Texas 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 Accountability 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 2 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 3 Legislative Requirements • Goals of the new system: • Improve student achievement at all levels in the core • • • • • subjects.* 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 districts* 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. 4 Framework Selected for State Accountability: Performance Index System 5 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. 6 7 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. 8 9 10 Index 1: Student Achievement • STAAR results summed across all tests, grades, and subjects • Measure: % of tests at the Level II Phase 1 standard 11 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. 12 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. 13 Index 4: Postsecondary Readiness Credit based on average of two postsecondary indicators: 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 14 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. 15 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 performance • Implement interventions based on minimum participation rate targets • Implement interventions for excessive use of STAARModified or STAAR-Alternate 16 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 17 Major Tasks Still Left: • Determine how index evaluation will result in campus and district ratings • Finalize minimum size requirements for student groups • Determine system safeguards • Campus Rating Distinctions • Alternative Education Accountability • STAAR ELL Development Model (2014 and beyond) 18 Calendar 19 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 reports. August 8, 2013 Campus and district accountability ratings for 2013 released. EOC Exams, Grading, and Graduation 20 • 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 graduation. • 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.