TETN | April 11, 2013 Texas Education Agency | Office of Assessment and Accountability Division of Performance Reporting Update on State and Federal Accountability

TETN | April 11, 2013

Texas Education Agency | Office of Assessment and AccountabilityDivision of Performance Reporting

Update on State and Federal Accountability

Accountability System Design

Accountability Goals3

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.

The committees adopted a set of Guiding Principles that will be used to inform the accountability development process.

* These goals are specified in Chapter 39.053(f) of the Texas Education Code.

Accountability Framework4

Primary Factors Considered for Selecting Performance Index Framework

Accountability System Goals and Guiding Principles

APAC/ATAC March 2012 Meeting outcome

Statutory Requirements of House Bill 3 (2009) Focus on Postsecondary Readiness Inclusion of Student Progress Emphasis on Closing Achievement Gaps

New STAAR program with EOC-based assessments for middle schools and high schools

Lessons learned from previous Texas public school accountability rating systems (1994–2002 and 2004–2011)

Successful models used by other states (CA, CO, FL, GA, KY, OH, NC, and SC)

Performance Index Framework5

What is 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.

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.

Multiple indexes can be used in the framework to ensure accountability for every student.

Any number of indicators and student groups can be added to the system without creating additional targets for campuses and districts to meet.

Performance Index Framework6

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.

Student Achievement

Index I

Student ProgressIndex 2

Closing Performance

GapsIndex 3

Postsecondary Readiness

Index 4

Overview of Performance Index Framework (Sample Campus)

7

Index 1: Student Achievement

8

Index 1 Student Achievement provides an overview of student performance based on satisfactory student achievement across all subjects for all students.

Subjects: Combined over Reading, Mathematics, Writing, Science, and Social Studies.

Student Groups: All Students only

Performance Standards: Phase-in Level II (Satisfactory)

9


Example

Reading Mathematics Writing Science SocialStudies Total % Met Level

II

Students Met Phase-in Level II

50 + 38 + 19 + 10 + 19 = 136

45% 45Students Tested 100 + 100 + 42 + 40 + 23 = 305

Index Score 45

Index 1 Construction

Since Index 1 has only one indicator, the Total Index Points and Index Score are the same: Index Score = Total Index Points. Total Index Points is the percentage of assessments that met the Phase-in Level II Standard.

Each percent of students meeting the Phase-in Level II performance standard contributes one point to the index. Index scores range from 0 to 100 for all campuses and districts.


Reading Mathematics Writing Science SocialStudies Total % Met

Level II

Students Met Phase-in Level II

50 + 38 + 19 + 10 + 19 = 136

45% 45Students Tested 100 + 100 + 42 + 40 + 23 = 305

Index Score 45

10


11

Index 2: Student Progress focuses on actual student growth independent of overall achievement levels for each race/ethnicity student group, students with disabilities, and English language learners.

By Subject Area: Reading, Mathematics, and Writing for available grades.

Credit based on weighted performance:

One point credit given for each percentage of students at the Met growth expectations level.

Two point credit given for each percentage of students at the Exceeded growth expectations level.

Index 2: Student Progress

Indicator All African Amer.

Amer. Indian Asian Hispanic Pacific

Islander White Two or More ELL Special

Ed.Total

PointsMax.

Points

Example Calculation for Reading Number of Tests

100 50 40 30

Did Not Met Expectation Number 20 10 0 10

Met Expectation Number Percent

6060%

2040%

1025%

1550%

Exceeded Expectation Number Percent

2020%

2040%

3075%

517%

Weighted Results: Met Expectation (one point credit)

60(60% x 1)

40(40% x 1)

25(25% x 1)

50(50% x 1)

Exceeded Expectation (two point credit)

40(20% x 2)

80(40% x 2)

150(75% x 2)

34(17% x 2)

Reading Weighted Growth Rate 100 120 175 84 479 800

12

Index 2 Construction – Table 1





Ed.Total

PointsMax.

Points

STAAR ReadingWeighted Growth Rate 100 120 175 84 479 800

STAAR MathematicsWeighted Growth Rate 85 98 150 160 493 800

STAAR WritingWeighted Growth Rate 140 170 310 400

Total 1282 2000

Index Score (total points divided by maximum points) 64

13



* Science and Social Studies will be evaluated if growth measures are developed for these subjects.




Ed.Total

PointsMax.

Points


100 50 40 30

Did Not Met Expectation Number 20 10 0 10

Met Expectation Number Percent

6060%

2040%

1025%

1550%

Exceeded Expectation Number Percent

2020%

2040%

3075%

517%

Weighted Results: Met Expectation (one point credit)

60(60% x 1)

40(40% x 1)

25(25% x 1)

50(50% x 1)

Exceeded Expectation (two point credit)

40(20% x 2)

80(40% x 2)

150(75% x 2)

34(17% x 2)

Reading Weighted Growth Rate 100 120 175 84 479 800

14






Ed.Total

PointsMax.

Points

STAAR ReadingWeighted Growth Rate 100 120 175 84 479 800

STAAR MathematicsWeighted Growth Rate 85 98 150 160 493 800

STAAR WritingWeighted Growth Rate 140 170 310 400

Total 1282 2000


15



* Science and Social Studies will be evaluated if growth measures are developed for these subjects.

16

Credit based on weighted performance:

Phase-in Level II satisfactory performance (2013 and beyond) One point for each percent of students at the phase-in Level II satisfactory performance standard.

Level III advanced performance (2014 and beyond) Two points for each percent of students at the Level III advanced performance standard.

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.

Index 3: Closing Performance Gaps

Index 3: Closing Performance Gaps emphasizes advanced academic achievement of economically disadvantaged students and the two lowest performing race/ethnicity student groups.


17

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).

18


18


STAAR Reading Weighted Performance Rate

Economically Disadvantaged

Lowest Performing Race/Ethnic Group - 1


Total Points

MaximumPoints


80 40 25

Performance Results: Phase-in Level II Satisfactory and above Number Percent

80100%

2050%

25100%

Level III Advanced Number Percent

4050%

00%

25100%

Reading Weighted Performance Rate 150 50 200 400 600

STAAR Weighted Performance Rate



Lowest Performing Race/Ethnic Group - 2 Total Points Maximum

Points


Mathematics Weighted Performance Rate 125 100 90 315 600

Writing Weighted Performance Rate 80 90 125 295 600

Science Weighted Performance Rate 120 40 90 250 600

Social Studies Weighted Performance Rate 50 40 80 170 600

Total 1430 3000


19



STAAR Reading Weighted Performance Rate




Total Points

MaximumPoints


80 40 25

Performance Results: Phase-in Level II Satisfactory and above Number Percent

80100%

2050%

25100%

Level III Advanced Number Percent

4050%

00%

25100%


20


20


STAAR Weighted Performance Rate



Lowest Performing Race/Ethnic Group - 2 Total Points Maximum

Points


Mathematics Weighted Performance Rate 125 100 90 315 600

Writing Weighted Performance Rate 80 90 125 295 600

Science Weighted Performance Rate 120 40 90 250 600

Social Studies Weighted Performance Rate 50 40 80 170 600

Total 1430 3000


21



Index 4: Postsecondary Readiness

22

Index 4: Postsecondary Readiness emphasizes the importance for students to receive a high school diploma that provides them with the foundation necessary for success in college, the workforce, job training programs, or the military; and the role of elementary and middle schools in preparing students for high school.

STAAR Percent Met Final Level II on One or More Tests

2014 and beyond (college-readiness performance standards are not included in accountability in 2013)

Combined over All Subjects: Reading, Writing, Mathematics, Science, and Social Studies

23


Graduation Score: Combined performance across the graduation and dropout rates forGrade 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/AHSP Graduates for All Students and race/ethnicity student groups

STAAR Score: STAAR Percent Met Final Level II on One or More Tests 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 Final Level II performance contribute points to the index. For elementary and middle schools, only STAAR Final Level II performance contributes points to the index.


24



25



26

Eligibility Criteria Ten former eligibility criteria AEC of choice must primarily serve secondary students in Grades 6-12 Residential facilities not evaluated in 2013

Modified Indicator Definitions and Index Construction Index 4: Postsecondary Readiness

o Graduation Rate– Credit for GED recipients– Four-year, five-year, and six-year rates

o Bonus Points for RHSP/AHSP graduateso Bonus Points for Recovered Dropouts who Graduate or Earn GEDo Bonus Points for Continuing Students who Graduate or Earn GEDo Graduation and GED Rates = 75%, Final STAAR Level II Rates = 25%

Modified Ratings Targets

Summary of AEA Calculation

2013 AEA Campus Identification

The 2013 AEA campus registration process will be conducted online using the TEASE Accountability website.

The 2013 AEA campus registration process is scheduled tentatively for April 17-26, 2013.

An email notification will be sent to all superintendents stating that alternative education campuses (AECs) rated under 2011 AEA procedures will be re-registered automatically in 2013 subject to the 75% at-risk registration criterion and the new 50% grades 6-12 enrollment criterion.

27

AEA At-Risk and Grades 6-12 Enrollment Criteria

Each registered AEC must have at least 75% at-risk students enrolled on the AEC verified through current-year PEIMS fall enrollment data in order to be evaluated under AEA provisions. For the 2013 rating cycle, the following safeguard is incorporated for AECs that are below the 75% at-risk requirement. Prior-Year PEIMS At-Risk Data Safeguard: If a registered AEC does not meet

the at-risk criterion in 2013, then it remains under AEA if the AEC had at least 75% at-risk enrollment in 2012.

New! Each registered AEC must have at least 50% of students enrolled in grades 6-12 verified through current-year PEIMS fall enrollment data in order to be evaluated under AEA provisions.

Please note that campuses evaluated under alternative education procedures are not eligible for distinction designations, per TEC 39.201.

28

2013 AEA Campus Registration Process

AECs wishing to rescind AEA registration must complete an electronic 2012-13 AEA Campus Rescission Form.

AECs requesting AEA registration must complete an electronic 2012-13 AEA Campus Registration Form.

AECs for which 2011 AEA registration was rescinded due to not meeting the at-risk registration criterion must submit an electronic 2012-13 AEA Campus Registration Form if the AEC wishes to request AEA campus registration in 2013.

AEA rescission and registration forms submitted via TEASE Accountability must be printed and maintained locally as official documentation of AEA campus registration requests.

An email notification will be sent to all superintendents in early May when the 2013 Final AEA Campus List is available online.

29

System Safeguards30

Apply Safeguards to Specific Performance Indexes:

Ensure reporting system disaggregates performance by student group, performance level, subject area, and grade;

Performance rates are calculated from the assessment results used to calculate performance rates in the performance index (Index 1).

Target for the disaggregated results meet federal requirements: STAAR performance target corresponds to Index 1 (50%), STAAR participation target required by federal accountability (95%), Federal graduation rate targets and improvement calculations for

4-year rate (78%) and 5-year rate (83%), Federal limit on use of alternate assessments (1% and 2%).

31

Accountability System Safeguard Measures and Targets

System Safeguards

* Targets for 2013 correspond to the performance rates and target for Index 1: Student Achievement.



Islander White Two or More

Eco.Disadv. ELL Special

Ed.

Performance RatesReading 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 RatesReading 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

ReadingModified 2% Not ApplicableAlternate 1% Not Applicable

MathematicsModified 2% Not ApplicableAlternate 1% Not Applicable

System Safeguards32

Results will be reported for any cell that meets accountability minimum size criteria.

Failure to meet the safeguard target for any reported cell must be addressed in the campus or district improvement plan.

Performance on the safeguard indicators will be incorporated into the Texas Accountability Intervention System (TAIS).

Detail information is available in the Performance Index Technical Description at http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport/account/2013/materials.html





Ed.Indicators

Missed

Performance Rates*

Reading 50% 100% n/a n/a 50% n/a n/a n/a 100% 36% n/a 1 of 5

Mathematics 50% 50% n/a n/a 100% n/a n/a n/a 50% 50% n/a 0 of 5

Writing 50% n/a n/a n/a 50% n/a n/a n/a 48% n/a n/a 1 of 3

Science 50% 100% n/a n/a 50% n/a n/a n/a 50% 50% n/a 0 of 5

Social Studies 50% 50% n/a n/a 50% n/a n/a n/a 100% 50% n/a 0 of 5

System Safeguards (Sample District Outcome)

33

Accountability System Safeguards

Indicators

* Targets for 2013 correspond to the performance rates and target for Index 1: Student Achievement.





Ed.Indicators

Missed

Participation Rates

Reading 95% 100% n/a n/a 95% n/a 95% n/a 100% 95% 95% 0 of 7

Mathematics 95% 100% n/a n/a 100% n/a 95% n/a 90% 95% 100% 1 of 7

Federal Graduation Rates

4-year or 5-year 85% 85% n/a n/a 78% n/a n/a n/a 70% 78% n/a 1 of 5

District Limits on Use of Alternative Assessment Results

Reading 1% /2%or Both 0 of 1

Mathematics Exceed2% 1 of 1

Total System Safeguard Indicators Missed 5 of 44

System Safeguards (Sample District Outcome)

34

Accountability System Safeguards

Indicators (continued)

35

Federal Accountability for 2013

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.

Previously outlined System Safeguards indicators and Texas Accountability Intervention System (TAIS) will be implemented regardless of the federal accountability definition.

Top 25% Student Progress Distinction

37


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

Campuses only [statutory requirement]

Eligibility criteria – Met Standard rating [statutory requirement]

Campuses in the top 25% (top quartile) in student progress [statutory requirement]

Campus comparison groups from Academic Achievement Distinction Designations


Academic Achievement Distinction Designations


39

Distinction Designation Indicators

Twenty-two indicators will be used to determine outstanding academic achievement and will vary by type of campus and by subject.

Indicators evaluated include performance at the STAAR Level III (Advanced) standard for selected grades and subject areas in elementary and middle schools, and indicators including SAT/ACT and AP/IB participation and performance for high schools.

For details, refer to the AADDC framework document at http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport/account/2013/index.html

Distinction Designation Framework Steps

The framework for distinction designations uses four steps to determine a campus distinction.

Step 1: Campus Comparison Group and ProfileA campus comparison group of 40 campuses is selected for each campus. Campus performance on each distinction indicator, by subject, is reported.

Step 2: Top 25%For each indicator, compare the performance of the target campus to the performance of the campuses in the comparison group. For example, Campus A is in the top 25% of campuses among a 40 campus comparison group on a particular distinction indicator.


40

Distinction Designation Framework Steps (continued)

Step 3: Campus Outcome by SubjectGenerate a single outcome by subject for each campus based on the percent of measures in the top quartile. For example, Campus A achieved the top 25% in three of the six (50%) mathematics distinction indicators that were evaluated for the campus.

Step 4: Apply State TargetThe statewide evaluation of campus outcomes identify the top campus distinction designations by subject. For example, campuses that outperformed their peers on 50% or more of the mathematics distinction indicators evaluated are qualified to receive an academic distinction in mathematics.


41

Recommended Targets

Campuses in the top 25% (top quartile) of their campus comparison group in Step 2 are eligible for a distinction designation for that subject area.

Statewide Targets are designated by type of campus:

Elementary and middle school campuses in the top quartile on at least 50% of their eligible measures are qualified to receive a distinction designation for that subject area.

High schools and K-12 Campuses in the top quartile on at least 33% of their eligible measures are qualified to receive a distinction designation for that subject area.


42

Calendar

Calendar

44

By April 12, 2013 Commissioner releases final decisions on the state rating and distinction designations systems.

April 17, 2013 2013 AEA Registration opens (TEASE)

April 26, 2013 2013 AEA Registration closes (TEASE).

Early May, 2013 Campus pairing application opens (TEASE).

Mid May, 2013 Campus pairing application closes (TEASE).

Calendar

45

Late May, 2013 Campus comparison groups released online.

May - June, 2013 Anticipated USDE waiver decision.

August 8, 2013 Release of accountability ratings and distinction designations.

2013 Accountability Development Website

46

Current postings to the 2013 development website include:

Overview of Performance Index Framework that provides a brief description of the features and safeguards of the four performance indexes in the new accountability system.

http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport/account/2013/index.html

Meeting outcome summaries for the APAC, ATAC, and AADDC meetings are posted online at:

http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport/account/2013/materials.html

Resources

2013 Development Sitehttp://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport/account/2013/index.html

Frequently Asked Questions About Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/ayp/faq/faq.html

Performance Reporting Home Pagehttp://www.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport

Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Home Pagehttp://www.tea.state.tx.us/ayp

Performance Reporting [email protected]

Division of Performance Reporting Telephone (512) 463-9704

47

Documents

TETN | April 11, 2013 Texas Education Agency | Office of Assessment and Accountability Division of Performance Reporting Update on State and Federal Accountability