Measuring School-wide Growth in AISD

State Accountability
2013 and Beyond
Current T.E.A. Framework as of March 22, 2013
Austin Independent School District
Bill Caritj, Chief Performance Officer
Carolyn Hanschen, Director of Campus and District
Chief Performance Officer
• Departments and Functions
• District and Campus Accountability
• Monitoring and Support Compliance for AU/AYP schools
• Performance Management
• Planning
• System-wide Testing
• TELPAS, EOC, STAAR, ITBS, CogAT, NAEP, credit-by-exam
• Online testing (TELPAS, STAAR, EOC)
• Research and Evaluation
• Survey Research
• Growth Modeling (REACH)
• Program evaluation
• External data and research requests
• Public Education Information Management System (PEIMS)
• Manages AISD data for mandatory Texas Public School database
• Formative Assessment
Texas Accountability 2013
• Bills passed by the Texas State Legislature in past sessions
required the implementation of the new State of Texas
Assessments of Academic Readiness, or STAAR, and the
development of a new state accountability system.
• Technical and policy advisory committees have met with TEA
staff over the past year to consider the complex issues related
to the development of a new accountability system and make
recommendations for solutions.
• The current proposal includes a complex set of rules to
calculate and evaluate campus and district performance results
on four indices.
• Commissioner will release his final decisions on 2013
accountability rules in April 2013
Legislative Requirements
• Goals of the new system:
• Improve student achievement at all levels in the core
Ensure the progress of all students toward achieving
Advanced Academic Performance.*
Close Advanced Academic Performance level gaps
among groups.*
Close gaps among groups in the % of students
graduating under the recommended and advanced
high school program.*
Identify acceptable and unacceptable campuses and
Reward 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.
Framework Selected for State
Performance Index System
Performance Index Framework
• An index score between zero and 100 will be calculated
for each of the four indices.
• Multiple measures may be included within each index
o Each measure contributes points to the index score
• The four index scores will be considered collectively to
determine the campus and district ratings
• Resulting rating will reflect overall performance rather
than highlighting areas of weakest performance.
Note: Decisions are final until TEA Rules are released in April, 2013.
STAAR/EOC Phase-in of Standards
• STAAR Level II passing standards will be phased-in
• Phase 1
2012 and 2013
• Phase 2
2014 and 2015
• Final
2016 and beyond (final panel-recommended standards)
• For most tests, final standards are significantly higher than Phase-1 and
Phase-2 standards.
Index 1: Student Achievement
• STAAR results summed across all
tests, grades, and subjects
• Measure: % of tests at the Level II
Phase 1 standard
Index 2: Progress Measure
Growth on STAAR
This is an example of a transition table that
divides the three STAAR performance levels
(Level I, Level II, and Level III) into six
performance bands.
• Two points given for students who exceed the
growth expectation from one year to the next;
one point given for students who meet the
growth expectation
• Subjects evaluated: math, reading and writing
for available grades.
• 10 student groups evaluated:
• All students
• Each race/ethnicity group
• Students with disabilities
• English Language Learners
Note: The final growth measure has not been developed and may differ from this example.
Index 3: Closing Performance Gaps
• Goal – Improve the performance of historically low-performing
student groups
• Index includes results at both Level 2 and Level 3 – “Satisfactory”
and “Advanced” levels. (Level 3 will not be used until 2014.)
• Each subject area will be evaluated: reading, math, writing, science
and social studies
• Includes performance for up to three student groups –
• Economically Disadvantaged student group (always evaluated)
• Two lowest performing race/ethnicity student groups (based on
prior year Index 1 results)
Note: This index does not measure changes in gaps across years or
compare performance among student groups; but rather, evaluates
the performance of historically low performing groups against an
external standard.
Index 4: Postsecondary Readiness
Credit based on average of two postsecondary
1) graduation rates and diploma plans
• 4-Year or 5-Year Graduation Rate* (whichever is higher)
• Percentages of graduates receiving Recommended or
Advanced diploma
• 10 student groups: All students, seven race/ethnicity groups,
students with disabilities, Engish language learners
2) STAAR postsecondary readiness*
• Credit given for meeting postsecondary readiness standard
(final Level II) on one or more tests
• Eight student groups evaluated: All students, seven
race/ethnicity groups
*Not evaluated in 2013
Proposed Index Framework – Sample Campus
While some information is known about the individual
indices, little has been communicated about how the
indices will be used to rate districts and schools.
Safeguards will be applied to
specific performance indices
as needed:
• Report performance by student group, performance
level, subject, and grade (i.e., transparency of results)
• Implement interventions based on specific areas of low
• Implement interventions based on minimum
participation rate targets
• Implement interventions for excessive use of STAARModified or STAAR-Alternate
Transition Plan
• Student-level passing standards for STAAR and STAAR
End-of-Course will be phased in over several years
• Campus Accountability – 2013
• Only “Met Standard” and “Needs Improvement” or similar labels
will be awarded
• No “Recognized” or “Exemplary”
• Academic Achievement designations for campuses and districts
will be awarded in math, reading or both
• No use of Level III performance for accountability purposes (Index
3 & 4)
• Campus Accountability – 2014 and Beyond
• English language learners will be included based on the ELL
development measure
• All four indices will be fully in place
Major Tasks Still Left:
• Determine how index evaluation will result in
campus and district ratings
• Finalize minimum size requirements for student
• Determine system safeguards
• Campus Rating Distinctions
• Alternative Education Accountability
• STAAR ELL Development Model (2014 and beyond)
January 29, 2013
Student results from the spring of 2012 Grades 3-8
STAAR were available from test contractor.
April 2013
Commissioner releases final decisions on the state
accountability system.
Late Spring 2013
2012 STAAR performance results released as a
supplement to 2012 AEIS campus and district
August 8, 2013
Campus and district accountability ratings for 2013
EOC Exams, Grading, and Graduation
• House and Senate bills under consideration may
result in significant changes to state assessment and
accountability. Possible changes include:
• Elimination of the requirement to include STAAR Endof-Course results as 15% of a student’s course grade.
• Reduction in the number of End-of-Course tests
administered in high school and/or required for
• Changes to graduation requirements and the
establishment of a “foundation” graduation plan with
more flexibility for substitution of Career and
Technology Education courses in math and science.

similar documents