1 of 49

The Implementation of House Bill 22

Collaborating to Build a Better accountability system

2 of 49

2

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–F Accountability: Legislative Context

A B C D or F

HB

2804

HB

22

3 of 49

3

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.”

A–F Accountability: Gathering Stakeholder Input

Feedback Opportunities

Will solicit input on the aspects over which commissioner has authority

Won’t solicit input on aspects that are required by statute

Trustees

Parents

Administrators

Teachers

4 of 49

4

Closing

The Gaps

School

Progress

Student Achievement

Best of Achievement or Progress

Minimum 30%

Three Domains: Combining to Calculate Overall Score

4

Feedback Opportunities

Certain methodology decisions in each domain
Cut points for each grade in each domain
Weight (30% or more) to Closing the Gaps Domain

5 of 49

5

1

2

“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.”

We WANT stability in the model; we do not want the bar to

keep changing. We want to commit to something so the bar will remain static for five years, so the rules don’t change.

Design Approach: Philosophical Commitments

No forced distribution

Law switched from annually to periodically

6 of 49

6

A–F Accountability: New Labels/Grades

A = Exemplary Performance

B = Recognized Performance

C = Acceptable Performance

D = In Need of Improvement

F = Unacceptable Performance

7 of 49

7

Approaches or Above

Meets or Above

Masters

Student Achievement: Performance

7

Student Achievement

Closing

The Gaps

School

Progress

8 of 49

8

	All Students
Total Tests	3,212
# Approaches Grade Level or Above	2,977
# Meets Grade Level or Above	1,945
# Masters Grade Level	878
%
%
%

92.7 + 60.6 + 27.3

Average of 3

/ 3

Student Achievement Score

= 60.2

A

Approaches Grade Level or Above

Meets Grade Level or Above

Masters Grade Level

92.7%

60.6%

27.3%

Student Achievement: Calculating Score

8

Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board

By 2030, at least 60 percent of Texans ages 25–34 will have a certificate or degree.

9 of 49

9

Student Achievement: Calculating Score

College, Career, Military Ready (CCMR)
Graduation Rates

Elementary School

Middle School

High School

Feedback Opportunity

Weighting of three �high school components

10 of 49

10

Student Achievement: CCMR Indicators for HS

College Ready

Meet criteria on AP/IB exams
Meet TSI criteria (SAT/ACT/TSIA) in reading and mathematics
Complete a college prep course offered by a partnership between a district and higher education institution as required from HB5
Complete a course for dual credit
Complete an OnRamps course
Earn an associate’s degree
Meet standards on a composite of indicators indicating college readiness

Career Ready

Earn industry certification
Be admitted to post-secondary industry certification program

Military Ready

Enlist in the United States Armed Forces

11 of 49

11

School Progress: Growth

School Progress

Closing

The Gaps

Student Achievement

12 of 49

12

School Progress: Two Aspects to Progress

Student Growth

Relative Performance

Feedback Opportunities

Better of the two
Average of the two
Greater weight for one of them

13 of 49

13

Student Growth: Measuring Advancement

STAAR Performance Level

3^rd Grade Example

4^th Grade Example

Does Not Meet

Approaches

Meets

Masters

Exceeds

Expected

+ 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

Maintains

Limited

13

Feedback Opportunity

What percent of students should meet growth target to get an A?

14 of 49

14

Student Growth: Percentage of Students Gaining

	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
Approaches 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
Meets Grade Level	0 pts	0 pts	1 pt	1 pt
Masters Grade Level	0 pts	0 pts	0 pts	1 pt

Current Year

Previous Year

15 of 49

15

Student Growth: Percentage of Students Gaining

	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
Approaches 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
Meets Grade Level	0 pts	0 pts	1 pt	1 pt
Masters Grade Level	0 pts	0 pts	0 pts	1 pt

Current Year

Previous Year

15

16 of 49

16

Student Growth: Percentage of Students Gaining

	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
Approaches 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
Meets Grade Level	0 pts	0 pts	1 pt	1 pt
Masters Grade Level	0 pts	0 pts	0 pts	1 pt

Current Year

Previous Year

16

17 of 49

17

Student Growth: Percentage of Students Gaining

	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
Approaches 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
Meets Grade Level	0 pts	0 pts	1 pt	1 pt
Masters Grade Level	0 pts	0 pts	0 pts	1 pt

Current Year

Previous Year

17

18 of 49

18

Student Achievement �Domain Score for All Students

% Economically Disadvantaged Students

Average Line

Higher Levels

of Student

Achievement

Higher Rates of

Economically

Disadvantaged

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.

Relative Performance: Measuring School Progress

18

19 of 49

19

Student Achievement �Domain Score for All Students

% Economically Disadvantaged Students

Higher Levels

of Student

Achievement

Higher Rates of

Economically

Disadvantaged

Relative Performance: Measuring School Progress

A

B

C

D

F

19

20 of 49

20

Closing the Gaps: Ensuring Educational Equity

Closing

The Gaps

Student Achievement

School

Progress

21 of 49

21

Closing the Gaps: Ensuring Educational Equity

x

Race/Ethnicity

Special Education

English �Learners (ELs)

Continuously Enrolled �and Mobile

All Students

Economically�Disadvantaged

x

22 of 49

22

Closing the Gaps: Ensuring Educational Equity

Student Groups

All Students
African American
Hispanic
White
American Indian
Asian
Pacific Islander
Two or More Races
Economically Disadvantaged
Current and Former Special Education
Current and Monitored English Learners
Continuously Enrolled/Non-Continuously Enrolled

Indicators

Academic Achievement in Reading, Mathematics, Writing, Science and Social Studies
Growth in Reading and Mathematics (Elementary and Middle Schools)
Graduation Rates
English Learner Language Proficiency Status
College, Career, and Military Readiness Performance
At or Above Meets Grade Level Performance in Reading and Mathematics

23 of 49

23

Closing the Gaps: Ensuring Educational Equity

Student Group

Achievement Target

% of Subgroups

that meet target

Overall

Grade

24 of 49

24

Local Accountability Plan

Closing

The Gaps

School

Progress

Student Achievement

*Example

Sa

Extra-Curricular Activities

*Example

Local

Assessments

Local Accountability

25 of 49

25

Local Accountability Plan: Purpose and Requirements

Requirements for Districts

Local plans must include the TEA-assigned three domain performance ratings (at least 50% of the overall rating).
Locally developed domain and measures must provide for the assignment of A–F grades and be reliable and valid.

Purpose

To allow districts (at their option) to rate campuses using locally developed domains and accountability measures

Feedback Opportunity

Volunteer to participate in the pilot program.

More Requirements for Districts

Auditable calculations
Campus score card that can be displayed on TEA’s website
Publicly available explanation of the methodology used to assign ratings
Plans submitted to TEA for approval

26 of 49

26

Local Accountability Plan: Getting the Plan Approved

Requirements for Approval

The agency determines whether the plan meets the minimum requirements.
An audit conducted by the agency verifies calculations included in the plan.
A review panel approves the plan.

Authority

The commissioner has authority to develop the process to approve requests to assign campus performance ratings.

One Condition

A locally developed accountability system can only be used for campuses not assigned an overall rating of D or F by TEA.

Feedback Opportunity

Volunteer to participate in the pilot program.

27 of 49

27

New Indicator: Extracurricular/Cocurricular

Feasibility Study

Determine the feasibility of incorporating indicators that account for extracurricular and cocurricular student activity.
The commissioner may establish an advisory committee.

Report

A report to the legislature on the feasibility of these indicators is due by December 1, 2022, unless a similar indicator is adopted prior to December 1, 2022.

Feedback Opportunities

Make suggestions for extracurricular or cocurricular indicator
Volunteer to serve on a committee

28 of 49

28

HB 22 Passed by the

85^th Texas Legislature

(May 2017)

Rules adopted for local accountability system and application window opens

(Fall 2018)

Rules finalized for three

domain system

(Spring 2018)

Three domain system rates all campuses and districts. �Takes effect as follows:

Districts: A–F Rating Labels

Campuses: Improvement Required or Met Standard

(August 2018)

Campuses: A–F labels take effect

and local accountability

system is incorporated

(August 2019)

”What If” report on campus performance, based

on data used to assign �2018 ratings.

(January 2019)

Task Force launches on how to incorporate extracurricular activities

(Winter 2017)

A–F Timeline: Implementation of HB 22

Start of pilot group to

design local accountability

(Fall 2017)

28

29 of 49

29

A–F Timeline: Domain Development

29

Expected Timeline	Activity
Aug.–December 2017	Stakeholder feedback
	ATAC and APAC monthly subcommittee meetings
	Training Sessions with ESC: HB 22 Overview and Student Achievement Domain
	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
January–April 2018	Commissioner final 2018 A–F decisions
May–June 2018	2018 A–F accountability manual creation
	Public comment on A–F accountability manual
	2018 A–F Manual adoption

30 of 49

30

A–F Timeline: Local Accountability

30

Expected Timeline	Activity
Aug.–December 2017	Stakeholder feedback
	ATAC and APAC monthly subcommittee meetings
	September 18–19, ATAC meeting
	October 11–12, APAC meeting
	Launch of Local Accountability System Pilot
	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
	Ongoing Local Accountability System Pilot
May–June 2018	2018 A–F manual creation
	Public comment on A–F manual
	2018 A–F manual adoption
	Ongoing Local Accountability System Pilot
June 2018–April 2019	Ongoing Local Accountability System Pilot

31 of 49

A-F Accountability

Gathering Stakeholder Input

Education Service Center, Region 20

9:00 a.m-11:30 a.m.

September 20, 2017

Day 1: Discussion of Student Achievement Domain

October 13, 2017

Day 2: Discussion of School Progress Domain

October 26, 2017

Day 3: Discussion of Closing the Gaps Domain

32 of 49

32

Approaches or Above

Meets or Above

Masters

Student Achievement

32

Student Achievement

Closing

The Gaps

School

Progress

33 of 49

33

Domain Indicators

College, Career, Military Ready (CCMR)
Graduation Rates

High School

Elementary School

Middle School

34 of 49

34

	All Students
Total Tests	3,212
# Approaches Grade Level or Above	2,977
# Meets Grade Level or Above	1,945
# Masters Grade Level	878
%
%
%

92.7 + 60.6 + 27.3

Average of 3

/ 3

Student Achievement Score

= 60.2

A

Approaches Grade Level or Above

Meets Grade Level or Above

Masters Grade Level

92.7%

60.6%

27.3%

STAAR Component

34

Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board

By 2030, at least 60 percent of Texans ages 25–34 will have a certificate or degree.

35 of 49

35

STAAR Component

35

All tests (STAAR with and without accommodations and STAAR Alternate 2) combined
All subjects combined
ELs (except in their first year in US schools)
Specific EL performance measures for year two in US schools only

Three Performance Levels

Approaches Grade Level and Meets Grade Level are required by HB 22.
Masters Grade Level standard encourages districts and campuses to push high performing students to excel more.
The average of three levels is very close to the percentage of students who achieve the Meets Grade Level standard.
Meets Grade Level equates to a 60% chance of completing one year of college without remediation. Masters equates to a 75% chance.

36 of 49

36

STAAR Component

36

This scatterplot shows the correlation (.982) between the Student Achievement domain score (average of three PLDs) and the percentage of tests (by campus) that achieve the Meets Grade Level standard.
The y-axis is the Student Achievement domain score; the x-axis is the percentage of tests at the Meets Grade Level standard
Each dot represents one campus
Dots are colored by campus type.

37 of 49

37

STAAR Component: High Schools/Districts

College, Career, Military Ready (CCMR)
Graduation Rates

Elementary School

Middle School

High School

38 of 49

38

CCMR Indicators

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 2017–18 accountability will be from the 2016–17 school year.)

39 of 49

39

CCMR Indicators

College Ready

Meet criteria on applicable AP/IB exams

3 on AP exam
4 on IB exam

Meet TSI criteria

Both reading and mathematics
SAT, ACT, or TSIA

Complete a college prep course offered by a partnership between a district and higher education institution as required from HB5

Successfully complete a course for dual credit
Successfully complete an OnRamps course�(collection of data begins in 2017-18 for use in 2019 accountability ratings)
Earn an associate’s degree
Meet standards on a composite of indicators indicating college readiness�(beginning TBD)

The score of 3 for AP examinations and 4 for IB examinations is the commissioner recommended standard. A determination of which subject areas to include will be determined by the commissioner following stakeholder feedback.
Contrary to language in HB22, and per commissioner authority, the TSI will need to be met for both reading and mathematics, which is consistent with methodology used in the current accountability system. The TSI criteria can be met using different assessments (for example, SAT for reading and TSIA for mathematics) which is consistent with current methodology.
The college prep course information is collected in PEIMS through the course completion file. Similar to the TSI criteria, the current plan is to require completion in both ELA/reading and mathematics for CCMR credit.
TEA is seeking feedback as to the number of dual credit hours and which particular subject areas are appropriate for credit in CCMR. Current modeling is in all subject areas and 9+ hours of credit earned.
OnRamps course completion data will begin collection in the 2017-18 school year as part of the course completion collection. Because the data used in CCMR lags one year, the data for this indicator will not be used until the 2019 accountability ratings release. We have heard from some districts that although they can credit the course completion for OnRamps at the district level, obtaining transcripts from the colleges is hard to obtain. Because of this, we will be looking for an indication from the district/campus that the OnRamps course has been completed.
Associate’s degree data will begin collection in 2017-18. The PEIMS collection that takes place in the fall is associated with leaver data. Because of this, the data will be available for use in 2018 for those annual graduates who may have earned an associates degree will still in high school.

40 of 49

40

CCMR Indicators

Career Ready

Earn industry certification �(list released August 21, 2017)
Be admitted to post-secondary industry certification program�(beginning TBD)

Military Ready

Enlist in the United States Armed Forces

41 of 49

41

CCMR Indicators: Stakeholder Input

College Ready

Complete college prep course offered by a partnership between a district and higher education institution

Admitted for Credit?

42 of 49

42

Calculating the Score : Current Model

College, Career, Military Ready (CCMR)
Graduation Rates

Elementary School

Middle School

High School

= 100% of domain score

43 of 49

43

CCMR
Graduation Rates

Elementary School

Middle School

High School

= 45% of domain score

= 10% of domain score

= 45% of domain score

All three components available

Calculating the Score : Current Model

44 of 49

44

CCMR

Elementary School

Middle School

High School

Only STAAR and �CCMR available

= 50% of domain score

Calculating the Score : Current Model

45 of 49

45

Graduation Rates

Elementary School

Middle School

High School

Only STAAR and �graduation rates available

= 100% of domain score

Calculating the Score : Current Model

46 of 49

46

Elementary School

Middle School

High School

= 100% of domain score

CCMR
Graduation Rates

= ?% of domain score

Different weights or logic?

Calculating the Score: Stakeholder Input

47 of 49

47

Common Questions: Student Achievement Domain

Q: In the Student Achievement domain, to earn credit for TSI, must a student pass both mathematics and reading or pass either mathematics or reading?

A: Both reading and mathematics

Q: Will state exclusions be used for graduation rates?

A: Yes, graduation rates (with exclusions) will be used in the Student Achievement domain.

Q: Will the ELL progress measure be in the Student Achievement domain?

A: No.

Q: Will there be a new ELL progress measure?

A: No, an EL-specific performance measure will be developed for ELs in year two in US schools.

Q: In 2018 when districts receive A–F ratings and campuses receive Met Standard or Improvement Required ratings, will campuses be evaluated using the three domains or the current indices?

A: Campuses will be evaluated using the same three domains that will be used to evaluate districts.

Q: Will campuses receive Met Standard or Improvement Required ratings for each domain and overall?

A: Yes.

48 of 49

48

Common Questions: Student Achievement Domain

Q: Is TEA planning to release another “What if” report in January 2018?

A: No.

Q: Are graduation plan rates included in the Student Achievement domain?

A: No, but they will continue to be used to award postsecondary-readiness distinction designations.

Q: If a student meets any one of the CCMR indicators, are they considered college ready?

A: Yes.

Q: Can a student meet TSIA on STAAR?

A: No, STAAR does not have a TSIA threshold.

Q: For the TSIA indicator, must a student meet the criteria in reading and mathematics on the same test?

A: No, a student can meet the reading criterion on one text and the criterion for mathematics on a different test.

Q: Do you anticipate changes in how SSI and EOC re-testers are included in accountability?

A: No.

Q: Will a grade of D invoke interventions?

A: Yes. For information, please contact the Division of School Improvement and Support (512) 463-7582

49 of 49

49

?

Questions and Feedback

Feedback

Survey Link to come by email
feedbackAF@tea.texas.gov

Resources