2012 TASA Midwinter Conference State and Federal Accountability Update January 31, 2012 Criss Cloudt, Associate Commissioner, Assessment and Accountability Shannon Housson, Director, Division of Performance Reporting 1

General Overview 2

House Bill (HB) 3 Accountability Provisions Focus of district and campus performance is postsecondary readiness standards Rigorous standards ensure that Texas performs among top ten states by 2020 Higher ratings are distinctions based on higher levels of student performance 3

House Bill (HB) 3 Accountability Provisions Campuses earn distinctions for student growth and closing achievement gaps Campuses earn distinctions for excellence in areas other than state assessment results Reports are relevant, meaningful, and easily accessible State and federal accountability requirements are aligned to the extent possible 4

Accountability System for 2013 and Beyond Legislation provides new flexibility as well as constraints Every aspect of accountability system will be reevaluated New system may look very different from current system, not just variation on former systems used in Texas Seamless system of ratings – reporting – monitoring – interventions 5

New Accountability Indicators Considered End-of-Course (EOC) cumulative scores for cohorts of graduates Four-, five-, and six-year graduation rates Three-year average performance 6

New Frameworks Considered Performance Index Allows more indicators without more hurdles Rating based on overall performance rather than lowest performing area Interventions focus on specific problem areas 7

New Frameworks Considered Alignment of State/Federal Systems Broad goals in common postsecondary readiness, student progress, closing performance gaps Range of options Develop state system that meets federal requirements – replace Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) with new state system Separate AYP as component of state system 8

New Rating Labels Statutory labels removed Separate district ratings from elementary, middle, and high schools are possible Multiple degrees of acceptable/unacceptable statuses possible Higher ratings based on postsecondary ready Separate ratings for status and growth possible 9

New Progress Measures Developed Multiple measures developed for reporting Accountability indicators that do not count failing students as passing Required Improvement based on student growth measure possible Campus distinction designations for growth to postsecondary ready Closing performance gaps can be measured across achievement spectrum (scale scores or percentiles) 10

New Student Groups New race/ethnicity student group definitions produce seven groups Economically disadvantaged and non-economically disadvantaged in statute Limited English proficient (LEP) and special education in AYP blueprint Gap measures to evaluate student group performance 11

New Accountability Standards – New Issues Phase-in of State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness (STAAR) assessments Phase-in of student passing standard Phase-in of graduation requirements Percentiles or rankings versus accountability standards 12

Trade-offs That Must Be Balanced Separate state/federal systems versus integrated accountability system Rating overall performance versus specific problem areas Absolute performance versus progress Improve student performance versus closing gaps Satisfactory versus advanced performance Understandability versus measurement precision 14

Trade-offs That Must Be Balanced State mandates versus local program flexibility Where you are versus where you want to be Same expectations for all versus diversity of student populations Student test results versus other measures of success Negative versus positive consequences Student & parent versus state & school responsibility 15

2012 Accountability and Reporting 16

2011 Accountability 2011 AEIS Reports (released publicly November 17) Final 2011 AYP Appeal Decisions (posted on TEASE on Dec. 5) Public Education Grant (PEG) list (posted on TEASE on Dec. 1, released via TEA Correspondence on Dec. 8) Final 2011 AYP Results (released publicly Dec. 9) 2011 School Report Card (available online Dec. 9) 2011 NCLB Report Card (released publicly Jan. 31, 2012) 17

2012 Accountability No State Ratings AYP Plan TAKS to STAAR Bridge Study was submitted to the U.S. Department of Education (USDE) in December AYP Texas Workbook for 2012 AYP will be submitted by February, 15,

2012 AYP 2012 AYP Performance Standards increase: 87% in Reading/English language arts 83% in Mathematics Federal regulations require 2012 AYP graduation rate evaluations of All Students and every student group. Participation Rate and Attendance Rate Indicator standards remain unchanged. 19

2012 AYP Summary of Texas Amendment Requests 2012 references to Graduation Rate Goals and Targets (Sections 1.2 and 7.1) Graduation Rate Goals and Targets will show constant targets for 2011 and 2012 AYP. 20

2012 AYP Summary of Texas Amendment Requests Evaluate 2012 AYP and School Improvement Program (SIP) statuses based on: TAKS results for grade 10, and STAAR results for grade 3-8 at the TAKS proficiency standard. 21

2012 AYP Summary of the Texas Amendment Requests In order to provide 2012 AYP results on a timely basis, Texas will use bridge studies that identify the existing TAKS performance standards on the new STAAR assessments for tests of grade 3–8 on which STAAR performance standards will not yet be available. See Summary of Possible 2012 AYP Components for detailed listing of TAKS and STAAR assessment results that will be evaluated for 2012 AYP at spx?id= spx?id=

2012 Reporting Availability of data Leaver data Class of 2011 graduation/completion/dropout rates and annual dropout rates released June 2012 First year for rates with and without statutory exclusions 23

2012 Reporting Availability of data Assessment data – Student Assessment plans: 2012 EOC results with performance standards applied in June 2012 STAAR gr. 3-8 raw scores and distribution data in late spring 2012 STAAR gr. 3-8 with performance standards applied in late fall 2012 STAAR gr. 3-8 bridge study results on data file available late spring 2012 STAAR Modified and Alternate assessment results on same timeline 24

2012 Reporting Snapshot and Pocket Edition will not be published beginning in School Report Card (SRC) will not be published beginning in Academic Excellence Indicator System (AEIS) reports will be modified to incorporate available TAKS and STAAR results. 25

2013 Accountability 26

Ratings Based on: STAAR Level II: Satisfactory Academic Performance (not Level III: Advanced Academic Performance) student passing standard TAKS grade 11 Met Standard 27

Ratings Rating labels will be acceptable/satisfactory and unacceptable/unsatisfactory only Recognized and Exemplary ratings will not be awarded in

Data Growth measures not available for 2013 ratings Multiple growth measures being developed for reporting Accountability indicators that incorporate growth will be developed after 2013 results 29

Graduation/Dropout Rate Indicators Class of 2012 graduation/completion/dropout rates and annual dropout rates released June 2013 The first cohort to graduate under EOC are the grade 10 students in the school year (most have not taken English III, Algebra II, Physics, U.S. History) 30

Distinction Designations Campus academic distinctions Developed via committees Reading/ELA and mathematics awarded in 2013 likely based on: Grade STAAR advanced performance High school measures of college-readiness other than EOC Science and Social Studies will be phased in 31

Distinction Designations New areas for recognition Developed via committees 21 st Century Workforce Development Program scheduled to be awarded in 2013 Additional areas that will be phased in: fine arts, physical education, and second language acquisition program 32

Distinction Designations Additional distinctions for campuses based on top 25% in growth and closing performance gaps will not be awarded in 2013 These distinctions will likely be based on growth measures and the Level III: Advanced Academic Performance student passing standard that will not be evaluated until

2013 and 2014 Accountability – Summary Acceptable/ Unacceptable* (Campuses & Districts) STAAR Level II Performance STAAR Level III Performance TBD STAAR Growth Measures TBD Improvement FeatureTBD Release Date Deadline8/8 Distinction Designations for Recognized & Exemplary (Campuses & Districts) STAAR Level III Performance Not Awarded STAAR Growth MeasuresTBD Release Date Deadline8/8 * Labels to be determined. 34

2013 and 2014 Accountability – Summary Distinction Designations for Top 25% in: Student Growth Closing Gaps (Campuses Only) STAAR Level III Performance Not Awarded STAAR Growth Measures TBD Release Date Deadline 8/8 Distinction Designations for Academic Achievement (1 of 5 committees) (Campuses Only) STAAR Level III Performance (Gr. 3-8) Reading/ELA & Math Only STAAR Growth Measures TBD Other college-readiness HS indicators Reading/ELA & Math Only Release Date Deadline 8/8 35

Accountability Development Issues 36

Grade-Level Assessments Versus EOC Middle Schools – Avoid unintended consequences for students in EOC courses Do not promote unnecessary duplicate testing Do not penalize high schools for students who complete Algebra I (or other EOC assessments) in middle school 37

Grade-Level Assessments Versus EOC High Schools – New issues Students complete courses and assessments at different paces Every student not tested every year Some students take multiple tests in same subject Cumulative score requirement lends itself to longitudinal indicators Students can retake tests for any reason First administration not always in spring 38

Use of Additional Features Required Improvement over the prior year (required) Average performance of the last three years (required) Performance on 85 percent of the measures (optional) Appropriate order of use of additional features to be determined 39

Number of Assessment Measures 5 subjects X 12 student groups = 60 measures Plus performance and growth 40

Performance Index Combine performance across student groups by subject Combine performance across subjects by student group 41

All-or-Nothing or Proportional Need other approaches to reduce number of measures Limit subjects for which student groups evaluated Limit number of student groups evaluated for any one subject Limit student groups evaluated 42

Combination Approach Evaluate each subject, but not for every student group Evaluate each student group, but aggregate across subjects 43

Alternative Education Accountability (AEA) Options No separate system Same system for all in 2013, separate AEA procedures in 2014 Same system, different standards and/or growth measures 44

Accountability Development Process 45

Development Calendar Beginning of 18-month accountability system development process First advisory committee meeting March 5 - 6, 2012 Advisory committees meet about every three months through February/March 2013 Final decision in March/April 2013 provides little advance notice before first ratings 46

Development Calendar Parallel Calendars AYP 2012 designations and accountability development PBMAS 2012 analyses and accountability development for 2013 and beyond Academic distinction designations 21 st Century Workforce Development Program distinction designations 47

Website for Accountability Development Post status reports, issue documents, and presentations Opportunity for structured input from broad constituency New web pages and FAQ to be added to Division of Performance Reporting website at: 48

Advisory Groups Accountability Technical Advisory Committee (ATAC) Accountability Policy Advisory Committee (APAC) 49

Advisory Groups – ATAC Duties Consider complex, technical issues Work with TEA staff and national experts to develop recommendations including: overall framework, integration of state and federal systems, assessment indicators, progress measures, completion indicators, student groups, minimum size criteria, alternative education accountability (AEA), and distinction designations. 50

Advisory Groups – ATAC Expectations Attend up to five meetings at TEA offices in Austin between March 2012 and spring 2013; Actively and constructively participate during meetings; Solicit input from peers within their geographic region; Participate in at least one small work group that will meet between the ATAC meetings via video-conference with TEA staff. 51

Advisory Groups – ATAC Process The smaller work groups will present their proposals at the main ATAC meetings. The ATAC committees final proposals will be reviewed by the Accountability Policy Advisory Committee (APAC). The APAC will provide feedback on the ATAC proposals to the commissioner of education. The commissioner will make final accountability decisions in spring

Advisory Groups – APAC Nominations for the APAC were requested from over twenty professional business and education associations. Members of APAC include teachers, principals, program specialists, or superintendents in Texas public schools and education service centers; representatives of Texas colleges and universities; and business and community leaders. Nominees were requested to represent the membership of each organization and also be knowledgeable about Texas public school accountability system. 53

Advisory Groups – ATAC and APAC Timeline March 5-6, 2012 – Initial advisory committee meeting will be joint meeting of APAC and ATAC. March – May 2012 – ATAC work groups and second ATAC meeting. June – August 2012 – ATAC work groups and third ATAC meeting. September – November 2012 – ATAC work groups and fourth ATAC meeting. Fourth advisory committee meeting will be joint meeting of APAC and ATAC. 54

Advisory Groups – ATAC and APAC Timeline December 2012 – February 2013 – ATAC work groups and final ATAC meeting. March 2013 – Final APAC meeting. 55

Accountability Resources Division of Performance Reporting Division of Performance Reporting telephone number (512) ESC Accountability Contacts Online at 56