Commissioner’s Update on A – F Accountability Model OVERVIEW OF CURRENT WORK-IN-PROGRESS 1
A–F Accountability: Legislative Context HB HB 2804 22 th Te House B Hou se Bill 22, 22, 85 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 School Closing Achievement Progress 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 “the commissioner shall ensure that the method used to No Forced 1 evaluate performance is implemented in a manner that provides the mathematical possibility that all districts and Distribution campuses receive an A rating.” Law switched We WANT stability in the model, we do not want the bar to 2 from “annually” keep changing. We want to commit to something where the bar will remain static for 5 years, where the rules don’t change. to “periodically” 4
Student Achievement: Calculating Score Elementary School Middle School • STAAR Decision Point • College, Career, Military Ready (CCM-R) Weights between • Graduation Rates these 3 for HS High School 5
Student Achievement: CCM-R Indicators for HS College Ready Career Ready • Meet criteria on AP/IB exams • Earn industry certification • Meet TSI criteria (SAT/ACT/TSIA) • Get admitted to post-secondary • Complete college partner industry certification program college prep courses • Complete dual credit/OnRamps Military Ready courses • Earn an associate’s degree • Enlist in the Armed Forces • Meet standards on composite indicators indicating readiness 6
Student Achievement: Calculating Score Domain 1 Score A All Students Total Tests 3,212 # Approaches or Above 2,977 Average of 3 # Meets or Above 1,945 = 60.2 / 3 92.7 + 60.6 + 27.3 # Masters 878 % Approaches or Above 92.7% 60.6% % Meets or Above % Masters 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? Masters Exceeds + 1 Point Awarded Masters For meeting or exceeding expected growth STAAR Scale Score Meets Expected Meets + .5 Points Awarded Maintains Approaches For maintaining proficiency but failing to meet expected growth Approaches Student Growth + 0 Points Awarded Does Not Meet Limited For falling to a lower level Does Not Meet 4 th Grade 3 rd Grade 9
Student Growth: Percent of Students Gaining Current Year Does Not Approaches Meets Masters Approach Grade Level Grade Level Grade Level Grade Level Does Not Met/Exceeded Met/Exceeded Growth Measure = 1 pt Growth Measure = 1 pt 1 pt 1 pt Approach Did not meet = 0 pts Did not meet = .5 pts Grade Level Met/Exceeded Met/Exceeded Approaches Growth Measure = 1 pt Growth Measure = 1 pt Previous Year 1 pt 1 pt Grade Level Did not meet = 0 pts Did not meet = .5 pts Meets 0 pts 0 pts 1 pt 1 pt Grade Level Masters 0 pts 0 pts 0 pts 1 pt Grade Level 10
Student Growth: Percent of Students Gaining Current Year Does Not Approaches Meets Masters Approach Grade Level Grade Level Grade Level Grade Level Does Not Met/Exceeded Met/Exceeded Growth Measure = 1 pt Growth Measure = 1 pt 1 pt 1 pt Approach Did not meet = 0 pts Did not meet = .5 pts Grade Level Met/Exceeded Met/Exceeded Approaches Growth Measure = 1 pt Growth Measure = 1 pt Previous Year 1 pt 1 pt Grade Level Did not meet = 0 pts Did not meet = .5 pts Meets 0 pts 0 pts 1 pt 1 pt Grade Level Masters 0 pts 0 pts 0 pts 1 pt Grade Level 11
Student Growth: Percent of Students Gaining Current Year Does Not Approaches Meets Masters Approach Grade Level Grade Level Grade Level Grade Level Does Not Met/Exceeded Met/Exceeded Growth Measure = 1 pt Growth Measure = 1 pt 1 pt 1 pt Approach Did not meet = 0 pts Did not meet = .5 pts Grade Level Met/Exceeded Met/Exceeded Approaches Growth Measure = 1 pt Growth Measure = 1 pt Previous Year 1 pt 1 pt Grade Level Did not meet = 0 pts Did not meet = .5 pts Meets 0 pts 0 pts 1 pt 1 pt Grade Level Masters 0 pts 0 pts 0 pts 1 pt Grade Level 12
Student Growth: Percent of Students Gaining Current Year Does Not Approaches Meets Masters Approach Grade Level Grade Level Grade Level Grade Level Does Not Met/Exceeded Met/Exceeded Growth Measure = 1 pt Growth Measure = 1 pt 1 pt 1 pt Approach Did not meet = 0 pts Did not meet = .5 pts Grade Level Met/Exceeded Met/Exceeded Approaches Growth Measure = 1 pt Growth Measure = 1 pt Previous Year 1 pt 1 pt Grade Level Did not meet = 0 pts Did not meet = .5 pts Meets 0 pts 0 pts 1 pt 1 pt Grade Level Masters 0 pts 0 pts 0 pts 1 pt Grade Level 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 A campus with more students on FRL tends to have lower levels of student achievement Higher Rates of Economically Disadvantaged % of Students on Free and Reduced-Priced Lunch (FRL) 14
Relative Performance: Measuring School Progress Higher Levels of Student Achievement Student Achievement Domain for All Students A B C D F Higher Rates of Economically Disadvantaged % of Students on Free and Reduced-Priced Lunch (FRL) 15
Closing the Gaps: Ensuring Educational Equity All Students Continuously Enrolled & Special Education English Learners Race/Ethnicity 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 Sa Extra- Local Student School Closing Curricular Achievement Progress The Gaps Assessments Activities 18
A – F Timeline: Implementation of HB 22 Start of pilot group to design local accountability (Fall 2017) Campuses: A–F labels take effect Rules adopted for local HB 22 Passed by the Rules finalized for 3 and local accountability accountability system and 85 th Texas Legislature domain system system is incorporated application window opens (Spring 2018) (May 2017) (August 2019) (Fall 2018) Task Force launches on how to 3 domain system rates all campuses ”What If” report on Campus incorporate extracurricular activities and districts. Takes effect as follows: performance, based (Winter 2017) Districts: A–F Rating Labels on prior year Campuses: Continue Improvement (January 2019) Required or Met Standard (August 2018) 19
Recommend
More recommend
