march 7, 2013 texas education agency | office of assessment and accountability division of...

March 7, 2013

Texas Education Agency | Office of Assessment and AccountabilityDivision of Performance Reporting

Accountability Policy Advisory Committee (APAC)

Meeting Objectives2

Ensure APAC understands proposed Performance Indexes and Indicators

Review ATAC Recommendations for proposed Performance Indexes and Indicators

Discuss and Compile Alternative Recommendations from APAC on proposed Performance Indexes and Indicators

Review ATAC Recommendations for 2013 Rating Criteria and Targets

Develop APAC Recommendations for 2013 Rating Criteria and Targets

Discuss Plan for 2014 Rating Criteria and Targets

Accountability System Design

Accountability Goals4

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 39.053(f) of the Texas Education Code.

Proposal for Accountability Framework

5

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)

Performance Index Framework6

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.

Performance Index Framework7

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.

Student Achievement

Index I

Student ProgressIndex 2

Closing Performance

GapsIndex 3

Postsecondary Readiness

Index 4

Overview of Proposed Performance Index Framework (Sample Campus)

8

Index 1: Student Achievement

9

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)

10


Example

Reading Mathematics Writing Science SocialStudies Total % Met Level

II

Students Met Phase-in Level II

50 + 38 + 19 + 10 + 19 = 136

45% 45Students Tested 100 + 100 + 42 + 40 + 23 = 305

Index Score 45

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.


Reading Mathematics Writing Science SocialStudies Total % Met

Level II

Students Met Phase-in Level II

50 + 38 + 19 + 10 + 19 = 136

45% 45Students Tested 100 + 100 + 42 + 40 + 23 = 305

Index Score 45

11


12

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.

Index 2: Student Progress

Indicator All African Amer.

Amer. Indian Asian Hispanic Pacific

Islander White Two or More ELL Special

Ed.Total

PointsMax.

Points

Example Calculation for Reading Number of Tests

100 50 40 30

Did Not Met Expectation Number 20 10 0 10

Met Expectation Number Percent

6060%

2040%

1025%

1550%

Exceeded Expectation Number Percent

2020%

2040%

3075%

517%

Weighted Results: Met Expectation (one point credit)

60(60% x 1)

40(40% x 1)

25(25% x 1)

50(50% x 1)

Exceeded Expectation (two point credit)

40(20% x 2)

80(40% x 2)

150(75% x 2)

34(17% x 2)

Reading Weighted Growth Rate 100 120 175 84 479 800

13

Index 2 Construction – Table 1





Ed.Total

PointsMax.

Points

STAAR ReadingWeighted Growth Rate 100 120 175 84 479 800

STAAR MathematicsWeighted Growth Rate 85 98 150 160 493 800

STAAR WritingWeighted Growth Rate 140 170 310 400

Total 1282 2000

Index Score (total points divided by maximum points) 64

14



* Science and Social Studies will be evaluated if growth measures are developed for these subjects.




Ed.Total

PointsMax.

Points


100 50 40 30

Did Not Met Expectation Number 20 10 0 10

Met Expectation Number Percent

6060%

2040%

1025%

1550%

Exceeded Expectation Number Percent

2020%

2040%

3075%

517%

Weighted Results: Met Expectation (one point credit)

60(60% x 1)

40(40% x 1)

25(25% x 1)

50(50% x 1)

Exceeded Expectation (two point credit)

40(20% x 2)

80(40% x 2)

150(75% x 2)

34(17% x 2)

Reading Weighted Growth Rate 100 120 175 84 479 800

15






Ed.Total

PointsMax.

Points

STAAR ReadingWeighted Growth Rate 100 120 175 84 479 800

STAAR MathematicsWeighted Growth Rate 85 98 150 160 493 800

STAAR WritingWeighted Growth Rate 140 170 310 400

Total 1282 2000


16



* Science and Social Studies will be evaluated if growth measures are developed for these subjects.

17

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 final 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.

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.


18

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).

19


19


STAAR Reading Weighted Performance Rate

Economically Disadvantaged

Lowest Performing Race/Ethnic Group - 1


Total Points

MaximumPoints


80 40 25

Performance Results: Phase-in Level II Satisfactory and above Number Percent

80100%

2050%

25100%

Level III Advanced Number Percent

4050%

00%

25100%

Reading Weighted Performance Rate 150 50 200 400 600

STAAR Weighted Performance Rate



Lowest Performing Race/Ethnic Group - 2 Total Points Maximum

Points


Mathematics Weighted Performance Rate 125 100 90 315 600

Writing Weighted Performance Rate 80 90 125 295 600

Science Weighted Performance Rate 120 40 90 250 600

Social Studies Weighted Performance Rate 50 40 80 170 600

Total 1430 3000


20



21


21


STAAR Reading Weighted Performance Rate




Total Points

MaximumPoints


80 40 20

Performance Results: Phase-in Level II Satisfactory and above Number Percent

80100%

2050%

00%

Level III Advanced Number Percent

4050%

00%

20100%


STAAR Weighted Performance Rate



Lowest Performing Race/Ethnic Group - 2 Total Points Maximum

Points


Mathematics Weighted Performance Rate 125 100 90 315 600

Writing Weighted Performance Rate 80 90 125 295 600

Science Weighted Performance Rate 120 40 90 250 600

Social Studies Weighted Performance Rate 50 40 80 170 600

Total 1430 3000


22



Index 4: Postsecondary Readiness

23

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

24


Graduation Score: Combined performance across the graduation and dropout rates forGrade 9-12 Four-Year Graduation Rate for All Students and all student groups ORGrade 9-12 Five-Year Graduation Rate for All Students and all student groups, whichever contributes the higher number of points to the index.

RHSP/AHSP 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.


25



26



27

Eligibility Criteria Ten former eligibility criteria AEC of choice must serve secondary students in Grades 6-12 Residential facilities not evaluated in 2013

Modified Indicator Definitions and Index Construction Index 3: Closing Performance Gaps: Credit for EOC minimum score Index 4: Postsecondary Readiness

o Graduation Rate– Credit for GED recipients– Four-year, five-year, and six-year rates

o RHSP/AHSP bonus pointso Graduation and GED Rates = 75%

Final Level II Rates = 25%

Summary of AEA Calculation

28

Rating Criteria, Labels, and Targets Same rating labels: Met Standard / Improvement Required Modified rating criteria Modified targets

Distinction Designations AEC campus comparison groups Academic Achievement Distinction Designations for

Reading and Mathematics Top 25% of Campuses in Student Progress

Accountability Development Dropout recovery credit Credit accrual for high school students District credit of AEC graduation and GED rate

Summary of AEA Calculation

System Safeguards29

Apply Safeguards to Specific Performance Indexes as needed:

Ensure reporting system disaggregates performance by student group, performance level, subject area, and grade;

Meet all state and federal accountability requirements;

Implement interventions focused on specific areas of weak performance: STAAR performance, STAAR participation, Federal graduation rates, Limits on use of alternate assessments.

30

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.

Top 25% Student Progress Distinction

32


Campuses in the top 25% (top quartile) of their campus comparison groupon 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


march 7, 2013 texas education agency | office of assessment and accountability division of...

Documents

proposed performance

overall performance

weakest performance

student groups

constructionsince index

scperformance index

student achievementindex

accountability framework