July 11, 2013 Texas Education Agency | Office of Assessment and Accountability Division of Performance Reporting Michael Murphy State and Federal Accountability Overview Charter School Orientation

Accountability System Design

Accountability Goals 3  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 (f) of the Texas Education Code.

Accountability Framework 4 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 Framework 5 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 Framework Accountability System Student Achievement Index I Student Progress Index 2 Closing Performance Gaps Index 3 Postsecondary Readiness Index 4 6 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 Progress Index 2 Closing Performance Gaps Index 3 Postsecondary Readiness Index 4

Performance Index Criteria 7 Commissioner of Education Final Decisions on Accountability Ratings Criteria and Targets for 2013  2013 Rating Labels:  Met Standard – met performance index targets  Met Alternative Standard – met modified performance index targets for alternative education campuses and districts  Improvement Required – did not meet one or more performance index targets.  2013 Transition Year: The 2013 ratings criteria and targets will stand alone because the performance index framework cannot be fully implemented in 2013.

Performance Index Criteria 8 Commissioner of Education Final Decisions on Accountability Ratings Criteria and Targets for 2013  To receive a Met Standard rating, all campuses and districts must meet the following accountability targets on all indexes for which they have performance data in * Target will be set at about the fifth percentile of campus performance and will be applied to both campuses and districts.

Overview of Performance Index Framework (Sample Campus) 9

Index 1: Student Achievement 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) 10

Index 1: Student Achievement 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. 11 Example ReadingMathematicsWritingScience Social Studies Total % Met Level II Students Met Phase-in Level II =136 45%45 Students Tested =305 Index Score45

Index 2: Student Progress 12 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.

IndicatorAll African Amer. Amer. Indian AsianHispanic Pacific Islander White Two or More ELL Special Ed. Total Points Max. Points Example Calculation for Reading Number of Tests Did Not Meet Expectation Number Met Expectation Number Percent Exceeded Expectation Number Percent Percent of Tests: Met or Exceeded Expectation 80 % 100%67 % Exceeded Expectation20%40%75%17 % Reading Weighted Growth Rate Index 2: Student Progress 13 Index 2 Construction – Table 1

IndicatorAll African Amer. Amer. Indian AsianHispanic Pacific Islander White Two or More ELL Special Ed. Total Points Max. Points STAAR Reading Weighted Growth Rate STAAR Mathematics Weighted Growth Rate STAAR Writing Weighted Growth Rate Total Index Score (total points divided by maximum points)64 Index 2: Student Progress 14 Index 2 Construction – Table 2

Index 3: Closing Performance Gaps 15  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 Index 3: Closing Performance Gaps emphasizes advanced academic achievement of economically disadvantaged students and the two lowest performing race/ethnicity student groups.

Index 3: Closing Performance Gaps 16  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).

Index 3: Closing Performance Gaps 17 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: Phase-in Level II Satisfactory and above Number Percent % 20 50% % Level III Advanced Number Percent 40 50% 0 0% % Reading Weighted Performance Rate

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 18 Index 3 Construction Index 3: Closing Performance Gaps

Index 4: Postsecondary Readiness 19 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

Index 4: Postsecondary Readiness 20 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.  RHSP/DAP 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.

Index 4: Postsecondary Readiness 21 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/DAP82.7%76.4%83.6%83.0% Graduation Total Graduation Score (graduation total points divided by maximum points) and beyond: STAAR % Met Final Level II on one or more tests 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

Summary of AEA Calculation 22  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/DAP graduates o Bonus Points for Recovered Dropouts who Graduate or Earn GED o Bonus Points for Continuing Students who Graduate or Earn GED o Graduation and GED Rates = 75%, Final STAAR Level II Rates = 25%  Modified Ratings Targets

Performance Index Criteria 23 Commissioner of Education Final Decisions on Accountability Ratings Criteria and Targets for 2013  To receive a Met Standard rating, all campuses and districts must meet the following accountability targets on all indexes for which they have performance data in * Target will be set at about the fifth percentile of campus performance and will be applied to both campuses and districts.

System Safeguards 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,  STAAR participation target as required by federal accountability,  Federal graduation rate targets and improvement calculations,  Federal limit on use of alternate assessments. 24

IndicatorAll African Amer. Amer. Indian AsianHispanic Pacific Islander White Two or More Eco. Disadv. ELL Special Ed. Performance Rates Reading50% Mathematics50% Writing50% Science50% Social Studies50% Participation Rates Reading95% Mathematics95% Federal Graduation Rates (including improvement targets) 4-year78% 5-year83% District Limits on Use of Alternative Assessment Results Reading Modified2%Not Applicable Alternate1%Not Applicable Mathematics Modified2%Not Applicable Alternate1%Not Applicable System Safeguards 25 Accountability System Safeguard Measures and Targets

System Safeguards  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).  Detailed information is available in the Technical Description document at

System Safeguards 27 STAAR Reading All African Amer. Amer. IndianAsianHispanic Pacific IslanderWhite Two or More Econ. Disadv.ELL Special Ed. Percent of Tests % at Phase-In Level II or Above 50%100%*67%50%*59%58%100%36%50% % at Level III (Advanced) 25%100%*33%0%*32%33%50%4%32% Number of Tests # at Phase-in Level II or Above # at Level III (Advanced) Total Tests Sample District Performance Report

Indicator All African Amer. Amer. Indian AsianHispanic Pacific Islander White Two or More Eco. Disadv. ELL Special Ed. Indicators Missed Performance Rates* Reading 50%100% n/a 50% n/a 100%36% n/a 1 of 5 Mathematics50% n/a 100% n/a 50% n/a 0 of 5 Writing50% n/a 50% n/a 48% n/a 1 of 3 Science50% 100% n/a 50% n/a 50% n/a 0 of 5 Social Studies50% n/a 50% n/a 100% 50% n/a 0 of 5 System Safeguards (Sample District Outcome) 28 Accountability System Safeguards Performance Indicators that meet Minimum Size Criteria * Targets for 2013 correspond to the performance rates and target for Index 1: Student Achievement.

Indicator All African Amer. Amer. Indian AsianHispanic Pacific Islander White Two or More Eco. Disadv. ELL Special Ed. Indicators Missed Participation Rates Reading 95%100% n/a 95% n/a 95% n/a 100%95% 0 of 7 Mathematics 95%100% n/a 100% n/a 95% n/a 90%95% 100% 1 of 7 Federal Graduation Rates 4-year or 5-year85% n/a 78% 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 Exceed 2% 1 of 1 Total System Safeguard Indicators Missed5 of 44 System Safeguards (Sample District Outcome) 29 Accountability System Safeguards Performance Indicators that meet Minimum Size Criteria (continued)

Federal Accountability for  Texas Education Agency submitted a waiver request to the United States Department of Education (USDE) on February 28,  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

Top 25% Student Progress Distinction

32 Top 25% Student Progress Distinction 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 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  Campuses evaluated under alternative education procedures are not eligible for distinction designations, per TEC §

Academic Achievement Distinction Designations

34 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 Final Decisions on Academic Achievement Distinction Designations at

Distinction Designation Framework Steps  The framework for distinction designations uses four steps to determine a campus distinction.  Step 1: Campus Comparison Group and Profile A 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. Academic Achievement Distinction Designations 35

Distinction Designation Framework Steps (continued)  Step 3: Campus Outcome by Subject Generate 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 Target The 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. Academic Achievement Distinction Designations 36

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. Academic Achievement Distinction Designations 37

2013 Accountability Development Website 38 Other postings to the 2013 development website include:  Detailed technical description of the indicators and construction of the four performance indexes in the 2013 accountability system.  Meeting outcome summaries for the APAC, ATAC, and AADDC meetings.

Calendar of Upcoming Releases State Accountability Ratings Releases June 6, 2013 Graduation/Dropout Summary Reports and Lists. Superintendents are given access to confidential summary reports and lists of dropouts and cohort membership. These reports provide a preview of the following Graduation Rate and Annual Dropout Rate indicators that will be used to determine the Index 4: Postsecondary Readiness outcomes for 2013 accountability: Class of 2012 Four-year Longitudinal Rates Class of 2011 Five-year Extended Longitudinal Rates Class of 2010 Six-year Extended Longitudinal Rates Annual Dropout Rates Mid-July 2013 Consolidated Accountability File. The test contractor will provide school districts with a data file which includes one record per student and will be used by TEA to calculate the performance index results. This data file will include the results of the STAAR Progress Measure that will be used to determine the Index 2: Student Progress outcomes for 2013 accountability. August 1, 2013 Accountability Preview Data Tables. Superintendents are given access to confidential preview accountability data tables for their district and campuses showing all accountability indicator data. Principals and superintendents can use these data tables to anticipate their campus and district accountability ratings. August 8, 2013 Ratings Release.

Resources  2013 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)