1. Towards High Performance Schools
Next Generation of Assessment and Accountability Domain Framework and A-F Accountability
Towards High Performance Schools
Core Elements of a System-Wide Strategic Approach
Presentation for Region One School Board Association by
Division of Instructional, School Improvement, and College Readiness Support
May 19, 2017

2. Overview of State and Federal Accountability Systems
Through

3. State Accountability Timeline
August 7, 2017
Data used to calculate the 2017 accountability ratings are released to districts and campuses via TEASE
August 14, 2017
Accountability ratings, distinction designations, systems safeguards are released to districts and campuses through TEASE website
August 15, 2017
Public release via TEA Website
Early November 2017
Final accountability ratings that reflect the outcome of ratings appeals are released to the public via TEA website

4. 2017 State Accountability Ratings
To attain a Met Standard rating, district and campuses must meet the target on the following indexes for which it has performance data in 2017.
Index 1 or
Index 2
Index 3
Index 4
Met Standard

5. 2017 Targets Assessments Evaluated
2016
Index 1
Index 2
Index 3
Index 4
STAAR Grades 3-8
STAAR EOC Assessments (5 Tests)
STAAR EOC Substitute Assessments
N/A
STAAR L (Via the ELL Progress Measure)
STAAR A
STAAR Alternate 2

6. 2017 Targets District and Campus
Unchanged from 2016
2017 Targets District and Campus
Standard Accountability Targets
District/Campus Type
Index 1
Student Achievement
Index 2*
Student Progress
Index 3*
Closing Performance Gaps
Index 4
Postsecondary Readiness
Target
All Components
Targets
STAAR Components
District
60% 22 28
13%
Elementary School 32 NA
12%
Middle School 30 26
High School/
K-12 Campus 17
21%
*Targets for non-AEA campuses are set at about the fifth percentile of non-AEA 2017 campus performance by campus type. Targets for non-AEA districts correspond to about the fifth percentile of non-AEA 2017 campus performance across all campus types.

7. Assessments Evaluated in 2016 vs. 2017
Index 1
Index 2
Index 3
Index 4
Summer and Fall 2016
Spring 2017
STAAR Grades 3–8
(all subjects)* 
n/a
(all subjects*, with and without accommodations)
STAAR EOC
(5 tests)
STAAR EOC (5 tests, with and without accommodations)
including substitute assessments
(1)
STAAR L
(evaluated in the ELL progress measure) X
(2)
STAAR L EOC (evaluated in the ELL progress measure)**
STAAR L (evaluated in the ELL progress measure)**
STAAR A
STAAR A EOC**
STAAR A**
STAAR Alternate 2
: Used in accountability X: Available but not used in accountability n/a: Not available
(1) Substitute assessments apply to the Meets Grade Level performance standard only and progress measures are not calculated.
(2) ELL students in their first four years in U.S. schools who took STAAR L were excluded from Index 3 and Index 4.
* Index 2 is evaluated using ELA/reading and mathematics only.
** Beginning with the spring 2017 administration, STAAR L and STAAR A assessments will be replaced with online versions of STAAR with accommodations.

8. 2017 Targets District and Campus
Alternative Education Accountability
District Type
Campus Type
Index 1
Student Achievement
Index 2
Student Progress
Index 3
Closing Performance Gaps
Index 4
Postsecondary Readiness
Target
Both Components*
Graduation/
Dropout Rate **
AEA Campus
35%
At or about 5th percentile
(8)
(13)
33%
45%
*STAAR Post Secondary Readiness Standard and Graduation Score/Annual Dropout
** If graduation score/annual dropout are not available, do not evaluate Index 4

9. Index Framework Accountability Rating
Acceptable Performance:
Met Standard
Met Alternative Standard
Unacceptable Performance:
Improvement Required

10. HB 2804
House Bill (HB) 2804 (84th Texas Legislature, 2015) requires changes to the state public school academic accountability system, effective with the 2017–18 school year. The changes include creating five domains of indicators to measure district and campus progress toward meeting three main goals:
Preparing students for postsecondary success
Reducing achievement gaps among students from different racial and ethnic groups and socioeconomic backgrounds
Informing parents and the community about district and campus performance
TEA Provisional Ratings Report, January 2017

11. HB 2804
Beginning in August 2018, districts and campuses will receive a rating of A, B, C, D, or F for overall performance, as well as for performance in each of these five domains:
Domain I: Student Achievement
Domain II: Student Progress
Domain III: Closing Performance Gaps
Domain IV: Postsecondary Readiness
Domain V: Community and Student Engagement
TEA Provisional Ratings Report, January 2017

12. Domain Framework Accountability Rating
Letter Grade Rating:
Domain Level A-F
Overall Level A-F

13. Texas Education Agency A-F Overview Document
The STAAR test was built and validated by actual student performance so that achieving a Final Level II proficiency rate is indicative of a student who, if that proficiency level is maintained through high school, has a better than 60% chance of passing freshman college level math & English courses.
The Advanced Level III proficiency rate is indicative of a student who has a better than 75% chance of passing those courses. (This latter standard is used by SAT & ACT). The Phase-in Level II rate is about 1 standard deviation below Final Level II, and as such works to indicate a student who has not quite reached grade level proficiency.
TEA Student Testing and Accountability, January 2017

16. Domain I Model (HB 2804 Requirements and Commissioner Recommendations)
Performance Index Framework
Index 1 Level of Performance
Five Domain Framework
Domain I Levels of Performance
Level III
Domain I
Advanced Level III
Final Level II
Level II Satisfactory Standard
Index 1
Level II Satisfactory Standard

17. Achievement Level Expectations for High Performance Campus
Performance Index Framework
Approaches: 90%
Domain Framework
Meets: 60%
Meets: 60%
Masters: 30%

18. Texas Education Agency A-F Overview Document
To determine an appropriate goal for what would constitute an “A”, the agency tried to identify an appropriate benchmark based on what would best position students for success. The state’s 60X30TX plan provides that benchmark and is aligned to work being done in colleges throughout Texas and to the needs of the workforce.
The goal of the plan is straightforward: by the year 2030, 60% of Texans aged 25–34 should possess some form of post-secondary credential. To align with this plan, the bar for high student achievement – performance at an “A” rating in Domain I – is set at 60% of students being on pace for likely success in a post-secondary setting, be it a trade school, community college, or four-year university. The STAAR® provides a valid method of identifying this.
TEA Student Testing and Accountability, January 2017

19. Texas Higher Education Strategic Plan: 2015-2030

20. : Economic Status is Major Factor for Completion

21. © 2017 Region One Education Service Center
Texas 85th Legislative Session and Proposed Changes to the A-F Accountability System
Michael Waraksa, 2013
REACHING NEW
HORIZONS
© 2017 Region One Education Service Center

22. Impact of 85th Legislative Session

23. House Bill 22 Implications
The official implementation of the A-F system would be pushed back from August 2018 to August 2019.
Schools and districts would be graded on three domains instead of five. These domains are Student Achievement, School Progress and School Climate.
Domains would focus less on standardized testing. The Student Achievement domain would be limited to incorporating standardized tests as only 50 percent of its overall score.
Indicators within each domain will be geared toward different factors for students in high school compared with students in middle and elementary schools.
In the previous system, the TEA would intervene in schools awarded a cumulative D or F score. In the new system, the TEA would get involved only with schools awarded F grades.

24. Senate Bill 2051 Implications
The official implementation of the A-F system would be moved up from August 2018 to September of this year.
Schools and districts would be graded on three domains instead of five. These domains are Student Achievement, School Performance and School Climate.
One of the indicators for the School Performance domain would measure how well a district performs compared with other similar school districts.
Indicators within each domain will be geared toward different factors for students in high school and will remove factors for students in middle and elementary schools.

25. Community and Student Engagement
DOMAIN V:
Community and Student Engagement
Michael Waraksa, 2013

26. School District Evaluation of Performance Community and Student Engagement (C.a.S.E)
HB 5
TAA Guidance on C.a.S.E
TAA Guidance on C.a.S.E

27. District Requirements
School District Evaluation of Performance Community and Student Engagement; Compliance
District Requirements
District Assigns and Reports Ratings
District Reports Compliance
Overall Performance
Statutory Reporting and Policy Requirement for district and each campus
Category and Programs
Fine arts
Wellness and physical education
Community and parental involvement
21st century workforce development
Second language acquisition program
Digital learning environment
Dropout prevention strategies
Educational programs for gifted and talented
0 – No (Not in Compliance)
1 – Yes (In Compliance)
No later than August 8 of each year, the district shall report each performance rating to the agency and make the performance ratings publicly available as provided by the commissioner rule.
REACHING NEW
HORIZONS
Texas Education Code, §
Exemplary
Recognized
Acceptable
Unacceptable
© 2017 Region One Education Service Center

28. Community and Student Engagement; Compliance Tool
HB5 Tool
HB5 Page
REACHING NEW
HORIZONS
© 2017 Region One Education Service Center

29. 1
Complete Steps 1, 2 & 3 3 2

30. Automatic Confirmation and email will be sent

32. HB5: the Transition to Domain V
CASE Year
Submission Dates
Deadline for Districts to Post Ratings
HB 5
First Submission:
No later than June 26
Resubmission:
No later than July 24
August 8
No later than June 25
No later than July 23
No later than June 23
No later than July 21
August 7 
No later than June 22
No later than July 20
TEA Required to Report Local Performance on TEA Website
Categories Self-Rated
Ratings
Region One Rating Tool
No later
than October 1
Fine arts
Wellness and physical education
Community and parental involvement
The 21st Century Workforce Development program
The second language acquisition program
The digital learning environment
Dropout prevention strategies
Educational programs for gifted and talented students
    
Exemplary
Recognized
Acceptable
Unacceptable
Statutory Reporting and Policy Requirement for district and each campus
(Yes or No)   
Collaboratively created tool with Region One and districts, with
indicators

33. Domain V 2017-2018 HB5 and HB 2804 (Domain V) C.a.S.E. Year
Submission Dates
TSDS Data Element
Deadline for Districts to Submit Ratings
Districts and Campuses still Required to Rate all C.a.S.E Indicators   
 HB5
and
HB 2804
(Domain V)
First Submission:
No later than June 22
Resubmission:
No later than July 20
First-Case-Choice-Code
Indicates the first choice of three of the eight community and student engagement indicators
Second-Case-Choice-Code
Indicates the second choice of the three of the eight community and student engagement indicators
Third-Case-Choice-Code
Indicates the third choice of the three of the eight community and student engagement indicators
CaSE Ratings-Criteria-Link
Indicates the internet website link to the CaSE ratings criteria that are used by the LEA and campuses to determine the ratings for the LEA and campuses
Final Due Date
May 4, 2018
Fine arts
Wellness and physical education
Community and parental involvement
The 21st Century Workforce Development program
The second language acquisition program
The digital learning environment
Dropout prevention strategies
Educational programs for gifted and talented students
Statutory Reporting and Policy Requirement for district and each campus
(Yes or No)

34. CASE Timeline for 2016-2017 June 22/July 20, 2017 TSDS Submission
No later than August 8, 2017
No later than October 1, 2017
Data for SY 16-17
Data for SY 17-18
Districts Report Ratings on Website
TEA Reports ratings publicly
Districts submit 8 categories Ratings for
Exemplary
Satisfactory
Acceptable
Unacceptable
Districts Indicate internet website link to CASE Ratings
Districts Indicate internet website link to CASE Ratings
Districts submit overall CASE Rating
Districts indicate 1st, 2nd, 3rd CASE Choice
Districts indicate statutory reporting and policy compliance

35. CASE Domain V Timeline for 2017-2018
June 22/July TSDS Submission
May 4, 2018 TSDS Submission
No later than August 8, 2018
No later than October 1, 2018
Districts indicate 1st, 2nd, 3rd CASE Choice
Districts submit 8 categories Ratings Exemplary
Satisfactory
Acceptable
Unacceptable
Districts Report Ratings on Website
TEA Reports ratings publicly
Districts Indicate internet website link to CASE Ratings
Districts submit overall CASE Rating
Districts indicate statutory reporting and policy compliance
Districts Indicate internet website link to CASE Ratings
TEA assigns A-F on district-selected three categories

36. Selecting Domain V CASE Ratings Example: District
June 22/July 20 TSDS Submission for School Year

37. Selecting Domain V CASE Ratings: Campus and District
June 22/July 20 TSDS Submission
For School Year
These three selections can be different for the LEA
And each of the campuses
After districts report 3 selected CASE Ratings in
Submission 3, no changes can be made to the CASE
Ratings that were selected
New selections cannot be made at the end of the
Year for the following school year

38. Assigning Domain V CASE Ratings: Campus and District
TEA Assigns A-F Rating based on District Self-Assigned Rating

39. References
Rosenshine, B., (2012). Principles of instruction: Research-based practices that all teachers should know. American Educator, 36(1). p , 39. Scott, Terrance M. & Susan B. Barrett (2004). Using Staff and Student Time Engaged in Disciplinary Procedures to Evaluate the Impact of School-Wide PBS. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions. Thomas, W. & Collier, V. (2001) A National Study of School Effectiveness for Language Minority Students’ Long Term Academic Achievement. Center for Research on Education, Diversity and Excellence. Wong, Harry (1998). First Days of School: How to be an Effective Teacher. Mountainview, California. Harry K. Wong Publications.

40. Division of Instructional, School Improvement, and College Readiness Support
Dr. Eduardo Cancino, Deputy Director
Dr. Belinda S. Gorena, Administrator
School Improvement, Accountability and Compliance
Kelly K. VanHee, Administrator
Curriculum, Instruction and Assessment
Carmen Garcia, Director
Brownsville Extension Office
Dr. Darlene M. Rogers, Director
Laredo Extension Office
REACHING NEW
HORIZONS
© 2017 Region One Education Service Center