1. State and Federal Accountability Overview
April 23, 2013
Texas Education Agency | Office of Assessment and Accountability
Division of Performance Reporting

2. Accountability System Design

3. Accountability Goals
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.

4. Accountability Framework
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)

5. Performance Index Framework
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.

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

7. Performance Index Criteria
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.

8. Performance Index Criteria
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 2013.
* Target will be set at about the fifth percentile of campus performance and will be applied to both campuses and districts.

9. Overview of Performance Index Framework (Sample Campus)

10. 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)

11. 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.
Example
Reading
Mathematics
Writing
Science
Social
Studies
Total
% Met Level II
Students Met Phase-in Level II 50 + 38 19 10 =
136
45% 45
Students Tested
100 42 40 23
305
Index Score

12. Index 2: Student Progress
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.

13. Index 2: Student Progress
Index 2 Construction – Table 1
Indicator
All
African Amer.
Amer. Indian
Asian
Hispanic
Pacific Islander
White
Two or More
ELL
Special Ed.
Total Points
Max.
Points
Example Calculation for Reading
Number of Tests
100 50 40 30
Did Not Meet Expectation
Number 20 10
Met Expectation
Percent 60 15
Exceeded Expectation 5
Percent of Tests:
Met or Exceeded
Expectation
80%
100%
67%
20%
40%
75%
17%
Reading Weighted Growth Rate
120
175 84
479
800

14. Index 2: Student Progress
Index 2 Construction – Table 2
Indicator
All
African Amer.
Amer. Indian
Asian
Hispanic
Pacific Islander
White
Two or More
ELL
Special Ed.
Total Points
Max.
Points
STAAR Reading
Weighted Growth Rate
100
120
175 84
479
800
STAAR Mathematics 85 98
150
160
493
STAAR Writing
140
170
310
400
Total
1282
2000
Index Score (total points divided by maximum points) 64

15. Index 3: Closing Performance Gaps
Index 3: Closing Performance Gaps emphasizes advanced academic achievement of economically disadvantaged students and the two lowest performing race/ethnicity student groups.
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 2014.

16. Index 3: Closing Performance Gaps
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).

17. Index 3: Closing Performance Gaps
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 80 40 25
Performance Results:
Phase-in Level II Satisfactory and above
Number
Percent
100% 20
50%
Level III Advanced 0%
Reading Weighted Performance Rate
150 50
200
400
600 17

18. Index 3: Closing Performance Gaps
Index 3 Construction
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
150 50
200
400
600
Mathematics Weighted Performance Rate
125
100 90
315
Writing Weighted Performance Rate 80
295
Science Weighted Performance Rate
120 40
250
Social Studies Weighted Performance Rate
170
Total
1430
3000
Index Score (total points divided by maximum points) 48

19. Index 4: Postsecondary Readiness
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

20. Index 4: Postsecondary Readiness
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.

21. Index 4: Postsecondary Readiness
Index 4 Construction
Indicator
All
African Amer.
Amer. Indian
Asian
Hispanic
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%
533.5
700
5-year graduation rate
85.1%
80.0%
92.1%
84.0%
48.9%
77.5%
546.4
RHSP/DAP
82.7%
76.4%
83.6%
83.0%
325.7
400
Graduation Total
872.1
1100
Graduation Score (graduation total points divided by maximum points) 79
2014 and beyond:
STAAR % Met Final Level II on one or more tests
29%
16%
40%
23%
38%
36%
182
600
STAAR Score (STAAR total points divided by maximum points) 30
Index Score (average of Graduation Score and STAAR Score: / 2 = 55) 55

22. Summary of AEA Calculation
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
Graduation Rate
Credit for GED recipients
Four-year, five-year, and six-year rates
Bonus Points for RHSP/DAP graduates
Bonus Points for Recovered Dropouts who Graduate or Earn GED
Bonus Points for Continuing Students who Graduate or Earn GED
Graduation and GED Rates = 75%, Final STAAR Level II Rates = 25%
Modified Ratings Targets

23. 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. Accountability System Safeguard Measures and Targets
System Safeguards
Accountability System Safeguard Measures and Targets
Indicator
All
African Amer.
Amer. Indian
Asian
Hispanic
Pacific Islander
White
Two or More
Eco.
Disadv.
ELL
Special Ed.
Performance Rates
Reading
50%
Mathematics
Writing
Science
Social Studies
Participation Rates
95%
Federal Graduation Rates (including improvement targets)
4-year
78%
5-year
83%
District Limits on Use of Alternative Assessment Results
Modified 2%
Not Applicable
Alternate 1%

25. 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

26. System Safeguards Sample District Performance Report STAAR Reading
All
African Amer.
Amer. Indian
Asian
Hispanic
Pacific Islander
White
Two or More
Econ. Disadv.
ELL
Special Ed.
Percent of Tests
% at Phase-In Level II or Above
50%
100% *
67%
59%
58%
36%
% at Level III (Advanced)
25%
33% 0%
32% 4%
Number of Tests
# at Phase-in Level II or Above 25 2 20 6 3 40 9 4
# at Level III (Advanced) 7 1
Total Tests
100 22 12 80 28

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

28. System Safeguards (Sample District Outcome)
Accountability System Safeguards
Performance Indicators that meet Minimum Size Criteria (continued)
Indicator
All
African Amer.
Amer. Indian
Asian
Hispanic
Pacific Islander
White
Two or More
Eco.
Disadv.
ELL
Special Ed.
Indicators Missed
Participation Rates
Reading
95%
100%
n/a
0 of 7
Mathematics
90%
1 of 7
Federal Graduation Rates
4-year or 5-year
85%
78%
70%
1 of 5
District Limits on Use of Alternative Assessment Results
1% /2%
or Both
0 of 1
Exceed2%
1 of 1
Total System Safeguard Indicators Missed
5 of 44

29. Federal Accountability for 2013
Texas Education Agency submitted a waiver request to the United States Department of Education (USDE) on February 28, 2013.
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

30. Top 25% Student Progress Distinction

31. 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 §

32. Academic Achievement Distinction Designations

33. Academic Achievement Distinction Designations
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

34. Academic Achievement Distinction Designations
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.

35. Academic Achievement Distinction Designations
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.

36. Academic Achievement Distinction Designations
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.

37. 2013 Accountability Development Website
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.

38. 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)