Commissioners Update on A F Accountability Model OVERVIEW OF - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶
commissioner s update on a f accountability model
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

Commissioners Update on A F Accountability Model OVERVIEW OF - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Nov 16, 2023 560 likes •767 views

Commissioners Update on A F Accountability Model OVERVIEW OF CURRENT WORK-IN-PROGRESS 1 AF Accountability: Legislative Context HB HB 2804 22 th Te House B Hou se Bill 22, 22, 85 85 th Texas Legislature The commissioner shall

slide-1
SLIDE 1

Commissioner’s Update on A–F Accountability Model

OVERVIEW OF CURRENT WORK-IN-PROGRESS

1

slide-2
SLIDE 2

2

Hou House B se Bill 22, 22, 85 85th

th Te

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

slide-3
SLIDE 3

3

Closing The Gaps School Progress Student Achievement

Best of Achievement or Progress Minimum 30%

3 Domains: Combining To Calculate Overall Score

Key Decision Points

  • Certain methodology decision in each domain
  • Cut points for each Tier in each domain
slide-4
SLIDE 4

4

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 where the bar will remain static for 5 years, where the rules don’t change.

Design Approach: Two Philosophical Commitments

No Forced Distribution Law switched from “annually” to “periodically”

slide-5
SLIDE 5

5

Student Achievement: Calculating Score

  • STAAR
  • College, Career, Military Ready (CCM-R)
  • Graduation Rates

Decision Point

Weights between these 3 for HS Elementary School Middle School High School

slide-6
SLIDE 6

6

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
slide-7
SLIDE 7

7 All Students Total Tests

3,212 # Approaches or Above 2,977 # Meets or Above 1,945 # Masters 878 % % %

92.7 + 60.6 + 27.3

Average of 3

/ 3

Domain 1 Score

= 60.2

A

Approaches or Above Meets or Above Masters 92.7% 60.6% 27.3%

Student Achievement: Calculating Score

slide-8
SLIDE 8

8

School Progress: Two Aspects to Progress Student Growth Relative Performance

Decision Point: Will this be best of? Average of the two?

slide-9
SLIDE 9

9

Student Growth: Percent of Students Gaining

STAAR Scale Score 3rd Grade 4th Grade Does Not Meet Does Not Meet Approaches Approaches Meets Meets Masters Masters

Exceeds Expected

Student Growth

+ 1 Point Awarded

For meeting or exceeding expected growth

+ .5 Points Awarded

For maintaining proficiency but failing to meet expected growth

Decision Point: What percent of students should meet growth targets?

+ 0 Points Awarded

For falling to a lower level

Maintains Limited

slide-10
SLIDE 10

10

Student Growth: Percent 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

slide-11
SLIDE 11

11

Student Growth: Percent 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

slide-12
SLIDE 12

12

Student Growth: Percent 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

slide-13
SLIDE 13

13

Student Growth: Percent 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

slide-14
SLIDE 14

14

Student Achievement Domain for All Students % of Students on Free and Reduced-Priced Lunch (FRL)

Higher Levels

  • f Student

Achievement Higher Rates of Economically Disadvantaged

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

Relative Performance: Measuring School Progress

slide-15
SLIDE 15

15

Student Achievement Domain for All Students % of Students on Free and Reduced-Priced Lunch (FRL)

Higher Levels

  • f Student

Achievement Higher Rates of Economically Disadvantaged

Relative Performance: Measuring School Progress

A B C D F

slide-16
SLIDE 16

16

Closing the Gaps: Ensuring Educational Equity

x

Race/Ethnicity Special Education English Learners Continuously Enrolled & Mobile Students All Students

slide-17
SLIDE 17

17

Closing the Gaps: Ensuring Educational Equity

Subgroup Achievement Target % of Subgroups that meet target

Overall Grade

slide-18
SLIDE 18

18

Local Accountability Plan:

Closing The Gaps School Progress Student Achievement

*Example

Sa

Extra- Curricular Activities

*Example

Local Assessments

Local Accountability

slide-19
SLIDE 19

19

HB 22 Passed by the 85th Texas Legislature (May 2017)

Rules adopted for local accountability system and application window opens

(Fall 2018) Rules finalized for 3 domain system (Spring 2018) 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) Campuses: A–F labels take effect and local accountability system is incorporated (August 2019) ”What If” report on Campus performance, based

  • n prior year

(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)