Accountability 101
Accountability 101 Fall 2016 – What we know as of this minute on this day!
Richele Langley, Deputy Executive Director of Academics Region 8 ESC [email protected]
New Dates August 12: Ratings but with no data to districts (Index Scores) August 15: Ratings made Public August 26: Districts get their data tables September 16: Districts get Distinctions September 30: Appeals for Ratings Due into TEA December: Final Ratings made Public December: Commissioner Adopts Indicators for A-F January: TEA Reports “Practice A-F” for Districts Summer: Districts report to TEA which 3 indicators they will use to rate themselves on Domain 5 Disclaimer: LEGISLATURE MEETS THIS SPRING!
2
2013 ≠ 2014 ≠ 2015 ≠ 2016
• Significant changes each year • • •
Methodology and/or Data 2016 Accountability is “relatively stable” in terms of methodology Biggest changes for 2016 involve data – which tests are included and at what standard?
Performance Index Framework For 2013 and beyond, an accountability framework of four performance indices includes a broad set of measures that provide a comprehensive evaluation of the campus or district.
Student Achievement Index I
Postsecondary Readiness Index 4
Accountability System
Student Progress Index 2
Closing Performance Gaps Index 3
4 Texas Education Agency | Assessment and Accountability | Performance Reporting
Our current accountability system is built on a Standard Progression Model. So how do we talk about the standard progression model? • Each year for the next 7 years, it will get a little harder to pass STAAR • So … maintaining the same pass rate each year will represent instructional progress for a campus
• In 5 of the next 7 years, the Standard Progression model results in the same or lower passing standard than would have been applicable in the “stair-step” phase-in plan
Index 1: Student Achievement Index 1: Student Achievement provides an overview of student performance based on satisfactory student achievement across all subjects for all students.
Subjects evaluated: English language arts/reading, mathematics, writing, science, and social studies, combined over all subject areas
Student Group: All Students, including ELLs as indicated on slide 5 Performance Standards: Level II Satisfactory Standard
6 Texas Education Agency | Assessment and Accountability | Performance Reporting
Index 2: Student Progress Index 2: Student Progress provides an opportunity for districts and campuses to receive credit for improving student performance independent of overall student achievement.
Subjects evaluated: Progress outcomes for reading and mathematics assessments only
Student Group: All Students, students served by special education, ELL students identified as LEP or students who are in their first or second years of monitoring after exiting ELL status, and seven racial/ethnic groups
Performance Standards: Level II Satisfactory Standard Construction: Weighted scores are calculated based on students’ level of performance: one point for each percentage of assessment results that met or exceeded progress measure expectations, one point for each percentage of results that exceeded progress measure expectations aggregated across subjects. 7 Texas Education Agency | Assessment and Accountability | Performance Reporting
staar progress? • Evaluate the gain a student makes from his/her scale score in subject area in Previous Year to his/her scale score in the same subject area in Current Year • Each student is assigned a progress category based on change in scale score in relation to expected progress
• Did Not Meet Progress • Met Progress
• Exceeded Progress
What does 5th %ile mean? • Let’s say there are only 100 middle school campuses in the state (instead of 1,694) • And these are their Index 2 scores, ranked from highest to lowest • The 5th %ile is the number that separates the bottom 5% of the campuses (i.e., the “worst 5 scores”) from the top 95% • So … in this case, the Index 2 target would be …
• 19!
Index 2 Score
Index 2 Score
78 77 76 75 73 72 72 71 70 69 68 67 67 66 66 66 65 64 64 64 63 63 63 62 61 60 60 59 59 59 59 58 57 57 57 57 55 54 54 54 53 52 51 51 50 50 49 48 47 47
46 46 44 43 43 42 42 42 41 40 40 39 39 38 38 37 37 35 34 33 32 32 31 30 29 28 28 27 27 26 25 25 24 24 23 23 22 21 21 21 21 20 20 19 19 18 17 17 17 16
Lowest 5 scores (5%)
Index 3: Closing Performance Gaps 10
Index 3: Closing Performance Gaps emphasizes advanced academic achievement of economically disadvantaged students and the two lowest performing racial/ethnic student groups from the prior year. Construction: One point is given for each percentage of tests meeting or exceeding the Level II Satisfactory Standard. Two points are given for each percentage of tests meeting the Level III Advanced Standard on the STAAR assessment.
10 Texas Education Agency | Assessment and Accountability | Performance Reporting
Index 4: Postsecondary Readiness Index 4: Postsecondary Readiness emphasizes the role of elementary and middle schools in preparing students for the rigors of high school and earning a high school diploma that provides the foundation necessary for success in college, the workforce, job training programs, or the military. Construction: For non-AEA districts and campuses, Index 4 is based on four components with one exception: when data are missing for any of the three non-STAAR components, it is based solely on the STAAR component. Index 4 Components
Weight
1. STAAR at Postsecondary Readiness Standard
25%
2. Graduation Rate (or Dropout Rate)
25%
3. Graduation Diploma Plan
25%
4. Postsecondary Component: College and Career Readiness
25%
11 Texas Education Agency | Assessment and Accountability | Performance Reporting
Key Topics for 2016 Accountability Issue Ratings criteria
Final Decision For 2016 accountability, districts and campuses must meet three out of four performance index targets. To receive a Met Standard or Met Alternative Standard rating, a district or campus must meet the target on each index for which it has performance data for evaluation.
Index 1 or Index 2
and
Index 3
and
Index 4
Because the progress measure for STAAR A and STAAR Alt 2 will be included for the first time, it is difficult to anticipate how this will affect the Index 2 outcomes. In addition, this addresses the concern with the limited availability of progress measures on the EOC assessments. 3rd-8th Math inclusion for this year might also change ratings. 12 Texas Education Agency | Assessment and Accountability | Performance Reporting
13
14
Index 1
Index 3
Index 4
the “new” accountability system • Rewards Performance (particularly Level III) …
• AND Progress
DOUBLE POINTS toward a Weighted Score (Index 3)
• It’s about …
Level I
Level II
Level III
… moving ALL kids to the right!
Satisfactory
Advanced
Level I
Level II
Level III
Unsatisfactory Academic Performance
Satisfactory Academic Performance
Advanced Academic Performance
Inadequately Prepared
Sufficiently Prepared
Traditional “bubble” kids
Well Prepared
The new “bubble” kids
Student Achievement
2016 Accountability System
Index 1 Student Achievement
Student Progress
Index 2 Student Progress
Are we meeting the needs of all students? Are we preparing students for the future? How are we doing? Postsecondary Readiness Are our interventions working for all students? Index 4 Postsecondary Readiness
Index 3 Closing Performance Gaps
the 4 BIG questions
Closing Performance Gaps
One more thing: STAGING • Stage 1 • Stage 2 • Stage 3 • Stage 4 • State Accountability: IR or System Safeguards? • PBMAS: BE/ESL, CTE, NCLB, SPED? • A COMMITTEE MUST BUILD THE PLAN! 1or more missed means build a plan. 19
Resources 2016 Accountability Development http://tea.texas.gov/Student_Testing_and_Accountability/Accountability/State_A ccountability/Performance_Reporting/2016_Accountability_Development_Materi als/.
Accountability Rating System https://rptsvr1.tea.texas.gov/perfreport/account/. Performance Reporting Home Page http://tea.texas.gov/accountability
Performance Reporting E-mail [email protected] Division of Performance Reporting Telephone (512) 463-9704 John Fesenden; www.lead4ward.com/resources 29
Texas Education Agency | Assessment and Accountability | Performance Reporting
Richele Langley, Deputy Executive Director of Academics Region 8 ESC [email protected]
New Dates August 12: Ratings but with no data to districts (Index Scores) August 15: Ratings made Public August 26: Districts get their data tables September 16: Districts get Distinctions September 30: Appeals for Ratings Due into TEA December: Final Ratings made Public December: Commissioner Adopts Indicators for A-F January: TEA Reports “Practice A-F” for Districts Summer: Districts report to TEA which 3 indicators they will use to rate themselves on Domain 5 Disclaimer: LEGISLATURE MEETS THIS SPRING!
2
2013 ≠ 2014 ≠ 2015 ≠ 2016
• Significant changes each year • • •
Methodology and/or Data 2016 Accountability is “relatively stable” in terms of methodology Biggest changes for 2016 involve data – which tests are included and at what standard?
Performance Index Framework For 2013 and beyond, an accountability framework of four performance indices includes a broad set of measures that provide a comprehensive evaluation of the campus or district.
Student Achievement Index I
Postsecondary Readiness Index 4
Accountability System
Student Progress Index 2
Closing Performance Gaps Index 3
4 Texas Education Agency | Assessment and Accountability | Performance Reporting
Our current accountability system is built on a Standard Progression Model. So how do we talk about the standard progression model? • Each year for the next 7 years, it will get a little harder to pass STAAR • So … maintaining the same pass rate each year will represent instructional progress for a campus
• In 5 of the next 7 years, the Standard Progression model results in the same or lower passing standard than would have been applicable in the “stair-step” phase-in plan
Index 1: Student Achievement Index 1: Student Achievement provides an overview of student performance based on satisfactory student achievement across all subjects for all students.
Subjects evaluated: English language arts/reading, mathematics, writing, science, and social studies, combined over all subject areas
Student Group: All Students, including ELLs as indicated on slide 5 Performance Standards: Level II Satisfactory Standard
6 Texas Education Agency | Assessment and Accountability | Performance Reporting
Index 2: Student Progress Index 2: Student Progress provides an opportunity for districts and campuses to receive credit for improving student performance independent of overall student achievement.
Subjects evaluated: Progress outcomes for reading and mathematics assessments only
Student Group: All Students, students served by special education, ELL students identified as LEP or students who are in their first or second years of monitoring after exiting ELL status, and seven racial/ethnic groups
Performance Standards: Level II Satisfactory Standard Construction: Weighted scores are calculated based on students’ level of performance: one point for each percentage of assessment results that met or exceeded progress measure expectations, one point for each percentage of results that exceeded progress measure expectations aggregated across subjects. 7 Texas Education Agency | Assessment and Accountability | Performance Reporting
staar progress? • Evaluate the gain a student makes from his/her scale score in subject area in Previous Year to his/her scale score in the same subject area in Current Year • Each student is assigned a progress category based on change in scale score in relation to expected progress
• Did Not Meet Progress • Met Progress
• Exceeded Progress
What does 5th %ile mean? • Let’s say there are only 100 middle school campuses in the state (instead of 1,694) • And these are their Index 2 scores, ranked from highest to lowest • The 5th %ile is the number that separates the bottom 5% of the campuses (i.e., the “worst 5 scores”) from the top 95% • So … in this case, the Index 2 target would be …
• 19!
Index 2 Score
Index 2 Score
78 77 76 75 73 72 72 71 70 69 68 67 67 66 66 66 65 64 64 64 63 63 63 62 61 60 60 59 59 59 59 58 57 57 57 57 55 54 54 54 53 52 51 51 50 50 49 48 47 47
46 46 44 43 43 42 42 42 41 40 40 39 39 38 38 37 37 35 34 33 32 32 31 30 29 28 28 27 27 26 25 25 24 24 23 23 22 21 21 21 21 20 20 19 19 18 17 17 17 16
Lowest 5 scores (5%)
Index 3: Closing Performance Gaps 10
Index 3: Closing Performance Gaps emphasizes advanced academic achievement of economically disadvantaged students and the two lowest performing racial/ethnic student groups from the prior year. Construction: One point is given for each percentage of tests meeting or exceeding the Level II Satisfactory Standard. Two points are given for each percentage of tests meeting the Level III Advanced Standard on the STAAR assessment.
10 Texas Education Agency | Assessment and Accountability | Performance Reporting
Index 4: Postsecondary Readiness Index 4: Postsecondary Readiness emphasizes the role of elementary and middle schools in preparing students for the rigors of high school and earning a high school diploma that provides the foundation necessary for success in college, the workforce, job training programs, or the military. Construction: For non-AEA districts and campuses, Index 4 is based on four components with one exception: when data are missing for any of the three non-STAAR components, it is based solely on the STAAR component. Index 4 Components
Weight
1. STAAR at Postsecondary Readiness Standard
25%
2. Graduation Rate (or Dropout Rate)
25%
3. Graduation Diploma Plan
25%
4. Postsecondary Component: College and Career Readiness
25%
11 Texas Education Agency | Assessment and Accountability | Performance Reporting
Key Topics for 2016 Accountability Issue Ratings criteria
Final Decision For 2016 accountability, districts and campuses must meet three out of four performance index targets. To receive a Met Standard or Met Alternative Standard rating, a district or campus must meet the target on each index for which it has performance data for evaluation.
Index 1 or Index 2
and
Index 3
and
Index 4
Because the progress measure for STAAR A and STAAR Alt 2 will be included for the first time, it is difficult to anticipate how this will affect the Index 2 outcomes. In addition, this addresses the concern with the limited availability of progress measures on the EOC assessments. 3rd-8th Math inclusion for this year might also change ratings. 12 Texas Education Agency | Assessment and Accountability | Performance Reporting
13
14
Index 1
Index 3
Index 4
the “new” accountability system • Rewards Performance (particularly Level III) …
• AND Progress
DOUBLE POINTS toward a Weighted Score (Index 3)
• It’s about …
Level I
Level II
Level III
… moving ALL kids to the right!
Satisfactory
Advanced
Level I
Level II
Level III
Unsatisfactory Academic Performance
Satisfactory Academic Performance
Advanced Academic Performance
Inadequately Prepared
Sufficiently Prepared
Traditional “bubble” kids
Well Prepared
The new “bubble” kids
Student Achievement
2016 Accountability System
Index 1 Student Achievement
Student Progress
Index 2 Student Progress
Are we meeting the needs of all students? Are we preparing students for the future? How are we doing? Postsecondary Readiness Are our interventions working for all students? Index 4 Postsecondary Readiness
Index 3 Closing Performance Gaps
the 4 BIG questions
Closing Performance Gaps
One more thing: STAGING • Stage 1 • Stage 2 • Stage 3 • Stage 4 • State Accountability: IR or System Safeguards? • PBMAS: BE/ESL, CTE, NCLB, SPED? • A COMMITTEE MUST BUILD THE PLAN! 1or more missed means build a plan. 19
Resources 2016 Accountability Development http://tea.texas.gov/Student_Testing_and_Accountability/Accountability/State_A ccountability/Performance_Reporting/2016_Accountability_Development_Materi als/.
Accountability Rating System https://rptsvr1.tea.texas.gov/perfreport/account/. Performance Reporting Home Page http://tea.texas.gov/accountability
Performance Reporting E-mail [email protected] Division of Performance Reporting Telephone (512) 463-9704 John Fesenden; www.lead4ward.com/resources 29
Texas Education Agency | Assessment and Accountability | Performance Reporting
