1. So, what does this mean for me?
HB2804
So, what does this mean for me?

2. Key Aspects Five domains evaluated beginning 2017-18
A-F accountability ratings assigned beginning in
Texas Commission on Next Generation Assessments and Accountability established for recommendations

3. Committees Everywhere!
Commis. Morath
ATAC
APAC
AADC
TCNGAA
Accountability Technical Advisory Committee
Accountability Policy Committee
Academic Achievement Distinction Designations Committee
Texas Commission on Next Generation Assessments Accountability
Ultimate decisions for Indices and Standards come from Commissioner

4. Texas Commission on Next Generation Assessments and Accountability

5. TCNGAA Group appointed by Commissioner
Final report released to Governor and Legislature August 31st
9 Recommendations
5 Study Proposals
How these are received will have an impact on Legislative session and future of accountability

6. Texas Commission on Next Generation Assessments and Accountability Report to the Governor of Texas and Texas Legislature
(TCNGAA)
Established to develop and make recommendations for new systems of student assessment and public school accountability
To develop its recommendations, the commission met seven times in 2016, during which it heard expert and public testimony and participated in facilitated work sessions.

7. TCNGAA Recommendations
Implement an Individualized, Integrated System of Multiple Assessments Using Computerized-Adaptive Testing and Instruction.
Commissioner Approved Locally Developed Writing Assessments.
Continue Streamlining of the TEKS.
Limit State Testing to the Readiness Standards.

8. TCNGAA Recommendations
Add College-Readiness Assessment to Domain IV Indicators, and Fund a Broader Administration of College-Readiness Assessments
Align the State Accountability System with ESSA.
Eliminate Domain IV from State Accountability Calculations for Elementary Schools
More Emphasis on Growth in Domains I-III
Retain IGC Option for Graduation

9. Items to Think About
Align the Next Generation of Texas Assessments to the Texas Success Initiative Assessment (TSIA) and Nationally Recognized College Readiness Tests and Include Assessments Aligned to Measures That Are Not Typically Used in Higher Education, such as the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB) Conduct a Study to Explore the Implications of Replacing the State Developed Assessment System with Nationally Recognized Assessments that Align with the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) Curriculum Standards

10. Items to Think About
Conduct a Study of Alternative, District- Based Assessment and Accountability Systems
Conduct a Study, Using Existing Data, to Test the Relationship Between the Results of Stratified, Random Sampling and Whole Population Testing
Conduct a Study of the Effect of Weighting Domain I (Student Achievement) by the Length of Time a Student Has Been Enrolled in a Texas Public School District

11. Goals of State Accountability
Texas will be among the top ten states in postsecondary readiness by 2020 by
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 student groups*; and,
rewarding excellence based on other indicators in addition to state assessment results.

12. Goals of State Accountability
Texas shall also adopt a set of indicators of the quality of learning and achievement by
improving student preparedness for success in subsequent grade levels and in entering the workforce, military, or postsecondary education;
continue closing academic performance level gaps among student groups;
evaluating districts and campuses based on five domains of indicators of achievement; and
evaluating the percentage of students who meet the standard for annual improvement on assessments.

13. HB2804 Implementation HB 2804 June 2015 TCNGAA Spring-Summer 2016
TCNGAA Report to Governor Sept 1
TEA adopts A-F Dec 1
TEA Issues “What If” Jan 1
Districts & Campuses Report CaSE Summer 2017
Districts & Campuses Assign A-F Domain V
TEA issues real A-F August 2018

14. Accountability Calendar for 2016-2017
Jan 1
Release “What If”
Feb
Targets for 16-17
Sept
ATAC Begins
Dec 1
Indicators for A-F Adopted
Nov
APAC Reviews
Dec
ATAC Standards
Jan
APAC review 16-17
Aug 15
2017 Ratings Released

16. College Board Influence
Commissioner Morath interprets this as 60% of high school graduates will be college ready by 2030
These numbers will influence targets from here forward
Commissioner’s Wish:
90 – Level II Satisfactory
60 – Final Level II
30 – Level III
What is “post-secondary ready” as defined by state assessment?

17. STAAR Performance Categories and Post-Secondary Readiness

18. Accountability
All assumptions of development is based on keeping the same assessments in place and there will not be any legislative changes that will cause a redesign.

19. Parent & Community Involvement Closing Performance Gaps
House Bill 2804
Domain I
Overall Performance
Domain II
Progress
Domain V
Parent & Community Involvement
Overall Rating
Domain IV
Academic Attainment
Domain III
Closing Performance Gaps

20. HB 2804 Domain III Domain IV Domain Domain V Domain II I
STAAR & EOC at Satisfactory
STAAR & EOC at College Ready
STAAR Alt 2 at Satisfactory
STAAR Annual Improvement at Satisfactory
STAAR Annual Improvement at College Ready
STAAR Alt2 Annual Improvement
Reductions in academic achievement differential among students from various subgroups
District and Campus selected 3 categories for CaSE Ratings

21. Weighting All weighting decisions are made by the Commissioner
For “what if” report are thinking equal weighting for Domains 1-3

22. Overview You will receive a letter grade for each of the Domains
You will receive an overall rating
Some domains may be weighted and have an impact on other domains
Anything scored a D or F will be considered Improvement Required
Cut scores for the “What If” report will be based on the data

23. Domain 1 Development Domain 1 must include assessment results at:
Level II Satisfactory
Final Level II
Commissioner would also like to include Level III: Advanced even though not required in statute. Idea is that it will be an adult behavior modification – move kids higher.

24. Weights higher performing students:
Domain 1 Development
Standard
STAAR & STAAR A Tests
STAAR Alt 2 Tests
Level II Satisfactory Performance or Above
Level II Satisfactory Standard or Above (includes substitute assessments)
Level II Satisfactory or Above
Final Level II Performance or Above
Final Level II or Above (including substitute assessments)
Advanced Level Performance
Advanced Level III
Level III Accomplished
Weights higher performing students:
Advanced = 3 points
Final II = 2 points
Satisfactory = 1 point

25. Level II Satisfactory + Level II Final + Level III Advanced
Domain 1 Development
Concerns:
If the denominator is 300 (100 for each of 3 categories, it is extremely difficult to do well
In all likelihood, will never have 100% of kids at Level III
If all of your students pass at Level II Satisfactory, but none reach final or Level III, your campus would have a 33% which would be a “D”
Performance across all grades and subjects.
Minimum size requirement of 25 (all grades and subjects)
Level II Satisfactory + Level II Final + Level III Advanced
300

26. Domain 1 Scoring A-F letters will use percentiles from Domain 1 scores
Reminder:
Commissioner’s ultimate expectation is that…
90% of students meet Level II Satisfactory,
60% reach college ready standard, and
30% reach Level III advanced.
Campus Type A
(10 percent) B
(30 percent) C
(45 percent) D F
(5 percent)
Elementary
63 or more
48-62
34-47
29-33
28 or less
Middle
62 or more
45-61
32-44
26-31
25 or less
High School
47-62
34-46
AEA
37 or more
26-36
13-25
10-12
9 or less

27. STAAR Performance Standard
Sample Calculation
ATAC Recommendation for Weighting:
55 points come from Level II Satisfactory
25 points from Final Level II
20 points from Advanced Level III
STAAR Performance Standard
Percent of Tests
Total STAAR Points
133
Level II Satisfactory or Above 80
Final Level II or Above 40
Possible Points = 300
Advanced Performance 13
Domain 1 Score = 44.3

28. Required Improvement Only available for D and F Ratings
Required enough improvement to meet the Level II Satisfactory Performance Standard of 90% in five years
Actual Change
Required Improvement
(Level II Satisfactory Performance in 2016) – (Level II Satisfactory Performance in 2015) ≥
(Level II Satisfactory Performance Standard of 90) – (Level II Satisfactory Performance in 2015) 5

29. Domain II
HB 2804 requires the inclusion of a progress measure for STAAR Satisfactory and college- ready standards
This domain will have an entire overhaul to a true progress model. Options include:
Transition Tables
Regression Model

30. Transition Tables – Option 1
Use transition scores as reported by growth model:

31. Transition Tables – Option 2
Use transition scores as reported by growth model with an adjustment to a low threshold of zero (0) for all negative transitions.

32. Transition Tables – Option 3
Use transition scores as reported by growth model with an adjustment to a low threshold of zero (0) for all negative transitions and adjustment for maintenance at high performance.

33. Transition Tables
ETS is still working on possible models for transition tables
Regression model is not off the table, but believed too difficult for parents and community to understand
If transition is used, will have to have very discrete measures for growth with transition bands.

34. Domain III
Option 1
Aggregated gap model – measures differential for the two lowest performing racial and ethnic groups and economically disadvantaged student relative to a performance goal at the Final Level II standard
Score is equal to the average gap of the Economic Disadvantage and lowest performing group(s) from a goal of a final level II performance or above 60

35. Domain III - Aggregated
Minimum size = 40 tests across all grades and subjects / Eco Dis always included
Lowest groups selected same as Index 3 before
Domain score is the average difference between the evaluated student groups’ Final Level II or above the 60 percent threshold

36. % Final level II or Above
Domain III - Sample
Student Group
Threshold
% Final level II or Above
Gap
Eco Dis 60 32 28
African Amer 33 27
White 40 20
Sum of gap / # Groups Evaluated
75/3
Domain III Score 25

37. Domain III Scores
Campus Type A
(10 percent) B
(30 percent) C
(45 percent D F
(5 percent)
Elementary
5 or less
6-20
21-35
36-40
41 or more
Middle
10 or less
11-25
26-38
39-43
44 or more
High School
2 or less
3-19
20-35
AEA
28 or less
29-45
46-54
55-57
58 or more
Required Improvement will be available and will determine whether the district or campus can meet the “C” threshold in 5 years.

38. Domain III Option 2
Concerned about “double-dipping” – many campuses miss Index 3 because the same kids repeating
Calculate Eco. Dis. and Races separately
3A – Economically Disadvantaged
3B - use the Race only as a safeguard
Regression Model Example– with Domain 1 score on Y-axis and % Free and Reduced on X-axis
Determine whether you are above or below the mean

39. Double Dipping

40. Domain III Option 2
Eco Dis would be the true domain score, and race/ethnicity would be used as safeguard or have the ability to bump or drop domain 1 or 2 score
Closure based on residuals using standard deviations
A&F +/-1.50 SD
B&D +/ to 1.49 SD
C +/-0.49 SD
STAAR / Domain 1
% Free and Reduced

41. Domain IV High School and K-12 for January:
Graduation / Annual Dropout Rate = 10% of 35% or 29%
Postsecondary Readiness Score = 25% of 35% or 71%
# graduates completed RHSP / DAP / FHSP-E / FHSP- DLA
# graduates who met TSI criteria on reading and math
# graduates enrolled in CTE coherent sequence
# graduates earning 12 or more hours of postsecondary credit
# graduated completed one or more AP or IB courses

42. Domain IV Middle School and Junior High Indicators for January:
Student Attendance
Difficult to use, because an attendance rate of 92% would put you in the “F” range as the bottom 5th percentile
Dropout Rate
Percentage of Students in 7th or 8th Grade who Receive Instruction in Preparing for HS, College, and Career
Percentage of Students who Received HS Credit Prior to Grade 9

43. Domain IV Elementary Indicators for January: Attendance Rate
Consideration for Chronic Absenteeism
# Students absent 10 percent or more of the school year

44. Issues with Domain IV
Considering many new additions, but all are either not created, or not being collected currently in PEIMS
Student Engagement Survey
Fitnessgram
Discipline Data
School Climate
Participation in Clubs
Teacher Turnover Rate
AB Honor Roll
GT Program
Participation in UIL
SSI Data

45. Domain V Will be what was already calculated for this year…
Reminder: start working with your district and campuses to decide what 3 indicators you are going to select – will submit selection in PEIMS submission this summer
Fine Arts, Wellness and Physical Education, Community and Parent Involvement, 21st Century Workforce, Second Language Acquisition, Digital Learning Environment, Dropout Prevention, Gifted and Talented Program

46. “What If” report
Statutory requirement to release, but only have to rate each domain, not overall
Will only release domains 1-4
Required Improvement will not be included
May pose political issue – TEA will also release a detailed information sheet about what included
You will receive via TEASE one day prior

47. Questions

48. Resources and Contacts
Charlotte Baker – R3 ESC
 Susanne Carroll – Victoria ISD
TEA Performance Reporting Resources
tml
Performance Reporting