1. APAC Meeting | January 22, 2014 Texas Education Agency | Office of Assessment and Accountability Division of Performance Reporting Overview of Performance Indexes Used for State Accountability

2. Accountability System Design

3. Accountability Goals 3 Texas will be among the top 10 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 groups.*  Rewarding excellence based on other indicators in addition to state assessment results. * These goals are specified in Chapter 39.053(f) of the Texas Education Code.

4. Accountability Framework 4 Factors Considered in Selecting the Performance Index Framework:  Accountability System Goals and Guiding Principles  Statutory Requirements of House Bill 3 (2009):  Focus on Postsecondary Readiness  Inclusion of Student Progress  Emphasis on Closing Achievement Gaps  STAAR program with EOC-based tests for middle schools and high schools  Lessons learned from previous Texas public schools’ 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 5 What is a Performance Index?  Each measure of student performance contributes points to an index score.  Districts and campuses are required to meet one accountability target for each index— the total index score.  A Performance Index provides a rating that reflects the overall performance of 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 6 For 2013 and beyond, an accountability framework of four Performance Indexes includes a broad set of measures that provide a comprehensive evaluation of the 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 Student Progress Index 2 Closing Performance Gaps Index 3 Postsecondary Readiness Index 4

7. Index 1: Student Achievement 7 Index 1: Student Achievement provides an overview of student performance based on satisfactory student achievement across all subjects for all students.  Combined over All Subjects: Reading, Mathematics, Writing, Science, and Social Studies.  Student Groups: All Students.  Performance Standards: Phase-in 1 Level II (Satisfactory).

8. 8 Index 1: Student Achievement Example: 2013 Index 1 ReadingMathematicsWritingScience Social Studies Total % Met Phase-in 1 Level II Index Points Students Met or Exceeded Phase-in 1 Level II 50+38+19+10+19=136 45%45 Students Tested 100+ +42+40+23=305 Index 1 Score45 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 meet the Phase-in 1 Level II Standard. Each percent of students meeting the Phase-in 1 Level II performance standard contributes one point to the index. Index scores range from 0 to 100 for all campuses and districts.

9. 9 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).  Points based on weighted performance:  One point given for each percentage of tests at the Met progress level.  Two points given for each percentage of tests at the Exceeded progress level. Index 2: Student Progress

10. STAAR Weighted Progress Rate All Students African Amer. Amer. Indian AsianHispanic Pacific Islander White Two or More Races ELL Special Ed. Total Points Max. Points Example Calculation for Reading Progress Number of Tests 100504030 Performance Results: Met or Exceeded Progress Number Percent 80 80% 40 80% 40 100% 20 67% Exceeded Progress Number Percent 20 20% 20 40% 30 75% 5 17% Reading Weighted Progress Rate 10012017584479800 10 Index 2: Construction – Table 1 Index 2: Student Progress

11. STAAR Weighted Progress Rate All Students African Amer. Amer. Indian AsianHispanic Pacific Islander White Two or More Races ELL Special Ed. Total Points Max. Points Reading Weighted Progress 10012017584479800 Mathematics Weighted Progress 8598150160493800 Writing Weighted Progress 140170310400 Total12822000 Index 2 Score (total points divided by maximum points)64 11 Index 2: Construction – Table 2 Index 2: Student Progress

12. 12  Points based on weighted performance:  Phase-in 1 Level II satisfactory performance (2013 and beyond): One point for each percent of tests meeting the Phase-in 1 Level II satisfactory performance standard.  Level III advanced performance (2014 and beyond): Two points for each percent of tests meeting the Level III advanced performance standard.  The calculation of the STAAR weighted performance rate was modified in 2013 because statute prohibited the inclusion of STAAR Level III advanced performance until 2014. 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.

13. Index 3: Closing Performance Gaps 13  By Subject Area: Reading, Mathematics, Writing, Science, and Social Studies.  Student Groups:  Economically Disadvantaged  Lowest Performing Race/Ethnicity: The two lowest performing race/ ethnicity student groups on the campus or within the district (based on prior-year assessment results).

14. 14 Index 3: Closing Performance Gaps 14 Index 3: Construction – Table 1 STAAR 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 Weighted Performance Number of Tests 804025 Performance Results: Phase-in 1 Level II Satisfactory and above Number Percent 80 100% 20 50% 25 100% Level III Advanced Number Percent 40 50% 0 0% 25 100% Reading Weighted Performance Rate 15050200400600

15. 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 15050200400600 Mathematics Weighted Performance 12510090315600 Writing Weighted Performance 8090125295600 Science Weighted Performance 1204090250600 Social Studies Weighted Performance 504080170600 Total14303000 Index 3 Score (total points divided by maximum points)48 15 Index 3: Construction – Table 2 Index 3: Closing Performance Gaps

16. Index 4: Postsecondary Readiness 16 Index 4: Postsecondary Readiness emphasizes 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; 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 were not included in accountability in 2013).  Combined over All Subjects: Reading, Writing, Mathematics, Science, and Social Studies.

17. 17 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: 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. Index 4: Postsecondary Readiness

18. 18 Index 4: Postsecondary Readiness Indicator All Students African Amer. Amer. Indian AsianHispanic Pacific Islander White Two or More Races ELL Special Ed. Total Points Max. Points 4-year graduation rate (Gr 9-12) 84.3%78.8% 91.6%86.0%44.2%69.8%533.5700 5-year graduation rate (Gr 9-12) 85.1%78.8%80.0%92.1%84.0%48.9%77.5%546.4700 RHSP/DAP82.7%76.4%83.6%83.0%325.7400 Graduation Total872.11100 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%182600 STAAR Score (STAAR total points divided by maximum points)30 Index 4 Score (average of Graduation Score and STAAR Score: 79 + 30 / 2 = 55)55 Index 4: Construction

19. System Safeguards 19 Safeguard Measures and Targets:  Reporting system disaggregates performance by student group, performance level, subject area, and grade.  Performance rates are calculated from the assessment results used to calculate Index 1: Student Achievement.  Targets for the disaggregated system-safeguard results:  STAAR performance target corresponds to Index 1 (50%);  STAAR participation target required by federal accountability (95%);  Federal graduation rate targets and improvement calculations for 4-year rate (78%) and 5-year rate (83%); and  Federal limit on use of alternate assessments (1% and 2%).

20. 20 2013 Accountability System Safeguard Measures and Targets System Safeguards * Targets for 2013 correspond to the performance target for Index 1: Student Achievement. Indicator All Students African Amer. Amer. Indian AsianHispanic Pacific Islander White Two or More Races Eco. Disadv. ELL Special Ed. Performance Rates* Reading50% Mathematics50% Writing50% Science50% Social Studies50% Participation Rates Reading95% Mathematics95% Federal Graduation Rates (including improvement targets) 4-year78% 5-year83% District Limits on Use of Alternative Assessment Results Reading Modified2%Not Applicable Alternate1%Not Applicable Mathematics Modified2%Not Applicable Alternate1%Not Applicable

21. System Safeguards 21  Results will be reported for any group that meets accountability minimum size criteria.  Failure to meet the safeguard target for any reported group must be addressed in the campus or district improvement plan.  Performance on the safeguard measures will be incorporated into the Texas Accountability Intervention System (TAIS).  Detailed information is available in the Performance Index Technical Description at http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport/account/2013/materials.html http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport/account/2013/materials.html

22. Resources  2013 Accountability Rating System http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport/account/2013/index.html http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport/account/2013/index.html  Performance Reporting Home Page http://www.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport http://www.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport  Performance Reporting E-mail performance.reporting@tea.state.tx.us performance.reporting@tea.state.tx.us  Division of Performance Reporting Telephone (512) 463-9704 22