Ind. AsianHisp. Pac. Isl. White Two or More ELL Sp. Ed. Total Max. Points 2014 and beyond: STAAR All Subjects* % Met Level III 29%16%40%23%38%36%182600 STAAR Score (STAAR total points divided by maximum points)30 Index Score (average of Graduation Score and STAAR Score: 79 + 30 / 2 = 55)55

30. Index 4: Postsecondary Readiness- ELL 12/12/2012State Accountability Development 2013...30  2013:  STAAR Level III not included in 2013  2014 and beyond:  Students in U.S. schools Year 1 through Year 4 excluded  Students in U.S. schools Year 5 and beyond included at final Level III performance standard  Exceptions: asylees/refugees excluded; immigrants entering at Grade 9 or above excluded

31. Overview of Proposed 2014 Performance Index Framework 12/12/2012State Accountability Development 2013...31

32. Overview of Proposed 2014 Performance Index Framework (Sample Campus) 12/12/2012State Accountability Development 2013...32

33. Apply Safeguards to Specific Performance Indexes 12/12/2012State Accountability Development 2013...33  Ensure reporting system disaggregates performance by student group, performance level, subject area, and grade,  Implement interventions focused on specific areas of weak performance,  Apply minimum performance requirements or performance floors,  Apply a limit on proficient results to STAAR Modified and STAAR Alternate, (CAP)  Apply Participation Rate Targets,  Ensure Leaver Data Quality,  Incorporate Grade 7 – 8 Annual Dropout Rate.

34. Pending Issues For Consideration 12/12/2012State Accountability Development 2013...34  Evaluation of the four indexes to produce single accountability rating for campus or district,  Rating levels and labels,  Application of system safeguards,  Evaluation of alternative education campuses,  Transition Issues between 2013 and 2014,  Inclusion of a performance measure for English Language Learners (ELLs),  State and federal reporting.

35. Federal Accountability for 2013 12/12/2012State Accountability Development 2013...35  TEA plans to submit a waiver request to the United States Department of Education (USDE) in January or February 2013.  The waiver will include a request to use the new state accountability system to evaluate campuses and districts in place of federal Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) evaluations.  If denied, augment the proposed state accountability system to meet federal requirements.  If denied, use components (Reading and Mathematics) of the proposed performance index developed for state accountability to meet federal requirements.

36. Academic Achievement Distinction Designations State Accountability Ratings and Distinction Designations 12/12/2012State Accountability Development 2013...36

37. Accountability Rating Labels 12/12/2012State Accountability Development 2013...37  Met Standard – met performance index targets and other accountability rating criteria  Improvement Required – did not meet one or more performance index targets or other accountability rating criteria Implemented in 2013: Academic Achievement: Reading/ELA Academic Achievement: Mathematics TBD: Fine Arts Physical Education Second Language Acquisition Implemented in 2014: Exemplary Distinction Recognized Distinction Top 25%: Closing Achievement Gaps Top 25%: Student Progress 21st Century Workforce Development Academic Achievement: Science Academic Achievement: Social Studies

38. Distinction Labels 12/12/2012State Accountability Development 2013...38  Campus Comparison groups will be determined based on the following:  Campus Type (Elementary, Middle, High), Enrollment, % Economically Disadvantaged, % ELL  Top 25% Student Progress - Based on Index 2: Student Progress  Campuses that are in the top quartile of their campus comparison group  Top 25% Closing Achievement Gaps - Based on Index 3: Closing Performance Gaps  Campuses that are in the top quartile of their campus comparison group  Exemplary/Recognized Distinctions  Based on Index 4: Postsecondary Readiness. Likely based on performance (rank) within Campus Comparison Groups.

39. Academic Achievement Distinction Designations 12/12/2012State Accountability Development 2013...39 State Accountability Ratings Distinction Designations District AImprovement RequiredNot Eligible District BMet Standard No Distinction (n/a in 2013) District CMet Standard Exemplary or Recognized (n/a in 2013) Campus A Improvement RequiredNot Eligible Campus B Met StandardNo Distinction earned Campus C Met StandardAcademic Achievement: ELA Campus D Met StandardAcademic Achievement: Math Campus E Met Standard Academic Achievement: ELA Academic Achievement: Math

40. 2013 Development http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport/account/2013/index.html http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport/account/2013/index.html 12/12/2012State Accountability Development 2013...40 January 2013 Public release of the 2011-12 Texas NCLB Report Card STAAR results are available for Grades 3-8 from test contractor. March 2013 Commissioner releases final decisions on the state rating system by end of March 2013. Late Spring 2013 2012 STAAR accountability performance results released. (report only.) August 8, 2013 Accountability ratings and AADD released on August 8, 2013.