1. Accountability Update District Testing Coordinator Advisory Committee Meeting March 20, 2014 1

2. What’s New (Well, since last year) State Accountability ▫Changes to Index System ▫Who Counts and How ▫System Safeguards and other Targets Federal Accountability ▫Priority and Focus Schools ▫System Safeguards ▫Focus School Tool Data Validation – Student Assessment 2

3. 3 Accountability Development Timeline Advisory Group Meeting DatePurpose ATAC December 5-6, 2013 The Accountability Technical Advisory Committee (ATAC) addressed a variety of technical issues related to 2014 accountability. Preliminary recommendations and meeting materials are posted online under 2014 Accountability Development. APAC January 22, 2014 Newly designated members of the Accountability Policy Advisory Committee (APAC) reviewed the 2013 development process for the performance index framework, indicators, and distinction designations. Meeting materials are posted online under 2014 Accountability Development. ATACFebruary 11, 2014 The ATAC recommended preliminary 2014 ratings criteria and targets, which are scheduled for review by the APAC in March 2014.

4. 4 Accountability Development Timeline Advisory Group Meeting DatePurpose APACMarch 6, 2014 APAC will make final recommendations on the accountability ratings criteria for 2014, and performance index targets for 2014, 2015, and 2016, subject to commissioner approval. AADDCMarch 7, 2014 The Academic Achievement Distinction Designation Committee (AADDC) for science and social studies will convene to develop preliminary recommendations on the 2014 criteria for science and social studies distinction designations. AADDC Mid March 2014 The AADDC will finalize recommendations on the 2014 science and social studies distinction designation criteria. COEEnd of March 2014 Commissioner will announce accountability ratings and distinction designation criteria for 2014 and final 2014 targets, preliminary 2015 targets, and preview 2016 targets.

5. 5 2013  Combined over All Subjects: Reading, Mathematics, Writing, Science, and Social Studies.  Student Groups: All Students.  Performance Standards: Phase-in 1 Level II (Satisfactory).  STAAR End-of-Course (EOC) Assessments (15 total):  English l – Reading; English ll – Reading; English lll – Reading  English l – Writing; English ll – Writing; English lll – Writing  Algebra l; Geometry; Algebra ll  Biology; Chemistry; Physics  World Geography; World History; US History  English Language Learners (English and Spanish tests):  Students in US schools Year 1 - Year 3 excluded  Students in US schools Year 4 and beyond included Index 1: Student Achievement Index 1: 2013 vs. 2014 Comparison Proposed 2014  Combined over All Subjects: Reading, Mathematics, Writing, Science, and Social Studies.  Student Groups: All Students.  Performance Standards: Phase-in 1 Level II (Satisfactory).  English Language Learners (English and Spanish tests):  Students in US schools Year 1 excluded  STAAR EOC Assessments (5 total):  English l (combined tests); English ll (combined tests) beginning in spring 2014  Algebra l  Biology  US History  Students in US schools Year 2 and beyond included Shaded areas are new for 2014  ELL Progress Measure included for those tested in English

6. 6 Index 2: Student Progress  Progress Measures by Subject Area and School Type 2013 Elem. SchoolMiddle SchoolHigh School READING Gr. 4 ReadingGr. 6 ReadingEnglish l Reading Gr. 5 ReadingGr. 7 ReadingEnglish ll Reading _Gr. 8 Reading_ _English l Reading_ MATHEMATICS Gr. 4 MathematicsGr. 6 MathematicsAlgebra l Gr. 5 MathematicsGr. 7 Mathematics_ _Gr. 8 Mathematics_ _Algebra l_ WRITING __English ll Writing Proposed 2014 Elem. SchoolMiddle SchoolHigh School READING Gr. 4 ReadingGr. 6 Reading_ Gr. 5 ReadingGr. 7 Reading_ _Gr. 8 Reading_ ___ MATHEMATICS Gr. 4 MathematicsGr. 6 MathematicsAlgebra l Gr. 5 MathematicsGr. 7 Mathematics_ _Gr. 8 Mathematics_ _Algebra l_ WRITING ___

7. 7 7 Index 3: Closing Performance Gaps 2013  Student Groups:  Economically Disadvantaged  Lowest Performing Race/Ethnicity: The two lowest performing race/ethnicity student groups on the campus or within the district, based on 2012 assessment results.  Points based on STAAR performance:  Phase-in 1 Level II satisfactory performance: One point for each percent of tests at the Phase-in 1 Level II satisfactory performance standard.  By Subject Area: Reading, Mathematics, Writing, Science, and Social Studies. Index 3: Closing Performance Gaps emphasizes advanced academic achievement of economically disadvantaged students and the two lowest performing race/ethnicity student groups. Proposed 2014  Student Groups:  Economically Disadvantaged  Lowest Performing Race/Ethnicity:  Points based on STAAR performance:  Phase-in 1 Level II satisfactory performance: One point for each percent of tests at the Phase-in 1 Level II satisfactory performance standard.  Level III advanced performance: Two points for each percent of tests at the Level III advanced performance standard.  By Subject Area: Reading, Mathematics, Writing, Science, and Social Studies.  Level III advanced performance: Two points for each percent of tests at the Level III advanced performance standard. Shaded areas are new for 2014  Select the two lowest performing student groups if both the prior year reading and mathematics subject area test results each have at least 25 tests.

8. 8 Index 4: Postsecondary Readiness 2013  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.  RHSP/DAP Annual Graduates: All Students and race/ethnicity student groups. 2014  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.  RHSP/DAP Graduates Based on Longitudinal Cohort: All Students and race/ethnicity student groups.  STAAR Score: STAAR Percent Met Final Level ll on one or more tests for All Students and race/ethnicity student groups. Additional Indicators Required by House Bill 5 (83rd Texas Legislature, 2013)  Texas Success Initiative college readiness benchmarks.  Number of students who earn postsecondary credit required for a foundation high school program, an associate’s degree, or an industry certification. Index 4: 2013 vs. 2014 Shaded areas are new for 2014  STAAR Score: STAAR Percent Met Final Level ll on one or more tests for All Students and race/ethnicity student groups. Additional Indicators Required by House Bill 5 (83rd Texas Legislature, 2013)  Texas Success Initiative college readiness benchmarks.  Number of students who earn postsecondary credit required for a foundation high school program, an associate’s degree, or an industry certification.

9. 9 2013 and 2014 Index Targets for Non-AEA Campuses and Districts To receive a Met Standard rating, non-AEA campuses and districts met the following accountability targets on all indexes for which they had performance data in 2013. 2014 Index targets will be based on recommendations from accountability advisory groups and finalized by the commissioner in spring 2014. Performance Index Non-AEA Campuses 2013 2014 Non-AEA Districts 2013 2014 Index 1: Student Achievement50TBD50TBD Index 2: Student Progress High School 17 TBD21TBD Middle School 29 Elem School 30 Index 3: Closing Performance Gaps55TBD55TBD Index 4: Postsecondary Readiness75TBD75TBD

10. 10 Performance Index AEA Campuses 2013 2014 AEA Charter Districts 2013 2014 Index 1: Student Achievement25TBD25TBD Index 2: Student Progress 9TBD 9 Index 3: Closing Performance Gaps30TBD30TBD Index 4: Postsecondary Readiness45TBD45TBD To receive a Met Alternative Standard rating, AEA campuses and charters met the following accountability targets on all indexes for which they had performance data in 2013. 2014 Index targets will be based on recommendations from accountability advisory groups and finalized by the commissioner in spring 2014. 2013 and 2014 Index Targets for AEA Campuses and Charters

11. 11 Distinction Designations 2013 Distinction Designations  Student Progress (based on Index 2)  Academic Achievement in:  Reading/English Language Arts  Mathematics 2014 Distinction Designations  Student Progress (based on Index 2)  Closing Performance Gaps (based on Index 3)  Academic Achievement in:  Reading/English Language Arts  Mathematics  Science  Social Studies  Postsecondary Readiness for campuses and districts Per Texas Education Code (TEC) §39.201, alternative education campuses (AECs) evaluated under AEA provisions are not eligible for distinction designations. Shaded areas are new for 2014

12. 12 Distinction Designations Districts and Campuses Postsecondary Readiness: House Bill 5 (83 rd Texas Legislature, 2013) expanded distinction designations to both districts and campuses for outstanding performance in attainment of postsecondary readiness. Criteria must include indicators based on percentages of students who:  Achieve college-readiness standards on STAAR;  Earn nationally or internationally recognized business/industry certification;  Complete a coherent sequence of CTE courses;  Complete dual credit courses or a postsecondary course for local credit;  Achieve college readiness standards on SAT, ACT, PSAT, or ACT-PLAN examinations; and  Earn college credit based on AP/IB performance.

13. 13 * Targets for 2013 correspond to the performance target for Index 1: Student Achievement. IndicatorEntity All Students African Amer. Amer. Indian AsianHispanic Pacific Islander White Two or More Races Eco. Disadv. ELLSpecial Ed. Performance Rates* Reading State50% Federal75% n/a 75%n/a75%n/a75% Mathematics State50% Federal75% n/a 75%n/a75%n/a75% Writing50% Science50% Social Studies50% Participation Rates Reading95% Mathematics95% Federal Graduation Rates (including improvement targets) 4-year78% 5-year83% District Limits on Use of Alternative Assessment Results Reading Modified2%Not Applicable Alternate1%Not Applicable Mathematics Modified2%Not Applicable Alternate1%Not Applicable 2013 Accountability System Safeguard Measures and Targets

14. Designation Criteria Current Tier I & Tier II TTIPS Lowest performing schools based on combined “All Student” reading and math performance Schools with a graduation rate less than 60% Schools with a graduation rate less than 60% 73schools 36 schools 188 schools 14

15. Attend required trainings Attend required trainings Engage in the Texas Accountability Intervention System (TAIS) continuous improvement process Assign a District Coordinator of School Improvement (DCSI) Evaluate current campus staff Evaluate current campus staff Create a plan which addresses the ESEA Turnaround Principles Priority School Interventions 15

16. Title I schools ranked by the widest gaps between reading/math performance of the federal student groups (7) and safeguard targets of 75%.

17. Focus School Gap Tool Calculates Focus School Gap ▫Region 4 Website ▫Click on Services ▫Click on Accountability ▫Click on Visit our Accountability PortalVisit our Accountability Portal

19. 19 IndicatorEntity All Students African Amer. Amer. Indian AsianHispanic Pacific Islander White Two or More Races Eco. Disadv. ELLSpecial Ed. Performance Rates* Reading StateTBD Federal79% n/a 79%n/a79%n/a79% Mathematics StateTBD Federal79% n/a 79%n/a79%n/a79% WritingTBD ScienceTBD Social StudiesTBD Participation Rates Reading95% Mathematics95% Federal Graduation Rates (including improvement targets) 4-year80% 5-year85% District Limits on Use of Alternative Assessment Results Reading Modified2%Not Applicable Alternate1%Not Applicable Mathematics Modified2%Not Applicable Alternate1%Not Applicable 2014 Accountability System Safeguard Measures and Targets * Targets for 2014 correspond to the performance target for Index 1: Student Achievement.

20. Data Validation – Student Assessment Staging information not released. DVM Manual available on TEA website ▫http://www.tea.state.tx.us/pbm/DVManuals.aspxhttp://www.tea.state.tx.us/pbm/DVManuals.aspx Posted to ISAM when available

21. Questions???

22. ELL Progress Measure Calculation Step 1 – Determine eligibility for ELL Progress Measure Step 2 – Determine Plan for Student Step 3 – Determine Progress Measure for student ▫Did not Meet Standard ▫Met Standard ▫Exceeded the Standard

23. Step 1 – Determine Eligibility Must have valid STAAR Score Student is classified as LEP No Parental Denial Took English-language version of STAAR ▫Includes STAAR and STAAR-L ▫No Modified, Alternate, or Spanish Student not exceeded the number of years in plan (determined after Step 2)

24. Step 2 – Determine Plan From SAME Administration ▫# Years in US Schools ▫TELPAS Composite Rating ▫Extenuating Circumstances  Unschooled asylee/refugee  Student with interrupted formal education Plan determined by chart

26. Step 3 – Determine ELL Progress Use Plan and Appropriate table to detemine Compare Scale Score with appropriate score in table ▫< Met - Did Not Meet Standard ▫Met <score<Exceeded - Met Standard ▫>=Exceeded - Exceeded the standard

28. Questions???