The Latest on A-F 2018 Accountability

Transcription

1 The Latest on A-F 2018 Accountability Cheri Hendrick Accountability & Assessment Specialist (210)

2 TEA 2018 Accountability Development Website

3 The Implementation of House Bill 22 C OLLABORATING TO B UILD A B ETTER ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEM

4 A F Accountability: Legislative Context HB 2804 HB 22 House Bill 22, 85 th Texas Legislature The commissioner shall evaluate school district and campus performance and assign each district and campus an overall performance rating of A B C D or F 4

5 A F Accountability: Gathering Stakeholder Input House Bill 22, 85 th Texas Legislature... the commissioner shall solicit input statewide from persons..., including school district boards of trustees, administrators and teachers employed by school districts, parents of students enrolled in school districts, and other interested stakeholders. Surveys Closed Thursday 11/30/17: Survey for Student Achievement Domain Survey for School Progress Domain Survey Still Open: Survey for Closing the Gaps Domain Feedback Link: feedbackaf@tea.texas.gov 5

6 Three Domains: Combining to Calculate Overall Score Best of Achievement or Progress Minimum 30% August 15, 2018 Districts receive an A, B, C, D or F Campuses receive a Met Standard or Improvement Required Student Achievement School Progress Closing The Gaps August 15, 2019 Districts receive an A, B, C, D or F Campuses receive an A, B, C, D or F 66

7 Design Approach: Philosophical Commitments 1 The commissioner shall ensure that the method used to evaluate performance is implemented in a manner that provides the mathematical possibility that all districts and campuses receive an A rating. No Forced Distribution 2 We WANT stability in the model, we do not want the bar to keep changing. We want to commit to something where the bar will remain static for 5 years, where the rules don t change. Law switched from annually to periodically 7

8 A F Accountability: New Labels/Grades A = Exemplary Performance B = Recognized Performance C = Acceptable Performance D = In Need of Improvement F = Unacceptable Performance 8

9 Overall Change for the Inclusion of English Learners ATAC Notes: ELL Progress is discontinued ** New EL Performance Measure for second year ELs in development Page 3 4 of HB 22 Domain Models Will only be reported in Accountability (data file) Will not be on STAAR Report Card Inclusion of English Learners in 2018 Accountability 9

10 Student Achievement: Performance School Progress Closing The Gaps Student Achievement Approaches or Above Meets or Above Masters

11 Student Achievement: Calculating Score Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board By 2030, at least 60 percent of Texans ages will have a certificate or degree. All Students Total Tests 3,212 Student Achievement Score A # Approaches or Above 2,977 # Meets or Above 1,945 # Masters 878 % Approaches Grade Level or Above % Meets Grade Level or Above % Masters Grade Level 92.7% 60.6% 27.3% Average of / 3 =

12 Student Achievement: Calculating Score Elementary School Middle School High School College, Career, Military Ready (CCM-R) Graduation Rates 12

13 Student Achievement: CCM-R Indicators for HS College Ready Meet criteria on AP/IB exams Meet TSI criteria (SAT/ACT/TSIA) in Reading and Mathematics Complete college prep course offered by a partnership between a district and higher education institution Complete dual credit Complete OnRamps courses Earn an associate s degree Meet standards on composite of indicators indicating college readiness Career Ready Earn industry certification Be admitted to post-secondary industry certification program Military Ready Enlist in the Armed Forces Computational Logic Denominator is annual graduates. Student who accomplishes any one is in numerator. All CCMR indicators lag by one year. CCMR data used in accountability will be from the school year. Not available for 2018 Accountability

14 Additional ATAC Notes: STAAR Substitute assessment credit at approaches, meets and masters levels STAAR Alternate 2 Level II Satisfactory credit for approaches and meets Level III Advanced credit at masters level Conversation on CTE Coherent sequence phase out ATAC and APAC Concerns and Recommendations 14

15 School Progress: Growth Student Achievement Closing The Gaps School Progress 15

16 School Progress: Two Aspects to Progress Part A: Student Growth Part B: Relative Performance 16

17 STAAR Progress How is Growth Defined? Expected Growth Scale Score Meets Grade Level Meets Grade Level Previous Year Current Year

18 STAAR Progress Proposed New Calculations will simplify the system and these two columns are no longer needed Meets Grade Level current year - Meets Grade Level previous year Masters Grade Level current year - Masters Grade Level previous year Masters Grade Level current year - Meets Grade Level previous year only missed three questions Just guessing 18

19 Student Growth: Percent of Students Gaining Current Year Does Not Approach Grade Level Approaches Grade Level Meets Grade Level Masters Grade Level Does Not Approach Grade Level Met/Exceeded Growth Measure = 1 pt Did not meet = 0 pts Met/Exceeded Growth Measure = 1 pt Did not meet =.5 pts 1 pt 1 pt Previous Year Approaches Grade Level Meets Grade Level Met/Exceeded Growth Measure = 1 pt Did not meet = 0 pts Met/Exceeded Growth Measure = 1 pt Did not meet =.5 pts 1 pt 1 pt 0 pts 0 pts 1 pt 1 pt Masters Grade Level 0 pts 0 pts 0 pts 1 pt 19

20 Relative Performance: Measuring School Progress Higher Levels of Student Achievement Student Achievement Domain Score for All Students A campus with fewer economically disadvantaged students on average has higher levels of student achievement A campus with more economically disadvantaged students tends to have lower levels of student achievement % Economically Disadvantaged Students Higher Rates of Economically Disadvantaged

21 Relative Performance: Measuring School Progress Higher Levels of Student Achievement Adjusted modeling data in HB 22 Domain Models Student Achievement Domain Score for All Students A B C D F % Economically Disadvantaged Students Higher Rates of Economically Disadvantaged

22 Additional ATAC Notes: Adjusted modeling data page of HB 22 Domain Models A lot of conversation on Part B Relative Performance Now has four campus types: Elementary (4,219) Middle School (1,653) K 12 (334) High School (1,271) As well as District (1,203) ATAC and APAC Concerns and Recommendations 22

23 Closing the Gaps: Ensuring Educational Equity Student Achievement School Progress Closing The Gaps 23

24 Closing the Gaps: Aligning Accountability Systems Closing The Gaps TEA ESSA Website Appendix A pages

25 Closing the Gaps: Ensuring Educational Equity All Students Race/Ethnicity Special Education Continuously Enrolled and Mobile English Learners (ELs) Economically Disadvantaged x x 25

26 Closing the Gaps: Ensuring Educational Equity Subgroups Indicators All Students Academic Achievement in Reading, African American Mathematics, Writing, Science and Social Studies Hispanic Growth in Reading and Mathematics White (Elementary and Middle Schools) American Indian Graduation Rates Asian English Learner Language Proficiency Pacific Islander College, Career, and Military Readiness Two or More Races Performance Economically Disadvantaged At or Above Meets Grade Level Performance Current and Former Special Education in Reading and Mathematics Current and Monitored English Language Learners new adding M3 and M4 Continuously Enrolled/Non-Continuously Enrolled 26

27 Closing the Gaps: Student Groups Continuously Enrolled and Non-Continuously Enrolled Not defined by HB 22 Districts Grades 4 12: Enrolled at a district in the fall snapshot in the current school year and each of the three previous years Grade 3: Enrolled at a district in the fall snapshot in the current school year and each of the previous two years Campuses Grades 4 12: Enrolled at a campus in the fall snapshot in the current school year and in the same district in each of the three previous years Grade 3: Enrolled at a campus in the fall snapshot in the current school year and in the same district each of the previous two years Feedback Opportunity Should we use an alternate definition? If so, what? 27

28 Additional ATAC Notes: Minimum size: All Students 10 Student Groups 25 TELPAS data source 2018 New TELPAS Safe Harbor Continuously Enrolled: Model data District PEIMS Snapshot Fall 2013, 2014, 2015 and Accountability would be District PEIMS Snapshot Fall 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017 ATAC and APAC Concerns and Recommendations 28

29 29

30 Overall A F Rating ATAC Meeting November 16 17, 2017 HB 22 Domain Models pages 29 31

31 Local Accountability Plan: Local Accountability *Example *Example Student Achievement School Progress Closing The Gaps Extra- Sa Curricular Activities Local Assessments 31

32 A F Timeline: Domain Development Expected Timeline Activity Stakeholder feedback ATAC and APAC monthly subcommittee meetings Training Sessions with ESC: HB 22 Overview and Student Achievement Domain Aug. December 2017 Training Sessions with ESC: School Progress Domain Training Sessions with ESC: Closing the Gaps Domain September 18 19, ATAC meeting October 11 12, APAC meeting November, ATAC meeting (final recommendations for 2018 A F) December, APAC meeting (final recommendations for 2018 A F) January April 2018 Continued stakeholder feedback Commissioner final 2018 A F decisions 2018 A F accountability manual creation May June 2018 Public comment on A F accountability manual 2018 A F Manual adoption

33 A F Accountability: Gathering Stakeholder Input House Bill 22, 85 th Texas Legislature... the commissioner shall solicit input statewide from persons..., including school district boards of trustees, administrators and teachers employed by school districts, parents of students enrolled in school districts, and other interested stakeholders. Surveys Closed Thursday 11/30/17: Survey for Student Achievement Domain Survey for School Progress Domain Survey Still Open: Survey for Closing the Gaps Domain Feedback Link: feedbackaf@tea.texas.gov 33