2016 State Accountability ATAC Recommendations

Transcription

1 2016 State Accountability ATAC Recommendations December 2-3, 2015

2 2016 ATAC Topics of Discussion State Ratings Transition to New Accountability System Index Targets Index 4 Postsecondary Readiness Assessments

3 Recommendations Changes to 2016 Accountability Index Issue Current Proposal Index 1 Student Achievement Index 2 Student Progress Index 3 Closing Achievement Gaps Index 4 Post Secondary Readiness Increase in STAAR Satisfactory Academic Performance Standard and the inclusion of STAAR A and STAAR Alt. 2 Changes in grade 4 and 7 writing assessment could lead to lack of STAAR progress measures. STAAR progress measures will not be reported for grade 7 writing in Set the target at 55 for 2016 accountability. May increase to 60 in 2017 accountability Set the target at the 5 th percentile based on campus type performance. Recommended that ELL progress measure for grade 4 and 7 writing be reported. Included STAAR A and STAAR Alt 2 in index 3. Set the target at the 5 th percentile of campus performance by campus type. Include STAAR A in index 4. Increase the target to 60% for districts and high school K-12 campuses rated on all four components. Set one target (12) for campuses and districts that have only STAAR components.

4 2016 Accountability Ratings ATAC Recommendations

5 2016 ATAC Recommendation State Accountability Ratings Criteria To attain a Met Standard rating, district and campuses must meet the target on the following indexes for which it has performance data in Index 1 or Index 2 Index 3 Index 4 Met Standard

6 2016 Proposed Index Targets ATAC Recommendations

7 2016 Proposed Targets District and Campus Standard Accountability Targets District/Campus Type Index 1 Student Achievement Index 2* Student Progress Index 3* Closing Performance Gaps Target Target Target Target All Components Index 4 Postsecondary Readiness Targets STAAR Components District At or about the 5 th percentile At or about the 5 th percentile 60% 12% Elementary School Middle School 55% At or about the 5 th percentile At or about the 5 th percentile At or about the 5 th percentile At or about the 5 th percentile NA 12% NA 12% High School/K- 12 Campus At or about the 5 th percentile At or about the 5 th percentile 60% 12% *Index 2 and Index 3 targets for non AEA campuses will be set at about the fifth percentile of non AEA 2016 campus performance by campus type.

8 2016 Proposed Targets District and Campus Alternative Education Accountability District/Campus Type Index 1 Student Achievement Index 2* Student Progress Index 3* Closing Performance Gaps Target Target Target Target Two Component s Index 4 Postsecondary Readiness Target Graduation Dropout AEA Campus 30% At or about the 5 th percentile At or about the 5 th percentile 33% 45% *Index 2 and Index 3 targets for AEA campuses and charters will be set at about the fifth percentile of AEA 2016 campus performance across all campus types.

9 Progression Performance Standards ( ) Adopted January 1, 2016 New Commissioner may make changes 3 6 Final

10 New Standard Progression Performance Standards Accountability Small Incremental Increases Annually

11 Inclusion of 2016 STAAR Assessments ATAC Recommendations

12 Inclusion of State Assessments Students with Disabilities Index 1 Index 2 Index 3 Index 4 STAAR STAAR A STAAR Alt. 2 STAAR STAAR A STAAR Alt. 2 STAAR STAAR A STAAR Alt. 2 STAAR STAAR A STAAR Alt. 2 (NA) Grades 3-8 mathematics included in 2016 accountability

13 Inclusion of ELLs with Parental Denials and ELLs without an ELL Progress Measure due to Year in US Schools Exceeding the ELL Plan Year 2016 ATAC Recommendations Years in US Schools Index 1 Index 2* Index 3 Index 4 First year of enrollment in U.S. schools Second year of enrollment in U.S. schools Third year of enrollment in U.S. schools Fourth year of enrollment in U.S. schools Fifth year of enrollment in U.S. schools Not Included Not Included Not Included Not Included STAAR Level II 2016 Standards Student Progress Measure STAAR Level II 2016 Standards & Level III STAAR Level II Final *Index 2 includes the appropriate student progress measure for which the ELL student was eligible, either the STAAR progress measure, ELL progress measure or the Spanish to English transition proxy calculation where applicable

14 Inclusion of English Language Learners ELL s Taking STAAR Alternate 2 Years in US Schools Index 1 Index 2* Index 3 Index 4 First year of enrollment in U.S. schools Second year of enrollment in U.S. schools Third year of enrollment in U.S. schools Fourth year of enrollment in U.S. schools STAAR Level II 2016 Standards Student Progress Measure STAAR Level II 2016 Standards & Level III Not Included Fifth year of enrollment in U.S. schools *Index 2 includes the appropriate student progress measure for which the ELL student was eligible, either the STAAR progress measure, ELL progress measure, or Spanish to English transition proxy calculation, where applicable. ELLs who take the STAAR Alternate 2 are included in each index in the same manner as non ELLs who take STAAR Alternate 2.

15 Inclusion of State Assessments English Language Learners 2015 Accountability 2016 ATAC Recommendation ELL Students Parental Denials Exceed Number of Years in ELL Plan STAAR L Students with no progress measure ELL YR. 2-4 Included in Index 4 After 1 st year of enrollment in U.S. School Included in Index 4 After 1 st Year of enrollment in U.S. schools Exclude these students assessment results from accountability.

16 Index 4: Postsecondary Readiness ATAC Recommendations

17 2016 Longitudinal Graduation Rate Four Year Graduation Rate State wide Goal Four Year Graduation Rate Annual Target Four Year Graduation Rate Growth Target Five Year Graduation Rate Annual Target 90.0 percent 88.0 percent 10.0 percent decrease in the difference between prior year graduation rate and the 90.0 percent goal Texas is required to use the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) dropout definition and federal graduation rate calculation percent Higher Federal/State Targets

18 Alternative Methods of Graduation Senate Bill 149 Students who graduate at the recommendation of an individual Graduation Committee (IGC) would be counted as graduates for the purpose of accountability

19 Plans Included in the Numerator 2016 Accountability Graduation Diploma Plans Graduation Plans 2016 Accountability Graduation Diploma Plans DAP DAP RHSP MHSP FHSP Update! Calculate both and select the best result for district and campus points RHSP FHSP-DLA with one or more endorsements & DLA FHSP-E with one or more endorsements FHSP & MHSP

20 Index 4: Postsecondary Readiness 2016 Preliminary Options Graduates Meeting criteria in reading, mathematics or writing on the ACT, SAT or *TSI assessments taken while in high school *For TSI portion, only use the reading and mathematics results for accountability. Writing report only.

21 Academic Achievement Distinctions Designations ATAC Recommendations

22 Academic Achievement Distinction Designations ATAC Recommendation Mathematics Science Reading/ELA Attendance Rate Social Studies Update: Include student attendance rates as a subject area distinction designation indicator in 2016 and Remove in 2018 when it becomes part of domain 4 under HB 2804

23 House Bill 2804: Next Generation Student Assessments: 55% Academic Attainment: 35% Community Student Engagement: 10% Domain 1 Domain 2 Domain 3 Domain 4 Domain 5 STAAR 3-8, EOC at satisfactory level STAAR 3-8, EOC at college readiness level STAAR Alt 2 at satisfactory level STAAR annual improvement at satisfactory level STAAR annual improvement at college readiness level STAAR Alt 2 annual improvement Reductions in academic achievement differentials among students from various racial/ethnic groups and socioeconomic backgrounds High School/ISD: Dropout rates Graduation rates (10%) Distinguished level Endorsements CTE completion TSI benchmarks 12+ hrs. postsec. credit AP course completion Military enlistment Certifications Elementary/Middle: Attendance, Dropout, High school prep Districts and campuses select three categories of Community and Student Engagement (CaSE) ratings before the start of the school year and report results to TEA for inclusion Schools and districts will be assigned a rating for each domain and an overall rating using the specified weights. Evaluation rules will ensure that unacceptable ratings in one domain cannot be masked by acceptable performance in other domains. Letter grades must be used by

24 House Bill 2804: Next Generation Student Assessments: 55% Domain 1 STAAR 3-8, EOC at satisfactory level STAAR 3-8, EOC at college readiness level STAAR Alt 2 at satisfactory level Weighting of Domains 1-3 Domain 2 STAAR annual improvement at satisfactory level STAAR annual improvement at college readiness level STAAR Alt 2 annual improvement Domain 3 Reductions in academic achievement differentials among students from various racial/ethnic groups and socioeconomic backgrounds Academic Attainment: 35% Domain 4 High School/ISD: Dropout rates Graduation rates (10%) Distinguished level Endorsements CTE completion TSI benchmarks 12+ hrs. postsec. credit AP course completion Military enlistment Certifications Elementary/Middle: Attendance, Dropout, High school prep Community Student Engagement: 10% Domain 5 Districts and campuses select three categories of Community and Student Engagement (CaSE) ratings before the start of the school year and report results to TEA for inclusion Key Issues In Transition

25 Proposed Campus and District A-F Ratings

26 STAAR Performance Domain I Proposed Methodology Percent Met College Readiness Standard Percent Met Satisfactory Academic Performance If performance is in the top 25% of comparable group, gate up one letter grade to A. Domain I Satisfactory Academic Performance College Readiness Performance Percent Met Points 1 point for each percent Weighting Total Points 68% 68 90% % 21 10% 2.1 Total 2016 Domain Region Score One Education Service Center 63.3

27 Sample Weights and Cut Points Final weights assigned to Domains I-III and cut points for each letter grade for Domains I-IV will be determined at a later date.

28 Proposed Overall A-F Example Cut Points Domain A B C D F Sample Campus Score Letter Grade Numerical Value Weight Total Points Domain B 89 15% Domain B 89 25% Domain C 79 15% Domain B 89 35% Domain 5 District assigns letter grade A % District/Campus Overall Rating = B 88.6

29 Overall A-F Example Comparable Group (Top 25%) Cut Points Domain A B C D F Sample Campus Score Letter Grade Numerical Value Weight Total Points Domain B A % Domain B 89 25% Domain C 79 15% Domain B 89 35% Domain 5 District assigns letter grade A % A-F Scores Overall <60 District/Campus Overall Rating = B A

30 2016 Accountability Development Timeline ATAC September 28-29, 2015 December 2-3, 2015 APAC October 26, 2015 January 22, 2016 Commissioner Typically April 2016 March 2016 (TBD) April 2016 (TBD)

31 Resources Texas Education Agency. (2016) Accountability Development Materials. Retrieved from: ormance_reporting/2016_accountability_development_materials/ Texas Education Agency. (December, 2015). Assessment and Accountability. Division of Performance Reporting. Technical Advisory Committee Meeting Accountability Technical Advisory Committee Summary of meeting on December 2-3, Retrieved from: ormance_reporting/2016_accountability_development_materials/ Texas Education Agency. (September, 2015). Assessment and Accountability. Division of Performance Reporting. Technical Advisory Committee Meeting Accountability Technical Advisory Committee Summary of meeting on September 28-29, Texas Education Agency. (February, 2015). Division of Performance Reporting Accountability Policy Advisory Committee (APAC). Discussion of Options for A-F Ratings Beginning 2017 Accountability. Retrieved from: F%20Ratings.pdf

32 Contacts Division of Instructional, School Improvement, and College Readiness Support Office of School Improvement, Accountability and Compliance Dr. Eduardo Cancino, Deputy Director Dr. Tina McIntyre, Administrator Belinda S. Gorena, Coordinator Ruben Degollado, Specialist Benjamin Macias, Evaluation and Assessment Specialist Kelly VanHee, Specialist