STAAR Accountability Updates

1. STAAR Accountability Updates UTES 2013-2014

2. Objectives • Stakeholders will be able to…. • Describe the Performance Categories for STAAR • Describe updates for the Phase In process for STAAR • Identify the changes in Raw Scores versus Scale Scores between school years • Describe the 4 indices of the PBMAS system • Describe UTES Data in terms of accountability system

3. Performance Categories *Note “quicklook” handout on STAAR Update Fall 2013 from Lead4ward

4. Phase in of STAAR Level II Performance Standards

5. STAAR Performance Standards • STAAR performance standards are based on scale scores, not raw scores. • Scale scores are a conversion of the raw score that take into account the varying levels of difficulty posed by each tested question- basically the test is “normed” or “curved” after students take it • Using scale scores rather than raw scores allows tests to have exactly the same passing standard each year even though the questions differ

6. Other Updates • There will be continued changes made to EOC in connection to scores and graduation requirements in the next few years • STAAR Alternate will be redesigned for the 2014-2015 school year so that teachers are NOT required to prepare tasks or materials • STAAR Modified will be administered for the final time in 2013-2014 based on federal laws (more information about 2014-2015 will be forthcoming)

7. How will schools be rated in the new system? Performance-Based Monitoring Analysis System – PBMAS *Note 2014 PBMAS Indices Handout

8. Index 1: Student Achievement • Who: Includes all students, all test versions and all subject areas • What: % of students that meet Phase In I Level II performance standard • No minimum size criteria for student groups • Best result for first or second administration for 5th graders • Limited exceptions for ELL students that do not currently apply to us

9. Index 2: Student Progress • Who: Includes 10 student groups and STAAR Reading, Math and Writing tests • What: Credit based on growth expectations for each student • 1 point of credit for meeting expectations • Additional 1 point of credit for exceeding growth expectations • State has not yet released specifics about student groups or growth expectations (mid-December)

10. Index 3: Closing Performance Gaps • Who: • Economically Disadvantaged • 2 Lowest Performing Race/Ethnicity Groups from Previous Year • (will be African American and Hispanic for UTES) • All Subject Areas • What: 1 point of credit given for each student reaching Phase In I Level II performance standard and an additional point of credit for each student reaching Level III (advanced) performance standard • There is no minimum size criteria for economically disadvantaged • For race/ethnicity groups the minimum size criteria is 25 students • There are some exclusions for ELL students that do not currently apply to UTES • ELL students in the U.S. 2-4 years will have a separate progress measure for Level II and III not yet provided by state

11. Index 4: Postsecondary Readiness • Who: • 10 student groups for graduate rate • 8 student groups for graduate plans (recommended or distinguished plans) • Will include ALL students for elementary and middle schools What: • For high schools a score is calculated that combines: 4 or 5 year graduation rate/ number of students graduating on recommended or distinguished plans/ number of students scoring at Recommended/Final Level II performance standard (additional measures for Special Education and ELL students) • For elementary and middle school students a score will be based on the number of students scoring at Final/Recommended Level II performance standard * New for elementary and middle this year. High school graduation plans will go under revision beginning next year.

12. UTES STAAR Data 2012 vs. 2013

13. UTES Data Level II vs. Level III Peformance

14. How are we working to help

15. Key Points • Holding ourselves accountable for participation in campus communication systems: team meetings, cohort meetings, O3 meetings, Special Education meetings, Intervention Meetings, LPAC meetings • Focus on improving Tier I and following expectations and coaching suggestions for Tier II • Emphasis on improving our campus instruction through the investment of resources and time to improve Tier I (current challenges should be addressed through the solution of improving Tier I rather than thinking the solution is more interventionists) • Holding ourselves accountable for identifying problems, finding and then implementing solutions- stop doing the same thing when it is not working • Identifying or developing solid metrics and accountability systems for PK-2nd • Prioritization-student achievement is the number 1 factor that impacts all other areas of our programming including maintaining our charter, donor engagement, grant activity and community/university support. We still know it is not the ONLY factor. • Assume the best about each other- we are all here to do what is best for kids. The decisions we make are made with integrity and in the long-term interest of what is best for students. Without trust, our we cannot work well as a team. • We have a lot of great things going on- recent audit, we were one to two of the most recommended campuses for other educators to observe in terms of instruction, classroom management and campus culture.

16. In Closing • Recent study completed by Columbia and Harvard university found that having positive, loving and high quality ELEMENTARY teachers impact students long term by: • Increasing rate of college attendance • Decreasing rate of teen pregnancy • Increasing standard of living/earning potential What you do each day and how you do it makes a difference!!!