Transition to the Next Generation of Assessment ......Transition to the Next Generation of Assessment & Accountability Accountability Framework and A-F Rating System Expanded Measures

Transition to the Next Generation of Assessment & AccountabilityAccountability Framework and A-F Rating System

Expanded Measures of Student AchievementFrom Absolute Measures, to Progress Measures, to Attainment Measures

Presentation for Instructional Leadership Networkby

Region One ESC Division of Instructional, School Improvement, and College Readiness SupportOctober 27, 2016

REACHING NEW HORIZONS

© 2016 Region One Education Service Center

Session Overview – Focus Area 1Expanded Measures of Student Achievement

Absolute Measures Absolute Measures + Progress Measures Absolute Measures + Progress Measures + Attainment Measures

Transition to the Next Generation of Assessment and Accountability HB 2804 Implementation Implementation Timeline, Development, and Recommendations

Focus Area 1 – Absolute Measures Performance Index 1 Model Transition to Domain 1 Model Student Achievement Levels of Performance Expectations

Strategic Planning for 2016-2017 and Beyond Quality Framework for Professional Development Supports



Expanded Measures of Student AchievementThrough the Lens of Texas K-12 Accountability

ABSOLUTE MEASURES

Mic

hae

l War

aksa

, 20

13

4





Through the Lens ofAbsolute MeasuresEarly accountability and assessment in Texas was designed to measure:

• Proficiency of learning expectations

• Student learning gauged through a single reference point

• Student achievement through an absolute measure of learning.

Absolute Measure



Transition in Accountability to Align Instruction and Assessment

• Texas Assessment of Basic Skills (TABS)• The primary purpose of TABS was collection of school-level information through

assessment of basic skill competencies.

• Texas Assessment of Minimum Skills (TEAMS)• TEAMS focused on assessment of curriculum-specific minimum basic skills.

• Texas Assessment of Academic Skills (TAAS)• Emphasis of TAAS was on school accountability of student performance and included

content linked to the core curriculum Essential Elements also known as EE’s.

• Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS)• TAKS introduced a more rigorous accountability system aligned with the state-mandated

curriculum the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS).

• State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness (STAAR)• With the advent of STAAR, end-of-course assessments (SB 1031 in 2007) and grade 3-8

assessments (HB3 in 2009) were implemented in 2011-2012 having a greater emphasis onincreased rigor and stronger focus on college and career readiness.





Absolute Measure:Singular Measure for Accountability Rating

• School district/Campus ratings were dependent on a single area of weak performance instead of a more a comprehensive measurement of district performance.

• Districts and campuses must have met 25 separate assessment standards. This was informally known as “Death by Cell” as a District/Campus could have received an Academically Unacceptable rating if they failed to meet minimum expectations for one subgroup.

PROGRESS MEASURES

Mic

hae

l War

aksa

, 20

13

9





Through the Lens ofProgress Measures

The Texas accountability system has evolved to a more comprehensive rating system making use of multiple indexes focusing on:

• strength-based student achievement (absolute measure)

and

• placing stronger emphasis on student growth, group gap closure, and readiness for college and careers (progress measures).

Absolute Measure

Progress Measures



Performance Index Framework

Source: Texas Education Agency





STAAR ACCOUNTABILITY

INDEX 1 Student

Achievement

INDEX 2Student Progress

INDEX 3Closing

Performance Gaps

INDEX 4Postsecondary

Readiness



Index 1: Student Achievement

All Student Groups

All Subjects

Index 1 Performance



Index 2: Student Progress

Individual Student Growth

Reading, Mathematics and Writing

10 Student Groups



Index 3: Closing Performance Gaps

Level II &

Level III Performance

All Subjects

Economically Disadvantaged

& Lowest

Race and Ethnic Groups



Index 4: Postsecondary Readiness

STAAR Performance at Postsecondary Level

Graduation or Dropout Rate

Diploma Plans

College and Career Readiness

MULTIPLE ATTAINMENTMEASURES

Mic

hae

l War

aksa

, 20

13

18





Transition to Multiple Metrics of EvaluationBeyond Assessment

Absolute Performance Measures


Progress Measures


Progress Measures Rigor with College

Readiness


Progress Measures Rigor with College

Readiness Academic Attainment Extended Educational

Program Opportunities

A new generation of assessment and accountability in Texas begins in 2017–18 and continues to be inclusive of:

• student achievement (absolute measures)

• student growth (progress and gap closure measures)

and integrates measures of

• academic attainment

• community/Student Engagement

Through the Lens ofMultiple Attainment Measures

Progress Measure

Academic Attainment & Engagement Measures

Attainment & Engagement

Absolute Measure

20





Next Generation of Assessment & Accountability:Implementation Timeline and Domain Framework

© 2016 23 Division of Instructional, School Improvement, and College Readiness Support


State Accountability TransitionPerformance Index Framework to Five Domain Framework

Fall 2018

Rating based on

5 Domain Framework

&

A – F Rating System for

Districts and Campuses

2017-2018

Fall 2017

Rating based onPerformance

Index Framework

&

Met Standard/Improvement

Required

2016-2017

Fall 2016

Rating based onPerformance

Index Framework

&

Met Standard/Improvement

Required

2015 - 2016





Accountability Implementation Timeline



House Bill 2804: Implementation TimelineDate Activity

September 1, 2016 Texas Commission on Next Generation Assessments and Accountability prepares and delivers report to governor and legislature that recommends statutory changes to improve systems of student assessment and public school accountability.

December 1, 2016 Commissioner of Education must adopt a set of indicators to measure and evaluate school districts and campuses with AF ratings.

January 1, 2017 TEA must provide a report that shows the rating that each district and campus would have received for the 2015-2016 school year for each for the first four domains if the AF ratings had been in place that year.

August 15, 2018 Districts and campuses are assigned AF ratings beginning with the 2017-18 school year.



Five Domain Framework

House Bill 2804

Assessment

Domain I

Absolute Performance

A, B, C, D, or F

Domain II

Progress (Growth)

A, B, C, D, or F

Domain III

Closing Gaps

A, B, C, D, or F

College Readiness

Domain IV

Academic Attainment

A, B, C, D, or F

Student & Community

Domain V

Extended Educational Program

Opportunities

A, B, C, D, or F

The Next Generation of Accountability





Domains I - IIIAssessment Measures

Domain I

Achievement

Level II Performance

Final Level II Performance

Domain II

Progress (Growth)

Met or Exceeded Progress

Progress Measures for College Readiness

Domain III

Closing Gaps

Economically Disadvantaged/Race &

Ethnic Groups

Final Level II Gap

ABSOLUTE MEASURE:DOMAIN I

Mic

hae

l War

aksa

, 20

13

29





Performance Index 1

• Level III

• Level III

Performance Index 1Level of Performance 2016-2017

Index 1Level II Satisfactory Performance



Domain 1: HB 2804 State Accountability RequirementsMeasures of Satisfactory Level Performance and College-Readiness

Level Performance



Domain I Model (Draft Discussion)(HB 2804 Requirements)

• Level III

• Level III

Domain I

Final Level II

Level II Satisfactory Standard

Performance Index FrameworkIndex 1 Level of Performance 2016-2017

Five Domain FrameworkDomain I Levels of Performance 2017-2018

Index 1




Domain I Model (Draft Discussion)(ATAC/APAC HB 2804 Requirements)

Weighted score of all grades and subject Tests at Satisfactory Standard and Final Level II Standard.

Generate weighted score.

Establish range of targets for letter grades of A-F

Assign letter grades

Compare weighted score results to weighted score outcomes for 40 campus in a comparison group. Those who are in the top quartile receive a one letter grade

bump (e.g. a B becomes an A, a C becomes a B, etc.).



Domain 1: HB 2804 and Commissioner RecommendationsMeasures of Satisfactory Level Performance, College-Readiness

Level Performance, and Advanced Level Performance



Domain I Model (Draft Discussion)(Commissioner Recommendations)

• Level III

• Level III

Domain I

Advanced Level III

Final Level II


Performance Index FrameworkIndex 1 Level of Performance 2016-2017

Five Domain FrameworkDomain I Levels of Performance 2017-2018

Index 1


Domain I - ElementaryDraft Discussion - Example

STA

AR

Per

form

ance

Percent Met

Level II Performance

Percent Met


Percent Met

Advanced Academic Performance

Domain I Percent MetPoints

1 point for each percent

Total Points

Level II Performance P1 % P1 P1


P2 % P2 P2

Advanced Academic Performance

P3 % P3 P3

Total Points P1 + P2 +P3

Total Domain Score(P1 + P2 +P3)/300

≥ Range 5Range 4Range 3Range 2

<Range 1

ABCDF





Required Improvement Option for Letter Grades of D or F

• A required improvement option could exist for campuses and districts with a letter grade of C or D.

• The campus of district must have shown enough improvement to be able to meet a Level II Satisfactory Performance Standard of 90 percent in five years.

• Methodology:• Required Improvement: (2016 Level II SP – 2015 Level II SP)

• Actual Change: (Level II SP of 90 – 2015 Level II SP) / 5

• Actual Change > Required Improvement



Texas Commission on Next Generation Assessmentsand Accountability Recommendations

Summary of Report to the Governor of Texas and Texas Legislature



Summary of TCNGAA Recommendations

1. Implement an individualized, integrated system of Texas designed state assessments using computerized-adaptive testing and instruction aligned with the state’s curriculum framework.

2. Allow the commissioner of education to approve locally developed writing assessments.

3. Support the continued streamlining of the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS).

4. Limit state testing to the readiness standards.

5. Add college-readiness assessments to the indicators of the state’s accountability system in Domain IV (Postsecondary Readiness) indicators and recommend appropriate available funding for a broader administration of college-readiness tests.



Summary of TCNGAA Recommendations

6. Align the state accountability system with ESSA requirements.

7. Eliminate Domain IV from state accountability calculations for elementary schools.

8. Place greater emphasis on student growth in Domains I–III in the state accountability system.

9. Retain the individual graduation committee option for graduation as allowed under TEC, §28.0258.



Strategic Planning for 2016-2017 & BeyondQuality Framework for Comprehensive

Professional Learning System



Reaching High Levels of Achievement for All Students

Proficiency

+

Mastery

Progress

+

Gap Closure

College Readiness Attainment

+

Engagement

Domain I

Domain II & III

Domain IV & V



Meeting the Needsof all Students

In every Classroom

GT Eco DisSPEDELL Migrant

What does mastery

learning look like on my campus?



Enhancing Teacher EffectivenessLe

arn

ing

Syst

em S

up

po

rts

Attainment

Progress

Proficiency



Quality Framework for Comprehensive Professional Learning System

Content Knowledge Support

Diverse Learners Support

Developing TeacherLeadership Competencies

Learning System Support Structures

Tier I

Tier IV

Tier III

Tier II



ResourcesDarling-Hammond, L. et al. (2009). Professional Learning in the Learning Profession: A Status Report on Teacher Development in the United States and Abroad. National Staff Development Council :Standard University

Dufour, R. (2016). Advocates for Professional Learning Communities Finding Common Ground in Education Reform. Solution Tree.

Dufour, R. When districts function as professional learning communities. Prakken Publications: Eddigest.com May 2012

Brown Easton, L. From Professional Development to Professional Learning. Phi Delta Kappan. Vol. 89, No 10 June 2008, pp 755-759, 761.

Hattie, J. A. C. (2009). Visual Learning A Synthesis of Over 800 Meta-Analyses Relating to Achievement. New York: Routledge:

Learning Forward (2012). Standards for Professional Learning. Oxford, OH: Author. Retrieved from: http://learningforward.org/standards/facilitator-guide#.Vw7OVJD2a1s

Little, J. W. (2006). Professional Community and Professional Development in the Learner-Centered School. Berkley: University of California.

http://learningforward.org/standards/facilitator-guide#.Vw7OVJD2a1s



ResourcesMarzano, R. (2001) Classroom Instruction that Works. Alexandria: ASCD.

Moir, E. Evolving from professional development to professional learning. May 23, 2013 Edsource:

Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art & practice of the learning organization. New York: Currency Doubleday.

Texas Education Agency. (December, 2015). Assessment and Accountability. Division of Performance Reporting. Technical Advisory Committee Meeting. 2016 Accountability Technical Advisory Committee Summary of meeting on December 2-3, 2015. Retrieved from: http://tea.texas.gov/Student_Testing_and_Accountability/Accountability/State_Accountability/Performance_Reporting/2016_Accountability_Development_Materials/

Texas Education Agency. (September, 2015). Assessment and Accountability. Division of Performance Reporting. Technical Advisory Committee Meeting. 2016 Accountability Technical Advisory Committee Summary of meeting on September 28-29, 2015.

Texas Education Agency. (February, 2015). Division of Performance Reporting. 2015 Accountability Policy Advisory Committee (APAC). Discussion of Options for A-F Ratings Beginning 2017 Accountability. Retrieved from: http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport/account/2015/20150205mtg/APAC%20Document_A-F%20Ratings.pdf

Texas Education Agency. (March, 2015). Division of Performance Reporting. 2015 Accountability Technical Advisory Committee (ATAC). Summary of Meeting March 1, 2016.

http://tea.texas.gov/Student_Testing_and_Accountability/Accountability/State_Accountability/Performance_Reporting/2016_Accountability_Development_Materials/

http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport/account/2015/20150205mtg/APAC Document_A-F Ratings.pdf



ResourcesWaraksa, M. (2013). Measures [graphic]. With permission from the artist. For exclusive use on this slide show. www. michaelwaraksa.com

Curlyhaired Girl. Digital image. My English Corner. N.p., 02 Feb. 2012. Web. 09 Sept. 2016. <http://mycosysite.blogspot.com.es/2012_02_01_archive.html>.

M, Anatoly. Action Steps. Digital image. NancyWilson.com. N.p., 31 Jan. 2014. Web. 09 Sept. 2016. <http://nancynwilson.com/building-an-online-business-2/>.

A Question of Influence. Digital image. Wikispaces.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 17 Sept. 2016. <http://a-question-of-influence.wikispaces.com/what+makes+an+effective+leader>.

T-TESS Rubric. Digital image. Https://teachfortexas.org/. Texas Education Agency, 04 Aug. 2016. Web. 17 Sept. 2016.

Center for the Collaborative Classroom. (2016). Lesson Study Cycle. Digital image. Lesson Study Facilitators TOT Powerpoint.

Noel. Working Gears. Digital image. Lignux.com. N.p., 4 Dec. 2013. Web. 18 Sept. 2016. <https://lignux.com/aviso-por-mantenimiento-en-lignux-diciembre-2013/>.

Who Are You. Digital image. Leadership Freak. N.p., 14 May 2010. Web. 18 Sept. 2016. <https://leadershipfreak.wordpress.com/2010/05/14/who-are-you/>.

PiRK. Parachute De Secours De Type Coupole utilise en parapente. Digital image. Wikimedia.org. N.p., 30 June 2009. Web. 19 Sept. 2016. <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Parachute_coupole.svg>.



Division of Instructional, School Improvement, and College Readiness Support

Dr. Eduardo Cancino, Deputy Director956-984-6022

[email protected]

Belinda S. Gorena, AdministratorSchool Improvement, Accountability and Compliance

[email protected]

Kelly K. VanHee, AdministratorCurriculum, Instruction and Assessment

[email protected]

Carmen Garcia, Director Brownsville Extension Office

[email protected]

Darlene M. Rogers, DirectorLaredo Extension Office

[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]





Documents

Transition to the Next Generation of Assessment ......Transition to the Next Generation of Assessment & Accountability Accountability Framework and A-F Rating System Expanded Measures