Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Charter School Conference| June 16, 2014 Diane J. Hernandez | Texas Education Agency Office of Assessment and Accountability Division of Performance Reporting.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Charter School Conference| June 16, 2014 Diane J. Hernandez | Texas Education Agency Office of Assessment and Accountability Division of Performance Reporting."— Presentation transcript:

1 Charter School Conference| June 16, 2014 Diane J. Hernandez | Texas Education Agency Office of Assessment and Accountability Division of Performance Reporting Overview of 2014 Accountability

2 Accountability Goals 2 Texas will be among the top 10 states in postsecondary readiness by 2020:  Improve student achievement at all levels in the core subjects of the state curriculum.  Ensure the progress of all students toward achieving Advanced Academic Performance.  Close Advanced Academic Performance level gaps among groups.  Reward excellence based on other indicators in addition to state assessment results. First three goals are specified in Chapter (f) of the Texas Education Code (TEC).

3 Performance Index Framework 3 For 2014 and beyond, an accountability framework of four Performance Indexes includes a broad set of measures that provide a comprehensive evaluation of districts and campuses. Student Achievement Index I Student Progress Index 2 Closing Performance Gaps Index 3 Postsecondary Readiness Index 4 Accountability System

4 Performance Index Goals 4  Index 1: Student Achievement Provide a snapshot of performance across subjects, on both general and alternative assessments, at the satisfactory performance standard.  Index 2: Student Achievement Provide a measure of student progress by subject and student group independent of overall student achievement levels. Growth is evaluated by subject and student group.  Index 3: Closing Performance Gaps Emphasize advanced academic achievement of the economically disadvantaged student group and the lowest performing race/ethnicity student groups at each district or campus.  Index 4: Postsecondary Readiness Emphasize 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.

5 Accountability Criteria Targets and Rating Labels 5 Met Standard Met Alternative Standard Assigned to charter districts and alternative education campuses (AECs) evaluated under alternative education accountability (AEA) provisions. Improvement Required See page 14 in Chapter 2 – Accountability Ratings Criteria and Targets of the 2014 Accountability Manual for the 2014 Performance Index targets.

6 Accountability Subset 6 For the State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness (STAAR) indicator, the performance of students enrolled on a district and campus on the PEIMS fall snapshot date (the last Friday in October) are evaluated for ratings.  Campus Accountability Subset Campuses are accountable for the performance of students reported to be enrolled in the campus on date of testing.  District Accountability Subset Districts are accountable for the performance of students reported to be enrolled in the district on date of testing.  Example If a student moves from campus to campus within the same district, his or her performance counts in the district results, but does not count for either campus.

7 Accountability Subset 7 STAAR results included in the subset of district/campus accountability If a student was enrolled in the district/campus on this date: EOC summer 2013 administrationFall 2012 enrollment snapshot EOC fall 2013 administration Fall 2013 enrollment snapshot EOC spring 2014 administration Grades 3-8 spring 2014 administration

8 Index 1: Student Achievement 8  Assessments  End-of-Course (EOC): STAAR, STAAR-L, STAAR-Modified, STAAR-Alternate, ELL Progress Measures, and Substitute Assessments  Grades 3-8: STAAR, STAAR-L, STAAR-Modified, STAAR-Alternate, and ELL Progress Measures  Performance Standards  STAAR EOC and Grades 3-8 Phase-in 1 Level II or above  EOC: ELL Progress Measures Meets or Exceeds Expectations  EOC: Substitute Assessment Meets Equivalency Standard  Grades 3-8: ELL Progress Measures Meets or Exceeds Expectations  Subjects  EOC: English I (R&W combined), English II (R&W combined), Algebra I, Biology, and U.S. History.  Grades 3-8: Reading/ELA, Mathematics, Writing, Science, and Social Studies

9 9 Index 1: Student Achievement ReadingMathematicsWritingScience Social Studies Total % Met Phase-in 1 Level II Index Points Tests Met or Exceeded Phase-in 1 Level II =136 45%45 Total Tests =305 Index 1 Score45 Methodology Each percent of tests meet or exceed the Phase-in 1 Level II performance standard contributes one point and is summed across subjects. Index scores range from 0 to 100 for all districts and campuses. Index 1 has only one indicator. Therefore, the Total Index Points and Index Score are the same. Total Index Points = Index Score

10 10 Index 2: Student Progress  Assessments  End-of-Course (EOC): STAAR, STAAR-L, STAAR-Modified, and STAAR-Alternate  EOC: STAAR Progress Measures or ELL Progress Measures  Grades 3-8: STAAR, STAAR-L, STAAR-Modified, and STAAR-Alternate  Grades 3-8: STAAR Progress Measures or ELL Progress Measures  Performance Standards  STAAR EOC and STAAR Meets or Exceeds Expectations  STAAR Progress Measures or ELL Progress Measures Meets or Exceeds Expectations  Subjects  Reading/English Language Arts (ELA) and mathematics (for applicable grades)

11 11 Index 2: Student Progress STAAR Progress Measures by Subject Area and School Type 2014 Elementary SchoolMiddle SchoolHigh School Reading Gr. 4 ReadingGr. 6 Reading – Gr. 5 ReadingGr. 7 Reading – –Gr. 8 Reading– ––– Mathematics Gr. 4 MathematicsGr. 6 MathematicsAlgebra I Gr. 5 MathematicsGr. 7 Mathematics – –Gr. 8 Mathematics – –Algebra I– Writing –––

12 12 Index 2: Student Progress  High schools, charter districts and alternative education campuses (AECs) registered for evaluation under alternative education accountability (AEA) provisions are not evaluated on Index 2 in 2014 only.

13 STAAR Weighted Progress Rate All Students African Amer. Amer. Indian AsianHispanic Pacific Islander White Two or More Races ELL Special Ed. Total Points Max. Points Example Calculation for Reading/ELA Progress Number of Tests Performance Results: Met or Exceeded Progress Number Percent 80 80% 40 80% % 20 67% Exceeded Progress Number Percent 20 20% 20 40% 30 75% 5 17% Reading/ELA Weighted Progress Rate Index 2: Student Progress Methodology Points are based on weighted performance. One point is assigned for each percentage of tests at the Met or Exceeded progress level. Two points are assigned for each percentage of tests at the Exceeded progress level. Cumulative performance (met or exceeded progress plus exceeded progress) in each subject contributes from 0 to 200 points to the groups consisting of All Students and each student group that meets minimum size criteria.

14 STAAR Weighted Progress Rate All Students African Amer. Amer. Indian AsianHispanic Pacific Islander White Two or More Races ELL Special Ed. Total Points Max. Points Reading/ELA Weighted Progress Mathematics Weighted Progress Total Index 2 Score (total points divided by maximum points)61 14 Index 2: Student Progress Methodology continued

15 15 Index 3: Closing Performance Gaps  Assessments  EOC: STAAR, STAAR-L, STAAR-Modified, and STAAR-Alternate  EOC: ELL Progress Measures  Grades 3-8: STAAR, STAAR-L, STAAR-Modified, and STAAR-Alternate  Grades 3-8: ELL Progress Measures  Performance Standards  EOC STAAR and STAAR o Phase-in 1 Level II or above and Level III Advanced performance or  Grades 3-8 ELL Progress Measures o Meets or Exceeds Expectations and STAAR Final Level II or above  Subjects  Reading, Mathematics, Writing, Science, and Social Studies

16 16 Index 3: Closing Performance Gaps  Student Groups  Economically Disadvantaged  The two lowest performing race/ethnicity student groups with the district or on the campus, based on prior-year (2013) assessment results.  Minimum Size Criteria  Identify the racial/ethnic student groups that have 25 or more tests in both reading/ELA and mathematics in the prior year.  Select the lowest performance student group(s) that meet the minimum size based on all subjects results in the prior year. o If three or more racial/ethnic student groups meet prior-year minimum size, performance of the two lowest performing racial/ethnic groups are included. o If two racial/ethnic student groups meet minimum size, performance of the lowest performing racial/ethnic group is included. o If only one racial/ethnic student group meets the prior-year minimum size, then the racial/ethnic group is not included.

17 17 Index 3: Closing Performance Gaps Example on how to determine the lowest performing student groups

18 18 Index 3: Closing Performance Gaps STAAR 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 Weighted Performance Number of Tests Performance Results: Phase-in 1 Level II Satisfactory and above Number Percent % 20 50% % Level III Advanced Number Percent 40 50% 0 0% % Reading Weighted Performance Rate Methodology One point is assigned for each percent of tests at the Phase-in 1 Level II and above satisfactory performance standard. Two points are assigned for each percent of tests at the Level III advanced performance standard. Contributes from 0 to 200 points to the Economically Disadvantaged student group each student group that meets minimum size criteria.

19 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 Mathematics Weighted Performance Writing Weighted Performance Science Weighted Performance Social Studies Weighted Performance Total Index 3 Score (total points divided by maximum points)48 19 Index 3: Closing Performance Gaps Methodology Continued

20 20 Index 4: Postsecondary Readiness  Four Components The four index components are equally weighted:  STAAR Component: Postsecondary Readiness Standard (25%)  Graduation Rate (or Annual Dropout Rate) Component (25%)  Graduation Plan (RHSP/DAP Rate) Component(25%)  Postsecondary Component: College-Ready Graduates (25%)  Districts, high schools, and K-12 campuses are evaluated on all four components.  When any of the three non-STAAR components are not available then only the STAAR will be evaluated.  Elementary and middle schools are evaluated on the STAAR Component only.

21 21 Index 4: Postsecondary Readiness STAAR Component: Postsecondary Readiness Standard  Assessments  EOC: STAAR and STAAR-Modified or Substitute Assessments  Grades 3-8: STAAR and STAAR-Modified  Performance Standard  EOC: Final Level II on two or more subjects or  EOC: Substitute Assessments: Meets Equivalency Standard  STAAR (Grades 3-8): Final Level II or above  Subjects  Reading, Writing, Mathematics, Science, and Social Studies

22 22 Index 4: Postsecondary Readiness Graduation Rate (or Annual Dropout Rate) Component Graduation Rate  Performance Standard Combined performance across graduation rates (or annual dropout rate, if graduation rate is not available). Whichever graduation rate that contributes the most points to the index is applied.  Class of 2013 Four Year Graduation Rate for grades 9-12 or  Class of 2012 Five Year Graduation Rate for grades 9-12

23 23 Index 4: Postsecondary Readiness Graduation Rate (or Annual Dropout Rate) Component Annual Dropout Rate Only applies when four-year or five-year graduation rates are not available.  Annual Dropout Rate  Calculated by dividing the number of students in grades 9-12 designated as having dropped out by the number of students enrolled in grades 9-12 at any time during the school year.

24 24 Index 4: Postsecondary Readiness Graduation Plan (RHSP/DAP Rate) Component  Based on a four-year longitudinal cohort that represents the percent of students in the Class of 2013, who began grade 9 in , and graduated under the Recommended High School Program (RHSP)/Distinguished Achievement Program (DAP). or  The annual percent of RHSP/DAP graduates for the school year for districts and campuses that do not have a four-year longitudinal graduation cohort or do not meet the minimum size requirement.  The annual RHSP/DAP graduation rate also applies to new campuses until sufficient data is available to calculate a longitudinal graduation rate.

25 25 Index 4: Postsecondary Readiness Postsecondary Component: College-Ready Graduates  Percent of high school graduates meeting the Texas Success Initiative (TSI) college readiness standards, specifically, on the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS) exit-level test or SAT test or ACT test.  Subjects  Both Reading/ELA and Mathematics

26 26 Index 4: Postsecondary Readiness Indicator All Students African Amer. Amer. Indian AsianHispanic Pacific Islander White Two or More Races ELL Special Ed. Total Points Max. Points STAAR Score STAAR % Met Final Level ll on One or More Tests 29%16%40%23%38%36% STAAR Score (STAAR total points divided by maximum points)30 Graduation Score (Gr. 9-12) 4-yr. graduation rate84.3%78.8% 91.6%86.0%44.2%69.8% yr. graduation rate85.1%78.8%80.0%92.1%84.0%48.9%77.5% Highest Graduation Total Graduation Score (best of total graduation points divided by maximum points)78.0 RHSP/DAP Score 4-yr. graduation Percent RHSP/DAP 82.7%76.4%83.6%83.0% RHSP/DAP Score (best of total RHSP/DAP points divided by maximum points)81.4 Postsecondary/College-Ready Graduates Score College-Ready Graduates on both Reading/ELA and Math 82.0%72.0%78.0%89.0% College-Ready Score (total points divided by maximum points)80.2 Overall Index Score STAAR Score30.0 x 25%7.5 Graduation Score78.0 x 25%19.5 RHSP/DAP Score81.4 x 25%20.4 College-Ready Score80.2 x 25%25.1 Index Score (sum of weighted index scores)72.5

27 Index 4: Postsecondary Readiness 27 AEA Charter Districts and Campuses (Including Dropout Recovery Campuses)  Two Components These two index components are not equally weighted as for regular districts and campuses:  STAAR Postsecondary Readiness Standard (25%)  Graduation ( or Annual Dropout Rate) Component(75%)  If both components are not available, then will evaluate the Graduation Score (or Annual Dropout Rate) component only.  If the Graduation Score (or Annual Dropout Rate) are not available, then Index 4 is not evaluated for those AEA charter districts and campuses.

28 Index 4: Postsecondary Readiness 28 AEA Charter Districts and Campuses (Including Dropout Recovery Campuses) STAAR Component  Assessments  STAAR and STAAR-M or  STAAR EOC Substitute Assessments  Performance Standard  STAAR Final Level II on two or more tests  Subjects  Reading, Writing, Mathematics, Science, and Social Studies

29 Index 4: Postsecondary Readiness 29 AEA Campuses and Charter Districts (Including Dropout Recovery Campuses) Graduation (or Annual Dropout Rate) Score Component  Graduation Score: Whichever contributes the most points to the overall total.  Class of 2013 four-year graduation, continuers, and GED rate for grades 9-12 or  Class of 2012 five-year graduation, continuers, and GED rate for grades 9-12 or  Class of 2011 six-year graduation, continuers, and GED for grades 9-12

30 Index 4: Postsecondary Readiness 30 AEA Campuses and Charter Districts (Including Dropout Recovery Campuses) Graduation (or Annual Dropout Rate) Score Component  Annual Dropout Rate  This rate is modified to give AEA charter districts and campuses rates of ≤ 20.0%.  If AEA charter district or campus has students enrolled in grades 9, 10, 11, or 12, but does not have a 4- or 5- or 6-year graduation, continuer, and GED rate, then a grade 9-12 annual dropout rate is applied.

31 31 Index 4: Postsecondary Readiness AEA Campuses and Charter Districts (Including Dropout Recovery Campuses) Bonus Points: A maximum of 30 bonus points are added for the following indicators:  Recommended High School Program (RHSP)/Distinguished Achievement Program (DAP)  Based on the four-year longitudinal cohort.  For AEA charter districts and campuses that use the Annual Dropout Rate, an annual RHSP/DAP is calculated for bonus points.  The annual rate is also used if the four-year longitudinal RHSP/DAP data does not meet the minimum size criteria.  College-Ready Graduates  Based on the graduates reported in the school year who met the TSI criteria on the TAKS exit-level test or the SAT test or the ACT test in both reading/ELA, mathematics, or both subjects.  Excluded Student Credit  Based on AEA charter districts and campuses serving recovered dropouts and other students who graduate or earn a GED, but are statutorily excluded from the graduation and dropout rate calculations.

32 32 AEA Charter Districts and Campuses with a Graduation, Continuer, and GED Rate Component All Students African Amer. Amer. Indian AsianHispanic Pacific Islander White Two or More Races Special Ed. ELL Total Points Max. Points STAAR Postsecondary Readiness Standard % Meeting Postsecondary Readiness Standard 51%42%83%55%44%31%56%52% STAAR Postsecondary Readiness Standard :Score (total points divided by maximum points) 51.8 Graduation, Continuers, and GED Rate 4-Year Rate64.3%58.8% 71.6%66.0%34.2%59.8% Year Rate65.1%58.8%60.0%72.1%64.0%48.9%57.5% Year Rate66.2%58.8%61.0%72.1%52.2%58.2% Highest Graduation, Continuer, and GED Rate Total Graduation, Continuers, and GED Rate: Score (best of total points divided by maximum points) 61.4 Bonus Points RHSP/DAP Rate (4- yr. longitudinal/annual) 33.3%33 College-ready graduates0 Excluded students credit0 Total Bonus Points (maximum of 30) 30 Index 4: Postsecondary Readiness

33 33 Index 4: Postsecondary Readiness Overall Index 4 Score for AEA Charter Districts and Campuses with a Graduation, Continuer, and GED Rate Overall PerformanceComponent ScoreMultiply byWeight of Total Points STAAR Postsecondary Readiness Standard 51.8X25%13.0 Graduation, Continuers, GED Rate61.9 X75% 46.4 Bonus Points Index 4: Score 89

34 2014 AEA Campus Registration 34  AEA campus registration occurred April 1 – April 15, 2014, 12:00 p.m. (noon) via the TEASE Accountability website.  Alternative education campuses (AECs) rated under 2013 AEA procedures qualified for automatic re-registration, subject to meeting certain criteria:  Each campus must have at least 75% at-risk student enrollment as verified by current-year PEIMS fall enrollment data;  For campuses with less than 75% at-risk student enrollment, prior-year PEIMS data may be used to qualify;  Each campus must have at least 50% of students enrolled in grades 6-12; and  AEA registration expanded to include dropout recovery schools.

35 35  Distinction designations are awarded in recognition of outstanding achievement in specific subjects. Labels earned are Distinction Earned, No Distinction Earned, and Not Eligible.  Campus distinctions are based on indicators of student performance in comparison to forty similar campuses.  Academic Achievement in:  Reading/English Language Arts (campus only)  Mathematics (campus only)  Science (campus only)  Social Studies (campus only)  Top 25 Percent: Student Progress (campus only)  Top 25 Percent: Closing Performance Gaps (campus only)  Postsecondary Readiness (districts and campuses) Per Texas Education Code (TEC) §39.201, alternative education campuses (AECs) evaluated under AEA provisions are not eligible for distinction designations. Distinction Designations

36 36 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. Distinction Designations

37 System Safeguards 37  With a performance index framework, poor performance in one subject or one student group does not necessarily result in an Improvement Required accountability rating. The safeguards results will be addressed through the Texas Accountability Intervention System (TAIS) managed by the Performance- Based Monitoring (PBM) Division.  Along with possible interventions, the intent of the system safeguards system is to also meet additional federal accountability requirements that are not met in the performance index. See Chapter 8: System Safeguards and Other Federal Requirements in the 2014 Accountability Manual for additional information.  Reporting system disaggregates performance by student group, performance level, and subject area.

38 System Safeguards Measures and Targets 38  The minimum size requirement for student groups, including the All Students group, for system safeguards is 25. Small numbers analysis is not applied for student groups that have fewer than 25 assessment results.  Performance rates are calculated from the assessment results used to calculate Index 1: Student Achievement.  2014 targets for the disaggregated system-safeguard results:  STAAR performance target corresponds to Index 1 (55%);  STAAR participation target required by federal accountability (95%);  Federal graduation rate targets and improvement calculations for 4-year rate (80%) and 5-year rate (85%); and  Federal limit on use of modified (2%) and alternate assessments (1%).

39 39 System Safeguards Measures and Targets Indicator All Students African Amer. Amer. Indian AsianHispanic Pacific Islander White Two or More Races Eco. Disadv. ELL Special Ed. Performance Rates – State Reading55% Mathematics55% Writing55% Science55% Social Studies55% Performance Rates – Federal Reading – Federal79% Mathematics – Federal79% Participation Rates Reading95% Mathematics95% Federal Graduation Rates (includes improvement targets) 4-year80% 5-year85% District Limits on Use of Alternative Assessment Results Reading – Modified2%Not Applicable Reading – Alternate1%Not Applicable Mathematics – Alternate2%Not Applicable Mathematics – Alternate1%Not Applicable

40 Accountability Calendar DateEvent June 5Dropout and completion lists and rates (TEASE) June Campus Comparison Groups (TEASE) June2014 Accountability Manual – all chapters (public web) JulyConsolidated Accountability Files (CAF) Released August Preliminary Performance Index Tables without rating labels (TEASE) August Preliminary Accountability Tables with rating labels (TEASE) August Preliminary Accountability Tables with rating labels, Distinction Designations, and System Safeguards (public web) August 8Appeals application opens (TEASE) September Appeals Deadline October 1 Per House Bill 5 (Section ), a newly-developed report that includes state-assigned academic and financial ratings and locally-assigned community and student engagement ratings for each district and campus is posted online. Early NovemberTEA notifies districts of accountability appeal decisions (TEASE) Early November2014 Final ratings release after resolution of all appeals (TEASE and public web) December 19 Per House Bill 5 (Section ), a newly-developed comparison reporting system for districts and campuses based on 2014 performance index results will be posted online.

41 41  The Texas Education Agency Secure Environment (TEASE) Accountability website provides school districts and charters with confidential unmasked data tables, summary tables, confidential student listings, data files; and other accountability information.  To be in compliance with FERPA laws, only superintendents and their designees are allowed to apply for a TEASE Accountability user ID and password.  Each superintendent and charter school executive director should apply for access and may designate others in their district (and at the ESC) to also have access. Texas Education Agency Secure Environment (TEASE) Accountability Accounts

42 Performance Reporting Products  Texas Academic Performance Reports (TAPR), formerly known as the Academic Excellence Indicator System (AEIS) reports, annually pulls together a wide range of data on the performance of students in each district and school in Texas. The reports also provide extensive data on staff, programs, and demographics for each school and district.  School Report Cards provide a subset of data from the TAPR.  Accountability Ratings website provides ratings as well as the data used to determine the ratings for each district and campus. The site also provides any Distinction Designations earned by campuses.  Snapshot reports provide an overview of public education in Texas annually. Additionally, it provides a profile of basic characteristics for every district.  Texas Performance Reporting System (TPRS) provides additional performance reports and results not previously available. 42

43 Resources  2014 Accountability Rating System  Resources  Performance Reporting Home Page  Performance Reporting  Division Telephone (512)


Download ppt "Charter School Conference| June 16, 2014 Diane J. Hernandez | Texas Education Agency Office of Assessment and Accountability Division of Performance Reporting."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google