2013 Accountability Overview and Update TETN Session 18318

2013 Accountability Overview and Update TETN Session #18318 | August 29, 2013 | 1: 00 -3: 00 p. m. Texas Education Agency | Office of Assessment and Accountability Division of Performance Reporting Shannon Housson, Director

Review and Feedback on 2013 State Accountability Release

2013 Accountability Ratings and Designations 3 Accountability Rating (Districts and Campuses) Distinction Designations (Campuses Only) Met Standard Top 25%: Student Progress and/or Academic Achievement: Reading/ELA and/or Academic Achievement: Mathematics Met Alternative Standard (assigned to charter operators and alternative education campuses (AECs) evaluated under alternative education provisions) N/A Improvement Required N/A

2013 Performance Index Targets 4 2013 Index Targets for Non-AEA Campuses and Districts To receive a Met Standard rating, non-AEA campuses and districts must meet the following accountability targets on all indexes for which they have performance data in 2013. Performance Index 1: Student Achievement Index 2: Student Progress Campuses Districts 50 50 High Schools: 17 Middle Schools: 29 Elementary Schools: 30 21 Index 3: Closing Performance Gaps 55 55 Index 4: Postsecondary Readiness 75 75

2013 Performance Index Targets 5 2013 Index Targets for AEA Campuses and Charters To receive a Met Alternative Standard rating, alternative education campuses and charter operators evaluated under AEA provisions must meet the following accountability targets on all indexes for which they have performance data in 2013. Performance Index AEA Campuses Districts Index 1: Student Achievement 25 25 Index 2: Student Progress 9 9 Index 3: Closing Performance Gaps 30 30 Index 4: Postsecondary Readiness 45 45

2013 Accountability Report Updates (posted August 29, 2013)

Accountability Reports with Drill-Down Features 7 The 2013 Accountability Summary report has been enhanced with clickable links that drill-down to more detailed data for the: Performance Index Report, Performance Index Summary, Distinction Designation, Campus Demographics, and System Safeguards Important Note: The data have not changed. These reports contain the same information that was reported on August 8. SAMPLE HS (00000) – SAMPLE DISTRICT

Distinction Designation Summary 8 § § The 3 -page Distinction Designation Summary report released on August 8 has been enhanced with a 4 th page that details Numerators, Denominators, Scores, Quartile 1 Minimum Scores, and Quartile Scores for each of the Indicators used in the calculation of Distinction Designations. Blank values for an Indicator Score occur if the indicator is not applicable to that campus or does not meet minimum size of 10 students. Blank values for a Quartile occur if there are less than 20 campuses in the campus comparison group for each qualifying indicator. SAMPLE HS (00000) – SAMPLE DISTRICT Campus Type – High School

System Safeguards 9 § This 1 -page System Safeguards report released on August 8 has been enhanced with a 2 nd and 3 rd page that details Numerators, Denominators, and Rates for each of the subjects and student groups used in the calculation of Performance Rates, Participation Rates, Graduation Rates, and Federal Limits on Alternative Assessments. SAMPLE HS (00000) – SAMPLE DISTRICT

2013 Statewide Results

2013 Statewide Results 11 Districts (Including Charter Operators) § Of the 1, 228 districts in the state, 1, 136 (92. 5%) achieved a Met Standard or Met Alternative Standard rating. § A total of 80 (6. 5%) districts were rated Improvement Required and 12 (1%) were labeled as Not Rated.

2013 Statewide Results 12 Campuses § Of the 8, 555 campuses in the state, 7, 206 (84. 2%) achieved a Met Standard or Met Alternative Standard rating. § 778 (9. 1%) were labeled Improvement Required. § 571 (6. 7%) were labeled as Not Rated.

2013 Statewide Results 13 Alternative Education Accountability (AEA) Campuses § Of the 396 campuses registered to be evaluated under AEA provisions, 220 (55. 6%) achieved a Met Alternative Standard rating. § 36 (9. 1%) were labeled as Improvement Required. § 140 (35. 4%) were labeled as Not Rated, which comprise 53 AECs of Choice and 87 Residential Facilities.

2013 Statewide Results 14 Distinction Designations § Only campuses that received a Met Standard rating are eligible for Distinction Designations in 2013. Districts, charter operators, and AEA campuses are not eligible to receive Distinction Designations. § Of the 8, 555 campuses, 1, 991 (23. 3%) campuses received a distinction for achieving the Top 25% in Student Progress. § 2, 323 (27. 2%) received a distinction for reading/ELA and 1, 906 (22. 3%) received a distinction for mathematics. § In total, 3, 599 (42. 1%) received one or more Distinction Designations. § 759 (8. 9%) received Distinction Designations in all three categories.

2013 Statewide Results 15 System Safeguards § Of the 55 performance indicators (five subject areas x 11 student groups) evaluated in the system safeguards, 52 (94. 5%) indicators achieved the performance target of 50%. § All 22 of the participation indicators (two subject areas x 11 student groups) achieved the participation target of 95%. § Of the 11 student groups, 9 (81. 8%) achieved the graduation rate of 78% for the four-year rate, achieved 83% for the five-year rate, or demonstrated sufficient improvement to achieve the goal of 90%. § The state did not exceed the federal limit of 1% on STAAR Alternate or the 2% limit on STAAR Modified results.

Notice of Performance Requirements

Notice of Performance Requirements 17 § § Sections 39. 361 and 39. 362 of the Texas Education Code require districts to do the following: Requires districts to state whether the campus has been awarded a distinction designation or is currently rated Improvement Required, and an explanation of the significance of the information. Requires districts by the 10 th day of the new school year to have posted on the district web site the current accreditation status and accountability ratings, Performance Reports (formerly referred to as the AEIS reports), and School Report Cards (SRC) as well as an explanation of the information. An updated FAQ is available at the following link to help districts meet these requirements: http: //ritter. tea. state. tx. us/perfreport/3297_faq. html

2013 Appeals Process

Appeals Timeline 19 August 8 through September 9, 2013 Districts must register their district and campus using the TEASE Accountability website then submit the appeal with supporting documentation via the mail. Appeals not signed by the district superintendent will be denied. See “How to Appeal” later in Chapter 8 of the 2013 Accountability Manual at http: //ritter. tea. state. tx. us/perfreport/account/2013/manual/index. html Appeals must be postmarked or hand delivered no later than 5: 00 p. m. September 9, 2013, in order to be considered. September 9, 2013 Appeals postmarked or hand delivered past this time and date will be denied. Early November 2013 The commissioner’s decisions will be mailed in the form of response letters to each appellant. Letters will be posted to the TEASE site. Early November 2013 The outcome of all appeals will be reflected in the ratings update scheduled for November 2013. At that time, the TEASE and public websites will be updated.

Appeals Process 20 § Districts may appeal for any reason. However, since the new state accountability system relies on performance index calculations, the state accountability appeal process will be limited to rare cases where a data or calculation error is attributable to the testing contractor or TEA. § The compensatory nature of the index framework and other features of the indexes, such as the use of multiple indicators to derive an overall index score, minimize the possibility that district errors in coding student demographic information in PEIMS or the STAAR assessment program negatively impact the overall accountability rating. § Also, the use of online applications provided by the agency and testing contractor ensures that districts are aware of data correction opportunities. District responsibility for data quality is the cornerstone of a fair and uniform rating determination.

Appeals Process 21 Special Circumstances § District requested that writing results be rescored. Include a copy of the dated request to the test contractor and the outcome with the appeal. If the rescored results impact the rating, the copies are necessary since rescored results may not have been processed in time to be included in the assessment data that determined the accountability ratings by August 8 th. § Other serious problems found. Copies of correspondence with the test contractor or the regional ESC should be provided with the appeal. § Errors based on STAAR or TELPAS online test submission. Errors must include documentation of the administration of the assessment. § Campus shut down during a test administration. The issuance of a Not Rated label is possible. In these cases, any affected results that may have been scored are not evaluated. Also, no reliable rating can be issued based on available data.

Appeals Process 22 Not Rated: Other § Districts rated Not Rated: Other are responsible for appealing this rating by the scheduled appeal deadline if the basis for this rating was a result of special circumstance or error by the testing contractor that affected data used to determine accountability ratings. If the agency determines that the Not Rated: Other rating was assigned due to a unique circumstance, the agency will assign an updated rating. Distinction Designations § Academic Achievement Distinction Designations (AADD) cannot be appealed. AADD indicators are reported for most campuses regardless of eligibility for a designation outcome. Since campuses rated Improvement Required are not eligible for an AADD outcome, campuses that appeal an Improvement Required rating will automatically receive any Distinction Designation earned if their appeal is granted and their rating is raised to Met Standard.

Appeals Process 23 Relationship to the Accountability System Safeguards and PBMAS § The Accountability System Safeguard measures, Performance. Based Monitoring Analysis System (PBMAS) indicators, and Program Monitoring and Interventions Division intervention staging requirements will be considered when making decisions on appeals. § School district data submitted through PEIMS or to the state assessment contractor are also considered. § Please note that certain appeal requests may lead to Program Monitoring and Interventions activities to address potential concerns related to data integrity.

2012 -13 Annual Performance Report

Performance Report and School Report Card 25 § The Annual Performance Report, formerly known as the Academic Excellence Indicator System (AEIS) report, will be released on the TEA Secure Environment (TEASE) and TEA’s public website in November 2013. § The School Report Card (SRC) will report a subset of data that are reported on the Performance Report. § The SRC and all its reporting requirements will be released on the web in early December. § More information on the Annual Performance Report and School Report Card will be disseminated during the November 14, 2013 TETN (#18319).

2014 Accountability Development

Accountability Advisory Committees 27 § Accountability advisory groups will convene in fall 2013 to finalize recommendations for accountability ratings criteria and labels for 2014 and beyond and performance index targets for 2014— 2016. § Early December 2013 – Accountability advisory groups convene to develop recommendations to commissioner for accountability ratings criteria and labels for 2014 and beyond and performance index targets for 2014, 2015, and 2016 accountability ratings. § Spring 2014 – commissioner announces accountability ratings criteria for 2014 and beyond and final 2014 targets, preliminary 2015 targets, and preview 2016 targets.

Ratings Criteria & Targets for 2014 and Beyond 28 Index 3: Closing Performance Gaps §The percent of students at the specified student performance level on the assessment is multiplied by the weight for that performance level. The STAAR weighted performance rate calculation was modified for 2013 because STAAR Level III performance could not be included until 2014. §Phase-in 1 Level II (2013 and beyond) – one point for each percent of students at the phase-in 1 Level II performance standard. §Level III Advanced (2014 and beyond) – two points for each percent of students at the final Level III performance standard.

Ratings Criteria & Targets for 2014 and Beyond 29 Index 4: Postsecondary Readiness §STAAR Level II Performance for Index 4 In 2014 and beyond, credit will be given for final Level II performance on the same assessments used in Index 1 at final Level III performance standard. §Subjects Areas Evaluated for STAAR Performance in Index 4 All subject areas (reading, mathematics, writing, science, and social studies) are combined. Subject areas are not evaluated separately. §Student Groups Evaluated for STAAR Performance in Index 4 Eight student groups are evaluated. All Students and the Seven Racial/Ethnic groups: African American, American Indian, Asian, Hispanic, Pacific Islander, White, and Two or More Races

Ratings Criteria & Targets for 2014 and Beyond 30 Index 4: Postsecondary Readiness for AEA Campuses and Charters §Some AEA campuses and charters serve a unique student population that warrants alternative criteria and index targets in regards to Index 4. Modifications to Index 4 will be reviewed with the accountability advisory groups in fall 2013 to ensure all of the requirements of Senate Bill (SB) 1538 are met. §Graduation and General Educational Development (GED) Score will contribute 75 percent of the points to Index 4 and STAAR Score (Percent Met final Level II on One or More Tests) will contribute 25 percent of the points.

Distinction Designations for 2014 and Beyond 31 § Campus Top Twenty-Five Percent Distinction Designations Will be based on performance on Index 2 and Index 3 in relation to campuses in the comparison group. § 2013 and Beyond: Top 25% Student Progress. Based on performance on Index 2: Student Progress. Campuses in the top quartile of their campus comparison group in performance on Index 2 earn this distinction designation. 2014 and Beyond: Top 25% Closing Achievement Gaps. Based on performance on Index 3: Closing Performance Gaps. Campuses in the top quartile of their campus comparison group in performance on Index 3 earn this distinction designation. Academic Achievement Distinction Designations in Science and Social Studies Campuses will be eligible for distinction designations in science and social studies in 2014. Indicators will be determined based on input from advisory groups that will be convened in fall 2013 and spring 2014.

Distinction Designations for 2014 and Beyond 32 New Academic Achievement Distinction Designations (AADD) Indicators in Reading/ELA and Mathematics §Grade 10 (PSAT and PLAN) and Grade 11 (PSAT) Participation. A student in grade 10 or 11 can take these measurements of college readiness. The PSAT consists of three sections that assess a number of academic skill sets: critical reading, mathematics, and writing. PLAN includes four multiple-choice tests: English, math, reading, and science. §PSAT Grade 10 and Grade 11 Performance Indicators: ELA and Mathematics. These measures of college readiness are typically taken by students in grades 10 and 11. Consists of three sections that assess a number of academic skill sets: critical reading, mathematics, and writing. §PLAN Grade 10 Performance Indicators: English and Mathematics. This is a measurement of college readiness typically taken by students in grades 10 and 11. A PLAN Performance indicator will be evaluated for both English and mathematics.

Legislative Changes 33 During the 83 rd legislative session, the following bills will affect the 2014 accountability system and beyond. These legislative changes will be reviewed by accountability advisory groups in fall 2013 to develop recommendations to the commissioner for implementation. See Chapter 13 of the 2013 Accountability Manual for details. http: //ritter. tea. state. tx. us/perfreport/account/2013/manual/index. html HB 5 Relating to public school accountability, assessment, and curriculum requirements. HB 866 Relating to the administration to public school students in certain grades of state-administered assessment instruments. SB 306 Relating to consideration of a student receiving treatment in a residential treatment facility for public school accountability purposes. SB 377 Relating to considering the performance of certain students on state assessment instruments in evaluating school district and campus performance. SB 1538 Relating to evaluating the performance, including computing dropout and completion rates, of public schools, including schools designated as dropout recovery schools and residential facilities.

House Bill (HB) 5 Changes 34 House Bill 5 Accountability Provisions § Expands the postsecondary readiness indicators evaluated for state accountability to include Texas Success Initiative (TSI) college readiness benchmarks and the number of students who earn postsecondary credit required for the foundation high school program, an associate’s degree, or an industry certification. § Beginning in the 2016 -17 school year, requires TEA to assign ratings of A, B, C, D, or F to districts, and ratings of exemplary, recognized, acceptable, or unacceptable to campuses.

House Bill (HB) 5 Changes 35 House Bill 5 - Community and Student Engagement § Beginning with the 2013 -14 school year, districts will be required to evaluate community and student engagement compliance for the district and each of their campuses and assign a rating. The ratings are required to be reported to TEA by August 8, 2014. § The statute requires that districts assign a performance rating of exemplary, recognized, acceptable, or unacceptable based on locallydetermined criteria. These performance ratings must be based on criteria developed by a local committee. Statute does not permit the Agency to determine the criteria that can be used for these evaluations. § TEA is required to develop a data collection system that allows districts to submit their locally-determined performance ratings in nine possible categories for each campus in the district. TEA is also required to report these ratings publicly by October 1, 2014.

Other Legislative Changes 36 Senate Bill 1538 TEC § 39. 0545 is added to require the evaluation of dropout recovery schools that are defined as: o serves students in grades 9 -12; o has enrollment of which at least 50 percent of the students are 17 years of age or older as of September 1 of the school year; and o meets the eligibility requirements for and is registered under alternative education accountability procedures adopted by the commissioner. §Further modifications to the applicable indexes will be reviewed with the accountability advisory groups in fall 2013 to ensure all of the requirements of Senate Bill 1538 are met.

Calendar 37 September 9, 2013 Appeals must be postmarked and delivered by 5: 00 p. m. CST November 14, 2013 TETN update on state and federal accountability November 2013 2012 -13 Annual Performance Reports released List of schools with Campus Improvement Plans (CIP) requirements released December 2013 Public Education Grant (PEG) list posted on public website 2012 -13 School Report Cards posted on public website January 2014 NCLB Report Cards posted on public website

Resources 38 § 2013 Accountability Manual http: //ritter. tea. state. tx. us/perfreport/account/2013/index. html § Frequently Asked Questions http: //ritter. tea. state. tx. us/perfreport/account/2013/faq. html § STAAR Progress Measure Documents http: //www. tea. state. tx. us/student. assessment/staar/ § Performance Reporting Home Page http: //www. tea. state. tx. us/perfreport