Presentation on theme: "January 28, 2013 Shannon Housson and Ester Regalado Texas Education Agency | Office of Assessment and Accountability Division of Performance Reporting."— Presentation transcript:
January 28, 2013 Shannon Housson and Ester Regalado Texas Education Agency | Office of Assessment and Accountability Division of Performance Reporting 2013 TASA Midwinter Conference
2013 Accountability System Design
Objectives for Todays Session 3 Questions that will be addressed in todays session: Why is Texas is developing a different framework for public school accountability? What is a performance index? How will performance indexes be used in the new rating system? When will the various indicators be evaluated in the performance indexes? How will Texas ensure that individual student groups are not ignored? What are the additional distinction designations that will be developed for 2013?
Objectives for Todays Session 4 Questions that cannot be addressed in todays session: Questions related to the STAAR assessment program that can be addressed by Student Assessment staff. Certain details about the indicators or indexes that are more fully explained in the technical description document. What the accountability targets will be for 2013, since final decisions about the system framework, indicators, and targets will be released by the commissioner in spring 2013.
2013 Accountability Development 5 In 2009, the Texas Legislature passed House Bill (HB) 3, mandating the creation of an entirely new accountability system for TEA produced a plan for implementing these changes in the House Bill (HB) 3 Transition Plan, published in December In 2012, TEA began working with advisory committees to develop the new rating and distinction designations systems required by HB 3.
2013 Accountability Development 6 Accountability Technical Advisory Committee (ATAC) In October 2011, the commissioner asked superintendents and ESC directors to submit nominations for educators to serve on the ATAC. 156 nominations were received, 27 members were selected for the ATAC. Since March, work groups of ATAC members have met to discuss, research, and propose solutions to key issues. The ATAC will meet in February 2013 to review system safeguards and develop their recommendations on the accountability targets for 2013 and beyond.
2013 Accountability Development 7 Accountability Policy Advisory Committee (APAC) In October 2011, the commissioner requested nominations from educator organizations, business organizations, and educational service centers for the APAC. Twenty-nine members were selected for the APAC, representing various educational and business organizations and legislative offices. APAC members have met twice with the ATAC to develop recommendations on the accountability framework as well as rating levels and labels. The APAC will meet again in early March 2013 to review the ATAC proposal on accountability targets and develop their recommendations to the commissioner on the accountability targets for 2013 and beyond.
Previous State Accountability System 8 In previous system from , districts and campuses were required to meet criteria on up to 25 separate assessment measures (five subjects X five student groups) and on up to 10 dropout and high school completion measures in order to achieve the Academically Acceptable rating. Thus, a district or campus could receive an Academically Unacceptable rating due to poor performance on a single measure even if all other measures indicated high performance. The new state accountability system under development will allow accountability on a large number of measures, without the rating being dependent on a single measure.
Previous State Accountability System (2011) 9
Proposal for Accountability Framework 11 The ATAC committee members developed the proposed framework based on the requirements of HB 3 and their expectation that the new accountability system should: Be comprehensive in nature, Improve student performance for every child, Focus on narrowing the performance gap between historically disadvantaged and advantaged students, Measure indicators that move a school/district toward higher performance, and Direct resources for improvement.
Proposal for Accountability Framework 12 Primary Factors Considered for Selecting Performance Index Framework Accountability System Goals and Guiding Principles 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, e.g., CA, CO, FL, GA, KY, LA, OH, OK, NC, and SC
STAAR Indicators –Proposed 2014 Performance Index Framework 13
Indicators for Proposed 2014 Performance Index Framework 14
Performance Index Framework 15 What is a Performance Index? With 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.
Performance Index Framework 16 Features of a Performance Index Each indicator contributes points to the index score. Performance on all measures is included, but no single indicator can be the sole reason for a lower rating. Resulting rating reflects overall performance rather than the weakest areas. 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 Framework 17 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. Accountability System Student Achievement Index I Student Progress Index 2 Closing Performance Gaps Index 3 Postsecondary Readiness Index 4 Student Achievement Index I Student Progress Index 2 Closing Performance Gaps Index 3 Postsecondary Readiness Index 4
18 Index 1: Student Achievement Sample Campus STAAR Performance Results STAAR ReadingAll African Amer. Amer. Indian AsianHispanic Pacific Islander White Two or More ELL Special Ed. Econ. Disadv. Met Level III2520*20* Met Level II250*220* Level I500*220* Number Tested10020*640* % Met Level III (Advanced) 25%100%*33%0%*32%33%4%32%50% % Met Level II (Satisfactory) 25%0%*33%50%*27%25%32%18%50% % Met Level II or III50%100%*67%50%*59%58%36%50%100%
19 Index 1: Student Achievement Sample Campus STAAR Performance Results STAAR Performance Results % Met Level II or III STAAR Reading50% STAAR Mathematics38% STAAR Writing45% STAAR Science25% STAAR Social Studies83% STAAR Performance Results % Met Growth Standard (L2 or L3) STAAR Reading49% STAAR Mathematics38% STAAR Writing40% STAAR ScienceTBD STAAR Social StudiesTBD
Index 1: Student Achievement 20 STAAR Percent Met Level II Standard (2013 and Beyond) STAAR Grades 3-8 English and Spanish at final Level II performance standard for assessments administered in the spring; EOC at final Level II performance standard for assessments administered in the spring and the previous fall and summer; STAAR Grades 3-8 and EOC Modified and Alternate at final Level II performance standard; TAKS 2013: Grade 11 results at Met Standard performance 2014 and beyond: None
21 STAAR Percent Met Level II Standard (2013 and Beyond) Combined over all subject areas: Reading, Mathematics, Writing, Science, and Social Studies Student groups: All Students only Students below Grade 9 taking EOC courses: Administrative rules for the assessment program will require that students be administered the EOC test rather than the STAAR grade level assessment for the subject. Index 1: Student Achievement
22 Index 1: Student Achievement Example ReadingMathematicsWritingScience Social Studies Total % Met Level II Students Met Level II =136 45%45 Students Tested =305 Index Score45 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 final Level II Standard. Each percent of students meeting the final Level II performance standard contributes one point to the index. Index scores range from 0 to 100 for all campuses and districts.
Index 2: Student Progress 23 STAAR Percent Met Growth Standard (2014 and Beyond) The STAAR growth measure will not available in time for use in the 2013 accountability ratings. Since the growth measure must be finalized based on the spring 2013 STAAR results, it is not possible to set the 2013 accountability targets for Index 2 prior to the release date of the 2013 ratings. This graphic is an example of a transition table that divides the three STAAR performance levels (Level I, Level II, and Level III) into performance bands. The number of bands within a performance level may differ for the final growth measure adopted.
24 Index 2 Construction Ten Student Groups Evaluated: 1. All Students 2. English language learners (ELLs) 3. Students with Disabilities Race/Ethnicity: 4. African American 5. American Indian 6. Asian 7. Hispanic 8. Pacific Islander 9. White 10. Two or More Races Index 2: Student Progress
25 Index 2 Construction By Subject Area: Reading, Mathematics, and Writing Credit given for meeting the student progress measure requirements for: Progress toward Satisfactory performance (Level II) or Progress toward Advanced performance (Level III)
26 Index 2 Construction Index 2: Student Progress IndicatorAll African Amer. Amer. Indian AsianHispanic Pacific Islander White Two or More ELL Special Ed. Total Points Max. Points STAAR Reading % Met Growth Standard 49%36%60%43%58%40%35%56% STAAR Mathematics % Met Growth Standard 45%31%65%48%52%45%30%50% STAAR Writing % Met Growth Standard 36%30%40%28% STAAR Science % Met Growth Standard ************ STAAR Social Studies % Met Growth Standard ************ Total Index Score (total points divided by maximum points)44 * Science and Social Studies will be evaluated if growth measures are developed for these subjects.
27 Two approaches to evaluating progress toward closing performance gaps: Compare the performance of the lower performing student group to the performance of a higher performing student group over time, or Compare the performance of the lower performing student group to an external target, the performance target that is tied to the statutory and accountability goal that Texas will be among the top ten states in postsecondary readiness by 2020 with no significant achievement gaps by race, ethnicity, or socioeconomic status. Index 3 takes the second approach through a weighted performance index. Index 3: Closing Performance Gaps STAAR Weighted Performance (2013 and beyond)
28 Index 3 ensures that individual student groups are not ignored within the performance index framework. Credit based on weighted performance: Level II satisfactory performance (2013 and beyond) One point for each percent of students at the final Level II satisfactory performance standard. Level III advanced performance (2014 and beyond) Two points for each percent of students at the final Level III advanced performance standard. Index 3: Closing Performance Gaps STAAR Weighted Performance (2013 and beyond)
Index 3: Closing Performance Gaps 29 Index 3 Construction Assessment results include all assessments that are included in the Index 1 student achievement indicator. 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). 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.
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 Rate Mathematics Weighted Performance Rate Writing Weighted Performance Rate Science Weighted Performance Rate Social Studies Weighted Performance Rate Total Index Score (total points divided by maximum points)48 30 Index 3 Construction Index 3: Closing Performance Gaps
31 Index 3: Closing Performance Gaps 31 Index 3 Construction STAAR Reading 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 Number of Tests Performance Results: Level II Satisfactory Number Percent 40 50% 20 50% 0 0% Level III Advanced Number Percent 40 50% 0 0% % Weighted Results: Level II Satisfactory (one point credit) 50 (50% x 1) 50 (50% x 1) 0 (0% x 1) Level III Advanced (two point credit) 100 (50% x 2) 0 (0% x 2) 200 (100% x 2) Reading Weighted Performance Rate
Index 4: Postsecondary Readiness 32 STAAR Percent Met Level III 2014 and beyond (Level III performance is not included in accountability in 2013) Assessment results include all assessments evaluated in Index I Combined over All Subjects: Reading, Writing, Mathematics, Science, and Social Studies
Index 4: Postsecondary Readiness 33 STAAR Percent Met Level III Eight Student Groups Evaluated: 1. All Students Race/Ethnicity: 2. African American 3. American Indian 4. Asian 5. Hispanic 6. Pacific Islander 7. White 8. Two or More Races
34 Graduation Rates High School Graduation Four-year Graduation Rate or Five-year Graduation Rate (or Annual Dropout Rate if no graduation rate) Ten Student Groups Evaluated: 1. All Students 2. English language learners (ELLs) 3. Students with Disabilities Race/Ethnicity: 4. African American 5. American Indian 6. Asian 7. Hispanic 8. Pacific Islander 9. White 10. Two or More Races Index 4: Postsecondary Readiness
35 Recommended High School Program/Advanced High School Program RHSP/AHSP indicators are calculated for campuses and districts for which a graduation rate is calculated. Eight Student Groups Evaluated: 1. All Students Race/Ethnicity: 2. African American 3. American Indian 4. Asian 5. Hispanic 6. Pacific Islander 7. White 8. Two or More Races Index 4: Postsecondary Readiness
36 Index 4 Construction 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. One of the two rates is used, not a mix of Four-Year Graduation Rate for one student group and Five-Year Graduation Rate for another student group. RHSP/AHSP Graduates for All Students and race/ethnicity student groups STAAR Score: STAAR Percent Met Level III 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 Level III performance contribute points to the index. For elementary and middle schools, only STAAR Level III performance contributes points to the index. Index 4: Postsecondary Readiness
37 Index 4: Postsecondary Readiness IndicatorAll African Amer. Amer. Indian AsianHispanic Pacific Islander White Two or More ELL Special Ed. Total Points Max. Points 4-year graduation rate 84.3%78.8% 91.6%86.0%44.2%69.8% year graduation rate 85.1%78.8%80.0%92.1%84.0%48.9%77.5% RHSP/AHSP82.7%76.4%83.6%83.0% Graduation Total Graduation Score (graduation total points divided by maximum points) and beyond: STAAR All Subjects* % Met Level III 29%16%40%23%38%36% STAAR Score (STAAR total points divided by maximum points)30 Index Score (average of Graduation Score and STAAR Score: / 2 = 55)55 Index 4 Construction
38 Overview of Proposed Performance Index Framework
Overview of Proposed 2014 Performance Index Framework (Sample Campus) 39
Possible Safeguards 40 Apply Safeguards to Specific Performance Indexes as needed: Ensure reporting system disaggregates performance by student group, performance level, subject area, and grade, Implement interventions focused on specific areas of weak performance, Apply minimum performance requirements or performance floors, Apply a limit on proficient results to STAAR Modified and STAAR Alternate, Apply Participation Rate Targets, Ensure Leaver Data Quality, or Incorporate Grade 7 – 8 Annual Dropout Rate.
Additional Topics 41 Pending Issues For Consideration Evaluation of the four indexes to produce single accountability rating for campus or district, Rating levels and labels, Application of system safeguards, Evaluation of alternative education campuses, Transition Issues between 2013 and 2014, Inclusion of a performance measure for English Language Learners (ELLs), and State and federal reporting.
42 Federal Accountability for 2013 As indicated in the September 6, 2012, To The Administrator Addressed correspondence from the commissioner, the agency plans to submit a waiver request to the United States Department of Education (USDE) in January or February The waiver will include a request to use the new state accountability system to evaluate campuses and districts in place of federal Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) evaluations. If denied, augment the proposed state accountability system to meet federal requirements. If denied, use components (Reading and Mathematics) of the proposed performance index developed for state accountability to meet federal requirements.
Academic Achievement Distinction Designations
44 Distinction Designation Indicators Eighteen 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 SAT/ACT, PSAT/PLAN, and AP/IB participation and performance for high schools. For details, refer to the AADDC framework document at
Distinction Designation Framework Steps The proposed framework for distinction designations uses four steps to determine a campus distinction. Step 1 identifies a campus comparison group for each campus and calculates campus performance for each distinction indicator by subject. Step 2 compares the performance of the target campus to the performance of the campuses in the comparison group for each indicator. For example, Campus A is in the top 25% of campuses among a 40 campus comparison group on a particular distinction indicator. 45 Academic Achievement Distinction Designations
Distinction Designation Framework Steps (continued) Step 3 generates a single outcome by subject for each campus. For example, Campus A achieved the top 25% in three of the six distinction indicators that were evaluated for the campus. Step 4 is a statewide evaluation of campus outcomes in order to 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 receive an academic distinction in mathematics. 46 Academic Achievement Distinction Designations
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. Elementary and middle school campuses in the top quartile on at least 50% of their eligible measures receive a distinction designation for that subject area. High schools in the top quartile on at least 33% of their eligible measures receive a distinction designation for that subject area. 47 Academic Achievement Distinction Designations
49 January 2013 Public release of the Texas NCLB Report Card STAAR results are available for Grades 3-8 from test contractor. March 2013 Commissioner releases final decisions on the state rating system by end of March Late Spring STAAR accountability performance results released. August 8, 2013 Accountability ratings and AADD released on August 8, 2013.
2013 Accountability Development Website 50 Current postings to the 2013 development website include: Overview of Proposed Performance Index Framework that provides a brief description of the features and safeguards of the proposed four performance indexes in the new accountability system. Overview of Assessment Indicators in the Previous State Accountability System provides a visual overview of the previous system. Meeting outcome summaries for the APAC, ATAC, and AADDC meetings are posted online at:
Resources Development Site Frequently Asked Questions About Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Performance Reporting Home Page Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Home Page Performance Reporting Division of Performance Reporting Telephone (512)