A-F Rating and State Accountability System - PowerPoint Presentation

A-F Rating and State Accountability System HB 2804, 84 th Texas Legislature December 2016

Background Information 84 th Legislative session, 2015, passed this Thought to be more easily understood by public Goes into effect in the 2017-2018 school year We get a sneak peek of ratings for 2015-16 school year Ends Index Scores after 2016-17 A-F will replace the Indexes Will still keep Academic Achievement Distinctions Designations, System Safeguards, PBMAS

Timeline December 1, 2016: Commissioner released basic recommendations and the timeline December 16, 2016 Unmasked data tables and planned methodologies of ratings in TEASE December 30, 2016 Districts and campuses receive A-F letter ratings based on 2016 data based on Domains 1-4. Sent to the legislature before districts January 4, 2017 TEA releases provisional A-F report with ratings through TEASE January 6, 2017 TEA releases provisional A-F report with ratings to public on TEA website

Proposed A-F rating measurements Ratings will be determined in three distinct categories: STAAR/EOC Postsecondary Readiness Community and Student Engagement Final recommendations for STAAR related data have not been made public. Commissioner Recommendation: Either Student Achievement or Student Progress = 35%Closing Gaps = 20%The “sneak peek” will not include the Community and Student Engagement piece.

Compare what we know to what is changing It’s always better to start with what we know to understand what we need to know.

Index 1 to Domain 1: Index 1: Who passed STAAR content tests? # of Tests Passed # of Tests Taken All Subjects. All Grades. All Students. One Number . (ALL NISD met expectations in Index 1 for 2016) Domain 1: Who passed and who is Level II, Recommended?

Domain 1What we need to know: Students measured at passing standard. (Level II 2016) Students measured at Final Level II standard. (Postsecondary Readiness standard according to STAAR) Can bump up a letter grade if in the top quartile of comparison groupings. (Advanced, Level III counts here.)

Index 2 to Domain 2: Index 2: Did all of our students improve their 2016 scores from their 2015 scores by X amount? Domain 2: To what degree are students improving scores year-to-year?

Domain 2What we need to know: Growth is still rewarded There may be a change in how growth is calculated Can bump up a letter grade if in the top quartile of comparison groupings.

Index 3 to Domain 3: Index 3 – Are lower performing subpopulations improving each year? Focuses on Economically Disadvantaged Students AND Lowest Performing Race/Ethnicity Groups from Previous Year Groups Must Meet Minimum Size of 25 Reading Tests AND 25 Math Tests last year AND this year Campuses could have 0, 1, or 2 Race/Ethnicity groups (see accountability manual for details) Domain 3: Are all subpopulations passing?

Domain 3 What we need to know: All subpopulations with 40 or more students tested will be included Looks at “gaps” between the groups performance

Index 4 to Domain 4: Index 4: Postsecondary Readiness. Domain 4:

Domain 4 need to know: Elementary schools: will only be held accountable to the “ c hronic absenteeism rate” * Chronic absenteeism based on stable, non-mobile students, enrolled 85% of the school year or more, with more 10% or more absent days. Middle schools: Chronic absenteeism rateAnnual 7-8 dropout ratePreparation courses (after 2017)High schools:Percent of students meeting at least ONE of the following:Complete CTE coherent sequenceComplete one or more AP/IB coursesComplete 12 hours or more of earned postsecondary creditAchieve TSI benchmark on TSAI, SAT, or ACTGraduation rateGraduation Plan Rate

Community and Student Engagement (CaSE ) to Domain 5 CaSE (HB5) Self reports on all eight pieces of the rubric HB5, 83 rd legislative Domain 5Chooses 3 of 8 of the locally determined indicators Will not be part of the “sneak peek”

Timeline December 1, 2016: Commissioner released basic recommendations and the timeline December 16, 2016 Unmasked data tables and planned methodologies of ratings in TEASE December 30, 2016 Districts and campuses receive A-F letter ratings based on 2016 data based on Domains 1-4. Sent to the legislature before districtsJanuary 4, 2017TEA releases provisional A-F report with ratings through TEASEJanuary 6, 2017TEA releases provisional A-F report with ratings to public on TEA website

Why this is a flawed accountability system: It is not transparent and simple. Regression models Lagging data Pages of statistical computations Over half of the measurement is still based on standardized tests. One day, one shot, one score; measured multiple ways. Standardized tests were not designed to rank organizationsPostsecondary readiness is not well defined, particularly in elementary and middle schools.Indirect measure of chronic absenteeism Someone will lose.Where you start often determines where you end. System is set to over-penalize one year of inadequate results.