1. Accountability Overview 2016
Kelly Baehren
Waller ISD Administrative Workshop
July 20, 2016

2. 2016 State Accountability

3. Overview of Accountability

4. 2016 Accountability Rating System

5. Performance Index Criteria 2016 Rating Labels
Met Standard: indicates acceptable performance and is assigned to districts and campuses that meet the targets on all required indices for which they have performance data.
Improvement Required: indicates unacceptable performance and is assigned to districts and campuses that do not meet the target on all required indices for which they have performance data.

6. Districts and Campuses
2016 Ratings Criteria
To receive a Met Standard Rating all campuses and districts must meet the following accountability targets for: Index 1 OR Index 2 AND Index 3 AND Index 4
Targets
Districts and Campuses
Index 1: Student Achievement 60
Index 2: Student Progress
5th %ile
Index 3: Closing Performance Gaps
Index 4: Postsecondary Readiness
12 – Elem
13 – MS/JH
60 – HS & District

7. 2016 Accountability Snapshot
The following snapshot table applies for accountability purposes:

8. Spring 2016 Special Processing

9. STAAR Incremental Standards
(Recommended Level II)

10. Standard Progression

11. Progression

12. Standard Progression

13. 2016 STAAR Performance Standards Descriptions)

14. Performance Categories

15. Performance index construction
2016
Performance index construction

16. Performance Index Framework

17. Index 1: Student Achievement
Measures district and campus performance based on student achievement across all subjects for all students (Level II)
Subjects: Combined over Reading/ELA, Mathematics, Writing, Science and Social Studies.
Student Groups: All Students only
ELL Progress Measure
Substitute Assessments

18. Index 1: 2015 vs. 2016

19. Index 1: ELL Inclusion

20. Index 2: Student Progress
Measures student progress in reading/English language arts and mathematics and provides opportunity to receive credit for improving student performance independent of overall student achievement.
Subjects: Reading/English Langue Arts and Mathematics
Ten Student Groups Evaluated:
All Students
Students served by Special Education
English Language Learners (ELL) – Progress measure is used
Seven Racial/Ethnic Groups: African American, American Indian, Asian, Hispanic, Pacific Islander, White, and Two or More Races
Chapter Accountability Manual Page 24
Improvements that students make.

21. Index 2: Student Progress
Three Progress Indicators:
Did Not Meet Progress
Met Progress
Exceeded Progress
Points for progress in each subject are weighted:
One point credit for each percentage of tests that Met or Exceeded Progress
One additional point for each percentage of tests that Exceeded Progress

22. Index 2: 2015 vs. 2016

23. Index 2: ELL Inclusion

24. Index 3: Closing Performance Gaps
Emphasizes the academic achievement of economically disadvantaged students and the two lowest performing race/ethnic students groups
Subject Area: Reading, Mathematics, Writing, Science, and Social Studies
Student Groups:
Economically Disadvantaged
Lowest Performing Race/Ethnic Groups: Two lowest performing race/ethnic student groups on the campus or district (based on 2015 assessment results)

25. Index 3: Closing Performance Gaps
Points based on weighted performance:
One point for each percentage of tests meeting or exceeding the Level II Satisfactory Standard on the STAAR assessment
One additional point is given for each percentage of tests meeting the Advanced Standard on the STAAR assessment.
Maximum possible points depends on student population and demographics

26. Index 3: 2015 vs. 2016

27. Index 3: ELL Inclusion

28. Index 4: Postsecondary Readiness
Emphasizes the role of elementary and middle schools in preparing students for the rigors of high school, and the importance of earning a high school diploma that provides students with the foundation necessary for success in college, the workforce, job training programs, or the military.

29. Index 4: 2015 vs. 2016

30. Index 4: 2015 vs. 2016

31. Index 4: ELL Inclusion

32. Index 4: Postsecondary Readiness
***Elementary & middle schools report only on STAAR results***

33. Index 4: Postsecondary Readiness
STAAR Postsecondary Readiness Standard:
Percentage of students who meet postsecondary readiness standards on two or more subject area assessments.
8 Student Groups: All & 7 Racial/Ethnic Groups

34. Index 4: Postsecondary Readiness
Graduation Rate Score:
Reflects the highest number of points possible from the combined performance across graduation rates for grades 9-12 (4-yr or 5-yr Grad Rate – Class of 2015 or Class of 2014)
10 Student Groups: All, SPED, ELL & 7 Racial/Ethnic Groups

35. Index 4: Postsecondary Readiness
Graduation Plan Score:
Based on an a longitudinal cohort of students graduating under the Recommended High School Program or Distinguished Achievement Program (RHSP/DAP). (Class of 2015) OR
Based on the longitudinal cohort of students graduating under either RHSP/DAP or the Foundation High School Program (FHSP) with an endorsement (FHSP- E) or the distinguished level of achievement (DLA)
8 Student Groups: All & 7 Racial/Ethnic Groups

36. Index 4: Postsecondary Readiness
Postsecondary Component: College and Career Readiness Indicator Score is calculated as the percent of annual graduates who accomplish at least ONE of the following:
Met or exceeded the Texas Success Initiative (TSI) criteria in both English language arts (ELA) and mathematics on the TSI assessment, SAT, or ACT
Completed and earned credit in at least two advanced/dual-credit enrollment courses
Enrolled in a coherent sequence of CTE courses
8 Student Groups: All and 7 Racial/Ethnic Groups

37. Index 4: Overall Index Score Example

38. Distinction Designations
2016
Distinction Designations

39. Distinction Designations
Academic Achievement in Reading/ELA (campus only)
Academic Achievement in Mathematics (campus only)
Academic Achievement in Science (campus only)
Academic Achievement in Social Studies(campus only)
Top 25 Percent: Student Progress (campus only)
Top 25 Percent: Closing Performance Gaps(campus only)
Postsecondary Readiness (campus and district)

40. Distinction Designation Labels
Distinction Earned
No Distinction Earned
Not Eligible
***All distinction designations for campuses are based on performance in the top quartile (Q1) of its comparison group***

41. Campus Comparison Groups
Grouped with 40 other schools that are similar: campus size, grade levels, % Low SES, mobility rate, and % ELL
Q1 = Top 10
“Each campus is assigned to a unique comparison group of Texas schools that are most similar to it”
Released June 2016

42. Academic Achievement in Reading/ELA
HS = Must be in top quartile for 33% or more of their indicators
JH & ELEM = Must be in top quartile for 50% or more of their indicators

43. 2015Distinction Designation Summary – Reading/ELA Sample

44. Academic Achievement in Mathematics
HS = Must be in top quartile for 33% or more of their indicators
JH & ELEM = Must be in top quartile for 50% or more of their indicators

45. Academic Achievement in Science
HS = Must be in top quartile for 33% or more of their indicators
JH & ELEM = Must be in top quartile for 50% or more of their indicators

46. Academic Achievement in Social Studies
HS = Must be in top quartile for 33% or more of their indicators
JH = Must be in top quartile for 50% or more of their indicators

47. Top 25 Percent: Student Progress
Awarded to campuses who Index 2 score is ranked in the top 25 percent (Q1) of campuses in their campus comparison group.

48. Top 25 Percent: Closing Performance Gaps
Awarded for outstanding performance in closing student achievement gaps to campuses whose Index 3 score is ranked in the top 25 percent (Q1) of campuses in its campus comparison groups.

49. Top 25 Percent: Closing Performance Gaps Sample 2015

50. Postsecondary Readiness
Awarded to campuses and districts for outstanding academic performance in attainment of postsecondary readiness.
District = 70% of campus level indicators in Q1
HS = 33% of indicators in Q1
JH & ELEM = 50% of indicators in Q1

51. Postsecondary Readiness Campus Sample 2015

52. Postsecondary Readiness District Sample 2015

53. 2016
System Safeguards

54. System Safeguards
Established to meet state accountability-related intervention requirements
With the performance index framework, poor performance in one subject or one student group does not result in an Improvement Required Rating.
System safeguards are added to ensure that poor performance in one area or one student group is not disguised in the performance index by higher performance in other areas or by other student groups.
Disaggregated results in performance rates, participation rates, graduation rates and limits on the use of the alternative assessments.
Texas Accountability Intervention System (TAIS) – District & Campus Leadership Teams & DIP/CIP Documentation

55. Accountability System Safeguards 2016

56. System Safeguard Minimum Size State vs. Federal

57. System Safeguard Sample

58. 2016 State Accountability Calendar Revised 7-8-16
Important Dates:

59. 2015 Accountability Summary Sample

60. Community and Student Engagement Local Accountability
TEC

61. 2017
Accountability

62. Standard Progression 2017

63. STAAR Assessments for 2017 STAAR tests for Grades 3-8
Mathematics at grades 3-8
Reading at grades 3-8
Writing at grades 4 and 7
Science at grades 5 and 8
Social Studies at grade 8

64. STAAR Assessments for 2017
STAAR EOC Assessments required to pass for high school graduation:
English I
English II
Algebra I
Biology
U.S. History
The Class of 2017 will be the third graduating class under EOC Assessments.

65. Testing Calendar

66. 2018
Accountability

67. House Bill 2804

68. House Bill 2804 Timeline
December 1, 2016: Commissioner announces final decisions and adopts set of indicators to measure and evaluate school districts and campuses for A- F Ratings.
January 1, 2017: TEA releases report showing the rating that each district and campus would have received in if the A-F system had been in place.
August 15, 2018: Each district and campus is assigned an overall rating of A,B, C, D or F rating and an A, B, C, D, or F rating for each domain for the school year.

69. Thanks!
Any Questions?

70. Resources Lead4ward Quicklook 2016 Accountability System (6/01/2016)
Lead4Ward 2016 STAAR Raw Score Conversions (7/06/2016)
Lead4Ward Quicklook Preview of 2018 Accountability System (HB 2804) (2/18/2016)
Texas Education Agency, Texas Education Today, December 2015, Volume XXXI No.2
Overview of Performance Index Framework (May 2016) – TEA
2016 Accountability Manual – Chapters 1-10 and Appendices - TEA
TEA Testing Calendar
Gilson, Kim and Doni Cash, Accountability Update May Webinar (Region 10)
Growth - Quotes