![]() |
This blog is maintained by: |
![]() |
Ty Duncan Coordinator Accountability and Compliance Services 806-281-5832 |
| Region 17 Instructional Leaders |
| Region 17 Instructional Leaders |

Things To Consider:
- Growth -- The interesting thing about this index system is that it combines a pass/fail system with a growth system. For decades we have lived in a pass/fail world in education. The question we all must ask ourselves is do we add value daily in the classroom. This system is going to place great emphasis on students getting better over time. Index 2 has the potential to help schools with students who come to them from poverty and or lack the academic language necessary to be successful in Index 1. Cultivating a growth mindset in schools is going to be necessary and perhaps challenging.
- STAAR IS DIFFICULT!!--- Look at where Commissioner Williams set the "met standard" marks for each index! This is a demanding assessment that does in fact challenge students and communication with parents about this will be difficult.

- 2013 is a Transition Year --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
- 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

Click here to download all documents that outline the details of the plan!
Index 4
STAAR Percent Met Final Level II on One or More Tests
2014 and beyond (final Level II performance is not included in accountability in 2013) Assessment results include all assessments
STAAR English (Grades 3-8) and Spanish (Grades 3-5) at final Level II performance standard forassessments administered in the spring
-
EOC at final Level II performance standard for assessments administered in the spring and the previous fall and summer
-
STAAR Grades 3-8 and EOC Modified and Alternate at final Level II performance standard
Retest results: Grades 5 and 8, best result from primary administration and first retest
EOC for each test, best result from first administration and retest results of tests administered in the current accountability year -
English language learner assessments (proposed)
o English test version results -
Students in U.S. schools Year 1 through Year 4 excluded
-
Students below Grade 9 taking EOC courses: Administrative rules for the assessment program will require that students be administered the EOC test rather than the STAAR grade level assessment for the subject
-
Subjects: Reading, Writing, Mathematics, Science, Social Studies
- Cap on use of modified and alternate assessment results: caps not applied to performance results; limit on use of modified and alternate assessments included in System Safeguards
Accountability subset: Same as Index 1
Grade 9-12 Graduation Rate:
- Definition: state definition with statutorily required exclusions beginning with the class of 2011 (with the change fully phased in for the class of 2014).
- Campuses/districts with four-year graduation rate indicators: Four-year graduation rates are calculated for campuses and districts with students in Grade 9 and either Grade 11 or 12 in both year 1 and year 5, or with Grade 12 in both year 1 and year
- Campuses/districts with five-year graduation rate indicators: Five-year graduation rates follow the same cohort of students for one additional year; therefore, most campuses and districts that have a four-year graduation rate in one year will have a five-year graduation rate for that cohort in the following year. The five year graduation rate lags behind the four-year graduation rate by one year.
- Student groups: All Students, ELL student group, special education student group, and seven race/ethnicity student groups: African American, American Indian, Asian, Hispanic, Pacific Islander, White, Two or More Races
- ELL student group is defined as students who were ever identified as limited English proficient since entering Grade 9 in the Texas public school system.
- Minimum size criteria: All Students – none, small numbers analysis if fewer than 10 students, student groups >= 25, applied to number of students in the graduating class (graduates, continuing students, GED recipients, and dropouts
- Methodology: The four-year graduation rate follows a cohort of first-time ninth-graders through their expected graduation three years later. (The five-year graduation rate follows the same cohort of students for one additional year.) Students who later enter the Texas public school system after Grade 9 in the grade level expected for the cohort are added. Students who transfer out of the Texas public school system over the four or five years for non-dropout reasons are removed from the cohort. Only students who receive a regular high school diploma from a Texas public school count as graduates. Students, including those served in special education, are awarded diplomas following satisfactory completion of all curriculum, credit, and assessment requirements. The graduation rate calculation is below.
Grade 9-12 Annual Dropout Rate
- Definition: The state dropout definition used for graduation rate is also used for annual dropout rate.
- Campuses/districts with annual dropout rate indicators: An annual dropout rate is calculated for campuses and districts with students in Grade 9, 10, 11, or 12.
- Student groups: All Students, ELL student group, special education student group, and seven race/ethnicity student groups: African American, American Indian, Asian, Hispanic, Pacific Islander, White, Two or More Races
- ELL student group is defined as students identified as limited English proficient during the reported school year.
- Minimum size criteria: All Students – none, small numbers analysis if fewer than 10 students;
- student groups >= 25, applied to number of students enrolled during the school year in Grades 9-12
- Methodology: The annual dropout rate is calculated by dividing the number of students in Grades 9-12 designated as dropouts by the number of students enrolled in Grades 9-12 at any time during the school year.
Recommended/Distinguished Achievement (Advanced) High School Program (RHSP/DAP)
- Methodology: The RHSP/DAP graduates annual rate is percent of prior year graduates who were reported as having satisfied the course requirements and EOC cumulative score requirements for the Recommended/Distinguished Achievement (Advanced) High School Program. [Before 2015 most graduates will graduate under the TAKS assessment program].
- Campuses/districts with RHSP/DAP annual rate indicators: The RHSP/DAP annual rate indicator is calculated for campuses and districts regardless of whether they have a longitudinal graduation rate.
- Student groups: All Students and seven race/ethnicity student groups: African American, American Indian, Asian, Hispanic, Pacific Islander, White, Two or More Races
- Minimum size criteria:
- All Students – none, small numbers analysis if fewer than 10 students
- Student groups >= 25, applied to number of prior year graduates
Index Construction for Index 4:
Index Construction for Index 4 is a two step process because campuses will vary in the number of separate indicators that contribute points to the index. Each indicator contributes from 0 to 100 points to the index for All Students and for each student group that meets minimum size criteria. The maximum number of points depends on size and student demographics, and for campuses on the campus type. The final index score is total points divided by maximum points. The examples below represent 2014 when all of the indicators are included in the index.
For high schools with a graduation rate the index produces two separate scores, a graduation score and a STAAR score; the final index score is an average of the two scores. Consequently, for most high schools and districts, STAAR final Level II performance and graduation rates weigh equally in the index.
Graduation Score: combined performance across the graduation rates and RHSP/DAP diploma indicator
Grade 9-12 Four-Year Graduation Rate for All Students and all student groups OR Grade 9-12
Five-Year Graduation Rate for All Students and all student groups, whichever contributes thehigher number of points to the index
− one of the two rates is used, not a mix of Four-Year Graduation Rate for one student group and Five-Year Graduation Rate for another student group
RHSP/DAP Graduates for All Students and race/ethnicity student groups
STAAR Score: STAAR Percent Met final Level II on One or More Tests for All Students and race/ethnicity student groups (2014 and beyond)
For high schools that do not have a graduation rate, the annual dropout rate and RHSP/DAP rate contribute points to Graduation Score combined with STAAR final Level II performance for total points toward the index. For elementary and middle schools, only STAAR final Level II performance contributes points to the index.

Issues:
- Please remember 2013 in Index 4 is different from 2013 as we cannot use the College Readiness Componenent in the calculation. This leaves primarily about graduation.
- House Bill 5 has the potential to change Index 4 dramatically as it will change graduation plans and thus force ATAC and APAC to change Index 4 to meet new statutory requirements.
- The goal of this whole system is post secondary readiness. Index 4 is flexible enough to deal with any changes that come about as a result of legislation.

Click here to download all documents that outline the details of the plan!
Commissioner Final Decisions
Index 3
STAAR Weighted Performance
- 2013 and beyond. The STAAR weighted performance rate calculation must be modified for 2013 because STAAR Level III performance cannot be included in the indicator until 2014. See Methodology description below.
- Assessment results include all assessments:
- STAAR English (Grades 3-8) and Spanish (Grades 3-5) at phase-in Level II and Level III
- performance standards for assessments administered in the spring
- EOC at phase-in Level II and Level III performance standards for assessments administered in the spring and the previous fall and summer
- STAAR Grades 3-8 and EOC Modified and Alternate at phase-in Level II and Level III performance standards
- Retest results: Grades 5 and 8, best result from primary administration and first retest;
- EOC for each test, best result from first administration and retest results of tests administered in the current accountability year
- TAKS
- 2013: Grade 11 results at Met Standard performance standard
- 2014 and beyond: None
- English language learner results
- 2013: excluded (English and Spanish test versions
- Proposed 2014 and beyond:
- English test version results
- Students in U.S. schools Year 1 excludents
- Students in U.S. schools Year 2 through Year 4: included using STAAR ELL Progress
- Measure for Level II standard and Level III performance standards
- Students in U.S. schools Year 5 and beyond included at phase-in Level II and Level II performance standards
- Exception: asylees/refugees in U.S. schools Year 1 through Year 5 exclude
- Spanish test version results
- Students in U.S. schools Year 1 excluded
- Students in U.S. schools Year 2 and beyond included at phase-in Level II and Level III performance standard
- Exception: asylees/refugees in U.S. schools Year 1 through Year 5 excluded
- Subjects: Reading, Writing, Mathematics, Science, Social Studies
- Cap on use of modified and alternate assessment results: caps not applied to performance results; limit on use of modified and alternate assessments included in System Safeguards
- Accountability subset: Same as Index 1
- Grades 3-8 – fall enrollment snapshot date
Student groups:
- Socioeconomic: Economically Disadvantaged
- Lowest Performing Race/Ethnicity: The two lowest performing race/ethnicity student groups on the campus or district based on prior year assessment results
- If the campus or district has three or more race/ethnicity student groups that meet minimum size criteria, performance of the two lowest performing race/ethnicity groups is included in the index.
- If the campus or district has two race/ethnicity student groups that meet minimum size criteria, performance of the lowest performing race/ethnicity group is included in the index.
- If the campus or district has only one race/ethnicity student group that meets the minimum size criteria, the race/ethnicity group is not included in the index.
- Lowest performing groups are determined by comparing performance of race/ethnicity groups on the Index 1 student achievement indicator of the prior year. (Race/ethnicity groups are not included in Index 1 but the disaggregated student group rates will be calculated for reporting. Index 1 combines performance across subjects so the groups identified as lowest performing will be the same for all subjects in Index 3.)
- Minimum size criteria: Economically disadvantaged – none, small numbers analysis if fewer than 10; race/ethnicity student groups >= 25
Methodology: percent of students at the specified student performance level on the assessment is multiplied by the weight for that performance level,
- Phase-in Level II – 2013 and beyond – one point for each percent of students at the phase-in
- Level II performance standard and above (includes students at Level III Advanced)
- Level III Advanced – 2014 and beyond – one additional point for each percent of students at the Level III performance standard.
- Index Calculation:


Issues:
- This index places extreme value on Level III performance for students who have not historically performed at this level in the past. We have essentially created a new target group for intevention. Those students just below Level III can help this index calculation a great deal by moving into this performance level.
- The 25 minimum size does not impact this a great deal since we aggregate scores by content area and not by grade level.
- One of the questions of the future is how this index will impact differentiation in our schools. Pass or fail is once again less important here. as this is concerned with moving students to the top of the performance spectrum.
Accountability 2013 and Beyond!! – June 21, 2013
http://escite2.esc17.net/default.aspx?name=wmsworkshop&w=13703
Accountability 2013 and Beyond!! – August 9, 2013
http://escite2.esc17.net/default.aspx?name=wmsworkshop&w=13359

Click here to download all documents that outline the details of the plan!
Index 2
The inclusion of this index is part of House Bill 3 from the 83rd Session. The intent is not a projection measure like we had in TAKS with the much maligned Texas Projection Measure (TPM). This will be a true growth model that calculates movement on a scale score from year to year.
Background
The Texas Education Agency (TEA) has considered several different options for implementing progress measures in the STAAR assessment program. Many factors were considered in generating each of the options, including:
1) the content relationships within the STAAR assessments,
2) different methodologies used to determine progress,
3) the accuracy of the progress information produced by each different methodology,
4) state and federal requirements pertaining to the use of progress information in accountability, and
5) the way in which progress information would be used by stakeholders.
Studies were conducted to evaluate the “best fit” of each of the options explored to the criteria listed above, and results from those studies were shared with several advisory committees. After reviewing the options, studies, and committee feedback, TEA has recommended a solution that provides the most useful and easily understood information to students, parents, and teachers about an individual student’s year-to-year academic progress.
The Accountability Technical Advisory Committee (ATAC) prioritized transparency and usability in the review of potential STAAR progress measures. These priorities led them to a recommendation of transition tables for measuring and reporting student progress. However, in the process of implementing a transition table approach it became apparent that critical features of the assessment program (for example, the phase-in of STAAR standards), complicated the use of and communication about transition tables. In addition, feedback from the Texas Technical Advisory Committee (TTAC) indicated that transition tables resulted in a loss of information and accuracy about student progress, as compared to other approaches.
Planned Approach
Given these discussions, TEA is moving forward with an approach that combines the simplicity and transparency of transition tables with the increased accuracy of a change score approach. 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.
Compared to other measures of student progress, this approach:
§ Provides an individualized measure of actual student growth (rather than a measure of projected growth which is used in some measures)
§ Uses all available score information about a student when determining progress
§ Facilitates transparent communication of actual student growth
§ Aligns with requirements in statute (§39.034 d-1)
Accountability Subset
- Same as Index 1, with rules applied to current year results Grades 4-8 – fall enrollment snapshot date EOC – for tests administered in spring and fall, fall enrollment snapshot date; for tests administered in summer, prior year fall enrollment snapshot date
- Student groups: All Students, ELL student group, special education student group, and seven race/ethnicity student groups: African American, American Indian, Asian, Hispanic, Pacific Islander, White, Two or More Races
- Minimum size criteria:
- All Students – 2013: >= 10
- 2014 and beyond: none, small numbers analysis if fewer than 10;
- Race/ethnicity, English language learner and special education student groups >= 25
- English language learner results: The STAAR ELL Progress Measure (available in 2014) is calculated for ELL students currently enrolled in the limited English language program that are tested on STAAR English test versions. ELL students tested on STAAR Spanish test versions receive the results of the STAAR growth measure beginning in 2013.
- English test version results
- 2013: excluded (STAAR ELL Progress Measure not available; STAAR growth measure not calculated for current ELLs tested on English test versions)
- Proposed 2014 and beyond:
- Students in U.S. schools Year 1 excluded
- Students in U.S. schools Year 2 and beyond included using STAAR ELL Progress Measure
- Exception: asylees/refugees in U.S. schools Year 1 through Year 5 excluded
Methodology
Percent of students at the specified student growth level on the assessment is multiplied by the weight for that growth level,
- Met – one point for each percent of students at the Met growth expectations level
- Exceeded – two points for each percent of students at the Exceeded growth expectations level


Issues:
- As mentioned above, deciding on what type of growth measure to use was a major issue discussed by all committees. There was discussion of “growth band” and other types of measures. Ultimately the decision was to go with the most accurate, but it frankly will be difficult to explain the calculation to stakeholders.
- Transparency is going to be at an all-time high for reading and math teachers. This index will clearly indicate to stakeholders and parents how far students have moved in regards to instruction.
- Formative assessment is going to be the norm rather than the exception. Benchmarking is not going to help a great deal in Index 2 as it is not concerned with pass or fail. Benchmarking is not frequent enough for Index 2. There will have to be daily checks and instant feedback to students to really make Index 2 work for your campus and district.
Index 2 certainly has the potential to help districts who have students who come to them with language deficiencies, in poverty or are highly mobile. This is not a pass fail system and there lies the problem as most stakeholders have historically understood the notion of pass/fail and the concept of value-added may be foreign to them.
Accountability 2013 and Beyond!! – June 21, 2013
http://escite2.esc17.net/default.aspx?name=wmsworkshop&w=13703
Accountability 2013 and Beyond!! – August 9, 2013
http://escite2.esc17.net/default.aspx?name=wmsworkshop&w=13359


