1. 2015 Texas Accountability System La Porte Independent School District August 5, 2015

2. Who am I? Richard A. Blair – 29 Years Senior Education Specialist Federal and State Accountability Regional Testing Coordinator Previous Senior Accountability Manager Houston ISD Executive Director of Research and Evaluation Aldine ISD Administrator, Teacher Ingram ISD

3. ELL Inclusion 2014 State of Texas Accountability System 2014 State Accountability Manual – Appendix I

4. English Language Learners (p.131)

5. English Language Learners (p.132)

6. Accountability Subset Who Counts and Where?

7. Accountability Subset For the State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness (STAAR®) indicators, the performance of only those students enrolled on the PEIMS fall snapshot date (the last Friday in October) is considered for accountability. Campus Accountability Subset Campuses are accountability for the performance of students reported to be enrolled on the snapshot date and the date of testing. District Accountability Subset Districts are accountable for the performance of students reported to be enrolled on the snapshot date and on the date of testing. Example If a student moves from one campus to another campus in the same district, his or her performance is included in the district results but is not included in the results of either campus.

8. Accountability Subset Accountability subset: Grades 3-8 – fall enrollment snapshot date EOC – for tests administered in spring and fall, fall enrollment snapshot date; for tests administered in summer, prior year fall enrollment snapshot date Results from the following administrations included If the student was enrolled on the campus/district on the following date 2015 State Accountability Cycle EOC Summer AdministrationPrior year fall enrollment snapshot dateFall 2013 EOC Fall Administration Current year fall snapshot dateFall 2014 EOC Spring Administration Current year fall snapshot dateFall 2014 3-8 Spring administration Current year fall snapshot date Fall 2014

9. Accountability Subset A student could count over more than one accountability year. Sara Beth a Top o Texas ISD student, took and failed Algebra I at Top-o-Texas Middle School in the spring of 2014. Was advanced to Top-o-Texas High School, where she received accelerated instruction in the fall of 2014. The spring 2014 failure is attributed to the middle school campus. Sara Beth then took the fall 2014 administration of Algebra I and failed. She continued to receive additional supports from the Top-o-Texas High School, but although her score improved, she failed the spring 2015 Algebra I administration. The last failure is attributed to the high school campus for 2015. So Sara Beth’s Algebra I EOC scores count in both 2014 and 2015!

10. 2015 State Index System High-level Overview

11. Accountability Goals By the end of the 2019-20 school year, Texas will be among the top ten states in postsecondary readiness by Improving student achievement at all levels in the core subject areas of the state curriculum, Ensuring the progress of all students toward achieving advanced academic performance, Closing the performance gaps among student subgroups, and Rewarding excellence based on other indicators in addition to state assessment results.

12. Performance Index Framework

13. Performance Index Goals Index 1: Student Achievement Provide a snapshot of student performance across subjects Index 2: Student Progress Measure year-to-year student progress Index 3: Closing Performance Gaps Emphasize academic achievement of economically disadvantaged students and the two lowest-performing racial/ethnic student groups Index 4: Postsecondary Readiness Emphasize the importance of a high school diploma as the foundation of success in college, the workforce, job training programs, or the military

14. Four Groups Campus Type Chart (p. 18)

15. Rating Labels The state accountability system uses ratings that indicate acceptable and unacceptable performance. In 2015, two labels indicate acceptable performance: Met Standard Met Alternative Standard (assigned to charter districts and campuses that are evaluated under alternative education accountability [AEA] provisions) The label that indicates unacceptable performance is: Improvement Required

16. INDEX 1 Student Achievement All Student Level Student Counts 1 Time per subject % of Students Meeting Standard (Phase 1, Level II) Student Progress 2015 Reading and Math Groups All Race/Ethnicity Special Ed ELL Progress Measure Non-ELL: STAAR Progress ELL: ELL Progress INDEX 2 State Accountability Index System

17. INDEX 3 Closing the Achievement Gap All Subjects Econ. Disadvantaged, Up to 2 Lowest Performing Race/Eth Group Two Components Phase 1, Level II Level III Advanced Postsecondary Readiness One or Four Components STAAR Final Level II 2+ Graduation Rate Graduation Plan (RHSP/DAP) College-Readiness Testing (Read/ELA & Math) Longitudinal Rates used (Annual if no Longitudinal) INDEX 4 State Accountability Index System

18. State Targets 2014 State of Texas Accountability System

19. Non-AEA Districts and Campuses Accountability Targets In 2015, to receive a Met Standard or Met Alternative Standard rating, districts and campuses must meet targets on at least three indexes: Index 1 or Index 2 and Index 3 and Index 4

20. Alternative Districts and Campuses Accountability Targets (DeWalt) In 2015, to receive a Met Standard or Met Alternative Standard rating, districts and campuses must meet targets on at least three indexes: Index 1 or Index 2 and Index 3 and Index 4

21. 2014 State Index System Index Calculations

22. Index 1: Student Achievement

25. Index 2: Student Progress

29. Index 3: Closing Performance Gaps

31. 123

35. Index 4: Postsecondary Readiness

49. Distinction Designations

50. Distinctions designations are awarded to districts and campuses in recognition of outstanding achievement. To be eligible for distinction designations, a district or campus must receive a Met Standard rating. Districts and campuses rated using AEA provisions are not eligible. Campus distinctions are based on indicators of student performance in comparison to forty similar campuses.

51. Distinctions Available Distinction Designations

52. Comparison to Comparable Group 40 Campuses Closely “Match” the Target School Type of School (Elem., Middle, High, Elem./Secondary, etc.) Schools with Unique Grade Spans are Grouped with Most Like Size, Low/High Grade, % Eco. Dis., Mobility Rate, % ELL Must Rate in Top Quartile (Top 25%) of Comparison Group Distinction Designations

53. Distinctions Available Distinction Designations Campuses may be awarded distinction designations for outstanding achievement in the following areas: English language arts/reading Mathematics Science Social studies Student progress Closing performance gaps Postsecondary readiness Districts may be awarded distinction designations for outstanding achievement in postsecondary readiness.

54. HS > 33%; ES/MS > 50% Reading/ELA Distinctions

55. Math Distinction Designations HS > 33%; ES/MS > 50%

56. Science Distinction Designations

57. HS > 33%; ES/MS > 50% Social Studies Distinction Designations

58. Eligibility Index 2 Rating Met Standard Rating Rank Index 2 Score for Campuses Ranked in Descending Order Top 25% of Comparison Group New for 2014 Top 25%: Student Progress

59. Eligibility Index 3 Rating Met Standard Rating Rank Index 3 Score for Campuses Ranked in Descending Order Top 25% of Comparison Group New for 2014 Top 25%: Closing Performance Gaps

60. Postsecondary Readiness Distinction Designation

61. Campuses Met Standard Rating Elementary/Middle/Junior High Index 4 Score STAAR % Postsecondary Readiness Standard Ranked in Descending Order Top 25% High School At least 33% of Eligible Measures New for 2014 Postsecondary Readiness Distinction Designation

62. Districts Met Standard Rating 70% of Campus- Level Postsecondary Indicators in Top 25% Less than 5 Indicators = No Distinction New for 2014 Postsecondary Readiness Distinction Designation

63. System Safeguards State and Federal Accountability

64. System Safeguards

68. Key Changes for 2015 Accountability To receive a Met Standard rating, a district or campus must meet the target on three indices: Index 1 or Index 2 and Index 3 and Index 4. Mathematics, grades 3-8, is excluded from state accountability. Algebra I is the only mathematics course included in state accountability. STAAR A and STAAR Alternate 2 for all subjects and grade levels are excluded from state accountability. Index 2 score combines available STAAR and ELL progress measures across all subjects and grade levels. Index 2 includes both current and monitored ELLs in their first and second years of academic monitoring. Index 4 includes a new postsecondary component.

69. Items of Note Important Reminders

70. A Separate REQUIRED IMPROVEMENT calculation at the INDEX Level for Campuses and Districts that DO NOT MEET the Accountability Target for the Index will be Considered for 2015 and BEYOND. Required Improvement to Come NO Required Improvement

71. July 30, 2015: TEASE release of data without Ratings August 6, 2015 TEASE release of data with Ratings August 7, 2015: Public Release of Data by TEA; Ratings Assigned November 2014: Finalized Accountability Ratings Fall 2014 Notification of Ratings

72. Only appeals that would result in a changed rating will be considered. A campus or district must meet all requirements for a higher rating in order for its appeal to be evaluated. Appeals are NOT considered for the Accountability System Safeguard measures that may result in campus or district interventions. Districts are responsible for providing accurate information to TEA. Data corrected during correction window will be included in determining accountability ratings. Not a Data Correction Opportunity Appeals (Due 9/8/2015)

73. Legislative Updates 84 th Texas Legislative Session

74. Federal Accountability Focus and Priority Schools

75. Priority and Focus Schools 5% of Title I schools with the widest gap in reading and math at the all students level 10% of Title I schools with the widest average gap in reading and math based on all federal student groups

76. Working on USDE approval for Year 4 work Will use most recent assessment data Exit Criteria Must show “significant progress” to meeting AMOs Meet 60% graduation rate 15-16 data to provide new 3 year list

77. Resources Accountability Manual Accountability System ESEA Waiver Information Performance Monitoring and Interventions Region 4 Accountability Blog

78. Richard Blair, Senior Education Specialist 713.744.6596, richard.blair@esc4.netrichard.blair@esc4.net Kelly Ingram, Director 713-744.6372, kingram@esc4.netkingram@esc4.net Contact Information Region 4 Accountability Contacts