Commissioner s Update on A F Accountability Model OVERVIEW OF CURRENT WORK-IN-PROGRESS 1
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 2
3 Domains: Combining To Calculate Overall Score Best of Achievement or Progress Minimum 30% Student Achievement School Progress Closing The Gaps Key Decision Points Certain methodology decision in each domain Cut points for each Tier in each domain 3
Design Approach: Two 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 4
Student Achievement: Calculating Score Elementary School Middle School High School STAAR College, Career, Military Ready (CCM-R) Graduation Rates Decision Point Weights between these 3 for HS 5
Student Achievement: CCM-R Indicators for HS College Ready Meet criteria on AP/IB exams Meet TSI criteria (SAT/ACT/TSIA) Complete college partner college prep courses Complete dual credit/onramps courses Earn an associate s degree Meet standards on composite indicators indicating readiness Career Ready Earn industry certification Get admitted to post-secondary industry certification program Military Ready Enlist in the Armed Forces 6
Student Achievement: Calculating Score Domain 1 Score All Students A Total Tests 3,212 # or Above 2,977 Average of 3 # or Above 1,945 # 878 92.7 + 60.6 + 27.3 / 3 = 60.2 % or Above 92.7% % or Above 60.6% % 27.3% 7
School Progress: Two Aspects to Progress Student Growth Relative Performance Decision Point: Will this be best of? Average of the two? 8
Student Growth: Percent of Students Gaining Decision Point: What percent of students should meet growth targets? Student Growth STAAR Scale Score Does Not Meet Does Not Meet Exceeds Expected Maintains Limited + 1 Point Awarded For meeting or exceeding expected growth +.5 Points Awarded For maintaining proficiency but failing to meet expected growth + 0 Points Awarded For falling to a lower level 3 rd Grade 4 th Grade 9
Student Growth: Percent of Students Gaining Current Year Previous Year Does Not Approach Does Not Approach Did not meet = 0 pts Did not meet = 0 pts Did not meet =.5 pts Did not meet =.5 pts 1 pt 1 pt 1 pt 1 pt 0 pts 0 pts 1 pt 1 pt 0 pts 0 pts 0 pts 1 pt 10
Student Growth: Percent of Students Gaining Current Year Previous Year Does Not Approach Does Not Approach Did not meet = 0 pts Did not meet = 0 pts Did not meet =.5 pts Did not meet =.5 pts 1 pt 1 pt 1 pt 1 pt 0 pts 0 pts 1 pt 1 pt 0 pts 0 pts 0 pts 1 pt 11
Student Growth: Percent of Students Gaining Current Year Previous Year Does Not Approach Does Not Approach Did not meet = 0 pts Did not meet = 0 pts Did not meet =.5 pts Did not meet =.5 pts 1 pt 1 pt 1 pt 1 pt 0 pts 0 pts 1 pt 1 pt 0 pts 0 pts 0 pts 1 pt 12
Student Growth: Percent of Students Gaining Current Year Previous Year Does Not Approach Does Not Approach Did not meet = 0 pts Did not meet = 0 pts Did not meet =.5 pts Did not meet =.5 pts 1 pt 1 pt 1 pt 1 pt 0 pts 0 pts 1 pt 1 pt 0 pts 0 pts 0 pts 1 pt 13
Relative Performance: Measuring School Progress Higher Levels of Student Achievement Student Achievement Domain for All Students A campus with fewer students on FRL on average has higher levels of student achievement % of Students on Free and Reduced-Priced Lunch (FRL) A campus with more students on FRL tends to have lower levels of student achievement Higher Rates of Economically Disadvantaged 14
Relative Performance: Measuring School Progress Higher Levels of Student Achievement Student Achievement Domain for All Students A B C D F % of Students on Free and Reduced-Priced Lunch (FRL) Higher Rates of Economically Disadvantaged 15
Closing the Gaps: Ensuring Educational Equity All Students Race/Ethnicity Special Education English Learners Continuously Enrolled & Mobile Students x 16
Closing the Gaps: Ensuring Educational Equity Subgroup Achievement Target % of Subgroups that meet target Overall Grade 17
Local Accountability Plan: Local Accountability *Example *Example Student Achievement School Progress Closing The Gaps Extra- Sa Curricular Activities Local Assessments 18
A F Timeline: Implementation of HB 22 HB 22 Passed by the 85 th Texas Legislature (May 2017) Start of pilot group to design local accountability (Fall 2017) Rules finalized for 3 domain system (Spring 2018) Rules adopted for local accountability system and application window opens (Fall 2018) Campuses: A F labels take effect and local accountability system is incorporated (August 2019) Task Force launches on how to incorporate extracurricular activities (Winter 2017) 3 domain system rates all campuses and districts. Takes effect as follows: Districts: A F Rating Labels Campuses: Continue Improvement Required or Met Standard (August 2018) What If report on Campus performance, based on prior year (January 2019) 19