Prepared by Moak, Casey & Associates, 4-23-2013

Update as of 9:00 p.m. Commissioner’s Final Decisions include the following key revisions and additions:

2013 Rating Labels:

Met Standard – met performance index targets

Met Alternative Standard – met modified performance index targets for alternative education campuses and districts

Improvement Required – did not meet one or more performance index targets 2013 Transition Year Accountability Ratings Criteria: The 2013 ratings criteria and targets will stand alone because the performance index framework cannot be fully implemented in 2013. To receive a Met Standard rating all campuses and districts must meet the accountability targets on all indexes for which they have performance data in 2013. Districts and campuses with students in Grade 9 or above must meet targets on four indexes:

Index 1: Student Achievement

Index 2: Student Progress

Index 3: Closing Performance Gaps

Index 4: Postsecondary Readiness Note: The March 14 APAC recommendation was that districts and campuses must meet targets on two of the four indexes. (APAC and ATAC Recommendations, page 2) Districts and campuses with a high grade of Grade 8 or lower must meet targets on three indexes for which they have performance data in 2013:

Index 1: Student Achievement

Index 2: Student Progress

Index 3: Closing Performance Gaps Note: The March 14 APAC recommendation was that districts and campuses must meet targets on two of the three indexes. (APAC and ATAC Recommendations, page 2)

2013 Transition Year Accountability Ratings Targets:

Note: The March 14 APAC recommendation was to use the 2nd percentile on Index 2 and 50 for Index 3 for Non-AEA campuses and districts; and for AEA campuses and districts, the recommendation was to use 15 for Index 1, 2nd percentile on Index 2, 15 for Index 3 and 35 for Index 4. Using these APAC targets the committee expected fewer than five percent of campuses would receive the Improvement Required rating in 2013. (APAC and ATAC Recommendations, page 4).

The use of 5th percentile on Index 2 means that, by definition, about 380 campuses will not meet the target. TEA

indicates that modeling on other targets suggests that from 7%-12% of campuses may receive "Improvement Required"

ratings, and use of Index 2 will drive that estimate up. (Final Decisions, pp. 2-3.) About 6% were AU back in 2011.

Prepared by Moak, Casey & Associates, 4-23-2013

Index 1 – credit will be awarded for meeting the Phase-In Level II performance standard and retest results will be

included for each EOC test (administered within the current accountability year) and grades 5 and 8.

Index 2 - a student growth measure will be incorporated into Index 2 for the 2013 accountability ratings release.

Appendix C (page 30) of the technical document describes the planned approach as follows: “This approach uses a

change score for each student, the difference between the student’s current year score and the prior year score. The

individual student change score is then compared to a progress expectation based on STAAR standards. Progress

expectations are specific to a grade, content area and performance level. Therefore, progress expectations differ

depending on whether a student is performing at Level I, Level II, or Level III. In comparing students’ change score to the

progress expectation, individual student progress can be categorized as: Fell Below the progress expectation, Met the

progress expectation, or Exceeded the progress expectation”.

In calculating Index 2: One point will be given for each percentage of students at the Met growth expectations level;

while two points will be given for each percentage of students at the Exceeded growth expectations level.

What is not clear from the technical documentation is if students must test in the same language and subject (or the

same version and subject) both years before a change score can be calculated and a progress expectation can be

categorized. For example, it is not clear if a progress expectation would be prepared when a 4th grade student tested in

reading in Spanish one year, and the next year the same student tested in English for 5th grade reading; or, when a 6th

grade student tested in math with a STAAR test and the next year the student tested with a STAAR-M math test. In

addition, the tables in the technical document seem to indicate that advanced students, who move from a grade level

STAAR test to an EOC test (example: the student takes grade 7 STAAR mathematics in one year, and the next year takes

the Algebra I EOC test), up by more than one grade or from grade 6 to an EOC will not have data prepared for Index 2.

Index 3 – Retest results will be included for each EOC test (administered within the current accountability year) and

grades 5 and 8.

Index 4 – postsecondary readiness credit will be awarded for meeting the Final Recommended Level II performance

standard and retest results will be included for each EOC test (administered within the current accountability year) and

grades 5 and 8 beginning in 2014.

English Language Learner Results - additional details regarding inclusion and exclusion of ELL results for students testing

in English or in Spanish are provided in appendices A1, A2, B1 and B2.

Student group size >= 25.

System Safeguards – The technical description document states, “Results will be reported for any cell that meets

accountability minimum size criteria. Failure to meet the safeguard target for any reported cell must be addressed in the

campus or district improvement plan.” The accompanying table on page 22 includes the performance standards for each

subject and student group set at 50%; participation rates for reading and math across all student groups at 95%; and 4-

year graduation rates for all groups at 78%. What is not clear is if and/or how PEG identification will be determined with

implementation of the new index system (e.g., whether the state will continue to use the 50% passing rate criterion in

statute, independent of Index 1; or if Index 1 results will become the basis for evaluating the 50% criterion; whether

"Improvement Required" status will become the ratings basis for PEG identification; and so on).

Alternative Education Accountability – The technical description includes additional modifications for Index 4 –

including the decision to award “bonus points” to AEA campuses and districts for RHSP/DAP, Continuing Students

Success Rates and Excluded Students Credit. (Technical Description, pages 14 - 15).