HB 22 Summary
HB 22 - Public School Accountability (2017 regular session)
Performance Indicators: Achievement
Groups indicators of achievement into three domains: student achievement, school progress, and closing the gaps. Maintains the requirement that the indicators be compared to state-established standards and based on information disaggregated by race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status. Amends language to require the commissioner to periodically versus biennially review the indicators.
Student Achievement Domain
Requires that indicators of student achievement include: performance on STAAR at the satisfactory and college readiness levels; and STAAR Alt as applicable for the district and campus.
Requires that for evaluating the performance of high schools and districts that include high schools, indicators include:
- satisfactory performance on TSI college readiness benchmarks;
- satisfactory performance on AP or similar tests;
- dual course credits earned in dual credit courses;
- enlistment in the U.S. Armed Forces
- industry certifications;
- admission to postsecondary industry certification programs that have as a prerequisite, successful secondary performance;
- successful completion of a college preparatory course required under TEC Section 28.014 that indicates preparation for postsecondary readiness without need for remediation;
- satisfaction of a research-based composite of indicators that indicate postsecondary readiness without the need for remediation;
- high school graduation rates, computed in accordance with ESSA, and subject to certain exclusions;
- successful completion of an OnRamps dual enrollment course; and,
- award of an associate degree.
School Progress Domain
Requires indicators for effectiveness in promoting student learning to include:
- the percentage of students who met the standard for annual improvement on STAAR as determined by the commissioner; and,
- for evaluating relative performance, the performance of districts and campuses compared to similar (student demographics) districts or campuses.
Closing the Gaps Domain
Defines this domain as “the use of disaggregated data to demonstrate the differentials among students from different racial and ethnic groups, socioeconomic backgrounds, and other factors,” including:
- students formerly receiving special education services (gives specific definition of which students this applies to);
- students continuously enrolled (not defined in the bill); and
- students who are mobile.
Requires that any standard for improvement determined by the commissioner allow for appropriately crediting a student for growth if the student performs at the highest achievement standard in the previous and current school year.
Requires the commissioner to annually define the standard for the current school year for each achievement indicator in this domain. Mandates that the commissioner consult with educators, parents, and business and industry representatives to establish and modify standards to “continuously improve student performance to achieve the goals of eliminating achievement gaps based on race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status and to ensure this state is a national leader in preparing students for postsecondary success.” Removes language related to having Texas rank in the top 10 states in terms of college readiness.
Requires the commissioner to study the feasibility of adopting an indicator for evaluating district and campus performance based on extra- and co-curricular activities. Permits the commissioner to adopt the indicator if he determines that it is appropriate. Allows the commissioner to establish an advisory committee to assist in feasibility decisions. Requires the commissioner to report the results of the feasibility study to the Texas Legislature not later than December 1, 2022, if an indicator has not already been adopted. Expires this section September 1, 2023.
Authorizes the commissioner to adopt rules and to solicit input statewide from persons who would likely be affected by the proposed rule, including school district boards of trustees, administrators, and teachers employed by school districts, parents of students enrolled in school districts, and other interested stakeholders. Prohibits an advisory committee appointed under Chapter 39 from being subject to Chapter 2110, Government Code for state agency advisory committees.
District and Campus Improvement Plans
Requires that district and campus improvement plans include provisions that address the achievement indicators adopted under the three domains.
Charter Authorizer Accountability
Requires the report comparing the three types of open-enrollment charters and matched traditional campuses to include performance as measured by the academic achievement indicators under the three domains and student attrition rates.
Bilingual and Special Language Programs Compliance
Requires the agency to evaluate the effectiveness of bilingual and special language programs based on achievement indicators under the three domains, including the results of assessment instruments.
Public Education Grant (PEG) Eligibility
Amends student eligibility to receive a PEG grant to attend another public school in the district in which the student resides only if the student’s assigned campus is rated unacceptable for the student achievement or the school progress domain for the current school year. Removes previous previsions allowing transfers.
Maintains the requirement that the commissioner assign an overall performance rating of A-F to each campus and district.
Maintains the requirement that the commissioner assign a separate performance rating of A-F for each domain to each campus and district.
Changes a performance rating of “D” to reflect performance that “needs improvement.”
Maintains a performance rating of “F” to reflect performance that is “unacceptable.”
Maintains a provision that prevents a district from receiving an overall or domain performance rating of “A” if the district has any campus with a corresponding overall or domain performance rating of “D” or “F.”
Calculation of Overall Performance Rating
Adds that the commissioner, in calculating an overall performance rating for a district or campus shall consider the rating under the student achievement domain and the school progress domain and take whichever performance rate is higher, unless the district or campus received a rating of “F” in either domain, in which case the district or campus may not be assigned a performance rating higher than a “B” for the composite score for the two domains.
Mandates that the commissioner attribute not less than 30 percent of the rating to the closing the gaps domain. In summary, the overall campus/district rating is determined by taking the best rating of domain 1 and domain 2, and then averaging that composite rating with the domain 3 rating.
Amends TEC so that campuses will not be rated by A–F letter grades in the August 2018 performance ratings (a one-year delay for campuses only). Requires the commissioner to issue only a rating of “improved required” or “met standard” for the 2017–2018 school year.
Maintains provisions in TEC that requires districts to be rated by A–F letter grades beginning in the 2017–2018 school year.
Campus and District Ratings
Requires the commissioner to 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.
Indicators and Standards
Permits the commissioner to adopt indicators and standards at any time during a school year before the evaluation of a district or campus.
Requires the commissioner to provide each district, each school year, with a document that, in a simple, accessible format, explains the accountability performance measures, methods, and procedures that will be applied that school year in assigning ratings. Requires the document to be easily distributable to parents and other interested parties.
Mandates that the commissioner, in collaboration with interested stakeholders, develop standardized language for each domain that does not exceed 250 words and that clearly explains what each letter performance rating means.
Local Accountability System
Eliminates TEC allowing Community and Student Engagement (CASE) indicators.
Adds a new section to TEC that allows a district to create a Local Accountability Plan for use in rating its campuses, if the commissioner has not assigned a campus a “D” or “F” rating.
Requires the commissioner to adopt rules for the plans that allow a local district or open-enrollment charter to assign a campus letter rating. Mandates that the rules:
1. require a district or school, in assigning an overall performance rating for a campus, to incorporate:
a. domain performance ratings assigned by the commissioner; and
b. performance ratings based on locally developed domains or sets of accountability measures;
2. may permit a district or school to assign weights to each domain or set of accountability measures, providing that in the aggregate, the domain grades account for at least 50 percent of the overall performance rating;
3. must require that each locally developed domain or set of accountability measures:
a. contains levels of performance that allow for differentiation, with assigned standards for achieving the differentiated levels;
b. provides for the assignment of a letter grade of A, B, C, D, or F; and
c. meets standards for reliability and validity;
4. must require that calculations for overall ratings and each locally developed domain or set of accountability measures be capable of being audited by a third party;
5. must require that a district or school produces a campus score card that may be displayed on the agency’s website; and
6. must require that a district or school develop and make available to the public an explanation of the methodology used to assign performance ratings.
Requires the commissioner to develop a process to approve a request by a district or charter to implement a Local Accountability Plan. Mandates the plan may only be approved if:
1. TEA determines the plan meets minimum requirements;
2. at the commissioner’s discretion, an audit conducted by TEA verifies the calculations included in the plan; and
3. a review panel approves the plan.
Requires the commissioner to appoint a review panel to review the Local Accountability Plans that include a majority of members who are superintendents, school board trustees, or charter governing body members who already have approved Local Accountability Plans.
Applies the review panel requirement after the 2019 ratings cycle, and only if at least 10 districts or open-enrollment charters have obtained commissioner approval of Local Accountability Plans.
Requires a district or open-enrollment charter authorized for a Local Accountability Plan to assign each campus an overall A–F rating and an A–F rating for each locally developed domain or set of accountability measures.
Requires that, not later than a date established by the commissioner, the district or school report the performance ratings to TEA, and make the ratings available to the public as provided by commissioner rule.
Needs Improvement Rating
Requires the commissioner to order a district or campus assigned an overall or domain performance rating of “D” to develop and implement a targeted improvement plan approved by the board of trustees. Does not require the plan be sent to the agency.
Requires the commissioner to implement interventions and sanctions that apply to an unacceptable campus, to a campus or a district that receives two consecutive years of an overall performance rating of “D.” Requires those interventions and sanctions to continue for each consecutive school year in which the campus is assigned an overall “D” rating.
“What If” Report
Requires the commissioner, not later than January 1, 2019, to submit a report to the legislative committees having primary jurisdiction over education, that provides a preliminary evaluation of campus performance.
Applies beginning with the 2017–2018 school year.
Earliest effective date: Immediately