Assessment and Accountability Update Tom Jaggard Social Studies Specialist

Assessment and Accountability UpdateTom Jaggard

Social Studies SpecialistRegion Testing Coordinator

Education Service Center, Region 2

Did you know?

How hard is STAAR?

13th Amendment Ended Slavery14th Amendment Rights of Citizens15th Amendment Voting Rights for All Men

Grade 8 Social Studies (US History to 1877)

13th E14th R15th V

How well did grade 8 students in Texasperform on this question?

Region 2 “Triple-Crown Winners”

• CCISD– Baker Middle School– Shaw SES– Windsor Park G/T– Club Estates Elementary School– Faye Webb Elementary School

• Gregory-Portland ISD– Clark Elementary School

• Port Aransas ISD– Olsen Elementary School

• Riviera ISD– Kaufer High School– Nanny Elementary School

• Santa Gertrudis ISD– Santa Gertrudis School

• Skidmore-Tynan ISD– Skidmore-Tynan Elementary School

• St. Mary’s Academy Charter School– St. Mary’s Academy Charter School

Agenda

• Legislative Update– HB5– HB866– Commissioner’s Proposed Rule Changes

• Accountability– 2013 Accountability Reports– Index Framework– System Safeguards– Distinction Designations

Legislative UpdateHB5

• Assessment• Graduation• Accountability

• Assessment– EOC 15% Rule

• Eliminated completely– EOCs

• Reduced from 15 tests to 5 tests• Eliminated the Cumulative Score*• Eliminated the Minimum Score*

STAAR/EOC

Math ELA Science Social StudiesAlgebra IGeometry Algebra II

English IEnglish IIEnglish III

BiologyChemistryPhysics

World GeographyWorld HistoryU.S. History

HB3 Graduation Requirements

To graduate, a student must achieve a Cumulative Score in each content area that is equal to the product of the number of STAAR/EOC assessments taken in the content area times the Satisfactory Academic Performance scale score.

STAAR/EOC

Math ELA Science Social StudiesAlgebra I English I

English IIBiology

U.S. History

HB5 Graduation Requirements

To graduate, a student must achieve Level II – Satisfactory Academic Performance

on each of these five EOCs.

• Graduation– Replacing MHSP/RHSP/DAP

with Foundation + Endorsements– Applies to entering freshman in 2014-2015

with Foundation + Endorsements– Applies to entering freshman in 2014-2015– In 2014-2015, students enrolled in one of the

old plans can choose to switch to the new plan– In 2013-2014, a fourth-year high school

student on track to graduate in May, 2014, can graduate under the Foundation Plan if they fall short of earning RHSP/DAP

with Foundation + Endorsements– SBOE is holding hearings in September, 2013

to get input regarding the new plans– SBOE will draft rules in November, 2013

to be published for comment– SBOE hopes to finalize these rules

at their meeting in January, 2014

• Accountability (effective in 2016-2017)– District Ratings

• A-B-C-D-F– Campus Ratings

• Exemplary• Recognized• Acceptable• Unacceptable

Table Talk / Reflection TimeQuestions?Concerns?

Next Steps?

• STAAR/3-8– Allows students to skip math and reading in

grades 4, 6, and 7 if they perform well enough (MSASS) on those assessments in grades 3 and 5

MSASS =Minimum Satisfactory Adjusted Scale Score

– Requires a waiver from USDE to implement

– Leaves all 3-8 tests intact: • Math & Reading in grades 3 through 8• Writing in grades 4 & 7• Science in grades 5 & 8• Social Studies in grade 8

Next Steps?

Legislative UpdateCommissioner’s Proposed Rule Changes

“The following policy changes – which will be proposed and adopted under commissioner of education rules – are designed to assist districts in implementing newrequirements under House Bill 5 (HB5), as well as follow established federal requirements, related to the State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness.”

– TEA Press Release on August 2, 2013

• Performance Standards– Phase-in 1 extended for one more year– Timing of Phase-in 2 and Final are TBD– Students “lock in” a phase-in standard for

all EOCs when they take their first EOC

• STAAR EOC for English I and English II– Reading and Writing combined in Spring 2014– Blueprint has been posted!– Transition plan maintains minimum score

and cumulative score for students who have already passed reading or writing but not both

– ELL Special Provision only applies to English I

• Middle school students taking Algebra I– Federal accountability requires math and

reading to be tested in grades 3-8 and at least once in high school

– Take Algebra I EOC and grade-level STAAR– Grade-level STAAR for MS accountability– Algebra I follows student for HS accountability

• Middle school students taking English I– Federal accountability requires math and

reading to be tested in grades 3-8 and at least once in high school

– Will take English II to satisfy high school accountability so no double-testing needed when they take English I in middle school

• STAAR Modified– The U.S. Department of Education has informed

states that assessments based on modified standards for students served by special education cannot be used for accountability purposes after the 2013–2014 school year.

– As a result of that federal directive, all STAAR Modified assessments will be administered for the final time in the 2013–2014 assessment cycle.

• STAAR Alternate– HB5 requires TEA to develop an alternate

assessment for the most severely cognitively disabled students – one that does not require teachers to prepare tasks or materials.

– This newly designed alternate assessment will be administered for the first time in the spring of the 2014–2015 school year.

Next Steps?

Accountability2013 Accountability Reports

2013 Accountability Reports

• In your report packet you should have:– 2013 Accountability Summary

2013 Accountability Summary

• In your report packet you should have:– 2013 Accountability Summary– Calculation Reports for each Index

Calculation Reports for each Index

• In your report packet you should have:– 2013 Accountability Summary– Calculation Reports for each Index– Data Tables for each Index

Data Tables for each Index

• In your report packet you should have:– 2013 Accountability Summary– Calculation Reports for each Index– Data Tables for each Index– System Safeguards

System Safeguards

• In your report packet you should have:– 2013 Accountability Summary– Calculation Reports for each Index– Data Tables for each Index– System Safeguards– Distinction Designations (campus only)

Distinction Designations

AccountabilityIndex Framework

Index Framework2009House Bill 3

2010House Bill 3 Transition Plan

2011-2013ATAC and APAC Developed the Framework

April 23, 2013Commissioner’s Final Decisions

August 8, 2013Accountability Ratings were issued 78

How is accountability changing?Indicator System 29 Indicators:

5 Subjects5 Sub-PopsGraduation/Dropout RateCommended PerformanceELL Progress Measure

You were only as good as your weakest indicator.

Index System4 Indexes:

1: Student Achievement2: Student Progress3: Closing Performance Gaps4: Postsecondary Readiness

No single indicator can pull your rating down.

System SafeguardsDo not affect overall rating

Will have CIP/DIP implicationsWill be incorporated into TAIS

Distinction DesignationsOnly apply if overall rating is

Met Standard

Required Improvement2015 and Beyond

Three-Year-Averagingwill be used if

All Students or EcoDis < 10

MSRMinimum Size RequirementAll Students and EcoDis = 10

Other Sub-Pops = 25

CTE IndicatorsTBD

2015 and Beyond

What are the new ratings?

Per Commissioner Williams’ Senate testimony on April 4, 2013:A-B-C-D-F

A = Achieved target on all 4 indexesB = Achieved target on 3 of 4C = Achieved target on 2 of 4D = Achieved target on 1 of 4F = Failed to achieve any of the 4

What are the new ratings?

Per Commissioner Williams’ Final Decisions announced on April 23, 2013:

Met Standard= Met target on all 4 indexes

Met Alternative Standard= Met modified targets for AECs

Improvement Required= Missed target on 1 or more index

What are the targets?

Index 1: Student Achievement 50/25

50/25 =50 for non-AEA25 for AEA

NOTE: New AEA Requirement50% enrollment in grades 6-12

Index 1: Student Achievement 50/25Index 2: Student Progress TBD

The Commissioner has indicated that he will set the target for Index 2 somewhere around the 5th percentile.

Index 20%

20%30%40%

50%60%

70%80%

90%100%

Top 95%Lowest 5%

Index 1: Student Achievement 50/25Index 2: Student Progress 21/9

July 27 – Appendix J of Accountability Manual:Districts = 21/9High School and Multi-Grade = 17/9Middle School and Junior High = 29/9Elementary = 30/NA

Index 1: Student Achievement 50/25Index 2: Student Progress 21/9Index 3: Closing Performance Gaps 55/30Index 4: Postsecondary Readiness 75/45

* The Commissioner has indicated that he will set the target for Index 2 somewhere around the 5th percentile.

“It is estimated that the percentage of campuses that will receive the Improvement Required rating will range from seven percent to twelve percent.”

7% = 597 12% = 1,023

50/25 21/9 55/30 75/45

Texas77

Reg 270

Texas34

Reg 233

Texas71

Reg 264

Texas85

Reg 283

Index 1: Student Achievement“All Students” onlyCombined across all grades and subjectsSTAAR Level II – Satisfactory Academic

Performance at Phase-inPhase-in 1 = 2011-2012, 2012-2013, 2013-2014Phase-in 2 = 2014-2015? And 2015-2016?Final/Recommended = 2016-2017 and beyond?How are the Phase-ins for 3-8

different from the Phase-ins for EOC?

Performance at Phase-inIncludes STAAR, STAAR-Spanish, STAAR-

Modified, and STAAR-Alternate (with no caps; see System Safeguards for information on caps)

Performance at Phase-inSSI – use primary and first retestEOC – use primary and retest from current

accountability year (summer-fall-spring)TAKS – use primary testers only; from spring

administration only

Target: 50/25

INDEX SCORE

ALL Students Met Phase-In Level II:

Target: 50/25

Index 1: Student Achievement

Met R + Met M + Met W + Met S + Met SS

All R + All M + All W + All S + All SS

Target: 50/25

Number meeting the phase-in Level II

Standard

Number of Assessments

Target: 50/25

Look at the Index 1 results for:Your ISD and/or Campus

Question?Concerns?Next Steps?

Index 2: Student Progress10 Student Groups:

“All Students”7 Race/Ethnicity Groups Can you name them?African-American, Hispanic, WhiteAmerican Indian, Asian, Pacific IslanderTwo or More Races

“All Students”7 Race/Ethnicity GroupsSPEDELLNOTE: This is the only index that evaluates assessment results for SPED and ELL as separate groups.

“All Students”7 Race/Ethnicity GroupsSPEDELLNOTE: SPED and ELL are also evaluatedseparately in Index 4 as part of theGraduation Rate calculation.

“All Students”7 Race/Ethnicity GroupsSPEDELL

Reading, Math, and Writing1 point for “Met Growth Expectation”2 points for “Exceeded Growth Expectation”

Target: 21/9

Index 2: Student ProgressUses a “Gain Score” approachSubtract Prior Year Score from Current Year Score

to find Gain ScoreCompare Gain Score to Progress ExpectationClassify as:

Did Not Meet Growth Expectation (0 points)Met Growth Expectation (1 point)Exceeded Growth Expectation (2 points)

Target: 21/9

Index 2: Student Progress

All African American

American Indian

AsianHispanic

Pacific Islander

Two or More

≥ 10 students

≥ 25 students

ELLSPED

MSR is applied to each subject:

ReadingMathWriting

Met •One point per %

Exceeded

•Two points per %

Target: 21/9

Total Points Earned (Reading, Math, Writing)

Maximum Points (Reading, Math, Writing)

Target: 21/9

Index 3: Closing Performance Gaps3 Student Groups:

EcoDisNOTE: This is the only index that looks at

EcoDis as a separate group.

EcoDis2 lowest-performing Race/Ethnicity

groups from prior year Index 1 What are the 7 Race/Ethnicity groups?African-American, Hispanic, WhiteAmerican Indian, Asian, Pacific IslanderTwo or More Races

groups from prior year Index 1What happens if you have a

homogenous student population?

groups from prior year Index 1What is the MSR for these groups?EcoDis = *10Race/Ethnicity = 25MSR is applied to each subject.

groups from prior year Index 1By Subject Area (all subjects)1 point for Level II – Satisfactory at Phase-in*2 points for Level III – Advanced(*Will not be used until 2013-2014)

Target: 55/30

Index 3: Closing Performance Gaps

Weighted Performance Rate

Lowest Performing Ethnicity

EcoDis

Prior YearIndex 1

Target: 55/30

READING

Lowest Ethnicity #2

Lowest Ethnicity #1

EcoDis

MATHEMATICS

Lowest Ethnicity #2

Lowest Ethnicity #1

EcoDis

WRITING

Lowest Ethnicity #2

Lowest Ethnicity #1

EcoDis

SCIENCE

Lowest Ethnicity #2

Lowest Ethnicity #1

EcoDis

SOCIAL STUDIES

Lowest Ethnicity #2

Lowest Ethnicity #1

EcoDis

Target: 55/30

MSR is applied to each subject.

Index 4: Postsecondary Readiness8 Student Groups:

“All Students” Group7 Race/Ethnicity Groups

Combined across all grades and subjects*STAAR Level II – Satisfactory at Final(*Will not be used until 2013-2014)Graduation Rate (4-year and 5-year)Diploma Rate (RHSP/AHSP) NOTE: AHSP = DAP

STAARScore

Index 4: Postsecondary Readiness8 Student Groups:

“All Students” Group7 Race/Ethnicity Groups

Combined across all grades and subjects*STAAR Level II – Satisfactory at Final(*Will not be used until 2013-2014)Graduation Rate (4-year and 5-year)Diploma Rate (RHSP/AHSP)

Target: 75/45

STAARScore

GraduationScore

Index 4: Postsecondary Readiness

Postsecondary Readiness

STAAR Score

Graduation Score

Target: 75/45

*Number of Students Met FINAL Level II

Standard on One or More Tests

*Number of Students with One or More Tests

STAAR Score

(*Will not be used until 2013-2014)

•Percentage of all 4-year graduates•ALL Students and subgroups of minimum size

4-year graduation rate

•RHSP/AHSP Graduates •ALL Students and subgroups of minimum size

RHSP/AHSPTarget: 75/45

RHSP/AHSP

Graduation Score

Target: 75/45

Graduation Score + *STAAR Score

2(*Will not be used until 2013-2014)

Index 3:Closing Performance Gaps55/30State = 71Region 2 = 64

Index 4:Postsecondary Readiness75/45State = 85Region 2 = 83

State Accountability

Rating

Per Commissioner’s Final Decisions published 4-23-2013

AccountabilitySystem Safeguards

System Safeguards

Texas Education Agency submitted a waiver request to the United States Department of Education (USDE) on February 28, 2013.

The waiver included a request to use the new state accountability system (Performance Indexes and System Safeguards) to evaluate campuses and districts in place of federal Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) evaluations.

The proposed 2013 Texas Accountability Workbook was submitted with the waiver request (Attachment 8) and may be accessed at: http://www.tea.state.tx.us/index2.aspx?id=25769803880.

Subject: Implementation of Title I School ImprovementProgram (SIP) interventions for the 2013-2014 school year

• The Texas Education Agency (Agency) continues conversations with the United States Department of Education (USDE) requesting to waive specific provisions of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), as amended by P.L. 107-110 No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001.

• Due to the ongoing negotiations, local educational agencies (LEAs) will not be required to implement current Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)-related School Improvement Program (SIP) requirements prior to the start of school year 2013-2014. This delay in implementation is a temporary suspension pending the outcome of the continuing waiver negotiations. Determinations of which federal School Improvement Program requirements will be implemented for the 2013-2014 school year will be communicated upon notice.

Indicator All African Amer.

Amer. Indian Asian Hispanic Pacific

Islander White Two or More

Eco.Disadv. ELL Special

Performance Rates

Reading 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50%

Mathematics 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50%

Writing 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50%

Science 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50%

Social Studies 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50%

Participation Rates

Reading 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95%

Mathematics 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95%

Federal Graduation Rates (including improvement targets)

4-year 78% 78% 78% 78% 78% 78% 78% 78% 78% 78% 78%

5-year 83% 83% 83% 83% 83% 83% 83% 83% 83% 83% 83%

District Limits on Use of Alternative Assessment Results

Reading

Modified 2% Not Applicable

Alternate 1% Not Applicable

Mathematics

Accountability System Safeguard Measures and Targets

Why 50%?Matches Index 1

Performance Rates

Reading 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50%

Mathematics 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50%

Writing 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50%

Science 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50%

Social Studies 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50%

Participation Rates

Reading 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95%

Mathematics 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95%

4-year 78% 78% 78% 78% 78% 78% 78% 78% 78% 78% 78%

5-year 83% 83% 83% 83% 83% 83% 83% 83% 83% 83% 83%

Reading

Mathematics

What is the target if our NCLB waiver request is denied?

Reading/ELA = 93%Math = 92%

Performance Rates

Reading 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50%

Mathematics 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50%

Writing 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50%

Science 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50%

Social Studies 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50%

Participation Rates

Reading 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95%

Mathematics 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95%

4-year 78% 78% 78% 78% 78% 78% 78% 78% 78% 78% 78%

5-year 83% 83% 83% 83% 83% 83% 83% 83% 83% 83% 83%

Reading

Mathematics

Why 95%?Matches AYP

Performance Rates

Reading 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50%

Mathematics 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50%

Writing 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50%

Science 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50%

Social Studies 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50%

Participation Rates

Reading 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95%

Mathematics 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95%

4-year 78% 78% 78% 78% 78% 78% 78% 78% 78% 78% 78%

5-year 83% 83% 83% 83% 83% 83% 83% 83% 83% 83% 83%

Reading

Mathematics

Why 78% and 83%?Matches AYP

Performance Rates

Reading 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50%

Mathematics 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50%

Writing 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50%

Science 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50%

Social Studies 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50%

Participation Rates

Reading 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95%

Mathematics 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95%

4-year 78% 78% 78% 78% 78% 78% 78% 78% 78% 78% 78%

5-year 83% 83% 83% 83% 83% 83% 83% 83% 83% 83% 83%

Reading

Mathematics

Why 1% and 2%?Matches AYPNote 1: All Students OnlyNote 2: District-level Only

Performance Rates

Reading 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50%

Mathematics 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50%

Writing 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50%

Science 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50%

Social Studies 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50%

Participation Rates

Reading 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95%

Mathematics 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95%

4-year 78% 78% 78% 78% 78% 78% 78% 78% 78% 78% 78%

5-year 83% 83% 83% 83% 83% 83% 83% 83% 83% 83% 83%

Reading

Mathematics

What happensif you miss one?

“Failure to meet the safeguard target for any reported cell must be addressed in the campus or

district improvement plan.”

“If the campus or district is already identified for assistance or intervention in the Texas Accountability Intervention System (TAIS)

based on the current year state accountability rating or prior year state or federal

accountability designations, performance on the safeguard indicators will be incorporated

into that improvement effort.”

Met Standard/Met Alternative

Standard

AccountabilitySystem Safeguards

Look at the System Safeguards for:Your ISD and/or Campus

AccountabilityDistinction Designations

For 2013 and BeyondTop 25% Student Progress (Index 2)Academic Achievement Distinction Designations

Reading/ELAMath

For 2014 and BeyondTop 25% Closing Achievement Gaps (Index 3)

Identify the Campus Comparison Group– 40 campuses per group– Campus Type (EL, MS, HS, K12)

Identify the Campus Comparison Group– 40 campuses per group– Campus Type (EL, MS, HS, K12)– Campus Size (Total Enrollment)– EcoDis %– ELL %– Student Mobility %

Campuses in the top 25% (top quartile) of their campus comparison group on Index 2: Student Progress score are eligible for a distinction designation for student progress.

Campuses onlyEligibility criteria – Met Standard ratingCampuses in the top 25% (top quartile) in student progressCampus comparison groups from Academic Achievement Distinction DesignationsCampuses evaluated under alternative education procedures are not eligible for distinction designations, per TEC §39.201.

Top 25% Student Progress Distinction

Academic Achievement Distinction Designations

AccountabilityDistinction Designations

Look at the Distinction Designations for:Your Campus

Tom.Jaggard@esc2.us

361.779.9574

Assessment and Accountability Update Tom Jaggard Social Studies Specialist

Documents

Secondary Supply: Alcohol and Young People 10 November 2011 Sarah Jaggard Project Officer – Secondary Supply Campaign

VDOE Updates VESA Meeting October 1, 2015 Stacy Freeman, Title III Specialist Office of Program Administration and Accountability Virginia Department of

Local Government Specialist Terms of reference - NWPG · LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE MANAGEMENT SPECIALIST ... dimensions of the municipal accountability cycle, ... 2.3.1 Establish and

Developing Academic Accountability and Leadership Among Student-Athletes Jennifer SturmMike McCall Learning Specialist & Tutor Coordinator & School Psychologist

Accountability, Deterrence, and Identifiability Aaron D. Jaggard U.S. Naval Research Laboratory

Assessment and Accountability Update Tom Jaggard Social Studies Specialist

FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT REFORM & ACCOUNTABILITY IMFO CONFERENCE 2011 Presenter: Carl Stroud | Specialist: Local Government Budget Reforms, CD: LGBA, National

Jaggard Marketing Pack

Vocational Technical Education Framework...Gary Gomes, Accountability & Monitoring Supervisor Marnie Jain, Education Specialist Framework Strand 1 Leader : Michael Nixon, MassBay Community

Michigan Merit Examination (MME) Overview Michigan Department of Education Office of Educational Assessment and Accountability Pat King Specialist – MME

By: Debra Lente-Jojola Supervisory Education Specialist - Early Childhood Program Division of Performance and Accountability December 1 2010 Child Count

Assessment Resources for Parents Brenda de la Garza Education Specialist School Improvement, Accountability and Compliance

STAAR, STAAR A AND ACCOMMODATIONS 2015-2016 Brenda de la Garza Education Specialist Region One School Improvement, Accountability and Compliance Special

Tabulating Survey Results in Excel using EZAnalyze Paul Pope Extension Program Specialist – Evaluation Leader – Evaluation & Accountability Collaborative

British Horse Society Scotland Horse riding – issues and good practice guidance Alice Jaggard BHS Scotland September 2011

Social Accountability in Practice: From Tools to Outcomes By Parmesh Shah Lead Rural Development Specialist South Asia Sustainable Development Department

STAAR: Recursos para Padres Brenda de la Garza Education Specialist School Improvement, Accountability and Compliance

Kathy Baich Instructional Reading Specialist Capacity Development and School Reform Accountability Kathyann.Panusbaich@palmbeach.k12.fl.us The Role of

TASSP Spring 2014 Tori Mitchell, ESC 17 Specialist Ty Duncan, ESC 17 Coordinator Overview of 2014 Accountability

Non-Uniform Cantor Ring Arrays - SUNFEST...Cantor Ring Arrays Frederick Diaz University of Pennsylvania Advisors: Dr. Dwight L. Jaggard and Aaron D. Jaggard By Frederick Diaz The Geometry