Texans Speak: Public Feedback on Assessment and ... · Texans Speak: Public Feedback on Assessment and Accountability Systems 10 Sampling of Comments from the Community Conversations

Texans Speak: Public Feedback on Assessment and Accountability Systems

A report from the State Board of EducationJuly 2016

i

Texans Speak:Public Feedback on Assessment and Accountability Systems

A Report from the State Board of EducationJuly 2016

This report is available online at:

tea.texas.gov/About_TEA/Leadership/State_Board_of_Education/SBOE_Meetings/Community_Conversations_about_Assessment_and_Accountability/ .

State Board of Education William B. Travis State Office Building 1701 N. Congress Ave. Austin, Texas 78701

http://tea.texas.gov/About_TEA/Leadership/State_Board_of_Education/SBOE_Meetings/Community_Conversations_about_Assessment_and_Accountability/

http://tea.texas.gov/About_TEA/Leadership/State_Board_of_Education/SBOE_Meetings/Community_Conversations_about_Assessment_and_Accountability/

ii

iii

THE

STATE OF TEXAS

State Board of Education1701 North Congress Avenue

Austin, Texas 78701-1494(512) 463-9007

Donna BahorichChair

Houston, District 6

Thomas RatliffVice Chair

Mt. Pleasant, District 9

Ruben Cortez, Jr.Secretary

Brownsville, District 2

Lawrence A. Allen, Jr.Fresno, District 4

Erika BeltranDallas, District 13

David Bradley Beaumont, District 7

Barbara Cargill The Woodlands, District 8

Martha M. Dominguez, Ed.D.El Paso, District 1

Patricia Hardy Fort Worth, District 11

Tom MaynardFlorence, District 10

Sue Melton-MaloneWaco, District 14

Ken Mercer San Antonio, District 5

Geraldine “Tincy” MillerDallas, District 12

Marisa B. PerezSan Antonio, District 3

Marty RowleyAmarillo, District 15

July 22, 2016

The State Board of Education is pleased to present Texans Speak: Public Feedback on Assessment and Accountability Systems. While not a research-based survey, this report does represent the comments and opinions of 27,000+ Texans who participated in either community meetings or an online survey. The report, along with additional comments received from the survey, can be found online at tea.texas.gov/About_TEA/Leadership/State_Board_of_Education/SBOE_Meetings/Community_Conversations_about_Assessment_and_Accountability/.

We hope the findings in this report will help inform efforts to craft the next generation assessment and accountability systems.

We wish to thank the state’s Education Service Centers, especially the Region IV Education Service Center Executive Director Pam Wells and her staff, and all the education and community organizations who help spread the word about the survey. I want to especially express my great appreciation to all the legislators, educators, parents, students and business leaders across Texas who shared the survey using their personal email lists and through social media.

I’d like to thank my fellow board members who enthusiastically worked alongside me to host and seek input through the Community Conversations in their areas. Finally, I’d like to thank Erika Beltran, our State Board of Education representative on the Next Generation Commission, for her terrific representation and contributions to the important mission of the commission.

Donna Bahorich Chair State Board of Education

http://tea.texas.gov/About_TEA/Leadership/State_Board_of_Education/SBOE_Meetings/Community_Conversations_about_Assessment_and_Accountability



iv

v

Executive Summary ....................................................................... 7

State Assessments and Accountability Survey ........................ 13

State Assessment Goal ........................................................... 14

State Assessment .................................................................... 16

State Assessment Data ........................................................... 20

State Accountability Goal ...................................................... 23

Improvement to State Assessment & Accountability ........ 26

Current State Assessment & Accountability ....................... 32

Community Conversations – Comments ................................. 39

Amarillo .................................................................................... 40

Austin ......................................................................................... 55

Brownsville ............................................................................... 65

Dallas ......................................................................................... 90

El Paso .....................................................................................101

Fort Worth .............................................................................112

Houston ..................................................................................127

Kilgore ....................................................................................136

San Antonio ............................................................................145



Table of Contents

Texans Speak 6

Page Intentionally Blank

Texans Speak: Public Feedback on Assessment and Accountability Systems 7

IntroductionTexas began its state standardized student assessment program in 1980, with the first accountability ratings for schools and districts issued in 1994. While release of the results has always been front page news, public discussion and concern about the systems has increased as the stakes attached to the tests and ratings grew.

In 2015, the Texas Legislature passed into law House Bill 2804, which created a 15-member panel called the Texas Commission on Next Generation Assessments and Accountability. The commission was tasked with developing and making recommendations for new systems of student assessment and public school accountability.

In parallel to the commission’s work, the State Board of Education (SBOE), led by the efforts of SBOE Chair Donna Bahorich, also gathered feedback about the state’s current assessment and accountability systems, while seeking suggestions for future development. Between October 2015 and March 2016, board members hosted a series of Community Conversation meetings across the state:

City Date LocationHouston Oct. 27, 2015 Houston Community College

San Antonio Jan. 13, 2016 Education Service Center Region 20

Austin Jan. 21, 2016 Renaissance Hotel

El Paso Feb. 4, 2016 El Paso Community College

Brownsville Feb. 11, 2016 Brownsville Independent School District

Fort Worth Feb. 16, 2016 Education Service Center Region 11

Dallas Feb. 17, 2016 El Centro College

Kilgore March 1, 2016 Education Service Center Region 7

Amarillo March 24, 2016 Education Service Center Region 16

About 700 educators, parents, students and business people attended these regional meetings. Comments and feedback gathered at those meetings became the basis for an online survey made available to all Texans from June 14-30, 2016. The survey was not designed to be scientific, but rather an attempt to essentially take the temperature of Texans on these two vital issues. While the survey did not adhere to standard protocols of a true research-based survey, the findings do represent the opinions of 27,186 people who answered all or part of the survey.

The survey is broken down into six survey groups: educator, parent or community leader, business leader, student, institution of higher education employee, and other. On most questions, the respondent could select one of five options: strongly agree, agree, neutral, disagree or strongly disagree.

The complete survey findings are included later in this report. Following are highlights from the survey.



Executive Summary


Survey HighlightsStudent Assessment

The most widely supported goal of the state assessment program is to assess student learning and progress.

Ninety-one percent of public school educators and 83 percent of higher education employees say the assessments should provide immediate feedback.

Every survey group strongly supported (83 percent to 97 percent) designing assessments using teacher input, just as occurs today. Also following current protocols, all groups (85 percent to 99 percent) agree that the assessments should not contain trick or developmentally inappropriate questions.

In contrast to long-standing state law, no survey group supports tying grade-level promotion or high school graduation to state assessment results. Every class since the Class of 1987 has been required to pass state tests to graduate, while grade-level promotion requirements have been in effect for some grades since the 2002-2003 school year. Students opposed this requirement by 86 percent. Opposition to the policy for the other groups ranged from 74 percent to 84 percent. The strongest support for retaining these provisions came from business leaders but only 24 percent of this group backed the current requirement.

All survey groups instead strongly believe the assessment results should be used to identify gaps in individual student learning. The strongest support for this idea comes from educators (84 percent) and the “other” category (82 percent).

All groups strongly disagree (58 to 81 percent) with using test results as a tool to partially determine teacher performance.

All survey groups felt strongly that state tests should not be administered and preferred to have students only take national tests, such as the Iowa Test of Basic Skills, the SAT and the ACT. The support for using national tests ranged from 73 percent support from parents to 56 percent of those in the “other” category.

AccountabilityFifty-eight to 70 percent of all the survey groups agree or strongly agree that the goal of the accountability system should be used to identify areas of support needed for underperforming schools and school districts.

Sixty-four percent of higher education employees believe the accountability system should emphasize progress and growth towards college and career readiness, while only 48 percent of parents feel this way.

Opinions about the goal of the academic accountability rating system is divided. For example, 46 percent of the public school educators surveyed say the accountability system should be used to identify top- and low-performing schools, but 39 percent disagree with this use. The most divided group are business leaders with 44 percent supporting the use of accountability ratings to identify the highest and lowest performing schools and 44 percent opposing this usage.


Survey HighlightsCurrent State Assessment and Accountability Systems

All survey groups, ranging from a high of 97 percent for educators to 77 percent for business leaders, favor finding better ways to assess students with special needs.

Every group, ranging from 95 percent for educators to 86 percent for business leaders, agree or strongly agree that improvements should be made to the timeliness and usefulness of the assessment results given to students and parents.

Eighty-nine percent or more of each survey group favor making state assessment data accessible and easy to understand.

Eighty-four to 94 percent of each survey group agrees there should be decreased schoolwide emphasis on practice and preparation for state assessments.

Systems that promote a student growth mind-set instead of a pass-fail mind-set earn the support or strong support of 80 to 94 percent of the survey groups.

Seventy-eight to 91 percent of each survey group favors decreasing the number of state assessments.

A majority of all survey groups (71 percent to 89 percent) support using alternate measures of student progress and growth such as student portfolios.

Seventy-seven percent of educators and 68 percent of students favor streamlining the state education standards to reduce the amount of content taught each year. Recognizing this need, the State Board of Education has already begun the work to reduce the number of standards and this summer are working on the English Language Arts and Reading standards.

Sixty percent of parents support moving to a computer-based, adaptable assessment that will show student progress and learning gaps, a move favored by 53 percent of educators.

Fifty-seven percent of educators disagree that the current student assessment and accountability systems foster a culture of high expectations for all stakeholders, such as students, teachers, schools and school districts.

Forty-six percent of public school educators say the two systems do not ensure that teachers teach the Texas curriculum standards.

Nineteen percent of the students and 11 percent of the higher education employees believe the current testing and accountability systems prepare students for higher education.

A wide array of people came together in meetings held across the state to discuss the current assessment and accountability systems and to offer suggestions for updates. A sample of comments from those meetings are below and the full reports, prepared by attendees at the meetings, are also included in this report.


Sampling of Comments from the Community Conversations– Assessment should not be a “one-time” event. It should inform educators for

instructional purposes, allowing for adjustment of instruction for the student’s sake. (Amarillo)

– We are not upset about accountability/assessment, but how they are used. (Amarillo)

– One test (on) one day is insufficient. (Austin)

– Stronger focus on measuring growth. Not all students start at the same place: previous schooling, language, county of origin, background knowledge and opportunity. (Amarillo)

– The special education population struggles to adjust to the assessment. (Brownsville)

– Assessments should be diagnostic, not punitive. (Austin)

– Removal of high-stakes testing. It stigmatizes schools, teachers and students. (El Paso)

– Why is college readiness presumed as a goal? (Austin)

– ELLs – let them learn the language before testing. (Amarillo)

– Test in native language until mastery demonstrated in English. (El Paso)

– STAAR A on computer – reconsider this. (Fort Worth)

– We (parents) need to know why our kids are taking this. (Austin)

– There are too many TEKS for students to master at one grade level. (Amarillo)

– Find a balance to testing and be aware of unintended consequences…like a loss of content in one area while concentrating on another. (Fort Worth)

– Every test right now is a reading test so it’s not clear as to whether those not meeting standard are due to reading problems or lack of content knowledge. (Fort Worth)

– We still need to measure where schools systems are going, but not live and die by one test. (Amarillo)

– Assessment types should match a clear, realistic educational goal. (Fort Worth)

– Narrow the TEKS assessed. (San Antonio)

– Need to test in the way students learn, consider modern culture. (Dallas)

– Looking at the growth of students is important especially for our top achievers. (Kilgore)

– Create tests that test only essentials. (Austin)

– One size does not fit all. Test appropriately, include portfolios, consider student population, developmentally appropriate assessment and accountability. (El Paso)

– Keep political agendas away from our children. (Amarillo)


– Is there a need to test all or would random work to show what districts are doing well? (Fort Worth)

– Anxiety and health of children must come first. The pressure and anxiety of testing is wrong. (Brownsville)

– Reduce time preparing for the test (and) teaching to it. (Houston)

– Low “passing standards” give students a false sense of security. Develop ways to assess student work ethic/educational grit and reward it. (Kilgore)

– Ultimately, assessment should inspire, not demoralize (students, teachers, or parents) (San Antonio)

– Consider testing only federal requirements to reduce amount of testing. (Fort Worth)

– Accountability is about responsibility – of parents, communities and school. It is responsibility of ensuring all students have opportunities to learn. (Amarillo)

– Accountability should make schools better, not be “gotcha.” (Amarillo)

– High stakes accountability has resulted in gaming the system. (El Paso)

– Strengths (of the accountability system) – districts can’t hide low-performing students. (Dallas)

– Progression of testing history has forced campus administrators and teacher to be data driven and focus on all students to add value. Testing will never go away. (San Antonio)

– Get people information in a timely fashion. (Dallas)

– More focus on student progress than on passing standards. (San Antonio)

– Need for better, easier communication with general public about assessment and accountability. (San Antonio)

– A high performance school district is an economic development driver for that community. (Dallas)

ConclusionState Board Chair Donna Bahorich summarizes the survey findings this way:

“Texans believe we have too many tests, schools are spending too much time preparing for the state assessments, and too much class time working on the preparation. They want more immediate tests results.”

The State Board of Education has already begun work on one of the suggestions – reducing the number of curriculum standards to be covered in each subject. The work to streamline the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS), the state’s curriculum standards, has begun on the English Language Arts and Reading standards. The board will work to streamline the science standards later this year and then will work to reduce the social studies standards in 2017. Other subjects are expected to follow.

Texans Speak 12

Page Intentionally Blank

Texans Speak: State Assessments and Accountability Survey 13

Texas State Board of EducationState Assessments and Accountability Survey

Total Number of Respondents Completing All or Part of the Survey 27,186Educators and Education Leadership 16,571

Parent or community leader 8,318Business leader 97

Student 627Institution of higher education employee 419

Other 1,154

Representation Information (optional questions)

Ethnicity and Race: Are you Hispanic or Latino? (aperson of Cuban, Mexican, Puerto Rican, South or

Central American, or other Spanish culture or origin,regardless of race)

Yes No Responses

Educator 1,90611.6%

14,46388.3%

16,36960.8%

Parent or community leader 88410.7%

7,36189.2%

8,24530.6%

Business leader 88.4%

8791.5%

950.3%

Student 14623.5%

47576.4%

6212.3%

Institution of higher education employee 4611%

37188.9%

4171.5%

Other 13411.7%

1,00888.2%

1,1424.2%

Please select the racialcategory or categories with

which you most closelyidentify. Check as many as

apply.

AmericanIndian orAlaskaNative

AsianBlack orAfrican

American

NativeHawaiianor OtherPacific

Islander

White Responses

Educator 3512%

1801%

7974.7%

460.2%

15,44191.8%

16,81561%


1451.7%

4114.8%

250.2%

7,63290.4%

8,43730.6%


10.9%

32.9%

10.9%

9593.1%

1020.3%

Student 142.2%

233.6%

558.7%

91.4%

52883.9%

6292.2%

Institution of higher education employee 153.6%

30.7%

296.9%

20.4%

36788.2%

4161.5%

Other 342.9%

90.7%

564.8%

30.2%

1,05991.2%

1,1614.2%

The State Board of Education, with assistance from the Region IV Education Service Center in Houston, conducted an online survey from June 14-30, 2016 to gather opinions about the state’s current student assessment and accountability systems and to gather recommendations for future development. It was possible to skip questions so the total number of respondents will vary between questions.

Stakeholder Number of RespondentsTotal Number of Respondents Completing All or Part of the Survey 27,186

Educators and Education Leadership 16,571

Parent or community leader 8,318

Business Leader 97

Student 627

Institution of higher education employee 419

Other 1,154



State Assessments and Accountability Survey


SURVEYCurriculum and Instruction

The goal of state ASSESSMENT is to:Assess the success of the

curriculum standardsStrongly

agree Agree Neutral Disagree Stronglydisagree Responses

Educator 1,4188.6%

7,85247.7%

1,87011.3%

3,79723%

1,5099.1%

16,44661%


3,09837.7%

1,10413.4%

1,97924.1%

1,45817.7%

8,20930.4%


2930.2%

1414.5%

1919.7%

1717.7%

960.3%

Student 416.6%

19331.4%

11518.7%

13922.6%

12520.3%

6132.2%


17742.3%

6515.5%

8119.3%

5312.6%

4181.5%

Other 13111.4%

50243.9%

15713.7%

22519.6%

12811.1%

1,1434.2%

Assess the effectivenessof instruction and

instructional programs

Stronglyagree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly

disagree Responses

Educator 1,4488.8%

6,64340.4%

1,87511.4%

4,38526.6%

2,08012.6%

16,43161%


2,87635%

1,02812.5%

2,10425.6%

1,57619.2%

8,20630.5%

Business leader 1920%

3233.6%

66.3%

2324.2%

1515.7%

950.3%

Student 487.7%

15525.1%

9916%

17328%

14223%

6172.2%


16940.7%

419.8%

10425%

6214.9%

4151.5%

Other 14512.7%

47441.6%

13411.7%

23320.4%

15313.4%

1,1394.2%

Assess student learningand progress


disagree Responses

Educator 2,20713.4%

7,39945%

1,5909.6%

3,33420.3%

1,88111.4%

16,41161%


2,88235.1%

83910.2%

1,91323.3%

1,70620.8%

8,20130.5%


2829.7%

55.3%

1313.8%

1515.9%

940.3%

Student 528.4%

18329.6%

6811%

16526.6%

15024.2%

6182.2%


16239.1%

4510.8%

8721%

6014.4%

4141.5%

Other 22219.4%

45139.4%

1149.9%

20517.9%

15113.2%

1,1434.2%



State Assessment Goal


Measure student readinessfor the next grade level or

high school graduation(mastery of curriculum

standards)


disagree Responses

Educator 1,4799%

6,73741%

2,05512.5%

4,16325.3%

1,97212%

16,40661%


2,44329.7%

98311.9%

2,20426.8%

1,98324.1%

8,20730.5%


3435.7%

99.4%

1616.8%

1515.7%

950.3%

Student 416.6%

14222.9%

9415.2%

17227.8%

16927.3%

6182.2%


14735.6%

5513.3%

9924%

7016.9%

4121.5%

Other 16614.5%

41236%

14512.6%

26022.7%

16114%

1,1444.2%

Measure student readinessfor college and the

workforce


disagree Responses

Educator 1,0546.4%

4,46027.1%

2,63416%

5,22331.8%

3,04518.5%

16,41661%


1,68420.5%

1,19914.6%

2,42529.5%

2,40729.3%

8,19930.4%


2526%

1212.5%

1717.7%

2222.9%

960.3%

Student 396.3%

11218%

8213.2%

19331.1%

19331.1%

6192.3%


11026.5%

5713.7%

10926.3%

9522.9%

4141.5%

Other 13912.1%

33028.8%

16814.6%

29325.5%

21518.7%

1,1454.2%

Measure student masteryof key concepts and facts,including critical-thinking

skills


disagree Responses

Educator 1,5169.2%

7,45645.4%

2,23213.6%

3,48521.2%

1,71210.4%

16,40161%


2,65932.4%

1,28015.6%

1,98524.2%

1,70020.7%

8,18930.4%


2728.1%

1010.4%

1515.6%

1919.7%

960.3%

Student 447%

16626.7%

13822.2%

12420%

14823.8%

6202.3%


14635.1%

5914.2%

8019.2%

7317.5%

4151.5%

Other 17014.8%

46040.2%

14913%

21819%

14712.8%

1,1444.2%


Assessment Format, Content, and DistributionState ASSESSMENT should:

Be administered based onTexas state standards toensure we have the same

expectations for everystudent in every school


disagree Responses

Educator 1,87411.4%

6,68940.7%

2,20613.4%

3,60821.9%

2,03112.3%

16,40860.9%


2,10025.5%

1,30315.8%

2,17326.4%

2,04124.8%

8,22030.5%


2728.1%

1212.5%

2425%

2121.8%

960.3%

Student 508%

15925.7%

9916%

13421.6%

17628.4%

6182.2%


12630.1%

5212.4%

11427.2%

8119.3%

4181.5%

Other 15513.5%

34229.9%

18015.7%

26122.8%

20517.9%

1,1434.2%

Not be administered;students should take only

national tests (e.g., theIowa Test of Basic Skills,

the SAT, the ACT)


disagree Responses

Educator 5,56633.9%

4,01824.4%

3,11818.9%

3,14019.1%

5713.4%

16,41360.9%

Parent or community leader 4,07349.4%

1,92323.3%

1,05312.7%

91311%

2743.3%

8,23630.5%


1616.6%

88.3%

1717.7%

1212.5%

960.3%

Student 29847.9%

14623.4%

8713.9%

609.6%

314.9%

6222.3%


10224.3%

6515.5%

6515.5%

215%

4191.5%

Other 38133.1%

26422.9%

19917.3%

22619.6%

786.7%

1,1484.2%

State Assessment


Have one clear purpose(e.g., assessment,

diagnostic, accountability)


disagree Responses

Educator 3,59121.9%

7,08743.3%

2,58915.8%

2,39814.6%

6984.2%

16,36360.9%


3,08437.5%

1,65420.1%

1,08713.2%

6377.7%

8,21130.5%


2930.8%

2021.2%

1617%

55.3%

940.3%

Student 14222.9%

22035.4%

12119.5%

8213.2%

558.8%

6202.3%


14835.6%

7217.3%

6916.6%

245.7%

4151.5%

Other 26323%

43438%

20217.7%

17815.6%

645.6%

1,1414.2%

Include several types oftests to create a better

picture of varying studentstrengths and differences


disagree Responses

Educator 5,69534.7%

6,23638%

1,67810.2%

1,74010.6%

1,0286.2%

16,37760.9%


2,81834.2%

1,11213.5%

1,00812.2%

1,01012.2%

8,21730.5%


2930.2%

1212.5%

1212.5%

1212.5%

960.3%

Student 17528.2%

17928.9%

9515.3%

7411.9%

9615.5%

6192.3%


13331.8%

4711.2%

5312.6%

368.6%

4181.5%

Other 38233.3%

41636.3%

14512.6%

11710.2%

847.3%

1,1444.2%

Provide immediatefeedback


disagree Responses

Educator 8,42951.4%

6,46439.4%

1,1286.8%

2421.4%

1170.7%

16,38060.9%


3,31740.3%

1,09413.3%

2563.1%

2152.6%

8,22030.5%


3435.7%

99.4%

77.3%

33.1%

950.3%

Student 29146.7%

21534.5%

7912.7%

182.8%

193%

6222.3%


18143.7%

419.9%

194.5%

92.1%

4141.5%

Other 49042.7%

44739%

14712.8%

403.4%

221.9%

1,1464.2%


Should be given only forsubjects required by

federal law (i.e., annualtesting of English language

arts/reading and math ingrades 3-8 and once ingrades 10-12; testing of

science once inelementary, middle, and

high school; and no stateassessment of writing or

social studies)


disagree Responses

Educator 4,19825.6%

5,08431%

2,68516.4%

3,19919.5%

1,2037.3%

16,36960.9%


2,26627.6%

1,47317.9%

1,52418.5%

97611.8%

8,20930.5%


1717.8%

1515.7%

1616.8%

2122.1%

950.3%

Student 16025.8%

14122.7%

12319.8%

10717.2%

8914.3%

6202.3%


10424.9%

7417.7%

9522.7%

4510.7%

4171.5%

Other 21118.4%

33429.2%

22219.4%

24921.7%

12711.1%

1,1434.2%

Be designed using teacherinput


disagree Responses

Educator 12,76477.7%

3,08218.7%

3802.3%

1100.6%

810.4%

16,41760.9%


1,94623.6%

3734.5%

1171.4%

1441.7%

8,22530.5%


1717.8%

1313.6%

11%

22.1%

950.3%

Student 36859.3%

16927.2%

436.9%

223.5%

182.9%

6202.3%


7718.4%

153.5%

40.9%

30.7%

4171.5%

Other 77567.5%

28024.3%

665.7%

141.2%

131.1%

1,1484.2%


Not contain trick questionsor developmentally

inappropriate questions


disagree Responses


1,1196.8%

1170.7%

420.2%

660.4%

16,43060.9%

Parent or community leader 7,00685%

89610.8%

1852.2%

640.7%

871%

8,23830.5%


1313.8%

99.5%

33.1%

22.1%

940.3%

Student 47476.3%

8313.3%

314.9%

203.2%

132%

6212.3%


4310.3%

122.8%

40.9%

30.7%

4171.5%

Other 94181.9%

14012.1%

393.3%

171.4%

110.9%

1,1484.2%


Use of Assessment DataState ASSESSMENT data should:

Determine post-secondaryreadiness


disagree Responses

Educator 1,5329.3%

5,50033.4%

3,95024%

3,92023.8%

1,5189.2%

16,42060.9%


2,27927.6%

1,94723.6%

1,95423.7%

1,35416.4%

8,23730.5%


2728.7%

1819.1%

1617%

1313.8%

940.3%

Student 7411.9%

15925.6%

18329.4%

13221.2%

7311.7%

6212.3%


15035.8%

7317.4%

7918.8%

4611%

4181.5%

Other 13211.5%

40535.3%

25021.8%

25121.9%

1079.3%

1,1454.2%

Inform decision making toguide instruction


disagree Responses

Educator 3,77122.9%

8,03648.8%

2,23313.5%

1,6309.9%

7694.6%

16,43961%


3,47942.2%

1,67220.3%

1,01512.3%

84910.3%

8,22930.5%


3234%

1414.8%

1414.8%

1010.6%

940.3%

Student 8814.1%

23537.9%

16726.9%

7512%

558.8%

6202.3%


19446.4%

5813.8%

4310.2%

348.1%

4181.5%

Other 23520.5%

52646%

20718.1%

1039%

716.2%

1,1424.2%

Not be used to preventstudent advancement tonext grade level or high

school graduation


disagree Responses

Educator 7,77547.2%

4,95730.1%

1,90711.5%

1,4048.5%

4142.5%

16,45760.9%


1,81421.9%

6267.5%

4525.4%

2132.5%

8,24930.5%


1313.6%

1313.6%

1515.7%

88.4%

950.3%

Student 38461.7%

15024.1%

386.1%

274.3%

233.6%

6222.3%


10525%

5112.1%

389%

215%

4191.5%

Other 54847.7%

35330.7%

1139.8%

958.2%

393.3%

1,1484.2%

State Assessment Data


Identify gaps in individualstudent learning


disagree Responses

Educator 4,56527.7%

9,16255.7%

1,2547.6%

1,0086.1%

4492.7%

16,43861%


4,08949.6%

96611.7%

6497.8%

5036.1%

8,23030.5%


3840.4%

1313.8%

66.3%

55.3%

940.3%

Student 14923.9%

26742.9%

10316.5%

6510.4%

375.9%

6212.3%


22353.6%

4310.3%

235.5%

204.8%

4161.5%

Other 32628.3%

62154%

938.1%

524.5%

564.8%

1,1484.2%

Be used as a tool inpartially determiningteacher performance


disagree Responses

Educator 2901.7%

1,4448.7%

1,4438.7%

4,51127.4%

8,76953.2%

16,45760.9%


1,15514%

1,04112.6%

2,32528.2%

3,24639.3%

8,24130.5%


1515.7%

77.3%

2021%

3536.8%

950.3%

Student 619.8%

10516.9%

8313.3%

14523.3%

22636.4%

6202.2%


378.8%

409.5%

10224.4%

21952.3%

4181.5%

Other 766.6%

14912.9%

16614.4%

35330.7%

40535.2%

1,1494.2%

Be used as a tool inpartially determiningschool/school districtaccountability ratings


disagree Responses

Educator 3502.1%

3,34220.2%

2,70416.4%

5,09530.9%

4,97930.2%

16,47061%


1,75321.2%

1,45717.6%

2,26427.4%

2,31228%

8,24130.5%


2223.1%

1111.5%

1920%

2829.4%

950.3%

Student 6210%

12219.6%

11518.5%

15525%

16626.7%

6202.2%


8119.3%

7016.7%

10725.5%

13833%

4181.5%

Other 786.8%

27023.5%

25121.9%

29625.8%

25121.9%

1,1464.2%


Identify low and highperforming students


disagree Responses

Educator 1,3958.4%

7,06842.9%

2,99418.1%

3,01818.3%

1,98112%

16,45661%


2,61931.7%

1,53418.6%

1,72920.9%

1,61619.6%

8,23730.5%


3031.5%

1212.6%

1616.8%

1920%

950.3%

Student 7812.6%

15825.5%

13922.4%

12219.7%

12219.7%

6192.2%


13632.4%

8520.2%

7618.1%

6715.9%

4191.5%

Other 12510.8%

43537.7%

23220.1%

20717.9%

15213.2%

1,1514.2%


Purpose and FunctionThe goal of state ACCOUNTABILITY is to:

Identify top- andlow-performing schools


disagree Responses

Educator 1,3238.5%

5,73937%

2,42515.6%

3,77324.3%

2,24314.4%

15,50361.2%


2,78136.3%

1,48019.3%

1,54220.1%

1,19015.5%

7,65930.2%


2325.5%

1011.1%

2022.2%

2022.2%

900.3%

Student 6611.6%

16929.9%

12822.6%

11119.6%

9116.1%

5652.2%


11930.8%

7619.6%

7419.1%

8221.2%

3861.5%

Other 1009%

36833.4%

23821.6%

25222.9%

14112.8%

1,0994.3%

Identify areas of supportneeded for

underperformingschools/school districts


disagree Responses

Educator 1,73111.1%

8,16052.6%

1,95612.6%

2,33815%

1,3138.4%

15,49861.2%


3,73348.7%

1,07614%

97112.6%

86911.3%

7,66430.2%


3437.7%

1112.2%

1314.4%

1011.1%

900.3%

Student 7913.9%

24843.8%

9516.8%

6812%

7513.2%

5652.2%


19550.6%

4712.2%

4110.6%

369.3%

3851.5%

Other 19317.5%

57351.9%

14413%

11110%

817.3%

1,1024.3%

Identify areas of effectivebest practices used by

high-performingschools/school districts


disagree Responses

Educator 1,3768.8%

6,14439.6%

2,82818.2%

3,44122.2%

1,69410.9%

15,48361.2%


2,98638.9%

1,59920.8%

1,27516.6%

97412.7%

7,65730.2%


3437.7%

1314.4%

1314.4%

1011.1%

900.3%

Student 8314.6%

18532.6%

12922.7%

8414.8%

8615.1%

5672.2%


16643%

5213.4%

6817.6%

4611.9%

3861.5%

Other 15714.2%

44440.4%

21719.7%

17716.1%

1039.3%

1,0984.3%

State Accountability Goal


Ensure that educationaleffectiveness is a primary

factor in determiningschool/school districtperformance ratings


disagree Responses

Educator 8465.4%

5,33434.4%

3,79024.4%

3,73424.1%

1,76811.4%

15,47261.2%


2,52433%

1,97025.7%

1,49319.5%

1,09814.3%

7,63830.2%


2427.5%

1517.2%

1719.5%

1314.9%

870.3%

Student 6912.2%

16028.4%

15727.8%

10017.7%

7713.6%

5632.2%


11930.9%

7519.4%

9223.8%

5714.8%

3851.5%

Other 1099.9%

41938.2%

26624.2%

18717%

11410.4%

1,0954.3%

Ensure that locallydetermined measures are

the primary factors indetermining school/school

district performance


disagree Responses

Educator 1,4519.3%

5,09933%

3,81824.7%

3,48622.5%

1,59410.3%

15,44861.2%


2,51732.8%

2,01426.3%

1,39818.2%

1,01513.2%

7,65430.3%


2527.7%

1617.7%

2022.2%

1617.7%

900.3%

Student 6611.6%

16228.6%

18232.1%

8615.1%

7012.3%

5662.2%


12632.7%

8421.8%

7419.2%

4912.7%

3851.5%

Other 12111%

39035.5%

28826.2%

19217.5%

1059.5%

1,0964.3%

Ensure that state fundscontribute to student

success


disagree Responses

Educator 2,57516.6%

5,36934.7%

2,46815.9%

3,00519.4%

2,04413.2%

15,46161.2%


2,59333.8%

1,21015.8%

1,19515.6%

1,18315.4%

7,64930.3%


2225%

910.2%

1415.9%

1618.1%

880.3%

Student 13123.1%

16729.5%

10218%

7012.3%

9616.9%

5662.2%


12131.5%

6015.6%

5313.8%

4812.5%

3831.5%

Other 25823.5%

39235.7%

19717.9%

13312.1%

11510.5%

1,0954.3%


Foster a culture of highperformance expectations


disagree Responses

Educator 1,79611.6%

6,22740.3%

2,61416.9%

2,78918%

2,01413%

15,44061.2%


2,34530.7%

1,64421.5%

1,45919.1%

1,37017.9%

7,63830.3%


2831.4%

1011.2%

1415.7%

1314.6%

890.3%

Student 8214.5%

13624.1%

17330.6%

8715.4%

8615.2%

5642.2%


13535.4%

6517%

5614.6%

5414.1%

3811.5%

Other 17215.7%

38935.5%

23021%

17015.5%

13312.1%

1,0944.3%

Hold all levels of educationleadership responsible for

student educationaloutcomes


disagree Responses

Educator 1,77811.5%

5,49535.5%

2,57616.6%

3,36021.7%

2,24214.5%

15,45161.2%


2,37531%

1,44718.9%

1,52219.9%

1,32517.3%

7,63930.2%


2831.4%

44.4%

2123.5%

1213.4%

890.3%

Student 8114.3%

15627.6%

11720.7%

10819.1%

10318.2%

5652.2%


13234.4%

6918%

6316.4%

5915.4%

3831.5%

Other 17816.2%

36933.6%

22520.5%

18116.5%

14212.9%

1,0954.3%

Emphasize progress andgrowth toward college and

career readiness


disagree Responses

Educator 1,66710.7%

6,27440.6%

2,86218.5%

2,94719%

1,69810.9%

15,44861.2%


2,67034.9%

1,43618.8%

1,34917.6%

1,21515.9%

7,63830.2%


2224.7%

1112.3%

1213.4%

1516.8%

890.3%

Student 9516.9%

18833.4%

12221.7%

8014.2%

7713.7%

5622.2%


16041.7%

5514.3%

3910.1%

4210.9%

3831.5%

Other 19918.1%

44140.2%

20118.3%

14913.5%

1079.7%

1,0974.3%


Areas for ImprovementThe current state ASSESSMENT and ACCOUNTABILITY system

could be improved byDecreasing the number of

state assessmentsStrongly


Educator 9,67565%

3,32222.3%

1,0457%

7114.7%

1200.8%

14,87361.6%


1,39519.2%

4055.5%

1992.7%

741%

7,25630%


1416.2%

1112.7%

44.6%

44.6%

860.3%

Student 34367.3%

10019.6%

336.4%

193.7%

142.7%

5092.1%


7219.8%

205.5%

123.3%

82.2%

3631.5%

Other 62759.4%

27926.4%

868.1%

474.4%

151.4%

1,0544.3%

Decreasing schoolwideemphasis on practice and

preparation for stateassessments


disagree Responses


2,72818.3%

5013.3%

3872.6%

780.5%

14,87761.5%


97713.4%

2443.3%

1582.1%

630.8%

7,26830%


1315.1%

44.6%

44.6%

11.1%

860.3%

Student 35068.7%

8015.7%

275.3%

367%

163.1%

5092.1%


4913.5%

133.5%

123.3%

61.6%

3621.4%

Other 74470.5%

20819.7%

565.3%

333.1%

141.3%

1,0554.3%

Ensuring assessments aredevelopmentally

appropriate


disagree Responses


2,03913.6%

1631%

340.2%

420.2%

14,88961.6%


1,52921%

2914%

560.7%

751%

7,25330%


2731.7%

78.2%

11.1%

22.3%

850.3%

Student 31862.3%

14428.2%

316%

50.9%

122.3%

5102.1%


7621%

154.1%

00%

41.1%

3611.4%

Other 75871.8%

24623.3%

393.6%

90.8%

30.2%

1,0554.3%

Improvement to State Assessment & Accountability


Improving timeliness andusefulness of assessmentresults for students and

parents


disagree Responses


3,08920.7%

5573.7%

1040.6%

640.4%

14,87861.6%


1,82625.1%

6128.4%

901.2%

1161.6%

7,24830%


2225.8%

89.4%

22.3%

22.3%

850.3%

Student 28957%

15530.5%

469%

101.9%

71.3%

5072.1%


9325.7%

359.6%

51.3%

61.6%

3611.4%

Other 64761.3%

30428.8%

847.9%

131.2%

60.5%

1,0544.3%

Providing more resourcesfor test preparation suchas releasing more sample

test questions


disagree Responses

Educator 6,88546.3%

3,56924%

2,24915.1%

1,4069.4%

7445%

14,85361.6%


1,65522.8%

1,45420%

87412%

74010.2%

7,23530%


1517.6%

2225.8%

910.5%

1214.1%

850.3%

Student 23646.5%

12725%

5911.6%

489.4%

377.2%

5072.1%


8323.1%

7621.2%

4713.1%

4011.1%

3581.4%

Other 33631.9%

29027.5%

21820.7%

12011.3%

898.4%

1,0534.3%

Using nationalassessments (e.g., the

Iowa Test of Basic Skills,the SAT, the ACT) to

measure student learning


disagree Responses

Educator 6,25742.1%

4,29128.8%

2,78718.7%

1,1427.6%

3762.5%

14,85361.6%


2,09128.8%

1,12515.5%

4816.6%

2483.4%

7,24330%


2327%

89.4%

1011.7%

55.8%

850.3%

Student 20440.4%

13526.7%

9318.4%

377.3%

356.9%

5042%


10328.8%

6016.8%

257%

195.3%

3571.4%

Other 40037.9%

32530.8%

19618.6%

969.1%

363.4%

1,0534.3%


Moving to a computer-based, adaptable

assessment that will showstudent progress and

learning gaps


disagree Responses

Educator 3,68024.7%

4,18828.2%

3,12421%

2,15114.4%

1,69611.4%

14,83961.6%


2,32432.1%

1,55021.4%

6859.4%

6719.2%

7,23430%


2023.8%

1922.6%

1113%

1113%

840.3%

Student 14027.8%

13326.4%

11623%

509.9%

6412.7%

5032%


10729.8%

7520.8%

4913.6%

287.7%

3591.4%

Other 23021.8%

32731%

25424.1%

15014.2%

928.7%

1,0534.3%

Testing only Englishlanguage learners who

have demonstratedmastery of English


disagree Responses

Educator 5,92939.9%

3,76625.3%

2,14714.4%

2,16214.5%

8325.6%

14,83661.6%

Parent or community leader 1,52421%

1,19516.5%

1,64022.6%

1,50720.8%

1,36018.8%

7,22630%


1112.9%

78.2%

2225.8%

2529.4%

850.3%

Student 13827.2%

7414.6%

11021.7%

8216.2%

10220.1%

5062.1%


6818.8%

7019.4%

7821.6%

5214.4%

3601.4%

Other 27325.9%

21019.9%

20119%

23822.6%

13112.4%

1,0534.3%

Finding better ways toassess students with

special needs


disagree Responses


2,27415.3%

3392.2%

890.5%

780.5%

14,83461.6%


1,66623%

5187.1%

871.2%

1041.4%

7,23430%


1821.6%

1113.2%

33.6%

56%

830.3%

Student 33666.5%

11222.1%

356.9%

40.7%

183.5%

5052%


9325.8%

287.7%

30.8%

51.3%

3601.4%

Other 73769.8%

24323%

474.4%

151.4%

131.2%

1,0554.3%


Streamlining standards toreduce the amount of

content taught each year


disagree Responses

Educator 7,75452.3%

3,61224.3%

1,82512.3%

1,2648.5%

3542.3%

14,80961.6%


1,75724.3%

1,26517.5%

86712%

4806.6%

7,22330%


1112.9%

1315.2%

1821.1%

1315.2%

850.3%

Student 21442.8%

12725.4%

9418.8%

418.2%

244.8%

5002%


7921.9%

5715.8%

6317.5%

328.8%

3601.4%

Other 36634.9%

25324.1%

22020.9%

13913.2%

706.6%

1,0484.3%

Ensuring instructionalmaterials are aligned to

state curriculum standards


disagree Responses

Educator 8,21855.5%

4,72431.9%

1,2598.5%

3922.6%

2091.4%

14,80261.6%


2,45033.9%

1,26917.5%

5928.2%

4346%

7,21430%


2428.5%

1315.4%

1011.9%

1113%

840.3%

Student 18737.5%

16833.7%

7915.8%

357%

295.8%

4982%


11532.1%

5013.9%

359.7%

267.2%

3581.4%

Other 37335.4%

40838.7%

16916%

585.5%

444.1%

1,0524.3%

Preparing and supportingteachers for the challengeand rigor of the curriculum

standards andassessments


disagree Responses

Educator 8,32156.2%

4,34229.3%

1,2528.4%

5533.7%

3232.1%

14,79161.6%


2,35232.6%

1,00313.9%

4085.6%

4586.3%

7,21330%


2023.5%

89.4%

44.7%

89.4%

850.3%

Student 22043.9%

15430.7%

7114.1%

326.3%

244.7%

5012%


11130.8%

4913.6%

102.7%

164.4%

3601.5%

Other 46944.7%

37836%

13012.3%

434%

292.7%

1,0494.3%


Deemphasizing the role ofassessment in teacher

evaluation


disagree Responses


2,97920.1%

9126.1%

4162.8%

1491%

14,79161.6%


1,69423.4%

72810%

3024.1%

2173%

7,22030%


1719.7%

66.9%

55.8%

1011.6%

860.3%

Student 27554.8%

11522.9%

6613.1%

224.3%

234.5%

5012%


8122.5%

205.5%

185%

92.5%

3601.4%

Other 57454.5%

26825.4%

11410.8%

635.9%

343.2%

1,0534.3%

Using alternate measuresof student progress andgrowth such as student

portfolios


disagree Responses

Educator 8,39756.8%

4,18328.3%

1,4309.6%

5563.7%

2101.4%

14,77661.6%


1,92526.7%

5918.1%

1622.2%

1351.8%

7,20930%


2023.2%

1213.9%

78.1%

66.9%

860.3%

Student 26753.1%

13426.6%

7013.9%

122.3%

193.7%

5022%


10027.9%

185%

123.3%

102.7%

3581.4%

Other 53951.1%

32831.1%

11911.2%

484.5%

201.8%

1,0544.3%

Making state assessmentdata accessible and easy

to understand


disagree Responses

Educator 9,72165.9%

4,03627.3%

8045.4%

1280.8%

620.4%

14,75161.6%


2,07228.7%

5527.6%

731%

1021.4%

7,20330%


2428.2%

55.8%

11.1%

00%

850.3%

Student 29559.1%

14729.4%

336.6%

71.4%

173.4%

4992%


10429%

236.4%

20.5%

00%

3581.4%

Other 63760.7%

30929.4%

868.1%

90.8%

80.7%

1,0494.3%


Ensuring that stateassessments are a primary

factor in determiningschool accountability


disagree Responses

Educator 4803.2%

1,0517.1%

2,41716.4%

5,66838.4%

5,12134.7%

14,73761.5%

Parent or community leader 3645%

75110.4%

1,48320.6%

2,22230.8%

2,37733%

7,19730%


1214.1%

910.5%

2225.8%

2832.9%

850.3%

Student 6312.5%

7815.5%

9218.3%

12224.3%

14629.1%

5012%


318.6%

6417.8%

11030.6%

12735.3%

3591.5%

Other 484.5%

12211.6%

22321.2%

36534.7%

29227.8%

1,0504.3%

Promoting a studentgrowth mind-set instead of

a pass/fail mind-set


disagree Responses


3,59124.2%

5033.4%

1911.2%

1360.9%

14,79461.6%


1,69223.4%

3594.9%

1622.2%

1462%

7,21530%


1820.9%

55.8%

55.8%

78.1%

860.3%

Student 33967.5%

11222.3%

275.3%

71.3%

173.3%

5022%


9325.9%

205.5%

102.7%

102.7%

3591.4%

Other 66263.1%

27225.9%

615.8%

333.1%

212%

1,0494.3%

Creating assessment goalsthat match varying

strengths and differencesin students


disagree Responses

Educator 8,61458.2%

4,81332.5%

9856.6%

2461.6%

1200.8%

14,77861.6%


2,27631.5%

6719.3%

1542.1%

1441.9%

7,20630%


2832.9%

89.4%

67%

67%

850.3%

Student 26652.7%

15731.1%

5611.1%

71.3%

183.5%

5042.1%


10830%

298%

92.5%

71.9%

3591.4%

Other 55953.2%

34733%

10810.2%

201.9%

161.5%

1,0504.3%


Areas of StrengthThe current state ASSESSMENT and ACCOUNTABILITY system

works well becauseIt measures and tracks

student growthStrongly


Educator 1,1277.5%

3,11220.9%

2,12414.2%

4,79632.2%

3,72425%

14,88361.6%


95613.1%

98213.5%

2,05528.3%

2,80238.6%

7,24630%


1416.6%

1619%

2023.8%

2732.1%

840.3%

Student 7213.9%

10019.4%

5410.4%

12524.2%

16431.8%

5152.1%


4913.5%

4913.5%

11230.9%

12735%

3621.4%

Other 656.1%

22421.2%

18017%

32730.9%

25924.5%

1,0554.3%

It highlights achievementgaps


disagree Responses

Educator 6424.3%

3,70724.9%

2,67017.9%

4,68731.5%

3,15521.2%

14,86161.6%


1,20616.6%

1,26717.5%

2,03328%

2,43733.6%

7,24030%


2327%

1922.3%

1214.1%

2630.5%

850.3%

Student 499.5%

9017.5%

9017.5%

13626.5%

14728.7%

5122.1%


8623.8%

5414.9%

10027.7%

10228.2%

3611.4%

Other 585.5%

25123.9%

22321.2%

30328.8%

21520.4%

1,0504.3%

It provides data that can beused to inform instruction


disagree Responses

Educator 8245.5%

4,44929.9%

2,35815.8%

4,01827%

3,20721.5%

14,85661.6%


1,28417.7%

1,18016.2%

1,95627%

2,50134.5%

7,24130%


2124.7%

1214.1%

2023.5%

2529.4%

850.3%

Student 5210.1%

11422.2%

8416.3%

12223.7%

14127.4%

5132.1%


8824.3%

6417.7%

8623.8%

10428.8%

3611.4%

Other 595.6%

27426%

23822.6%

26625.2%

21620.5%

1,0534.3%

Current State Assessment & Accountability


It aligns well to Texascurriculum standards


disagree Responses

Educator 7685.1%

4,05127.2%

3,74625.2%

3,94226.5%

2,34515.7%

14,85261.6%


88412.2%

2,01727.9%

1,74924.1%

2,30831.9%

7,22830%


1214.4%

2226.5%

2226.5%

2024%

830.3%

Student 458.8%

8316.2%

12524.4%

11221.9%

14628.5%

5112.1%


7621%

9125.2%

9225.4%

8423.2%

3611.4%

Other 423.9%

21520.4%

37235.3%

24723.4%

17616.7%

1,0524.3%

It identifies low-performingstudents


disagree Responses

Educator 6034%

4,91733.1%

2,65917.9%

4,16528%

2,48816.7%

14,83261.6%


1,43519.8%

1,27117.5%

1,86025.7%

2,41133.3%

7,23030%

Business leader 67%

2124.7%

1821.1%

2023.5%

2023.5%

850.3%

Student 428.2%

10720.8%

9618.7%

10420.3%

16331.8%

5122.1%


9626.6%

6919.1%

9025%

8423.3%

3601.4%

Other 565.3%

32530.9%

20319.3%

27526.1%

19218.2%

1,0514.3%

It includes an appropriatenumber of assessments


disagree Responses

Educator 4232.8%

1,1857.9%

1,84112.4%

5,44836.7%

5,93640%

14,83361.6%


4526.2%

1,00113.8%

2,01027.8%

3,56549.3%

7,22430%


67.1%

1517.8%

2226.1%

3744%

840.3%

Student 448.5%

5610.9%

7113.8%

13125.5%

21041%

5122.1%


256.9%

4713%

11331.3%

16445.5%

3601.4%

Other 312.9%

827.8%

19718.7%

36134.3%

37936%

1,0504.3%


It prepares high schoolstudents for higher

education


disagree Responses

Educator 3432.3%

1,0717.2%

2,32715.6%

5,00533.7%

6,07941%

14,82561.6%


4566.3%

90812.5%

1,90526.3%

3,78152.3%

7,22630%


44.7%

1214.2%

2125%

4351.1%

840.3%

Student 387.4%

5811.3%

5410.5%

13325.9%

22944.7%

5122.1%


277.5%

267.2%

8924.7%

20657.2%

3601.4%

Other 232.1%

898.4%

18017.1%

31930.4%

43741.6%

1,0484.3%

It challenges students tothink critically


disagree Responses

Educator 4733.1%

3,40822.9%

2,40616.2%

4,35229.3%

4,18128.2%

14,82061.6%


89112.3%

1,10215.2%

1,89326.2%

3,14243.4%

7,22430%


89.5%

1517.8%

2023.8%

3642.8%

840.3%

Student 377.2%

10320%

7214%

11923.1%

18235.4%

5132.1%


3910.8%

5415%

9225.5%

15843.8%

3601.4%

Other 363.4%

18617.7%

20319.3%

29428%

32831.3%

1,0474.3%

It provides statewidestandardization in learning

objectives andassessments


disagree Responses

Educator 6304.2%

5,22135.2%

3,35022.6%

3,00320.3%

2,58717.4%

14,79161.6%


1,46520.3%

1,58421.9%

1,57421.8%

2,40033.2%

7,20930%


1923.1%

1720.7%

1821.9%

2024.3%

820.3%

Student 367%

10219.9%

12624.6%

10019.5%

14728.7%

5112.1%


10027.8%

7721.4%

6518.1%

9626.7%

3591.4%

Other 424%

31329.8%

29828.3%

20319.3%

19418.4%

1,0504.3%


It encourages collaborationamong schools to improve

results


disagree Responses

Educator 3512.3%

1,81412.2%

2,03613.7%

5,19735.1%

5,40736.5%

14,80561.6%


7179.9%

1,31318.2%

1,93026.7%

3,07742.7%

7,20630%


1012%

1922.8%

1619.2%

3238.5%

830.3%

Student 479.2%

6312.3%

8717%

13626.6%

17734.7%

5102.1%


308.3%

5314.7%

11632.2%

14640.5%

3601.4%

Other 323%

12411.8%

21920.8%

34032.4%

33431.8%

1,0494.3%

It increases awareness incollege and career

readiness of students


disagree Responses

Educator 2972%

1,76611.9%

2,63717.8%

5,04934.1%

5,05134.1%

14,80061.6%

Parent or community leader 1472%

6098.4%

1,07914.9%

1,99027.6%

3,37546.8%

7,20030%


89.5%

1416.6%

2023.8%

3845.2%

840.3%

Student 387.4%

5110%

6512.7%

13927.3%

21542.3%

5082.1%


349.4%

4011.1%

10529.2%

16545.9%

3591.4%

Other 222%

11410.8%

21920.8%

32330.7%

37135.3%

1,0494.3%

It provides a big pictureview of student progress


disagree Responses

Educator 3732.5%

2,29915.5%

2,25715.2%

4,96033.5%

4,90133.1%

14,79061.6%


80211.1%

91712.7%

1,94226.9%

3,35346.5%

7,19930%


67.2%

1416.8%

2125.3%

3845.7%

830.3%

Student 367.1%

5611%

6913.6%

12825.3%

21642.7%

5052.1%


5615.5%

4512.5%

10729.7%

13838.3%

3601.5%

Other 323%

16315.5%

18117.3%

33231.7%

33832.3%

1,0464.3%


It increases rigor andraises expectations


disagree Responses

Educator 4753.2%

3,24821.9%

2,24215.1%

4,43530%

4,37729.6%

14,77761.6%


77910.8%

91312.6%

1,92226.7%

3,35046.5%

7,19330%


89.5%

1315.4%

2732.1%

3339.2%

840.3%

Student 346.7%

8717.2%

469.1%

13426.5%

20440.3%

5052.1%


4512.5%

4713%

11130.8%

14139.1%

3601.5%

Other 363.4%

16816%

19118.2%

31630.2%

33532%

1,0464.3%

It ensures that teachersteach the Texas curriculum

standards


disagree Responses

Educator 7905.3%

4,93833.4%

2,32115.7%

3,49123.6%

3,23821.9%

14,77861.6%


1,31718.3%

1,24817.3%

1,67523.3%

2,68937.4%

7,18529.9%


1416.8%

2024%

1315.6%

2732.5%

830.3%

Student 5410.6%

8817.4%

7715.2%

11322.3%

17334.2%

5052.1%


8423.3%

6417.7%

8523.6%

10830%

3601.5%

Other 555.2%

25524.3%

24923.8%

23922.8%

24823.7%

1,0464.3%

It fosters a culture of highexpectations for allstakeholders (i.e.,

students, teachers,schools, and school

districts)


disagree Responses

Educator 6204.1%

3,37422.8%

2,40916.3%

4,25028.7%

4,11427.8%

14,76761.6%


99813.8%

1,04314.5%

1,76724.5%

3,06242.5%

7,18830%


78.3%

1416.6%

1821.4%

3541.6%

840.3%

Student 438.6%

8116.2%

8016%

10921.8%

18637.2%

4992%


4913.6%

5415%

9827.2%

13637.7%

3601.5%

Other 585.5%

18517.6%

19318.4%

30929.5%

30128.7%

1,0464.3%


All students count as partof the current

accountability process


disagree Responses

Educator 6244.2%

3,27022.1%

2,59817.6%

3,91426.5%

4,35129.4%

14,75761.6%


1,16716.2%

1,53821.4%

1,48520.6%

2,70137.6%

7,17730%


89.4%

2124.7%

1821.1%

2832.9%

850.3%

Student 397.8%

8416.9%

9719.5%

12224.5%

15531.1%

4972%


5715.8%

7520.8%

7821.6%

13236.6%

3601.5%

Other 585.5%

23922.9%

22321.4%

25324.2%

26925.8%

1,0424.3%

The accountability processis data driven


disagree Responses

Educator 1,1397.7%

4,92833.4%

3,21921.8%

2,87319.4%

2,58517.5%

14,74461.6%


1,53221.3%

1,64222.9%

1,27917.8%

2,03828.4%

7,17030%


2225.8%

1720%

1315.2%

2327%

850.3%

Student 5811.6%

10420.8%

13527.1%

8717.4%

11422.8%

4982%


8724.2%

7119.7%

6317.5%

9225.6%

3591.5%

Other 1019.6%

33632.2%

26825.7%

16816.1%

16916.2%

1,0424.3%

There is a focus onincreasing performance of

special populations ofstudents (e.g., those in theEnglish language learner

and special educationprograms)


disagree Responses

Educator 6194.1%

3,13221.2%

2,56517.3%

4,08527.7%

4,34129.4%

14,74261.7%


92112.8%

1,83925.6%

1,61322.5%

2,55235.6%

7,16629.9%

Business leader 56%

1113.4%

2024.3%

1417%

3239%

820.3%

Student 5210.4%

6513%

12525%

10621.2%

15130.2%

4992%


7019.4%

7320.2%

8323%

11732.5%

3601.5%

Other 424%

23522.5%

25124.1%

26725.6%

24623.6%

1,0414.3%


Accountability isdetermined using a varietyof measures that include

several performanceindexesnot just state

assessment data


disagree Responses

Educator 6364.3%

2,93219.8%

3,00920.3%

4,08827.6%

4,11727.8%

14,78261.7%


80411.2%

1,63822.8%

1,79725%

2,66737.1%

7,17129.9%


1618.8%

2225.8%

1214.1%

3035.2%

850.3%

Student 509.9%

7114.1%

11623%

11723.2%

14929.6%

5032.1%


4712.9%

8623.6%

9927.2%

11431.4%

3631.5%

Other 504.7%

18918%

27526.3%

28226.9%

24923.8%

1,0454.3%

Current policy increasesparent and community

awareness ofschool/school district

performance


disagree Responses

Educator 3322.2%

2,46016.6%

2,93819.9%

4,81832.6%

4,20928.5%

14,75761.7%


94913.2%

1,28717.9%

1,90926.6%

2,81639.3%

7,16429.9%


1011.9%

1821.4%

1922.6%

3136.9%

840.3%

Student 407.9%

7314.5%

8817.5%

13126%

17033.8%

5022%


5815.9%

7320.1%

10027.5%

11832.5%

3631.5%

Other 292.7%

18617.8%

26025%

29127.9%

27426.3%

1,0404.3%

Texans Speak: Community Conversations 39

State Board of Education members invited educators, parents, business people and others to attend nine Community Conversation meetings held around the state from October 2015 to March 2016. They spent the evenings listening as hundreds of Texans provided their thoughts about the current student assessment and accountability systems. They talked about the next phase of development for these critically-important programs.

Scribes at each meeting took down the citizens’ comments. Following is what Texans had to say.

Community Conversations – Comments


AMAR

ILLO

QU

ESTI

ON

#1

REFL

ECT

UPO

N T

HE

PRES

ENTA

TIO

NS

THAT

YO

U P

REVI

EWED

BEF

ORE

TH

E M

EETI

NG

. W

HAT

ARE

SO

ME

KEY

LEAR

NIN

GS

OR

IMPO

RTAN

T TA

KE-A

-WAY

S TH

AT S

HO

ULD

SH

APE

OU

R CO

NVE

RSAT

ION

?

Gre

en =

Bus

ines

s Le

ader

s

Red

= E

duca

tors

B

lue

= Pa

rent

s

NU

MBE

R O

F VO

TES

GRO

UP'

S RE

SPO

NSE

RE

SPO

NSE

S TO

TH

IS Q

UES

TIO

N

The

purp

ose

of re

form

is to

pro

vide

fair,

mea

ning

ful,

appr

opria

te a

sses

smen

ts to

hel

p w

ith p

ost-

seco

ndar

y 2

Busi

ness

Lea

ders

re

adin

ess.

10

Pa

rent

s D

oes

the

new

sys

tem

allo

w te

ache

rs to

do

thei

r job

?

8 Pa

rent

s Cu

rren

tly, t

oo m

uch

focu

s is

bei

ng s

pent

on

the

smal

l gro

up o

f kid

s ho

verin

g ar

ound

the

pass

ing

line.

8

Pare

nts

Iden

tify

stre

ngth

s &

wea

knes

s.

2 Pa

rent

s Is

eac

h st

uden

t pro

gres

sing

? 2

Pare

nts

Dis

hear

tene

d be

caus

e th

ey fi

nd te

st d

oesn

't w

ork

and

they

kee

p ch

angi

ng it

. 2

Pare

nts

It w

as a

bun

ch o

f dou

ble

talk

and

did

n't r

eally

say

any

thin

g si

gnifi

cant

. 1

Pare

nts

Clos

ing

the

gap.

1

Pare

nts

His

tory

inte

rest

ing.

As

sess

men

t sho

uld

not b

e a

"one

-tim

e" e

vent

. It

shou

ld in

form

edu

cato

rs fo

r ins

truc

tiona

l pur

pose

s, a

llow

ing

30

Educ

ator

s fo

r adj

ustm

ent o

f ins

truc

tion

for t

he s

tude

nt's

sak

e.

15

Educ

ator

s M

eetin

g th

e ne

eds

of a

ll le

arne

rs a

nd e

ncou

ragi

ng a

gro

wth

min

dset

for A

LL!

10

Educ

ator

s In

divi

dual

Stu

dent

Gro

wth

. 7

Educ

ator

s Co

nsid

er d

iffer

ent t

ype

of a

sses

smen

ts…

mod

e, re

adin

ess,

sty

le.

5 Ed

ucat

ors

Stud

ent c

hoic

e an

d co

urse

wor

k, o

r a p

athw

ay.

2 Ed

ucat

ors

Clea

r vie

w o

f wha

t is

asse

ssm

ent a

nd a

ccou

ntab

ility

as

wel

l as

the

dist

inct

diff

eren

ces

betw

een

the

two.

2

Educ

ator

s W

e ar

e no

t ups

et a

bout

acc

ount

abili

ty/a

sses

smen

t, bu

t how

they

are

use

d.

2 Ed

ucat

ors

Har

vard

stu

dy o

f com

pone

nts

of a

sses

smen

ts.

2 Ed

ucat

ors

Bala

nced

ass

essm

ent s

yste

m.

2 Ed

ucat

ors

Dem

ogra

phic

s, s

ocio

-eco

nom

ic s

tatu

s, s

peci

al p

op g

roup

s.

2 Ed

ucat

ors

It's

time

to m

ake

a pr

ofou

nd c

hang

e.

2 Ed

ucat

ors

We

are

com

mitt

ed to

gro

wth

! (te

ache

rs, k

ids,

and

adm

ins.

)

Amarillo


QU

ESTI

ON

#1

REFL

ECT

UPO

N T

HE

PRES

ENTA

TIO

NS

THAT

YO

U P

REVI

EWED

BEF

ORE

TH

E M

EETI

NG

. W

HAT

ARE

SO

ME

KEY

LEAR

NIN

GS

OR

IMPO

RTAN

T TA

KE-A

-WAY

S TH

AT S

HO

ULD

SH

APE

OU

R CO

NVE

RSAT

ION

?

Gre

en =

Bus

ines

s Le

ader

s

Red

= E

duca

tors

B

lue

= Pa

rent

s

NU

MBE

R O

F VO

TES

GRO

UP'

S RE

SPO

NSE

RE

SPO

NSE

S TO

TH

IS Q

UES

TIO

N

1 1 Ed

ucat

ors

Educ

ator

s As

a s

tate

, cre

ate

a fr

amew

ork

that

enc

ompa

sses

bot

h as

sess

men

t and

acc

ount

abili

ty, a

nd th

eir c

ompa

tibili

ty.

Are

we

not s

atis

fied

with

the

test

or h

ow w

e us

e th

em?

1 1 1 1

Educ

ator

s Ed

ucat

ors

Educ

ator

s

Educ

ator

s

Tim

elin

es o

f the

dat

a.

Lang

uage

- EL

Ls.

Mov

e to

war

d lo

cal c

ontr

ol in

acc

ount

abili

ty.

Texa

s be

gan

test

ing

(TAB

S) fo

r ass

essm

ent o

f bas

ic s

kills

, and

our

cur

rent

test

ing

(STA

AR) i

s ab

out a

dvan

cing

st

uden

ts to

hig

her l

evel

s an

d co

llege

-rea

dine

ss.


AMAR

ILLO

QU

ESTI

ON

#2

WH

AT IS

TH

E RO

LE/P

URP

OSE

OF

ASSE

SSM

ENT

AND

ACC

OU

NTA

BILI

TY IN

TH

E ED

UCA

TIO

N O

F O

UR

CHIL

DRE

N?

Gre

en =

Bus

ines

s Le

ader

s

Red

= E

duca

tors

B

lue

= Pa

rent

s

NU

MBE

R O

F VO

TES

GRO

UP'

S RE

SPO

NSE

RE

SPO

NSE

S TO

TH

IS Q

UES

TIO

N

6 Bu

sine

ss L

eade

rs

Show

pro

gres

s an

d gr

owth

rele

vant

to e

ach

child

's n

eed

to p

repa

re th

em fo

r life

. 3

Busi

ness

Lea

ders

Ac

t as

a be

nchm

ark

whe

re a

nd a

re w

e pr

ogre

ssin

g.

2 Bu

sine

ss L

eade

rs

Acco

unta

bilit

y.

2 Bu

sine

ss L

eade

rs

Keep

teac

hers

and

sta

ff ac

coun

tabl

e.

1 Bu

sine

ss L

eade

rs

Asse

ssm

ent i

mpo

rtan

t mea

sure

men

t for

stu

dent

s an

d te

ache

rs.

1 Bu

sine

ss L

eade

rs

Acco

unta

bilit

y im

port

ant f

or te

ache

rs.

5 Pa

rent

s Fo

r con

trol

of c

urric

ulum

. 5

Pare

nts

To s

et a

ppro

pria

te g

oals

for.

To s

tand

ardi

ze e

duca

tion

to m

ake

ever

yone

the

sam

e. I

t kee

ps p

eopl

e bu

sy s

o th

ey s

pend

less

tim

e re

ally

4

Pare

nts

teac

hing

. 4

Pare

nts

To s

how

if s

tude

nts

are

lear

ning

. 3

Pare

nts

Asse

ssm

ent o

f tea

cher

s m

ust b

e m

ultif

acet

ed.

11

Educ

ator

s En

surin

g pr

ogre

ss o

f ind

ivid

uals

, bas

ed o

n th

eir c

urre

nt le

vel.

10

Educ

ator

s As

sess

men

t -- i

nstr

uctio

nal d

ecis

ions

. 9

Educ

ator

s Lo

ok a

t eac

h in

divi

dual

stu

dent

-- w

here

they

are

-- w

here

they

nee

d to

be.

8

Educ

ator

s Sh

ould

not

be

a gr

ade

-- p

rodu

ctiv

e N

OT

puni

tive.

6

Educ

ator

s Th

e cu

rren

t rol

e of

the

asse

ssm

ents

is n

ot w

hat t

he o

rigin

al in

tent

was

for o

ur s

tude

nts.

6

Educ

ator

s Th

e as

sess

men

ts d

o no

t giv

e a

true

pic

ture

of o

ur s

tude

nts'

cap

abili

ties.

As

sess

men

t is

to in

form

inst

ruct

ion

and

unde

rsta

ndin

g st

uden

t nee

ds.

It's

abou

t mea

surin

g gr

owth

and

6

Educ

ator

s ce

lebr

atin

g su

cces

ses

alon

g th

e w

ay.

It sh

ould

be

cont

inua

l. 5

Educ

ator

s As

sess

men

t -- i

nfor

m in

stru

ctio

n.

5 Ed

ucat

ors

Asse

ssm

ents

sho

uld

serv

e le

arni

ng.

5 Ed

ucat

ors

Indi

vidu

aliz

atio

n of

stu

dent

s! B

e pr

escr

iptiv

e!

4 Ed

ucat

ors

Ever

y st

uden

t/sc

hool

mea

sure

d by

the

sam

e ru

ler.

4 Ed

ucat

ors

Asse

ssm

ent -

- gro

wth

& p

rogr

ess.


QU

ESTI

ON

#2

WH

AT IS

TH

E RO

LE/P

URP

OSE

OF

ASSE

SSM

ENT

AND

ACC

OU

NTA

BILI

TY IN

TH

E ED

UCA

TIO

N O

F O

UR

CHIL

DRE

N?

Gre

en =

Bus

ines

s Le

ader

s

Red

= E

duca

tors

B

lue

= Pa

rent

s

NU

MBE

R O

F VO

TES

GRO

UP'

S RE

SPO

NSE

RE

SPO

NSE

S TO

TH

IS Q

UES

TIO

N

4 Ed

ucat

ors

Asse

ssm

ent -

- mea

sure

gro

wth

. Ac

coun

tabi

lity

is a

bout

resp

onsi

bilit

y --

of p

aren

ts, c

omm

uniti

es, a

nd s

choo

l. It

is th

e re

spon

sibi

lity

of e

nsur

ing

all s

tude

nts

have

opp

ortu

nitie

s to

lear

n. (

We

have

to b

e ca

utio

us to

und

erst

and

the

purp

ose

of a

ccou

ntab

ility

so

4 Ed

ucat

ors

that

it d

oesn

't be

the

"kud

zu v

ine.

")

3 Ed

ucat

ors

Asse

ssm

ent -

- eva

luat

e gr

owth

. 3

Educ

ator

s As

sess

men

t -- T

arge

t for

stu

dent

s an

d te

ache

rs.

3 Ed

ucat

ors

Asse

ssm

ent -

- gui

de in

stru

ctio

n.

3 Ed

ucat

ors

Asse

ssm

ent i

s th

e ch

eck

and

acco

unta

bilit

y is

the

bala

nce.

2

Educ

ator

s In

dex

2 --

Prog

ress

mon

itorin

g th

at m

easu

res

grow

th fo

r all

stud

ents

. 2

Educ

ator

s Tr

ue p

urpo

se o

f sch

ool,

acco

unta

bilit

y? P

rom

otio

n of

stu

dent

to th

e ne

xt g

rade

leve

l. 2

Educ

ator

s Ac

coun

tabi

lity

-- ta

rget

sch

ools

/dis

tric

ts th

at a

re c

lear

ly n

ot p

rovi

ding

a q

ualit

y ed

ucat

ion.

2

Educ

ator

s Ac

coun

tabi

lity

-- pr

ovid

e th

e co

mm

unity

feed

back

-- s

take

hold

ers.

2

Educ

ator

s Id

entif

y st

uden

t str

engt

hs.

Role

is to

giv

e gu

idan

ce, p

rovi

de fe

edba

ck p

rogr

ess

to g

oals

, driv

e in

stru

ctio

n, d

rive

focu

s an

d di

rect

ion

to v

isio

n 2

Educ

ator

s of

dis

tric

t/co

mm

unity

. 2

Educ

ator

s To

pin

poi

nt in

stru

ctio

nal n

eeds

and

mon

itor g

row

th.

2 Ed

ucat

ors

Gat

her d

ata

to d

rive

inst

ruct

ion.

2

Educ

ator

s Ac

coun

tabi

lity

-- ev

iden

ce o

f tea

chin

g cu

rric

ulum

. 2

Educ

ator

s Ac

coun

tabi

lity

-- qu

ality

wor

k fo

rce.

Th

e se

cond

slid

e w

as h

elpf

ul w

ith h

isto

rical

fact

s to

hel

p vi

ewer

s un

ders

tand

whe

re w

e ha

ve c

ome

from

to th

is

1 Ed

ucat

ors

poin

t. 1

Educ

ator

s Ri

gor o

f tes

t. 1

Educ

ator

s Co

mm

on re

adin

g qu

estio

ns s

tem

s 3r

d - 8

th.

1 Ed

ucat

ors

Acco

unta

bilit

y --

guar

ante

ed a

nd v

iabl

e cu

rric

ulum

. 1

Educ

ator

s Ac

coun

tabi

lity

-- pu

blic

info

rmat

ion.

1

Educ

ator

s Ac

coun

tabi

lity

-- st

uden

t equ

ity.

1 Ed

ucat

ors

See

if st

uden

ts a

bsor

bed

lear

ning

. 1

Educ

ator

s Se

e ho

w w

ell t

hey

can

appl

y th

e le

arni

ng.


QU

ESTI

ON

#2

WH

AT IS

TH

E RO

LE/P

URP

OSE

OF

ASSE

SSM

ENT

AND

ACC

OU

NTA

BILI

TY IN

TH

E ED

UCA

TIO

N O

F O

UR

CHIL

DRE

N?

Gre

en =

Bus

ines

s Le

ader

s

Red

= E

duca

tors

B

lue

= Pa

rent

s

NU

MBE

R O

F VO

TES

GRO

UP'

S RE

SPO

NSE

RE

SPO

NSE

S TO

TH

IS Q

UES

TIO

N

1 Ed

ucat

ors

Are

we

doin

g w

hat w

e're

sup

pose

d to

be

doin

g? A

nd e

qual

ly w

ell f

or a

ll?

1 Ed

ucat

ors

Wha

t is

the

high

er p

urpo

se o

f hav

ing

acco

unta

bilit

y?

1 Ed

ucat

ors

Asse

ssm

ent a

nd a

ccou

ntab

ility

are

not

the

sam

e th

ing.

1

Educ

ator

s H

old

stud

ents

and

sta

ff to

a h

ighe

r sta

ndar

d.

1 Ed

ucat

ors

Mee

ting

our l

earn

ers

whe

re th

ey a

re.

1 Ed

ucat

ors

Asse

ssm

ent -

- che

ck fo

r mas

tery

of c

urric

ulum

. 1

Educ

ator

s Ac

coun

tabi

lity

-- a

ssur

ance

of q

ualit

y ed

ucat

ion.


AMAR

ILLO

QU

ESTI

ON

#3

WH

AT IS

WO

RKIN

G W

ELL

WIT

H O

UR

CURR

ENT

SYST

EM O

F AS

SESS

MEN

T AN

D A

CCO

UN

TABI

LITY

?

Gre

en =

Bus

ines

s Le

ader

s

Red

= E

duca

tors

B

lue

= Pa

rent

s

NU

MBE

R O

F VO

TES

GRO

UP'

S RE

SPO

NSE

RE

SPO

NSE

S TO

TH

IS Q

UES

TIO

N

2 Bu

sine

ss L

eade

rs

Asse

ssm

ents

sho

w th

ey're

bei

ng e

xpos

ed to

cor

e el

emen

ts.

1 Bu

sine

ss L

eade

rs

We

are

iden

tifyi

ng m

etho

ds th

at d

o no

t wor

k.

9 Pa

rent

s W

e fe

el th

e cu

rren

t sys

tem

is m

ore

stre

ssfu

l. 6

Pare

nts

Our

teac

hers

!!

3 Pa

rent

s Th

ey h

ave

redu

ced

the

num

ber o

f tes

ts.

2 Pa

rent

s Th

ere

is a

tim

e lim

it to

take

the

test

s.

2 Pa

rent

s W

e ar

e no

t sur

e.

18

Educ

ator

s M

easu

re o

f gro

wth

vs.

pas

s/fa

il.

Asse

ssm

ent -

- Stu

dent

s ar

e as

ked

to th

ink

inst

ead

of a

sked

to re

call.

Tea

cher

s kn

ow o

ur s

tand

ards

and

stu

dent

s 17

Ed

ucat

ors

bett

er.

Tier

1 in

stru

ctio

n ha

s im

prov

ed.

12

Educ

ator

s Ac

coun

tabi

lity

-- It

hol

ds u

s ac

coun

tabl

e fo

r all

stud

ents

. In

dex

2 al

low

s us

to m

easu

re g

row

th fo

r all

stud

ents

. 8

Educ

ator

s Ac

coun

tabi

lity

-- e

stab

lishe

s co

mm

on e

xpec

tatio

ns.

6 Ed

ucat

ors

STAA

R ex

pose

s sy

stem

wea

knes

ses,

whi

ch d

rive

dist

rict g

oals

and

mis

sion

s.

5 Ed

ucat

ors

Focu

s (la

ser-

like)

on

stud

ent l

earn

ing

inst

ruct

ion

grow

th.

5 Ed

ucat

ors

Bett

er u

nder

stan

ding

of s

tate

sta

ndar

ds.

5 Ed

ucat

ors

Gro

wth

mea

sure

K-8

. 4

Educ

ator

s Ch

alle

nges

teac

her a

nd s

tude

nt g

row

th.

3 Ed

ucat

ors

Gre

ater

alig

nmen

t with

ass

essm

ent o

f TEK

S.

3 Ed

ucat

ors

Asse

ssm

ent -

- pro

vide

s a

com

mon

aca

dem

ic la

ngua

ge.

3 Ed

ucat

ors

Acco

unta

bilit

y --

all

kids

mat

ter (

spec

ial e

duca

tion,

ELL

, dem

ogra

phic

s…).

3 Ed

ucat

ors

A pr

ogre

ss m

easu

re.

3 Ed

ucat

ors

Coho

rt c

ompa

rison

for a

ccou

ntab

ility

.

The

best

ach

ieve

men

t of t

he n

ew a

ccou

ntab

ility

is th

at it

sho

ws

a m

easu

re o

f gro

wth

whi

ch e

ncou

rage

s 2

Educ

ator

s te

ache

rs, p

aren

ts, a

nd s

tude

nts.

The

new

acc

ount

abili

ty s

how

s se

vera

l are

as o

f edu

catio

nal m

easu

res.


QU

ESTI

ON

#3

WH

AT IS

WO

RKIN

G W

ELL

WIT

H O

UR

CURR

ENT

SYST

EM O

F AS

SESS

MEN

T AN

D A

CCO

UN

TABI

LITY

?

Gre

en =

Bus

ines

s Le

ader

s

Red

= E

duca

tors

B

lue

= Pa

rent

s

NU

MBE

R O

F VO

TES

GRO

UP'

S RE

SPO

NSE

RE

SPO

NSE

S TO

TH

IS Q

UES

TIO

N

2 Ed

ucat

ors

Test

mat

ches

the

curr

icul

um (a

sna

p sh

ot).

2 Ed

ucat

ors

Asse

ssm

ent -

- pro

vide

s fo

r int

entio

nal i

nstr

uctio

nal p

lann

ing.

2

Educ

ator

s H

.O.T

. 2

Educ

ator

s D

istin

ctio

ns in

a v

arie

ty o

f are

as.

1 Ed

ucat

ors

See

if ou

r ass

essm

ent s

yste

ms

are

wor

king

. 1

Educ

ator

s Ar

e yo

u m

eetin

g th

e st

anda

rds

of th

e st

ate?

1

Educ

ator

s Se

ts th

e m

easu

res

to b

e ac

hiev

ed b

y st

uden

ts, s

choo

ls, a

nd d

istr

icts

. 1

Educ

ator

s H

igh

expe

ctat

ions

. 1

Educ

ator

s Ac

coun

tabi

lity

influ

ence

d by

oth

er fa

ctor

s ot

her t

han

"the

test

."

1 Ed

ucat

ors

Curr

icul

um is

wel

l dev

elop

ed.

1 Ed

ucat

ors

Asse

ssm

ent -

- pro

vide

teac

hers

/adm

inis

trat

ors/

pare

nts

with

info

rmat

iona

l dat

a on

our

stu

dent

s.

1 Ed

ucat

ors

Addi

tion

of th

e in

dex

syst

em.

1 Ed

ucat

ors

Gui

de in

stru

ctio

n.

1 Ed

ucat

ors

Prov

ide

feed

back

. 1

Educ

ator

s Ri

gor t

rickl

es d

own

into

oth

er g

rade

leve

ls (

Pre-

K &

Kin

der)

1

Educ

ator

s En

hanc

ing

criti

cal t

hink

ers!

1

Educ

ator

s Ti

ered

leve

ls o

f per

form

ance

. 1

Educ

ator

s ST

AAR

bett

er a

sses

ses

the

expe

cted

cur

ricul

um (c

halle

ngin

g).


AMAR

ILLO

Q

UES

TIO

N #

4 W

HAT

FAC

TORS

SH

OU

LD T

HE

NEX

T G

ENER

ATIO

N C

OM

MIS

SIO

N O

N A

SSES

SMEN

TS A

ND

ACC

OU

NTA

BILI

TY

CON

SID

ER A

S TH

EY M

AKE

THEI

R RE

COM

MEN

DAT

ION

S?

Gre

en =

Bus

ines

s Le

ader

s

Red

= E

duca

tors

B

lue

= Pa

rent

s

NU

MBE

R O

F VO

TES

GRO

UP'

S RE

SPO

NSE

RE

SPO

NSE

S TO

TH

IS Q

UES

TIO

N

12

Busi

ness

Lea

ders

Te

ach

stud

ents

to th

eir a

bilit

ies

-- gi

ve th

em m

ore

optio

ns --

col

lege

, tra

de s

choo

l or m

ilita

ry.

7 Bu

sine

ss L

eade

rs

Expo

se th

em to

the

com

mun

ity.

7 Bu

sine

ss L

eade

rs

Capa

ble

teac

hers

to te

ach.

5

Busi

ness

Lea

ders

Th

e As

sess

men

ts c

an n

ot b

e th

e sa

me

for e

very

stu

dent

and

be

mea

ning

ful.

3 Bu

sine

ss L

eade

rs

Don

't te

ach

to a

test

, tea

ch th

e st

uden

ts.

2 Bu

sine

ss L

eade

rs

Mor

e fa

ir an

d ap

prop

riate

for t

each

ers

and

stud

ents

. 1

Busi

ness

Lea

ders

La

ngua

ge b

arrie

r/ES

L.

1 Bu

sine

ss L

eade

rs

Teac

hers

pla

ying

cat

ch-u

p.

14

Pare

nts

Ask

publ

ic o

ffici

als

to ta

ke th

e te

st a

nd p

ublis

h th

e re

sults

. 14

Pa

rent

s As

sess

men

t tes

t sho

uld

not h

ave

to b

e a

daily

focu

s, le

arni

ng s

houl

d be

. 9

Pare

nts

Ask

stud

ents

, par

ents

, and

teac

hers

to p

rovi

de fe

ed b

ack

abou

t the

test

s.

7 Pa

rent

s En

viro

nmen

tal f

acto

rs.

7 Pa

rent

s So

cial

eco

nom

ic d

iffer

ence

s.

4 Pa

rent

s To

o m

any

prac

tice

test

s st

ress

the

stud

ents

. 3

Pare

nts

Let c

ouns

elor

s be

cou

nsel

ors.

3

Pare

nts

Stra

ight

forw

ard

ques

tioni

ng o

n as

sess

men

ts.

2 Pa

rent

s W

hat o

ther

fact

ors

are

affe

ctin

g sc

ores

? 2

Pare

nts

Stud

ent s

ucce

ss a

fter

gra

duat

ion.

2

Pare

nts

Accr

edita

tion

ratin

g --

How

will

the

new

sys

tem

affe

ct it

? 1

Pare

nts

Gra

duat

ion

rate

s.

1 Pa

rent

s Re

duci

ng c

ost a

nd n

umbe

r of t

ests

by

not r

etes

ting

thos

e th

at p

asse

d m

ath

and

read

ing

each

yea

r. 1

Pare

nts

No

one

appe

ars

to li

ke th

e cu

rren

t tes

ts.

Stro

nger

focu

s on

mea

surin

g gr

owth

. N

ot a

ll st

uden

ts s

tart

at t

he s

ame

plac

e: p

revi

ous

scho

olin

g, la

ngua

ge,

26

Educ

ator

s co

untr

y of

orig

in, b

ackg

roun

d kn

owle

dge,

and

opp

ortu

nity

.


QU

ESTI

ON

#4

WH

AT F

ACTO

RS S

HO

ULD

TH

E N

EXT

GEN

ERAT

ION

CO

MM

ISSI

ON

ON

ASS

ESSM

ENTS

AN

D A

CCO

UN

TABI

LITY

CO

NSI

DER

AS

THEY

MAK

E TH

EIR

RECO

MM

END

ATIO

NS?

Gre

en =

Bus

ines

s Le

ader

s

Red

= E

duca

tors

B

lue

= Pa

rent

s

NU

MBE

R O

F VO

TES

GRO

UP'

S RE

SPO

NSE

RE

SPO

NSE

S TO

TH

IS Q

UES

TIO

N

17

Educ

ator

s To

o la

rge

of a

cur

ricul

um li

mits

abi

lity

for d

eepe

r, ric

h le

arni

ng.

16

Educ

ator

s As

sess

men

ts --

mul

tiple

type

s of

ass

essm

ents

. 16

Ed

ucat

ors

Acco

unta

bilit

y --

Sep

arat

ion

of K

-8 a

nd 9

-12

in In

dex

4 (p

ost s

econ

dary

). 15

Ed

ucat

ors

Read

abili

ty m

atch

ed to

dev

elop

men

tal l

evel

of s

tude

nts.

O

ur d

ysle

xic,

AD

HD

, and

oth

er le

arni

ng d

isab

led

stud

ents

oft

en b

egin

to p

erce

ive

them

selv

es a

s un

inte

llige

nt d

ue

15

Educ

ator

s to

sta

te te

stin

g.

12

Educ

ator

s Sh

rink

TEKS

/SE'

s.

12

Educ

ator

s N

ever

forg

et h

ow th

ese

two

syst

ems

impa

ct c

hild

ren.

12

Ed

ucat

ors

Mul

tiple

mea

sure

s, m

ultip

le m

odes

, int

eres

ts.

The

stat

e ac

coun

tabi

lity

shou

ld n

ot h

inge

on

one

test

ing

on o

ne g

iven

day

. Al

l stu

dent

s do

not

lear

n th

e sa

me

11

Educ

ator

s w

ay o

r at t

he s

ame

pace

. 11

Ed

ucat

ors

Des

ign

the

test

que

stio

ns to

add

ress

rigo

r with

out t

ricke

ry.

11

Educ

ator

s 21

st C

entu

ry S

kills

. 11

Ed

ucat

ors

One

test

can

not b

e a

true

mea

sure

. 8

Educ

ator

s Lo

cal c

ontr

ol.

8 Ed

ucat

ors

Gra

ded

test

s sh

ould

be

give

n to

teac

hers

and

sen

t hom

e to

par

ents

. 7

Educ

ator

s Pu

ttin

g m

ore

focu

s on

pro

gres

s gr

owth

than

gra

des.

7

Educ

ator

s Ch

ange

the

Min

dset

-- o

f edu

cato

rs, p

aren

ts &

com

mun

ity.

6 Ed

ucat

ors

Few

er T

EKS.

6

Educ

ator

s Pe

riodi

c gr

owth

mea

sure

with

in th

e ye

ar.

6 Ed

ucat

ors

Dev

elop

men

tally

app

ropr

iate

cur

ricul

um a

nd a

sses

smen

ts.

6 Ed

ucat

ors

PUT

KID

S FI

RST.

6

Educ

ator

s Lo

cal a

ccou

ntab

ility

to m

onito

r gro

wth

non

-tes

ted

clas

ses.

Ac

coun

tabi

lity

-- lo

cally

dev

elop

ed b

rief p

erio

dic

asse

ssm

ents

bas

ed o

n st

ate

stan

dard

s &

gra

de le

vel

5 Ed

ucat

ors

requ

irem

ents

. 5

Educ

ator

s M

eet t

he n

eeds

of t

he le

arne

r whe

re th

ey a

re!

4 Ed

ucat

ors

Loca

l con

trol

.


QU

ESTI

ON

#4

WH

AT F

ACTO

RS S

HO

ULD

TH

E N

EXT

GEN

ERAT

ION

CO

MM

ISSI

ON

ON

ASS

ESSM

ENTS

AN

D A

CCO

UN

TABI

LITY

CO

NSI

DER

AS

THEY

MAK

E TH

EIR

RECO

MM

END

ATIO

NS?

Gre

en =

Bus

ines

s Le

ader

s

Red

= E

duca

tors

B

lue

= Pa

rent

s

NU

MBE

R O

F VO

TES

GRO

UP'

S RE

SPO

NSE

RE

SPO

NSE

S TO

TH

IS Q

UES

TIO

N

3 Ed

ucat

ors

Mor

e in

terv

entio

n se

rvic

es a

nd fu

ndin

g.

3 Ed

ucat

ors

Asse

ssm

ent -

- Diff

eren

ces

amon

g st

uden

ts.

3 Ed

ucat

ors

Asse

ssm

ents

impa

ct re

cess

, art

, ins

truc

tiona

l sty

le, s

ched

ulin

g, E

VERY

THIN

G!

3 Ed

ucat

ors

Mak

e th

e pa

rent

and

com

mun

ity e

ngag

emen

t par

t of t

he s

choo

l gra

de.

2 Ed

ucat

ors

Acco

unta

bilit

y --

rand

om s

ampl

e at

the

dist

rict l

evel

to d

eter

min

e if

a qu

ality

edu

catio

n is

bei

ng p

rovi

ded.

2

Educ

ator

s H

ow d

o w

e im

prov

e th

e is

sues

with

writ

ing?

(m

eani

ngfu

l app

licat

ion)

2

Educ

ator

s Ti

mel

ines

of d

ata

acce

ss.

2 Ed

ucat

ors

Tim

e lim

its.

2 Ed

ucat

ors

Don

't bu

rn o

ut te

ache

rs a

nd s

tude

nts

with

test

ing

-- p

rese

rve

the

pass

ion

of le

arni

ng!!

2

Educ

ator

s As

sess

men

ts --

mor

e gr

owth

on

valu

e ra

ther

than

pas

s/fa

il.

1 Ed

ucat

ors

Onl

y co

nsid

erin

g In

dex

2 th

an In

dex

1.

1 Ed

ucat

ors

Prov

ide

benc

hmar

ks fo

r sub

ject

s no

t tes

ted

year

ly.

1 Ed

ucat

ors

Stud

ent g

row

th.

1 Ed

ucat

ors

Div

ersi

ty o

f our

sta

te.

1 Ed

ucat

ors

Asse

ssm

ent -

- Gro

wth

con

side

red

outs

ide

of a

sna

psho

t day

. 1

Educ

ator

s As

sess

men

t -- s

houl

d be

loca

lly d

riven

, mon

itore

d &

resp

onsi

ve to

the

indi

vidu

al le

arne

r. 1

Educ

ator

s Sp

ecia

l pop

s, g

roup

s.

1 Ed

ucat

ors

Nar

row

bre

adth

of t

estin

g.

1 Ed

ucat

ors

Qui

t cha

ngin

g it.

1

Educ

ator

s Te

st d

riven

inst

ruct

ion

does

not

impr

ove

the

high

est o

r low

est s

ub p

ops.

1

Educ

ator

s W

hat e

ver a

sses

smen

t is

crea

ted

will

driv

e in

stru

ctio

n. (

i.e. t

each

ing

to th

e te

st.)


AMAR

ILLO

QU

ESTI

ON

#5

WH

AT S

UG

GES

TIO

NS

FOR

IMPR

OVE

MEN

T O

F O

UR

CURR

ENT

SYST

EM W

OU

LD Y

OU

GIV

E TO

TH

E CO

MM

ISSI

ON

?

Gre

en =

Bus

ines

s Le

ader

s

Red

= E

duca

tors

B

lue

= Pa

rent

s

NU

MBE

R O

F VO

TES

GRO

UP'

S RE

SPO

NSE

RE

SPO

NSE

S TO

TH

IS Q

UES

TIO

N

Not

so

muc

h w

orry

abo

ut a

sses

smen

t res

ults

-- ra

ther

focu

s ne

eds

to b

e on

stu

dent

gro

wth

. Ki

ds h

ave

uniq

ue

8 Bu

sine

ss L

eade

rs

grow

th re

quire

men

ts.

3 Bu

sine

ss L

eade

rs

Don

't be

so

relia

nt to

a s

tand

ardi

zed

test

, but

trus

t the

teac

her t

o re

cogn

ize

stud

ent c

apab

ilitie

s.

2 Bu

sine

ss L

eade

rs

Teac

hers

nee

d to

be

acco

unta

ble

to A

LL s

tude

nts.

2

Busi

ness

Lea

ders

Ad

min

istr

ator

s be

acc

ount

able

to te

ache

rs.

1 Bu

sine

ss L

eade

rs

Lang

uage

bar

riers

can

giv

e sl

owed

resu

lts.

1 Bu

sine

ss L

eade

rs

Mak

e ch

ange

s to

get

rid

of w

hat d

oesn

't w

ork.

12

Pa

rent

s Te

ach

kids

to L

OVE

lear

ning

9

Pare

nts

Indi

vidu

aliz

e to

war

d ea

ch c

hild

. 7

Pare

nts

Redu

ce im

port

ance

of t

he te

sts

at th

e st

ate

leve

l. 7

Pare

nts

Rem

ove

emph

asis

on

teac

hing

to th

e te

st.

6 Pa

rent

s Ad

d m

ore

unst

ruct

ured

free

-tim

e.

6 Pa

rent

s El

imin

ate

the

"pas

s/fa

il" a

nd th

e pr

essu

re th

at a

dds.

5

Pare

nts

Focu

s on

pro

blem

sol

ving

and

lear

ning

. H

ow to

lear

n in

stea

d of

how

to g

et th

e rig

ht a

nsw

er o

n a

test

. 4

Pare

nts

Colle

ges

don'

t use

them

. 4

Pare

nts

Mor

e op

port

uniti

es fo

r par

ents

to s

peak

(lik

e to

day)

into

the

form

atio

n of

the

asse

ssm

ents

. 3

Pare

nts

Supp

ort f

rom

adm

inis

trat

ion.

2

Pare

nts

Allo

w fi

nal a

ccou

ntab

ility

to b

e ha

ndle

d at

the

loca

l lev

el.

2 Pa

rent

s Co

nsid

er u

nint

ende

d co

nseq

uenc

es o

f A-F

ratin

g sy

stem

. 1

Pare

nts

Giv

e m

ore

flexi

bilit

y in

teac

hing

-- c

onte

nt te

st.

30

Educ

ator

s EL

L's

-- le

t the

m le

arn

the

lang

uage

bef

ore

test

ing.

23

Ed

ucat

ors

Reco

nsid

er A

-F ra

tings

. 17

Ed

ucat

ors

Mak

e a

diff

eren

tiate

d as

sess

men

t to

mee

t the

nee

ds o

f ALL

lear

ners

. 16

Ed

ucat

ors

Allo

w fo

r aut

onom

y in

inst

ruct

ion,

leav

e us

room

for P

roje

ct B

ased

Lea

rnin

g, a

uthe

ntic

lear

ning

, STE

M, a

rt, a

nd

16

Educ

ator

s M

ore

emph

asis

on

grow

th K

-8 v

ersu

s pa

ss/f

ail.


QU

ESTI

ON

#5

WH

AT S

UG

GES

TIO

NS

FOR

IMPR

OVE

MEN

T O

F O

UR

CURR

ENT

SYST

EM W

OU

LD Y

OU

GIV

E TO

TH

E CO

MM

ISSI

ON

?

Gre

en =

Bus

ines

s Le

ader

s

Red

= E

duca

tors

B

lue

= Pa

rent

s

NU

MBE

R O

F VO

TES

GRO

UP'

S RE

SPO

NSE

RE

SPO

NSE

S TO

TH

IS Q

UES

TIO

N

14

Educ

ator

s Ea

rly C

hild

hood

nee

ds m

ore

focu

s.

We

are

test

ing

stud

ents

to d

eath

(STA

AR @

eve

ry g

rade

leve

l, SA

T, A

CT, T

SI, A

P, P

SAT,

TEL

PAS,

EO

C, p

lus

all l

ocal

11

Ed

ucat

ors

test

s gi

ven

to s

tude

nts.

) 10

Ed

ucat

ors

Shor

ter a

sses

smen

ts th

at a

re a

ge a

ppro

pria

te.

10

Educ

ator

s Lo

ok a

t oth

er p

athw

ays

to m

easu

re s

ucce

ss a

nd le

arni

ng b

esid

es ju

st a

test

. 8

Educ

ator

s M

easu

re a

nd in

crea

se c

redi

t for

gro

wth

. (G

row

th s

houl

d be

a h

ighe

r foc

us.)

7 Ed

ucat

ors

Do

away

with

A-F

ratin

g th

at is

mor

e in

dica

tive

of a

SES

leve

l. E

xtre

mel

y de

trim

enta

l to

educ

atio

n.

7 Ed

ucat

ors

Few

er s

tand

ards

, mor

e de

pth

-- le

ss s

kim

min

g th

e to

p.

7 Ed

ucat

ors

Mor

e lo

cal c

ontr

ol o

f sta

te a

sses

smen

ts in

K-8

for d

ata

anal

ysis

. 6

Educ

ator

s Lo

cal c

ontr

ol.

5 Ed

ucat

ors

Ther

e ar

e to

o m

any

TEKS

for s

tude

nts

to m

aste

r at o

ne g

rade

leve

l (i.e

. 8th

gra

de s

ocia

l stu

dies

.) 4

Educ

ator

s Pr

ovid

e sh

orte

r tes

ts b

y le

ngth

, but

requ

ire d

eepe

r thi

nkin

g.

4 Ed

ucat

ors

Hol

d st

uden

ts a

ccou

ntab

le to

thei

r doc

umen

ted

inst

ruct

iona

l lev

el (s

uch

as IE

P's

and

504'

s).

4 Ed

ucat

ors

Prov

ide

a sy

stem

for c

reat

ing

a be

nchm

ark

in th

e sa

me

year

(suc

h as

pre

and

pos

t tes

ts).

4 Ed

ucat

ors

Redu

ce th

e fa

tigue

and

bur

nout

that

leng

thy

asse

ssm

ents

cre

ate.

Fo

r stu

dent

s, to

focu

s on

cre

atin

g a

syst

em th

at a

llow

s fo

r con

tinuo

us g

row

th --

pro

mot

e gr

owth

for s

tude

nts,

4

Educ

ator

s te

ache

rs, c

ampu

ses

and

dist

ricts

w/o

losi

ng th

e hu

man

ity o

f our

jobs

.

Why

can

't th

e cu

rren

t too

ls th

at h

ave

been

dev

elop

ed fo

r yea

r-lo

ng e

valu

atio

ns b

e us

ed a

s th

e ye

ar e

nd

4 Ed

ucat

ors

asse

ssm

ents

? T

hese

tool

s sh

ould

giv

e a

mor

e su

cces

sful

vie

w o

f the

stu

dent

gro

wth

and

ach

ieve

men

ts.

4 Ed

ucat

ors

Bigg

er e

mph

asis

on

a gr

owth

mod

el, o

ver t

ime.

4

Educ

ator

s Cl

osel

y al

ign

fede

ral a

nd s

tate

ass

essm

ents

and

acc

ount

abili

ty to

avo

id re

dund

ancy

. O

ur fi

nanc

ial r

esou

rces

mig

ht b

e be

tter

use

d fo

r few

er a

sses

smen

ts a

nd in

crea

se te

ache

r sal

arie

s an

d st

uden

t 4

Educ

ator

s re

sour

ces.

4

Educ

ator

s O

pen

ende

d an

swer

s.

3 Ed

ucat

ors

Gro

wth

by

indi

vidu

al s

tude

nt ra

ther

than

pas

s/fa

il.

3 Ed

ucat

ors

Bigg

er e

mph

asis

on

voca

tiona

l. 3

Educ

ator

s Te

st w

hat i

s re

ally

impo

rtan

t 21s

t Cen

tury

Ski

lls, #

of t

ests

mid

dle

scho

ol b

ubbl

e te

sts.


QU

ESTI

ON

#5

WH

AT S

UG

GES

TIO

NS

FOR

IMPR

OVE

MEN

T O

F O

UR

CURR

ENT

SYST

EM W

OU

LD Y

OU

GIV

E TO

TH

E CO

MM

ISSI

ON

?

Gre

en =

Bus

ines

s Le

ader

s

Red

= E

duca

tors

B

lue

= Pa

rent

s

NU

MBE

R O

F VO

TES

GRO

UP'

S RE

SPO

NSE

RE

SPO

NSE

S TO

TH

IS Q

UES

TIO

N

3 Ed

ucat

ors

Flex

ibili

ty.

3 Ed

ucat

ors

Port

folio

inst

ead

of 1

tim

e sn

apsh

ot.

3 Ed

ucat

ors

Nar

row

the

curr

icul

um; t

est r

eadi

ness

sta

ndar

ds o

nly.

Mul

tiple

opp

ortu

nitie

s to

ass

ess

in "

chun

ks"

-- E

xam

ples

: Cre

ate

a "b

adgi

ng"

syst

em w

here

stu

dent

s m

aste

r a

3 Ed

ucat

ors

cert

ain

num

ber o

f com

pone

nts,

20

out o

f 25

skill

s. A

nd m

easu

re 1

st s

emes

ter s

tand

ards

ear

lier.

2 Ed

ucat

ors

Alig

n TS

I, ST

AAR,

AP,

SAT

, ACT

, IB

2 Ed

ucat

ors

Rele

ase

test

eve

ry y

ear

2 Ed

ucat

ors

Look

at k

ids

as in

divi

dual

s.

1 Ed

ucat

ors

Impr

ove

STAA

R A.

1

Educ

ator

s St

uden

t por

tfol

io.

1 Ed

ucat

ors

Def

ine

colle

ge re

adin

ess.

1

Educ

ator

s D

iffer

ent a

ppro

ach

to a

tten

danc

e ac

coun

tabi

lity.

1

Educ

ator

s Te

st s

tude

nts

over

the

mos

t crit

ical

/rea

dine

ss T

EKS.

1

Educ

ator

s D

on't

pena

lize

stud

ents

in s

ub-p

op g

roup

s.

1 Ed

ucat

ors

Shor

ter t

ests

. M

odifi

ed p

assi

ng s

tand

ard

that

wou

ld b

e re

flect

ive

of o

ver a

ll ab

ility

-- m

uch

like

com

preh

ensi

ve s

core

on

ACT

1 Ed

ucat

ors

test

. 1

Educ

ator

s Ex

pect

atio

ns m

ust b

e cl

ear -

- foc

us o

n cl

arity

. 1

Educ

ator

s D

ull r

eadi

ng p

assa

ges.

1

Educ

ator

s Va

ried

mea

sure

s fo

r stu

dent

s an

d sc

hool

s.

1 Ed

ucat

ors

ELL

1 Ed

ucat

ors

Re-e

valu

ate

the

amou

nt o

f rea

dine

ss a

nd s

uppo

rtin

g of

Soc

ial S

tudi

es --

em

phas

is o

n re

adin

ess.

1

Educ

ator

s Co

me

up w

ith a

"sa

mpl

ing"

sys

tem

.


AMAR

ILLO

Q

UES

TIO

N #

6 W

HAT

GO

ALS

FOR

(1) A

SSES

SMEN

TS A

ND

(2) A

CCO

UN

TABI

LITY

WO

ULD

YO

U R

ECO

MM

END

TO

TH

E CO

MM

ISSI

ON

TH

AT W

OU

LD S

HAP

E TH

EIR

WO

RK?

Gre

en =

Bus

ines

s Le

ader

s

Red

= E

duca

tors

B

lue

= Pa

rent

s

NU

MBE

R O

F VO

TES

GRO

UP'

S RE

SPO

NSE

RE

SPO

NSE

S TO

TH

IS Q

UES

TIO

N

We

still

nee

d to

mea

sure

whe

re s

choo

l sys

tem

s ar

e go

ing,

but

not

live

and

die

by

one

test

. G

oals

mat

ch th

e 11

Bu

sine

ss L

eade

rs

stud

ents

' abi

litie

s.

5 Bu

sine

ss L

eade

rs

Incl

ude

staf

f in

deve

lopm

ent p

roce

ss.

1 Bu

sine

ss L

eade

rs

Acco

unta

bilit

y m

ust b

e fa

ir.

1 Bu

sine

ss L

eade

rs

Asse

ssm

ents

hig

h qu

ality

and

mea

ning

ful.

9 Pa

rent

s Pe

rmit

failu

re to

avo

id fe

ar o

f tes

t. 9

Pare

nts

Focu

s on

stu

dent

gro

wth

. M

ake

proc

ess

full

tran

spar

ent.

Sup

ply

pare

nts

with

cop

y of

test

so

they

can

ass

ess

them

. Ri

ght n

ow th

e pr

oces

s 9

Pare

nts

is n

ot tr

uste

d ac

ross

the

stat

e.

9 Pa

rent

s M

ultif

acet

ed a

nd in

divi

dual

izat

ion

acco

unta

bilit

y.

7 Pa

rent

s Al

so tr

ansp

aren

cy in

cos

t of t

est f

or ta

xpay

ers.

Pub

lish

vend

or c

ontr

acts

on

TEA

web

site

. 5

Pare

nts

Mak

e re

alis

tic e

xpec

tatio

ns.

4 Pa

rent

s Bu

ild s

elf e

stee

m.

2 Pa

rent

s Tr

ust e

duca

tors

in th

e as

sess

men

t pro

cess

. 28

Ed

ucat

ors

Prom

ote

stud

ents

' "gr

owth

min

dset

" in

stea

d of

a p

ass/

fail

"fix

ed m

inds

et."

23

Ed

ucat

ors

Dev

elop

men

tally

app

ropr

iate

NO

T ag

e --

driv

en.

19

Educ

ator

s As

sess

men

t -- A

sses

s fe

wer

stu

dent

s/re

adin

ess

skill

s so

teac

hers

can

teac

h to

mas

tery

. 12

Ed

ucat

ors

Chan

ges

in p

lace

bef

ore

scho

ol s

tart

s.

12

Educ

ator

s En

sure

ass

essm

ents

are

writ

ten

on th

e gr

ade

leve

l tes

ted.

11

Ed

ucat

ors

KEEP

PO

LITI

CAL

AGEN

DAS

AW

AY fr

om o

ur c

hild

ren.

10

Ed

ucat

ors

Asse

ssm

ent ,

em

phas

ize

indi

vidu

al s

tude

nt g

row

th.

10

Educ

ator

s Be

ver

y th

ough

tful

abo

ut th

e fin

al p

rodu

ct a

nd d

on't

keep

cha

ngin

g th

e sy

stem

so

ofte

n.

9 Ed

ucat

ors

Loca

l con

trol

. 9

Educ

ator

s Th

roug

h th

e le

ns o

f the

vis

ioni

ng d

ocum

ent.

8 Ed

ucat

ors

Dev

elop

a p

erio

dic

grow

th m

odel

and

por

tfol

io a

sses

smen

t. 6

Educ

ator

s Al

tern

ativ

e fo

rms

of a

sses

smen

t.


QU

ESTI

ON

#6

WH

AT G

OAL

S FO

R (1

) ASS

ESSM

ENTS

AN

D (2

) ACC

OU

NTA

BILI

TY W

OU

LD Y

OU

REC

OM

MEN

D T

O T

HE

COM

MIS

SIO

N

THAT

WO

ULD

SH

APE

THEI

R W

ORK

?

Gre

en =

Bus

ines

s Le

ader

s

Red

= E

duca

tors

B

lue

= Pa

rent

s

NU

MBE

R O

F VO

TES

GRO

UP'

S RE

SPO

NSE

RE

SPO

NSE

S TO

TH

IS Q

UES

TIO

N

Acco

unta

bilit

y --

com

mon

con

side

ratio

n fo

r stu

dent

div

ersi

ty --

con

side

r oth

er g

row

th m

easu

res

(stu

dent

s, n

ew

6 Ed

ucat

ors

to c

ount

ry, s

peci

al e

duca

tion,

ELL

, etc

.) 6

Educ

ator

s N

urtu

re c

reat

ive

geni

us.

6 Ed

ucat

ors

HO

NO

R th

e di

vers

ity o

f our

chi

ldre

n --

pov

erty

, sub

popu

latio

ns, u

niqu

e gi

fts,

and

tale

nts.

4

Educ

ator

s G

et ri

d of

pun

itive

ele

men

t. 4

Educ

ator

s Li

sten

and

act

upo

n in

put.

3 Ed

ucat

ors

Reas

onab

ility

and

app

ropr

iate

. 3

Educ

ator

s Ac

coun

tabi

lity,

gra

duat

ion

com

mitt

ees.

3

Educ

ator

s SC

ALE

BACK

. 3

Educ

ator

s St

uden

t spe

cific

, res

earc

h ba

sed

port

folio

s, ti

mel

y/ch

unke

d, D

. I.

3 Ed

ucat

ors

Not

a "

gotc

ha"

-- p

rovi

des

scho

ols

thei

r ins

truc

tiona

l pre

scrip

tion.

2

Educ

ator

s Fo

cus

on s

tude

nt c

hoic

e.

Asse

ssm

ent -

- Tes

ts s

houl

d ha

ve lo

gica

l seq

uenc

e (f

or e

xam

ple,

frac

tion

ques

tions

all

toge

ther

; his

toric

al e

ras

2 Ed

ucat

ors

test

ed to

geth

er.

2 Ed

ucat

ors

Shor

ter,

on-li

ne te

stin

g --

for i

mm

edia

te fe

edba

ck.

2 Ed

ucat

ors

Util

ize

toda

y's

tech

nolo

gy to

cre

ate

real

wor

ld a

sses

smen

ts.

1 Ed

ucat

ors

Asse

ssm

ents

- de

velo

p ru

bric

s - a

true

r ind

ivid

ual p

ictu

re o

f the

stu

dent

. 1

Educ

ator

s Ac

coun

tabi

lity

-- E

limin

ate

the

A-F

ratin

g. D

evel

op a

mor

e in

divi

dual

ized

sys

tem

per

sch

ool s

ize.

1

Educ

ator

s In

divi

dual

acc

ount

abili

ty b

ased

on

dist

rict a

nd c

ampu

s le

vel.

1 Ed

ucat

ors

Mor

e lo

cal c

ontr

ol o

n as

sess

men

t. 1

Educ

ator

s As

sess

men

t, pr

omot

ion?

? 1

Educ

ator

s As

sess

men

t, m

odes

of t

estin

g.

1 Ed

ucat

ors

Asse

ssm

ent,

cost

and

lim

itatio

ns o

f dis

tric

ts g

oing

all

on

line?

??

1 Ed

ucat

ors

Asse

ssm

ent,

alig

nmen

t. 1

Educ

ator

s Ac

coun

tabi

lity,

sho

uld

mak

e sc

hool

s be

tter

, not

be

"got

cha.

" 1

Educ

ator

s Tr

ust a

nd g

row

you

r pro

fess

iona

ls.

1 Ed

ucat

ors

Asse

ssm

ents

sho

uldn

't be

a g

otch

a.


AUST

IN

QU

ESTI

ON

#1

REFL

ECT

UPO

N T

HE

PRES

ENTA

TIO

NS

THAT

YO

U P

REVI

EWED

BEF

ORE

TH

E M

EETI

NG

. W

HAT

ARE

SO

ME

KEY

LEAR

NIN

GS

OR

IMPO

RTAN

T TA

KE-A

-WAY

S TH

AT S

HO

ULD

SH

APE

OU

R CO

NVE

RSAT

ION

?

Gre

en =

Bus

ines

s Le

ader

s

Red

= E

duca

tors

B

lue

= Pa

rent

s

NU

MBE

R O

F VO

TES

GRO

UP'

S RE

SPO

NSE

RE

SPO

NSE

S TO

TH

IS Q

UES

TIO

N

7 Bu

sine

ss

Stud

ent a

chie

vem

ent w

as in

crea

sing

und

er o

lder

iter

atio

ns o

f acc

ount

abili

ty

2 Bu

sine

ss

Texa

s ha

s a

stro

ng h

isto

ry o

n as

sess

men

t and

acc

ount

abili

ty

1 Bu

sine

ss

Old

acc

ount

abili

ty s

yste

m b

uilt

on b

road

con

sens

us

4 Ed

ucat

ors

Nee

d to

use

mul

tiple

mea

sure

s 4

Educ

ator

s Sh

ould

con

side

r par

ent &

stu

dent

acc

ount

abili

ty

2 Ed

ucat

ors

Alte

rnat

ive

asse

ssm

ent a

s a

mea

n fo

r col

lege

read

ines

s 2

Educ

ator

s O

ne te

st/o

ne d

ay is

insu

ffic

ient

2

Educ

ator

s N

eed

to u

se m

ultip

le m

easu

res

1 Ed

ucat

ors

Port

folio

of s

tude

nt w

ork

Educ

ator

s N

ew a

cct.

focu

ses

on g

row

th

Educ

ator

s “A

sses

smen

ts s

houl

d m

easu

re w

hat m

atte

rs”

Educ

ator

s “D

istin

ctio

ns a

re a

fals

e po

sitiv

e”

Educ

ator

s “S

ubpo

pula

tions

” We

defin

e &

don

’t ad

dres

s eq

uita

bilit

y FO

R RE

AL. W

ho d

o th

ey te

sts

the

test

on?

Re

fers

to in

divi

dual

stu

dent

s, m

ult.

Ch. m

ay n

ot b

e su

ffic

ient

, ass

essm

ent i

s no

t goi

ng a

way

, sho

uld

cons

ider

Ed

ucat

ors

pare

nt &

stu

dent

acc

ount

abili

ty

Educ

ator

s Co

uld

be m

ore

accu

rate

/com

preh

ensi

ve

Educ

ator

s Ed

ucat

ors

asse

ss d

aily

7 Pa

rent

s Ba

sed

on C

omm

on C

ore

Fram

ewor

k (s

ee C

CSSO

– u

sing

bal

ance

d as

sess

men

t sys

tem

s, et

c.),

shou

ld n

ot b

e th

e w

hole

pic

ture

in o

ne d

ay

6 Pa

rent

s W

e ha

ve le

ft th

e pa

th o

f why

we

are

test

ing

5 Pa

rent

s W

hy is

col

lege

read

ines

s pr

esum

ed a

s a

goal

? 2

Pare

nts

Wha

t is

the

bene

fit o

f com

plex

ity o

f acc

ount

abili

ty s

yste

ms?

Pa

rent

s W

e en

joye

d hi

stor

y of

acc

ount

abili

ty s

yste

ms

Pare

nts

Test

ing

has

a pl

ace

Pare

nts

Tool

for i

mpr

ovin

g st

uden

t ach

ieve

men

t

Austin


AUST

IN

QU

ESTI

ON

#2

WH

AT IS

TH

E RO

LE/P

URP

OSE

OF

ASSE

SSM

ENT

AND

ACC

OU

NTA

BILI

TY IN

TH

E ED

UCA

TIO

N O

F O

UR

CHIL

DRE

N?

Gre

en =

Bus

ines

s Le

ader

s

Red

= E

duca

tors

B

lue

= Pa

rent

s

NU

MBE

R O

F VO

TES

GRO

UP'

S RE

SPO

NSE

RE

SPO

NSE

S TO

TH

IS Q

UES

TIO

N

7 Bu

sine

ss

Asse

ssm

ents

sho

uld

offe

r tim

ely,

act

iona

ble

feed

back

Bu

sine

ss

Colle

ge/c

aree

r rea

dine

ss

8 Ed

ucat

ors

Asse

ssm

ents

sho

uld

be d

iagn

ostic

, not

pun

itive

7

Educ

ator

s As

sess

men

t-M

easu

re p

rogr

ess

7 Ed

ucat

ors

Mea

sure

gro

wth

ove

r tim

e Pr

ovid

es m

easu

res

to s

ee th

at s

tude

nts

are

mak

ing

prog

ress

? An

d th

at th

ey a

re b

eing

taug

ht th

e sa

me

6 Ed

ucat

ors

curr

icul

um (T

EKS)

4

Educ

ator

s W

e te

ach

wid

ely

but n

ot d

eepl

y 4

Educ

ator

s As

sess

men

t-Sh

ould

mea

sure

crit

ical

thin

king

& k

now

ledg

e at

an

appr

opria

te g

rade

leve

l 4

Educ

ator

s D

eter

min

e ar

eas

of n

eed

for i

mpr

ovem

ent/

stre

ngth

s 3

Educ

ator

s As

sess

men

t-Ta

rget

refin

e in

stru

ctio

n 2

Educ

ator

s Ac

coun

tabi

lity-

Not

to p

unis

h sc

hool

/tea

cher

2

Educ

ator

s Ac

coun

tabi

lity-

Shou

ld re

flect

pro

gres

s

2 Ed

ucat

ors

Asse

ssm

ent-

Stat

ewid

e co

mpa

rison

, dis

tric

t, na

tion,

glo

bal

2 Ed

ucat

ors

Info

rm in

stru

ctio

n 2

Educ

ator

s To

info

rm in

stru

ctio

n 1

Educ

ator

s O

ne a

sses

smen

t can

’t co

ver t

oo b

road

a s

pect

rum

1

Educ

ator

s As

sess

men

t-M

otiv

ate

to p

erfo

rm w

ell

1 Ed

ucat

ors

Acco

unta

bilit

y-Re

sults

sho

uld

be p

resc

riptiv

e 1

Educ

ator

s As

sess

men

t-In

form

pro

gram

min

g –

dive

rse

wor

k pa

ths

1 Ed

ucat

ors

Asse

ssm

ent-

Alig

ning

cur

ricu

lum

1

Educ

ator

s D

iagn

ose

need

s Ed

ucat

ors

Asse

ssm

ent-

Gui

de in

divi

dual

inst

ruct

ion

Educ

ator

s Fi

x as

sess

men

t to

fix a

ccou

ntab

ility

Ed

ucat

ors

Asse

ssm

ent-

To in

form

pra

xis

and

form

ativ

e da

ta

Educ

ator

s En

sure

bas

ic li

tera

cy


QU

ESTI

ON

#2

WH

AT IS

TH

E RO

LE/P

URP

OSE

OF

ASSE

SSM

ENT

AND

ACC

OU

NTA

BILI

TY IN

TH

E ED

UCA

TIO

N O

F O

UR

CHIL

DRE

N?

Gre

en =

Bus

ines

s Le

ader

s

Red

= E

duca

tors

B

lue

= Pa

rent

s

NU

MBE

R O

F VO

TES

GRO

UP'

S RE

SPO

NSE

RE

SPO

NSE

S TO

TH

IS Q

UES

TIO

N

7 Bu

sine

ss

Asse

ssm

ents

sho

uld

offe

r tim

ely,

act

iona

ble

feed

back

Bu

sine

ss

Colle

ge/c

aree

r rea

dine

ss

Educ

ator

s Pr

epar

e fo

r nex

t lev

el/s

tep

Educ

ator

s Sh

ould

pla

y on

e ro

le o

f man

y Ed

ucat

ors

Crea

te s

hare

d st

anda

rd

Educ

ator

s Te

ach

resp

onsi

bilit

y (s

tude

nts

set o

wn

goal

s)

Educ

ator

s D

eter

min

e m

aste

ry o

f TEK

S 9

Pare

nts

No

high

sta

kes

test

ing

8 Pa

rent

s Re

mov

e hi

gh s

take

s

6 Pa

rent

s H

ave

one

purp

ose,

ass

essm

ent,

diag

nost

ic, a

ccou

ntab

ility

but

not

ALL

in o

ne a

sses

smen

t 4

Pare

nts

Acco

unta

bilit

y-It

shou

ld h

elp

iden

tify

prob

lem

and

root

cau

se

3 Pa

rent

s Ac

coun

tabi

lity-

Iden

tify

inst

itutio

ns w

ith is

sues

, so

help

can

be

prov

ided

3

Pare

nts

Dia

gnos

tic –

par

ents

nee

d in

form

atio

n on

why

and

how

it b

enef

its th

eir c

hild

2

Pare

nts

Asse

ssm

ents

-Iden

tify

mas

tery

(are

they

read

y fo

r nex

t cla

ss?)

Pa

rent

s As

sess

men

ts-In

form

edu

cato

rs a

nd p

aren

ts


AUST

IN

QU

ESTI

ON

#3

WH

AT IS

WO

RKIN

G W

ELL

WIT

H O

UR

CURR

ENT

SYST

EM O

F AS

SESS

MEN

T AN

D A

CCO

UN

TABI

LITY

?

Gre

en =

Bus

ines

s Le

ader

s

Red

= E

duca

tors

B

lue

= Pa

rent

s

NU

MBE

R O

F VO

TES

GRO

UP'

S RE

SPO

NSE

RE

SPO

NSE

S TO

TH

IS Q

UES

TIO

N

3 Bu

sine

ss

Inde

x ap

proa

ch m

ore

holis

tic th

an ju

st te

st p

erfo

rman

ce

2 Bu

sine

ss

Annu

al a

sses

smen

t pro

vide

s op

port

unity

to tr

ack

grow

th

6 Ed

ucat

ors

Indi

vidu

al g

radu

atio

n co

mm

ittee

3

Educ

ator

s Th

e te

st m

easu

res

skill

s an

d co

nten

t for

that

gra

de/s

ubje

ct, a

nd th

at a

ll st

uden

ts c

ount

. 3

Educ

ator

s Ro

bust

Dat

a Sy

stem

, Dis

tric

t to

dist

rict c

ompa

rison

(doe

s it

reve

al e

quity

issu

e?)

3 Ed

ucat

ors

No

mor

e de

ath

by c

ell /

inde

xes

2 Ed

ucat

ors

EOCs

goo

d 2

Educ

ator

s Re

duce

d #

of te

sts

very

hel

pful

1

Educ

ator

s Co

mpa

rison

gro

ups

1 Ed

ucat

ors

Focu

s on

sub

pop

ulat

ions

1

Educ

ator

s Sh

eds

light

on

achi

evem

ent g

ap

1 Ed

ucat

ors

Slow

pro

gres

s to

incl

ude

othe

r mea

sure

s th

an S

TAAR

test

(gra

d ra

tes

/ di

stin

ctio

ns)

Educ

ator

s G

reat

sta

ndar

ds, w

ritte

n w

ell

Educ

ator

s Ab

le to

dis

aggr

egat

e Ed

ucat

ors

Goo

d at

tem

pt to

alig

n st

anda

rds

and

ques

tions

Ed

ucat

ors

Rigo

r Ed

ucat

ors

Inde

xing

mea

sure

s Ed

ucat

ors

Prov

ides

dat

a Ed

ucat

ors

Sets

a c

omm

on s

tand

ard

Educ

ator

s In

form

s in

stru

ctio

n/pl

anni

ng

Educ

ator

s In

crea

sed

pare

nt/c

omm

unity

invo

lvem

ent

Educ

ator

s W

e do

use

the

resu

lting

dat

a to

info

rm in

stru

ctio

n 11

Pa

rent

s Fo

cus

on u

nder

repr

esen

ted

w/o

hur

ting

high

ach

ieve

rs

3 Pa

rent

s Al

l kid

s (in

clud

ing

spec

ial n

eeds

) get

ting

atte

ntio

n; a

ssum

ing

dist

rict w

ill id

entif

y 3

Pare

nts

Util

izes

the

sam

e st

anda

rds

acro

ss th

e st

ate

1 Pa

rent

s W

e lik

e th

at th

e 5

dom

ains

is a

ste

p in

the

right

dire

ctio

n Pa

rent

s As

sess

men

ts a

re b

eing

rele

ased

to p

ublic


AUST

IN

QU

ESTI

ON

#4

WH

AT F

ACTO

RS S

HO

ULD

TH

E N

EXT

GEN

ERAT

ION

CO

MM

ISSI

ON

ON

ASS

ESSM

ENTS

AN

D A

CCO

UN

TABI

LITY

CO

NSI

DER

AS

THEY

MAK

E TH

EIR

RECO

MM

END

ATIO

NS?

Gre

en =

Bus

ines

s Le

ader

s

Red

= E

duca

tors

B

lue

= Pa

rent

s

NU

MBE

R O

F VO

TES

GRO

UP'

S RE

SPO

NSE

RE

SPO

NSE

S TO

TH

IS Q

UES

TIO

N

6 Bu

sine

ss

Dat

a is

impo

rtan

t for

bus

ines

s le

ader

s, d

ecis

ion

mak

ers

and

pare

nts

alik

e 2

Busi

ness

H

ow d

o w

e en

sure

stu

dent

s ar

e le

arni

ng th

em?

1 Bu

sine

ss

Wha

t ski

lls d

oes

the

wor

kfor

ce re

quire

? 18

Ed

ucat

ors

Scho

ols

are

held

acc

ount

able

equ

ally

, but

do

not h

ave

equa

l res

ourc

es

18

Educ

ator

s Te

sts

shou

ld b

e de

velo

pmen

tally

app

ropr

iate

15

Ed

ucat

ors

Reso

urce

s –

fund

ing

ineq

uity

(ies

) 9

Educ

ator

s Te

st a

nxie

ty

9 Ed

ucat

ors

STAA

R M

odifi

ed n

eeds

to c

ome

back

8

Educ

ator

s Co

nsid

er th

e fo

otpr

int o

f the

test

-Anx

iety

, Tes

t Fat

igue

, Stig

ma

6 Ed

ucat

ors

IEPS

– b

ut n

o m

odifi

ed te

st

5 Ed

ucat

ors

Cost

fact

ors

of te

stin

g –

coul

d th

e $

be b

ette

r sup

port

4

Educ

ator

s EL

L –

2 ye

ars

to g

et o

ut –

then

test

ed

4 Ed

ucat

ors

Stat

e te

sts

may

be

redu

ndan

t to

othe

r tes

ts (A

P, T

SI, S

AT…

) 3

Educ

ator

s So

met

hing

in p

lace

for s

tude

nts

new

to A

mer

ica

3 Ed

ucat

ors

Colle

ge re

adin

ess

and/

or w

orkf

orce

3

Educ

ator

s So

cioe

cono

mic

& c

onte

xt

3 Ed

ucat

ors

Stud

ent a

tten

danc

e/di

scip

line

3 Ed

ucat

ors

Mul

tiple

mea

sure

s fo

r sub

pop

s 2

Educ

ator

s G

radu

atio

n no

t dep

ende

nt o

n pa

ssin

g te

st

2 Ed

ucat

ors

Test

s us

ed a

s an

indi

cato

r not

gra

duat

ion

requ

irem

ent

2 Ed

ucat

ors

Spec

ial e

duca

tion

1 Ed

ucat

ors

Test

ing

has

nega

tive

impa

ct o

n th

e ar

ts

1 Ed

ucat

ors

Stud

ent m

obili

ty

1 Ed

ucat

ors

Alig

n te

st to

cur

ricul

um

1 Ed

ucat

ors

They

sho

uld

cons

ider

the

stud

ent

1 Ed

ucat

ors

Cons

ider

way

s to

mea

sure

gro

wth

with

in th

e ye

ar


QU

ESTI

ON

#4

WH

AT F

ACTO

RS S

HO

ULD

TH

E N

EXT

GEN

ERAT

ION

CO

MM

ISSI

ON

ON

ASS

ESSM

ENTS

AN

D A

CCO

UN

TABI

LITY

CO

NSI

DER

AS

THEY

MAK

E TH

EIR

RECO

MM

END

ATIO

NS?

Gre

en =

Bus

ines

s Le

ader

s

Red

= E

duca

tors

B

lue

= Pa

rent

s

NU

MBE

R O

F VO

TES

GRO

UP'

S RE

SPO

NSE

RE

SPO

NSE

S TO

TH

IS Q

UES

TIO

N

6 Bu

sine

ss

Dat

a is

impo

rtan

t for

bus

ines

s le

ader

s, d

ecis

ion

mak

ers

and

pare

nts

alik

e 2

Busi

ness

H

ow d

o w

e en

sure

stu

dent

s ar

e le

arni

ng th

em?

Educ

ator

s M

ost t

ests

are

adm

inis

tere

d at

9th

gra

de

Educ

ator

s Sc

hool

faci

lity

cons

trai

nts

Educ

ator

s D

iver

sity

of l

earn

ers

– ra

ce &

cla

ss

Educ

ator

s El

imin

ate

Engl

ish

II ex

am (i

t is

redu

ndan

t)

Educ

ator

s Ta

ke a

read

ing

and

writ

ing

snap

shot

eve

ry y

ear

Educ

ator

s Co

nsid

er ti

min

g an

d nu

mbe

r of t

ests

giv

en

Educ

ator

s Cu

mul

ativ

e te

sts

in s

cien

ce a

re u

nfai

r 10

Pa

rent

s At

tent

ion

to k

ids

at a

ll le

vels

(e.g

. Lev

el II

I) SP

ED, E

LL

10

Pare

nts

Who

is b

eing

hel

d ac

coun

tabl

e to

who

m?

Kids

are

bei

ng h

eld

acco

unta

ble

to th

e st

ate.

7

Pare

nts

How

to in

crea

se lo

cal (

pare

nt) c

ontr

ol o

ver a

sses

smen

ts

5 Pa

rent

s As

sess

men

ts/a

ccou

ntab

ility

sho

uld

bene

fit s

tude

nts

3 Pa

rent

s St

ep b

ack

and

cons

ider

goa

ls o

f pub

lic e

duca

tion

1 Pa

rent

s Ap

prop

riate

acc

omm

odat

ions

1

Pare

nts

We

(par

ents

) nee

d to

kno

w w

hy o

ur k

ids

are

taki

ng th

is


AUST

IN

QU

ESTI

ON

#5

WH

AT S

UG

GES

TIO

NS

FOR

IMPR

OVE

MEN

T O

F O

UR

CURR

ENT

SYST

EM W

OU

LD Y

OU

GIV

E TO

TH

E CO

MM

ISSI

ON

? G

reen

= B

usin

ess

Lead

ers

R

ed =

Edu

cato

rs

Blu

e =

Pare

nts

NU

MBE

R O

F VO

TES

GRO

UP'

S RE

SPO

NSE

RE

SPO

NSE

S TO

TH

IS Q

UES

TIO

N

3 Bu

sine

ss

Acce

ssib

ility

of d

ata

to th

e pu

blic

2

Busi

ness

Cl

arity

of a

ccou

ntab

ility

and

ass

essm

ent d

ata

Busi

ness

D

isag

greg

ated

dat

a 14

Ed

ucat

ors

Stan

dard

s sh

ould

fit i

n in

stru

ctio

nal c

alen

dar

8 Ed

ucat

ors

Feed

back

(foc

used

) to

stud

ent

8 Ed

ucat

ors

Brin

g ba

ck m

odifi

ed a

sses

smen

ts

7 Ed

ucat

ors

Texa

s ha

s be

com

e in

vasi

ve a

nd to

o m

uch

effo

rt fo

r too

litt

le s

tude

nt b

enef

it 5

Educ

ator

s M

easu

re s

choo

l eng

agem

ent i

n ex

trac

urric

ular

that

’s w

hat g

ets

kids

to s

choo

ls

5 Ed

ucat

ors

Bett

er m

easu

re fo

r spe

cial

edu

catio

n 4

Educ

ator

s Te

st g

iven

ear

ly in

yea

r for

dia

gnos

tic p

urpo

ses

4 Ed

ucat

ors

Lim

it th

e st

akes

3

Educ

ator

s Cr

eate

test

s th

at te

st o

nly

esse

ntia

ls

3 Ed

ucat

ors

Shor

ter t

ests

for y

oung

er s

tude

nts

3 Ed

ucat

ors

Bett

er p

ract

ice

mod

ules

with

onl

ine

test

ing

3 Ed

ucat

ors

Inco

rpor

ate

teac

her b

ased

ass

essm

ent

3 Ed

ucat

ors

Writ

ing

is n

ot a

uthe

ntic

in 2

6 lin

es (t

his

is n

ot c

olle

ge re

ady)

2

Educ

ator

s Ca

nnot

pas

s a

rule

that

can

not b

e ap

plie

d to

eve

ry c

ampu

s 2

Educ

ator

s Be

tter

test

ing

onlin

e 2

Educ

ator

s Pr

ojec

t-ba

sed

lear

ning

/ p

ortf

olio

2 Ed

ucat

ors

If on

line

test

s ar

e re

quire

d st

ate

shou

ld p

rovi

de in

stru

ctio

nal r

esou

rces

to s

uppo

rt le

arni

ng

2 Ed

ucat

ors

Perh

aps

subm

it sk

ills

grow

th d

ata

to o

ffset

STA

AR p

ress

ure

1 Ed

ucat

ors

Has

to b

e m

ore

than

1 d

ay m

easu

re -

mul

tiple

mea

sure

men

ts

1 Ed

ucat

ors

Test

HS

Bio

/ U

S H

isto

ry, A

lgeb

ra I

durin

g fin

als,

so

teac

hers

hav

e m

ore

time

to te

ach

cont

ent

1 Ed

ucat

ors

Allo

w ti

me

for r

e-te

ach

Educ

ator

s N

eede

d pr

ofes

sion

al d

evel

opm

ent o

n tr

ansi

tion

to S

TAAR

Ed

ucat

ors

Engl

ish

I/II

EOC

test

– 5

hou

rs


QU

ESTI

ON

#5

WH

AT S

UG

GES

TIO

NS

FOR

IMPR

OVE

MEN

T O

F O

UR

CURR

ENT

SYST

EM W

OU

LD Y

OU

GIV

E TO

TH

E CO

MM

ISSI

ON

? G

reen

= B

usin

ess

Lead

ers

R

ed =

Edu

cato

rs

Blu

e =

Pare

nts

NU

MBE

R O

F VO

TES

GRO

UP'

S RE

SPO

NSE

RE

SPO

NSE

S TO

TH

IS Q

UES

TIO

N

3 Bu

sine

ss

Acce

ssib

ility

of d

ata

to th

e pu

blic

2

Busi

ness

Cl

arity

of a

ccou

ntab

ility

and

ass

essm

ent d

ata

Educ

ator

s Ve

t the

test

s (m

ake

sure

ans

wer

s ar

e co

rrec

t)

Educ

ator

s M

ore

free

dom

for d

istr

icts

20

Pa

rent

s As

sess

onl

y re

adin

ess

stan

dard

s (r

emov

e m

ath

and

ELA

proc

ess

stan

dard

s &

tric

k qu

estio

ns)

19

Pare

nts

Age

appr

opria

te q

uest

ions

8

Pare

nts

Enfo

rce

743

7 Pa

rent

s H

ow to

incr

ease

loca

l (pa

rent

) con

trol

ove

r ass

essm

ents

5

Pare

nts

Test

no

mor

e th

an is

requ

ired

by E

SSA

5 Pa

rent

s Re

mov

e re

dund

ancy

(e.g

. AP

& E

OC)

5

Pare

nts

Star

t ove

r 4

Pare

nts

Alte

rnat

ive

form

s of

ass

essm

ent (

e.g.

por

tfol

ios)

3

Pare

nts

Rem

ove

high

sta

kes

3 Pa

rent

s Pa

rent

s ne

ed d

etai

led

info

on

thei

r chi

ld (a

ctua

l tes

t tak

en &

ess

ays)


AUST

IN

QU

ESTI

ON

#6

WH

AT G

OAL

S FO

R (1

) ASS

ESSM

ENTS

AN

D (2

) ACC

OU

NTA

BILI

TY W

OU

LD Y

OU

REC

OM

MEN

D T

O T

HE

COM

MIS

SIO

N

THAT

WO

ULD

SH

APE

THEI

R W

ORK

?

Gre

en =

Bus

ines

s Le

ader

s

Red

= E

duca

tors

B

lue

= Pa

rent

s

NU

MBE

R O

F VO

TES

GRO

UP'

S RE

SPO

NSE

RE

SPO

NSE

S TO

TH

IS Q

UES

TIO

N

8 Bu

sine

ss

Clea

r/co

nsis

tent

sig

nals

from

acc

ount

abili

ty s

yste

m

13

Educ

ator

s Eq

uita

ble

fund

ing

10

Educ

ator

s Br

ing

the

joy

back

to te

achi

ng a

nd le

arni

ng

9 Ed

ucat

ors

Acco

unta

bilit

y sh

ould

not

be

limite

d to

aca

dem

ics

(par

ent i

nvol

vem

ent,

com

mun

ity in

volv

emen

t)

Des

igne

d by

edu

cato

rs; l

iste

n to

pra

ctiti

oner

s –

redu

ce th

e am

ount

of t

ime

spen

t in

scho

ols

on th

e to

talit

y of

the

9 Ed

ucat

ors

test

ing

regi

me/

Don

’t ju

st fo

cus

on te

stin

g da

ys

9 Ed

ucat

ors

Gre

ater

focu

s on

dev

elop

men

tally

app

ropr

iate

test

mat

eria

ls

8 Ed

ucat

ors

Test

ing

shou

ld b

e le

ss p

uniti

ve (s

tude

nts

ofte

n lo

se e

lect

ives

, rec

ess,

etc

. for

rem

edia

tion)

7

Educ

ator

s G

ive

stud

ents

mor

e ca

reer

-rea

dy te

ch &

trad

e op

tions

7

Educ

ator

s Tr

ust t

each

ers

to c

reat

e cu

rric

ulum

and

ass

essm

ents

Ac

coun

tabi

lity

shou

ld c

lose

gap

s be

twee

n sc

hool

s, n

ot w

iden

i.e.

The

ABC

retir

ing

syst

em –

cre

ate

a sy

stem

that

4

Educ

ator

s ac

know

ledg

es th

e N

egat

ive

effe

cts

of th

e cu

rren

t sys

tem

MAK

E IT

WO

RK!

3 Ed

ucat

ors

Use

test

for i

mpr

ovem

ent –

wha

t are

sch

ools

that

are

suc

cess

ful d

oing

that

oth

ers

need

to d

o?

2 Ed

ucat

ors

Goa

ls fo

r ass

essm

ent =

KIS

S 2

Educ

ator

s Ac

coun

tabi

lity-

Reso

urce

s fo

r sch

ools

in n

eed

(ex.

Titl

e I)

1 Ed

ucat

ors

Acco

unta

bilit

y-G

row

th m

inds

et

1 Ed

ucat

ors

Dec

reas

e “s

eat-

time”

per

test

Ed

ucat

ors

Asse

ssm

ent i

nfo

shou

ld g

ive

usef

ul in

fo to

teac

hers

Ed

ucat

ors

Asse

ssm

ent-

Gui

de

Educ

ator

s As

sess

men

t-dr

ive

inst

ruct

ion

Educ

ator

s As

sess

men

t-Q

uick

indi

cato

r Ed

ucat

ors

Asse

ssm

ent-

Rele

vant

con

nect

ion

from

ass

essm

ent t

o co

llege

& c

aree

r goa

ls

Educ

ator

s Ac

coun

tabi

lity-

Com

paris

on g

roup

s Ed

ucat

ors

Rest

ore

the

joy

of le

arni

ng /

teac

hing

Pare

nts

Asse

ssm

ents

-Cle

ar in

form

atio

n on

whe

re in

terv

entio

n is

nee

ded

in th

e cl

assr

oom

8


QU

ESTI

ON

#6

WH

AT G

OAL

S FO

R (1

) ASS

ESSM

ENTS

AN

D (2

) ACC

OU

NTA

BILI

TY W

OU

LD Y

OU

REC

OM

MEN

D T

O T

HE

COM

MIS

SIO

N

THAT

WO

ULD

SH

APE

THEI

R W

ORK

?

Gre

en =

Bus

ines

s Le

ader

s

Red

= E

duca

tors

B

lue

= Pa

rent

s

NU

MBE

R O

F VO

TES

GRO

UP'

S RE

SPO

NSE

RE

SPO

NSE

S TO

TH

IS Q

UES

TIO

N

8 Bu

sine

ss

Clea

r/co

nsis

tent

sig

nals

from

acc

ount

abili

ty s

yste

m

13

Educ

ator

s Eq

uita

ble

fund

ing

7 Pa

rent

s D

o no

t ass

ess

ever

y ye

ar. I

t is

not n

eces

sary

. 6

Pare

nts

Acco

unta

bilit

y-Co

ntin

ual i

mpr

ovem

ent f

or g

ood

& s

trug

glin

g sc

hool

s 6

Pare

nts

Do

wha

t is

in th

e be

st in

tere

st o

f all

child

ren

5 Pa

rent

s Lo

ok fo

r mul

tiple

acc

ount

abili

ty m

easu

res

3 Pa

rent

s As

sess

faci

litie

s &

oth

er a

spec

t of s

tude

nt e

xper

ienc

e , t

each

er te

nure

, sch

ool c

ultu

re


BROWNSVILLE

1. Reflect upon the presentations that you just heard. What are some key learnings or important take-a-ways that should shape our conversation?

Key Focal Points Key Concerns Recommendations Moved from 1 item data set to performance model

Has testing really helped students?

Address how special education population is tested at grade level. What can be done?

Test does not test actual knowledge, just whether you can take a test or not. (Student)

Student-Testing is really stressful

What will commission do to address federal regulations?

State continues to change. Districts accept the challenge to be successful and the state decides to change again just when we tweak.

Teachers are frustrated. We are losing educators due to challenges.

Students have anxiety with test and do not want to attend due to stress

Teachers are accountable Data can be manipulated Students are the ones suffering because of the lack of parental involvement and culture

How decisions were made was not shared clearly

This session provides us with the opportunity to give ideas to state

Accountability will shift Often it’s changed State will continue to hold states accountable. Differentiate accountability

Special education students struggle to adjust Gap is widening and gap is now closing

Deeper questions: Applaud access to general ed curriculum

Are general ed teachers trained to help student with special needs?

Are trainers looking at instruction and styles used?

21 to 28 students with 2 to 3 special education students. What is the accountability?

Expect teachers to accommodate student is difficult

Brownsville


Key Focal Points Key Concerns Recommendations Bigger lens for student achievement might be still narrow. What about leadership? What is the retaining rate, teacher experience, teacher quality, etc… One test can measure the quality of a district, not the student.

Suggestions: No talk about the leadership. Great leaders shape good organizations. Does it matter? Look beyond the testing.

Focus is achievement. What about school leadership, teacher recommendations, Add: to Domains 1, 2, 3. Mobility rate is less than other districts. Look at the teacher. Domain 5- GT Bilingual, looks at teacher training to engage students quality.

TAC test- how to get certified was used in the past. Accountability was done through this test. Mobility we’re losing enrollment.

A student will do well if student is inspired, a positive environment. We need to shape the class or setting.

Lots of information (science) to do before the testing takes place. A balance needs to take place between both.

State accountability needs to shift their way of thinking.

Differentiating the accountability on the assessments. Crucial information has to be taught before testing takes place.

Needs to change to target all populations from general education to special education. A balance needs to take place between the curriculum taught and the curriculum assessed.

The special education population struggles to adjust to the assessment.

The gap continues to increase.

Deeper questions More teaching training Differentiating assessments Modification/accommodation implementation

Are general education teachers trained to help students with special needs?

Instruction and teaching styles most differentiate.

Deeper questions More teaching training Differentiating assessments Modifications/Accommodations implemented

What is the accountability for teachers with special education population?

Teachers are expected to accommodate the students with a large classroom population.

Specialize training On-going monitoring

Accountability starts with Leadership (Great leaders shape good organizations)

Monitoring of teacher: Student retaining rate Teacher’s experience Teacher quality

Teachers continue with on-going trainings in specific certifications. Conducive class setting


Key Focal Points Key Concerns Recommendations Mobility rate Teaching styles Inspiring teachers Positive environment

1st three domains State Assessments play a great role (55%)

Still need to learn the verbiage as work with post-secondary. Need to bridge gap between post secondary and secondary.

Why not have actual teacher grade the writing exams? 90 million is used to grade the writing exams. Suggestion is to have the teachers grade their own students’ exams.

There has been change. We have a voice as evidenced by this meeting. This opportunity to voice our concerns is validating.

Concerned about the individual students. Their individual problems; a few examples are students that face great adversity such as incarceration, death. Their needs need to be addressed. Address their emotional needs.

Interested to hear how special needs students are going to be assessed and how this will be addressed.

Can we have the conversation of the best A-F system? Commonalities from all areas of the state. Every region to have input.

Missing language for students. Teachers need more training on

technology so that students can be more engaged.

Accountability is still important Testing TEAMS was enjoyable

and not stressful like today.

Use test as a tool but not so much to hold students back or not to graduate.

My daughter not sleeping and eating. Students in behavioral hospital.

Testing is a measure to know where we need growth. Social skills and soft skills are also equally important in the business world. We should have testing to measure progress but it should not be the focal point.

There needs to be a balance between testing and


Key Focal Points Key Concerns Recommendations accountability and the whole child. Balance is key. Children well being is essential. Need to reduce the anxiety for children.

Anxiety and health of children must come first. The pressure and anxiety of testing is wrong. The pressure for teachers and children causes anxiety. Children do not want to go to college because they are burned out.

We need to rethink why there is so much stress.

Positive: Data is necessary to measure

Students need to be looked at as a whole and not just one test to measure progress.

We need to go back to the basics for testing but not the rigor.

Accountability is needed to function at a higher level. Time limit FDAA – Assessment at a functional level. TELPAS

How much flexibility there is and how it gets weighted. How are we going to compare folks when given flexibility. Weighted average thing – it will be difficult to compare when weighted differently. Teachers need test item. What did we not hit. Lexile scores.

Instrument need to provide support for the teachers. Assessment should provide information Item Analysis , Lexile scores. Put grade equivalents. Model allowed to come up with a growth plan. Integrate TELPAS data into STAAR Revisit LEP population

Bilingual education

Assessment to evaluate teachers it will do the same thing. It will be hard to fill those spots. Not enough online practice for special education students. Strategies can’t replicate those strategies. Can’t measure what they can really show.

Overall determining factor not only on one task but input from teachers. Will help retesters. This will help send data for accountability. Different scales for small and big districts.


Key Focal Points Key Concerns Recommendations Weighted average and balancing their scores. D Clear guidance and input from teachers. Testing those students. Looking at comparison group. There has to be a further study because compared to others higher district and early colleges. Unfair to small districts. Child has bad days.

First accountability rating for 1st ratio. Lower ratio and not be penalized. PBMAS- there is a disconnect. It needs to be balanced. I want to be an A. Balance to reflect a unified measure to help districts measure. If money is there. A-F will tear them down and looked into further. Provide proof that child can’t take test that day due to circumstances.

Anxiety factor Money – Movies – Standardized

Made me stronger. Not in best interest in child. Whether % here or there. We missed it along the way. Who’s making the money?

Listen to problems /factors that are involved in that and no one saw it as that. Focus should be where are we going with all of this.

What children are actually going to do in the workforce - what we are doing in education does not match what students need to know and perform in the work force

Look at our special education and special populations and give them something that is a reliable measure - STAAR A is a computer based test that is not a reliable measure for some of our students

Some things aren’t in the PEIMS collection – there needs to be uniformity across the state – Each university using their own system – we need a uniform TSI accountability system

Hard to quantify the domains College readiness is important

but hard to measure

CTE a laundry list of elements in Domain 4 – take a large district – the staff needs to know the importance and where to start – small districts are very different than large districts

Look closely at what they need to be accountable for

Can students succeed – are we preparing the students for jobs today?

Tests are not being used in business today

Need to know where the students are and are they graduating – are they making it


Key Focal Points Key Concerns Recommendations through college – not just that they are going?

Students are coming into job force not reading or writing – without those skills (public speaking) even though they have scored high on the tests – aren’t preparing them to be successful in life

Special education and special populations should not take the same assessments as everyone else

Business Behavior – can students interact with each other?

State is asking for one thing – business for something else

We have test takers, but not individual thinkers

Component for legislators – benchmarks must stop – it should only be a snapshot for the individual teacher and child --teachers cannot be held accountable for assessments

Accountability will shift Often it’s changed State will continue to hold states accountable. Differentiate accountability

Special education students struggle to adjust Gap is widening and gap is now closing

Deeper questions: Applaud access to general education curriculum

Are general education teacher trained to help student with special needs?

Are trainers looking at instruction and styles used?

21 to 28 students with 2 to 3 special education students. What is the accountability?

Expect teachers to accommodate student is difficult

Bigger lens for student achievement might be still narrow. What about leadership? What is the retaining rate, teacher experience, teacher quality, etc… One test can measure the quality of a district, not the student.

Suggestions: No talk about the Leadership. Great leaders shape good organizations. Does it mater? Look beyond the testing.

Focus is achievement. What about school leadership, teacher recommendations, Add: to Domains 1, 2, 3. Mobility rate is less that other districts. Look at the teacher. Domain 5- GT Bilingual, looks at teacher training to engage students quality.


Key Focal Points Key Concerns Recommendations TAC test- how to get certified was used in the past. Accountability was done through this test. Mobility were losing enrollment.

A student will do well if student is inspired, a positive environment. We need to shape the class or setting.

Lots of information (science) to do before the testing takes place. A balance needs to take place between both.

Finding an efficient model to find out the needs of the child without putting extra stress on the child

Going back to “one-size-fits-all” is not correct -students that just came to this country -students with disabilities -“I don’t learn like he does”: this breaks my heart

State should address funding/incentives for Middle School teachers and programs, so when they get to high school they are better prepared and competitive

Percentage of ELLs and students with disabilities vs campuses with low numbers of these populations and measured the same

Developing a progress per child

2. What is the role/purpose of assessment and accountability in the education of our children?

Key Focal Points Key Concerns Recommendations Are students progressing? If students are educated correctly,

tests would not be necessary That testing be not so punitive.

Tests are stressful to students (visits to school nurse)

Refocus on assessment. What is it for?

Increase in testing anxiety Retool accountability Campus gets punished rather than

what can you do to improve Take away stress that lower grades feel


Key Focal Points Key Concerns Recommendations Assessment has been lost for

accountability

Is there equity? Is it fair to kids with special needs? Compare performance of all students

Accountability will show if they are ready to go to college… not all will go to college

Think about rigor in education considering all kids in comparison other places (countries)

How ready are elementary by the time they get to middle school

Must engage at a younger age We want thinkers How teachers are doing How principal is leading the campus

Data driven Make sure to prepare students to function successfully in community

Are we preparing students for future/workforce?

Assess learning happening in class TEKS being taught Different levels of kids – goal is to meet needs of all to be successful … is system equal to all students with differences

Assessment to determine on strengths and weakness. Much assessment is done consistently. Student with severe disability have to be assessed accordingly.

Build on strengths and help with the weakness. Test has to target their deficiencies.

Questions are formed with no students’ knowledge limited.

Diff. levels of assessment allow feedback to inform parents

Communities have lost respect with the schools, leaderships, etc.

Important feedback for state performance. Parents want feedback to hold clout and serve a purpose.

Assessment to special education students need attention because the disability. Paper and pencil vs computer might be better. Computer teacher might be distracting to special education students

Needs change and modification STAAR A used- not conducive for all students.

Test should be altered for this population. Conducive to their needs. Ex: pictures were deleted.

Leaving our top students behind. Can’t lose their challenge

Not prepared for college. Need to have accountability.

Assessment in high quality to target those geniuses, smart students, Challenge needed. Need to measure all their potential.


Key Focal Points Key Concerns Recommendations Students with special needs to be considered.

Test needs to target their needs. Tier II - does it stay the same? What grade is given? A

How long does Tier II last? Dive into more depth manner Assessment should be determined by measuring the strengths and weaknesses.

Build on strengths and help with the weaknesses. Focus; high achievers

The assessment should measure all potentials. Students need to be challenged.

Student with severe disability have to be assessed accordingly.

Allow different levels of assessments. Aptitude test

Follow modifications Measure ability/growth

Assessment questions are not interpreted by students.

Limited exposure Lack of parent support

Assessment should be altered for different populations. Conducive to their needs.

STAAR A

Easily distracted with the tools bar

Tutorials Teacher training

Assessment serves as a purpose to give parent feedback.

Parent may not be informed on accountability and passing rate.

More in-depth parent training

Important as a teacher that instruction needs to be linked to accountability. The issue is how we address our special populations. As an educator need to meet the emotional needs. What drives us is down to one day. One shot. We need to take this into consideration. There are students that have severe behavioral needs and those needs, need to be met at that moment and time is spent meeting these needs that takes away from the core subject areas. There needs to be a plan for our special education students. We need to consider their circumstances. There are campuses that have life skills units and students are absent due to their disability and the accountability doesn’t distinguish for these different aspects.

Use assessment as an intervention. Need to be considerate to the sub-populations. Has to be immediate and holistic.

Assessment is a good thing with a purpose. Ongoing assessment, not just focus on summative assessments. Formative assessment is much stronger and the tools used on a day-to-day basis. A focus needs to focus on tasks going on in the classroom. Looking into implementing a system of formative assessment to be used.

Teacher point of view. The pressure to perform and trickles down to the students. Now we go to A-F. Who wants to be a B? This has brought so much more pressure in the classroom. Now the 9 year old knows the pressure of taking a STAAR test. Need to educate the student and look at

There should be a rubric to this A-F system that puts more % on the community level and less % on the testing.


Key Focal Points Key Concerns Recommendations their potential. They do well in academics due to everything offered by the local district. Happy with the House Bill student and community engagement. Concern that it is only 10% The labels to each school and district level has brought pressure down to the student.

What are we doing to prepare our students beyond high school? Are we aligning our accountability to post secondary? Role and purpose should be on what students want to be post secondary, not on one exam. Measurement comes from an individual student test score.

Post-secondary concern was having students on academic probation that have graduated successfully from high school. Disconnect between Secondary and Post Secondary.

Test need to be basic measures of achievement. Do not tie testing to passing or graduation.

Students are lacking the social skills needed in the business world.

Testing should not be the focus but only to measure progress.

Remove testing from accountability.

Pressure for students is too high level. Although the student was commended, he no longer wanted to go to college. Burned out instead of preparing for college.

What is the connection of funding? Who is making the profits?

It’s important The T-TESS is aligned to the assessment results.

It depends on the assessment. How many tests are our kids asked to take each year? It is an ongoing testing environment

No consensus of what assessments we use to assess student performance – no cohesion and what is being done with that information


Key Focal Points Key Concerns Recommendations Higher education is also doing this

as well

Funding is linked to the tests We are teaching students that

there is only one answer and in the real world there is more than one answer – students panic because they are trained that there is only one answer – we are giving students mixed messages

Evaluate our practices of testing

No streamline to the STAAR – 5th grade has 50 TEKS to teach before STAAR – bringing algebra to 4th grade – students aren’t cognitively ready to do the things we are asking them to do

Labor market value added to our assessments – not more tests, but streamline the tests we are taking

We have to be accountable but why do we have to take so many tests?

Tests should be individualized.

Assessment to determine on strengths and weakness. Much assessment is done consistently. Student with severe disability have to be assessed accordingly.

Build on strengths and help with the weakness. Test has to target their deficiencies.

Questions are formed with no students’ knowledge limited.

Diff. levels of assessment allow feedback to inform parents

Communities have lost respect with the schools, leaderships, etc.

Important feedback for state performance. Parents want feedback to hold clout and serve a purpose.

Assessment to special education students need attention because the disability. Paper and pencil vs computer might be better. Computer teacher might be distractful to special education students

Needs change and modification STAAR A used- not conducive for all students.

Test should be altered for this population. Conducive to their needs. Ex: pictures were deleted.

Leaving our top students behind. Can’t lose their challenge

Not prepared for college. Need to have accountability.

Assessment in high quality to target those geniuses, smart students, Challenge needed. Need to measure all their potential.

Students with special needs to be considered.

Test needs to target their needs. Tier II does it stay the same. What grade is given? A

How long does Tier II last? Dive into more depth manner Teacher creativity suffers because emphasis is on assessment and passing assessments

Using results as comparison between campuses and districts instead of using it to help students maximize their potential.


Key Focal Points Key Concerns Recommendations Students learning many topics but

not in depth because we have to cover everything.

3. What is working well with our current system of assessment and accountability?

Key Focal Points Key Concerns Recommendations Level of accountability How is it accountability for

parents?

Level of awareness & level of concern in education.

Accountable for all populations Closes gaps Multiple measures provides a better picture

New system will help high measuring students with ELL demographics

Moved from just test scores to multiple areas

Now educating the entire child Good to use community engagement

Rigor must be clarified. What are your expectations?

Diff. curriculum Focus on assessment project based, and apply knowledge.

Standard knowledge, assess on abilities, and calling must start early in life. All students can contribute to society. (carpentry)

Accountability must happen to identify the challenges. Progress turn over for college readiness

How can we incorporate “hands on” science test? Resources not available at all districts. Not equitable assessment. Who writes the test? 90 million spent writing the test. Assessment schedules after holidays. Not a logical time to have assessment.

Level the playing field. Compare with others isn’t the same across the districts.

Looking at all levels to incorporate all subjects.

Wouldn’t that be a way to teach the entire child?

Public vs. Private? Why can’t we combine both? Connect teaching and educating.

Design a test targeting all needs and subjects.


Key Focal Points Key Concerns Recommendations Special education and dyslexia students needs.

A well-rounded child is what colleges want.

Whole spirit behind change Conversation taking place Takes a village to raise a child. Understand we need to work with supportive services, counselor

A big shift progress measure. Progress taking place. 55% structure is weighted by the population by indiv. Progress.

Challenge to themselves through all subject and scores. Comes through leaderships at the campus.

General education vs special education Together in turns of their academic progress.

Rigor must be clarified. What are the expectations?

Differentiating the curriculum Focus on assessment projects Apply knowledge

Assess on abilities Standards must start early.

Accountability must happen to identify the challenges.

Not equitable assessment Assessment schedule

Level the playing field. Incorporating “hands on” activities. Resources readily available

Progress turn over for college readiness

Resources not readily available Assessment schedule

Assessment should mirror the needs.

Whole spirit behind the change

Connect teaching with needs Support services Specialized population

Conversations taken place to improve the standards

A clear standard has been set whether you meet it or not.

How are we able to accommodate for those students with severe cognitive disabilities, learning disabilities, including dyslexia and behavior. There needs to be more flexibility to address as far as the standards as all are now held to the same passing standard.

Even with the old systems AYP. We pay attention to the Special Pops. Due to the accountability

Focusing on all populations. For reason being for accountability

Rewards for scoring high. Not when it will hurt the child.

Glad all students are included.


Key Focal Points Key Concerns Recommendations State trying to improve the system

Data is very important to measure the data. Testing to monitor is good to promote student success.

Student set goals at the beginning of the year.

STAAR tests are stressful but teachers help to reach the goal.

Testing is too stressful and promotes too much anxiety for children.

Kids are believing something is wrong with them because of the stress of testing.

Test must not be so rigorous. Tests need to be fun.

The change came when schools are rated and that is the problem. This increases the stress and anxiety for all.

Schools are compared to other districts that are not compatible.

English Language Learners are expected to pass an English test. That is ridiculous. Recent immigrants should not be tested in English after one year.

Online assessments Practice tests online Take paper and pencil test practice test for special education students.

Bilingual Assessment Move the bilingual assessment into newcomers in middle school and high school.

Why apply grant for PreK. Education is good so lets open it to everyone.

Introduction of the progress measure – small wins for teachers and our special education students

Not every child is going to go to college

We need to expand our program to include occupational


Key Focal Points Key Concerns Recommendations Different domains in the accountability

You can’t go from 0 – 100 you need growth and goals and are always resetting goals and constant dialogue and conversations (In business world)

We are forgetting our special education and ELLs – we expect them to test in 3 years – against research – research shows they aren’t ready – we are setting them up for failure

Growth model is important – everyone doesn’t start out at the same place and they won’t be at the same place -

Rigor must be clarified. What are your expectations?

Diff. curriculum Focus on assessment project based, and apply knowledge.

Standard knowledge, assess on abilities, and calling must start early in life. All students can contribute to society. (carpentry)

Accountability must happen to identify the challenges. Progress turn over for college readiness

How can we incorporate “hands on” science test? Resources not available at all districts. Not equitable assessment. Who writes the test? 90 million spent writing the test. Assessment schedules after holidays. Not a logical time to have assessment.

Level the playing field. Compare with others isn’t the same across the districts.

Looking at all levels to incorporate all subjects.

Wouldn’t that be a way to teach the entire child?

Public vs. Private? Why can’t we combine both? Connect teaching and educating. Special education and dyslexia students’ needs.

Design a test targeting all needs and subjects. A well-rounded child is what colleges want.

Whole spirit behind change Conversation taking place Takes a village to raise a child. Understand we need to work with supportive services, counselor,

A big shift progress measure. Progress taking place. 55% structure is weighted by the population by individual progress.

Challenge to themselves through all subject and scores. Comes through leaderships at the campus.

General education vs special education - together in terms of their academic progress.


Key Focal Points Key Concerns Recommendations I am happy to see the Index for student progress

STAAR A affecting the responsibility

Let’s go back to STAAR M

STAAR Alt- we shouldn’t assess them; we should concentrate on their life skills and not assessing them

4. What factors should the Next Generation Commission on Assessments and Accountability consider as they make their recommendations?

Key Focal Points Key Concerns Recommendations Consider testing in accordance to the special populations

Provide accommodations

Time factor – would like time to be able to digest questions before answering

Test to students’ ability

Anxiety of students Modified test for special populations

Elementary- multiple assessments throughout year to measure progress

Guidelines to benchmarks need to be revised

Students under the gun to perform

Locally developed assessments vs state assessments

Assess at different times in year to align with instruction

Domain 5 more data based to determine rating…more accountability

Look at special population… all schools being measured at the same level … special education should be looked at progress

At class level there are diverse levels of teaching dealing with difficult factors… all accountable

Look at formula of how students be measured

State chart of assessments… anxiety is high

Accountability is needed in HS and Junior high school which will serve as a college entrance and accountability purposes.

Assessment should mirror the needs. ACT or SAT

Goal: HS and college and career ready Accountability system should be aligned with one focus


Key Focal Points Key Concerns Recommendations Accountability is needed in secondary which will serve as a college entrance.


One exam should be used for college readiness

Inequity for public schools in the state of Texas. Some districts are allowed to choose their students. Accountability system is not fair. The way to do it is to have comparable groups. There is a way to account for that. It is not about the size, it is about the admission policy at those districts that unfairly rate districts due to the ability to select the students they accept. The solution is to use data to compare students (school) into comparable groups. Collect data at the school level that have these policies and have those the admissions policy. Use that data as a factor.

Are we preparing students through assessment for the world of work?

Honoring growth of students is important in the indexes.

School districts need more training and support for RTI.

RTI must be put in place across the state and district.

Although we say we have an RTI system, we really don’t. We need to provide student with a good RTI system.

Student confidence is very important. Sometimes student confidence is hurt because they may not be good test takers. That is not very for these children.

Too much pressure for kids so young at 8 and 9 years old.

Basic tests are necessary to teach, but should not be everything.


Key Focal Points Key Concerns Recommendations Special Education student get

an FIE. The FIE tells teachers how best to learn. Testing needs to be individualized. Testing contradicts what needs to be tested. All students are held to the same standard.

Differentiated instruction is very important and modified.

TELPAS needs to be honored. It is a language progress test.

% and calculated and we look at flexibility and autonomy

We need item analysis sooner.

TELPAS - TSI Why separate tests? Combine the assessments for reporting purpose

A-F scoring system What will it do to students? It’s complex. What will it do to recruit teachers?

August 31, push date further down to middle of October for graduation requirements and enrollment.

The goal is for college and post secondary readiness and test in 9th

Test at a later grade.

After it is over – they will find it didn’t do

Remove A-F rating

Public perception of A-F, tied to economics in the community. Students should be given something for their growth.

Go back to exemplary – recognized (less harsh)

Data issues arise and lower rating

Should consider the consumer of the test (students) starting point of student isn’t the same

Accountability is needed in HS and Junior high school which will serve as a college entrance and accountability purposes.


Goal: HS and college and career ready Accountability system should be aligned with

A-F rating is going to be hurtful to our schools…who is going to want to come to a “C” school or “F” school.

Not going to get credit where credit is due…we can have achieved progress in a domain but overall letter will not let us show the progress

Exemplary, Recognized, etc. is better for community; who’s going to want to go to a “D” school


Key Focal Points Key Concerns Recommendations We should focus on Index 5. Why so much focus on

assessments? We want them to go to college; let’s prepare them for that…

We should focus on post-secondary education.

Testing all kids at one time—the high, the regular…

Why can’t we take the test at the beginning of the year and get it over with and concentrate on our curriculum?

EOC---kids come in at end of first semester, but can’t take test until they take A and B

5. What suggestions for improvement of our current system would you give to the Commission?

Key Focal Points Key Concerns Recommendations Unlimited time Children have been taught to

test. Is it fair? Pre-K- do away with testing for early childhood.

Amount of tests that students have to prepare for.

Test weighs more for one day of testing than a whole year of education

Learning should be fun.

Students may be strong in certain subjects than other and tests don’t take into consideration other subjects like fine arts.

Data is skewed No equity to meet the potential for all student success.

Domain 4- reexamine some areas such as # of students to complete an AP course instead look at number of students who score a 3, 4, or 5 (actual results)

Equivalent high expectations for all… differentiation is needed

College and Career should include the TSI scores

Attendance with consideration to special situations i.e. Lincoln Park young ladies have factors with attendance as a young mom

No STAAR A practice available for practice on computer

Review the matrix for grouping students as in some cases the groups do not seem fair.

Reduce the number of tests to the following grades 3rd, 5th, 8th and 11th (exit level)


Key Focal Points Key Concerns Recommendations Passing standards 70%. Special education students should be taking assessments tailored to needs based on learning disability. STAAR-M should be considered

Inequities due to the bias introduced by the admission policies of certain schools (magnet schools, early college high schools and charter schools) This bias can be remedied by identifying those schools in the PEIMS and using that as a factor in forming the comparable group of schools for distinctions and even rating under HB2804

Use formative assessments and outcomes as part of the accountability system, not a one day test.

Don’t make this a competitive race to the top to the point that school boards, and school administrators lose sight of what’s truly important. Continuing to do this puts our kids at great risk for academic failure and emotional, mental, and psychological risk because they are greatly negatively impacted. An “Olympic” competition where districts are competing and scratching their way to the top. It is truly sad to see this because students’ futures are affected.

Provide equity of accountability for sub populations. Use a more formative assessment of student progress vs. 1 day testing.

3rd graders should not be tested. At this age, they are beginning to get proficient with language.

Writing is developmental, and should be tested in the middle and high school level.

Assessment for struggling learners is online (STAAR-L, TELPAS, STAAR-A) yet districts cannot instruct the way they are tested.


Key Focal Points Key Concerns Recommendations Provide technical allotments to allow for districts to upgrade computers and infrastructure to align student instruction with assessment.

How will assessment help the students in general with their careers?

Test 4th grade and re-test in 5th grade for students that did not meet standards. Test the 7th graders and then re-test in 8th. In high school one English not 2. Four tests not five.

Differentiated testing TELPAS needs to be honored. ELL students are tested in

English too quickly, especially in the middle school.

Special education and LEP students have even more challenges.

State releases answer keys to provide content and process and TEKS DOK 1,2,3,

Item pieces English I the ones taking test In May have to take 2 more tests.

Provide level DOK

Seniors end of course High Schools

Problems in that – Counselors tell they have to make %.

State needs to make process to change the scoring.

Looking at chart – Functionality and use by teachers.

Item analysis and lexile scores should be included on the release. Put grade equivalents.

SDAA Reintroduce it. To access function levels. Test covers too much content. Limit the content and spread

testing throughout the grades to give teachers the opportunity to teach at a greater depth.

Change the test Students who aren’t passing the

test are the students with life skills and use their thinking skills – especially


Key Focal Points Key Concerns Recommendations Does not value life experiences Undocumented students –

homeless – we are accountable even if we have a turnover rate – state does not take that into accountability

Need to look at overall student needs

Update history and tests to reflect what students are exposed to today

Trying to stand Career Ready? Business owner: kids graduate

after passing tests, but they don’t know how to fill out an application—proper grammar, Are they respectful? Can they put a presentation together?

We need to know what employers are looking for--- We need them to prepare them for workforce

How are we preparing our teachers to help our students?

Why can’t being prepared with skills needed to get a job be part of the accountability?

Include social, emotional classes to address these before academics.

6. What goals for (1) assessments and (2) accountability would you recommend to the Commission that would shape their work?

Key Focal Points Key Concerns Recommendations Students with significant

disabilities should be testing by ability level rather than standardized accountability

Accountability Are students progressing? Students are not exposed to

some of the items on the tests. Make test subjects culturally relevant to the region

Revisit Spanish STAAR at 6,7,8 Try to come up with a system

that is equitable to all students, school districts, considering all factors

Representation in making decisions would be from actual people in the field so as to understand how to revamp i.e.


Key Focal Points Key Concerns Recommendations students, teachers, parents, administrator

Continue to work with educators to make accountability system more fair.

Training webinars get full too quickly with too few slots per session. Suggestion is to remember the state is very big and there needs to be made arrangements made to allow all who want to attend are able.

We want action and not just talk. Make it happen. We have heard much talk before and there is not action. We want change!!!

Progress measure and growth need to be taken into account.

We need true RTI in all districts. We need differentiated instruction.

We need RTI for students. We need the small groups and the supports and materials to implement RTI.

Students will learn and perform better on tests with a good RTI system. We need concrete RTI. It is there but not being utilized.

Students need to be involved in the design of testing. Students need to be interviewed to get their perspective.

No need to reinvent the wheel. Look and other districts or states that successful.

High Stakes Goal –College Ready Read, Write, and know government system. Catching up and gap in education.

Everything is high stakes. From CPALLS to OWLs and STAARS Teachers don’t want to teach STAAR grades. Students need help because they are put down more because of all this standardized testing. Is this right?

Develop a STAAR exam from Prek – 5th to show growth instead of all this comparison. Have more of these meetings. More committees to know what is our goal and what are we going to be changing.


Key Focal Points Key Concerns Recommendations Worries and stress As a teacher we need extra help. LEP One system TEA saying to make accommodation. Coordinating Board doesn’t allow for that.

They test well in 9th don’t tell us that they are ready. If going who will complete. Our grandchild will go to college. My kids and grandkids will go to college and there is no question about that. Don’t make school districts apply for grants. Is this what we want to do? Tension Think about post-secondary readiness. Subgroups. There is a disconnect in transition needs.

Our SBOE needs to understand that there is a lot to overcome. We can’t assess and get results overnight. Don’t hold student back. Economic gaps and child is born in this region and in other regions they have a leg up because of economics. Hire teachers to help parents at home. A team and a special unit.

Expectations of test passing requirement TSI – accountability tests Assessment and criteria. Teacher must have input T-TESS aligned with assessment.

If students are not ready why have those expectations? Phase 1 Phase 2 we are barely scraping in every point. Students should have their own criteria. What if you are a wonderful teacher and you get student that have disadvantages?

We need to know standard and phases so we know how to proceed. Combine systems to require state accountability. Why more test? Take 16 billion and give to districts and give it to the regions and submit their test to region 1. Goal should be self-improvement. Don’t make us wait so late to start school.

Not getting a high school diploma, but can get a job and are qualified to do those jobs

CTE Certification as showing the student is successful

Passing industry assessments, but not graduating

Take into account what these students are achieving in these industry certifications for graduation


Key Focal Points Key Concerns Recommendations College and career – we have to

put that as a component Having this or an equivalent Students have anxiety about not

passing test or going to the next grade – or graduating

Minimize the standards being tested

55% is cognitive on domains Less testing More emphasis on life skills Starting students education

early – early childhood assessments Incorporate the “employer side

of things” Aptitude testing…we know they

can read and write but don’t have creativity

Appropriate assessment for ELLs and Special Education students, i.e., assessment should be commensurate to the curriculum—mod. Curriculum= STAAR M

NO TO A-F Accountability

Additional Comments:

In a nutshell…. Domain 4… there is no alignment/connection across all levels.

EOC is not aligned with the idea that we want college-ready kids.

Early focus is reading and upper grades writing.

Need to align elementary and middle school, high school, college …. Vertical alignment


DAL

LAS

QU

ESTI

ON

#1

WH

AT IS

TH

E RO

LE/P

URP

OSE

OF

ASSE

SSM

ENT

AND

ACC

OU

NTA

BILI

TY IN

TH

E ED

UCA

TIO

N O

F O

UR

CHIL

DRE

N?

Gre

en =

Bus

ines

s Le

ader

s

Red

= E

duca

tors

B

lue

= Pa

rent

s

NU

MBE

R O

F VO

TES

GRO

UP'

S RE

SPO

NSE

RE

SPO

NSE

S TO

TH

IS Q

UES

TIO

N

Not

Pro

vide

d Bu

sine

ss L

eade

rs

Acce

ss a

nd re

sour

ces

are

avai

labl

e an

d ap

plie

d eq

uita

bly.

Busi

ness

Lea

ders

As

sess

men

ts -

dem

onst

ratio

n of

kno

wle

dge:

stu

dent

, dis

tric

t, sc

hool

, sta

te, e

duca

tors

, com

mun

ity.

Busi

ness

Lea

ders

Cr

eate

a c

ultu

re o

f acc

ount

abili

ty fr

om th

e bo

ttom

to th

e to

p.

Busi

ness

Lea

ders

H

igh

perf

orm

ance

sch

ool d

istr

ict i

s an

eco

nom

ic d

evel

opm

ent d

river

for t

hat c

omm

unity

. Bu

sine

ss L

eade

rs

Role

of a

ccou

ntab

ility

- co

mm

unity

, par

ents

, tax

pay

ers

= pr

epar

ed w

orkf

orce

St

uden

t (En

d G

ame)

- m

akin

g th

e pr

ogre

ss n

eede

d to

fini

sh th

eir e

duca

tiona

l jou

rney

read

y to

fill

thei

r rol

e in

the

Busi

ness

Lea

ders

w

orkf

orce

and

com

mun

ity, b

oth

acad

emic

s an

d lif

e sk

ills.

U

sing

dat

a to

be

resu

lts o

rient

ed: l

et's

ince

ntiv

ize

perf

orm

ance

, thi

s se

rves

to k

eep

good

peo

ple

in th

e Bu

sine

ss L

eade

rs

prof

essi

on, t

akes

the

puni

tive

fact

ors

out o

f it.

Educ

ator

s Ac

coun

tabi

lity

- ens

ures

all

char

ters

/dis

tric

ts a

re p

rovi

ding

qua

lity

educ

atio

n Ed

ucat

ors

Accu

rate

sna

psho

t of w

here

stu

dent

is A

ND

how

muc

h th

ey'v

e gr

own

Educ

ator

s As

sess

the

succ

ess

of c

urric

ulum

As

sess

men

t OF

lear

ning

- fin

d ou

t wha

t the

y kn

ow. A

sses

smen

t FO

R le

arni

ng -

wha

t do

we

chan

ge?

Asse

ssm

ent

Educ

ator

s AS

lear

ning

- ho

w d

o w

e pu

t it t

oget

her?

Ed

ucat

ors

Clos

ing

gaps

Ed

ucat

ors

Diff

eren

t lev

els

or p

urpo

se -

sum

mat

ive,

form

ativ

e Ed

ucat

ors

Driv

e in

stru

ctio

n Ed

ucat

ors

Equi

tabl

e op

port

uniti

es

Educ

ator

s Ey

e of

beh

olde

r - ta

xpay

ers,

und

erse

rved

, pol

icy

mak

ers,

set

ting

polic

y ag

enda

Ed

ucat

ors

Feed

back

- bu

t not

end

Ed

ucat

ors

Find

the

gaps

- in

form

act

ion

to fi

x th

ose

gaps

Ed

ucat

ors

Freq

uent

Ed

ucat

ors

Hel

p pr

ovid

e in

fo th

at is

use

ful t

o te

ache

rs a

nd s

tude

nts

to p

rovi

de le

arni

ng.

Educ

ator

s H

elp

stat

e m

ake

polic

y le

vel d

ecis

ions

/jud

gem

ents

abo

ut e

ffect

iven

ess

of s

yste

m (i

s th

e pr

oble

m c

urric

ular

?

Dallas


QU

ESTI

ON

#1

WH

AT IS

TH

E RO

LE/P

URP

OSE

OF

ASSE

SSM

ENT

AND

ACC

OU

NTA

BILI

TY IN

TH

E ED

UCA

TIO

N O

F O

UR

CHIL

DRE

N?

NU

MBE

R O

F VO

TES

GRO

UP'

S RE

SPO

NSE

Ed

ucat

ors

Educ

ator

s Ed

ucat

ors

Educ

ator

s Ed

ucat

ors

Educ

ator

s Ed

ucat

ors

Educ

ator

s Ed

ucat

ors

Educ

ator

s Ed

ucat

ors

Educ

ator

s Ed

ucat

ors

Educ

ator

s Ed

ucat

ors

Educ

ator

s Ed

ucat

ors

Pare

nts

Pare

nts

Pare

nts

Pare

nts

Pare

nts

Pare

nts

Pare

nts

Pare

nts

Gre

en =

Bus

ines

s Le

ader

s

Red

= E

duca

tors

B

lue

= Pa

rent

s

RESP

ON

SES

TO T

HIS

QU

ESTI

ON

H

elps

stu

dent

s m

anag

e th

eir o

wn

lear

ning

- ow

ners

hip

Hol

ds e

duca

tors

to a

pro

fess

iona

l sta

ndar

d.

Iden

tify

wha

t sub

popu

latio

ns m

ight

nee

d ad

ditio

nal f

undi

ng/r

esou

rces

Im

prov

e w

hat w

e do

and

mea

sure

wha

t our

stu

dent

s (s

kills

and

con

cept

s) k

now

Le

vel p

layi

ng fi

eld

Mee

ts fe

dera

l man

date

s M

onito

ring

prog

ress

Pr

ovid

e in

fo fo

r the

par

ent t

o be

tter

und

erst

and

stre

ngth

s an

d ar

eas

of o

ppor

tuni

ties.

Pr

ovid

es g

loba

l com

paris

on

Prov

ides

par

ents

/sta

keho

lder

s w

ith g

row

th m

easu

res

Resp

onsi

bilit

y to

sta

keho

lder

s - e

nsur

e fu

nds

are

dist

ribut

ed w

ell

inst

ruct

ion/

need

s of

dis

tric

t, lo

ok fo

r sol

utio

ns; C

ampu

s - l

ooki

ng a

t tre

nds

in d

ata:

acr

oss

grad

e le

vels

, su

ppor

ting

indi

vidu

al; T

each

er -

guid

e in

stru

ctio

n-fo

cuse

d on

stu

dent

; Stu

dent

- fe

edba

ck to

bec

ome

self

dire

cted

lear

ners

, stu

dent

sel

f ana

lysi

s/pr

ogre

ss

To c

onsi

der s

peci

al n

eeds

pop

ulat

ions

. To

cre

ate

a co

nsis

tent

sys

tem

with

tran

sfer

able

info

rmat

ion.

To

driv

e cu

rric

ulum

. To

ens

ure

ever

y ch

ild re

ceiv

es a

qua

lity/

equi

tabl

e ed

ucat

ion.

To

info

rm in

stru

ctio

n.

Det

erm

ine

if st

uden

ts a

re le

arni

ng w

hat t

hey'

re b

eing

taug

ht (i

.e. r

eadi

ng, w

ritin

g, m

ath

at g

rade

leve

l) Fo

r par

ents

/com

mun

ity to

be

able

to m

easu

re a

nd c

ompa

re w

ith o

ther

yea

rs a

nd o

ther

dis

tric

ts.

Form

ativ

e as

sess

men

ts: t

o id

entif

y le

arni

ng g

aps

and

driv

e in

stru

ctio

n.

Iden

tify

the

gaps

and

dev

elop

ing

a pl

an to

add

ress

thos

e ga

ps

Mea

sure

gro

wth

M

oney

/pro

fit te

stin

g Co

s St

anda

rdiz

e ed

ucat

ion

(one

siz

e fit

s al

l) Su

mm

ativ

e as

sess

men

ts: (

perio

dic)

refle

ct d

emon

stra

tion

of m

aste

ry.


QU

ESTI

ON

#1

WH

AT IS

TH

E RO

LE/P

URP

OSE

OF

ASSE

SSM

ENT

AND

ACC

OU

NTA

BILI

TY IN

TH

E ED

UCA

TIO

N O

F O

UR

CHIL

DRE

N?

Gre

en =

Bus

ines

s Le

ader

s

Red

= E

duca

tors

B

lue

= Pa

rent

s

NU

MBE

R O

F VO

TES

GRO

UP'

S RE

SPO

NSE

RE

SPO

NSE

S TO

TH

IS Q

UES

TIO

N

Pare

nts

To e

valu

ate

the

effe

ctiv

enes

s of

teac

hing

. Pa

rent

s To

eva

luat

e w

here

stu

dent

s ar

e in

thei

r edu

catio

n.

Pare

nts

To m

easu

re th

e va

lue

from

tax

dolla

rs in

vest

ed in

edu

catio

n.

Pare

nts

To v

alid

ate

the

proc

ess

of e

duca

tion


DAL

LAS

QU

ESTI

ON

#2

WH

AT A

RE T

HE

STRE

NG

THS

AND

WEA

KNES

SES

OF

OU

R CU

RREN

T SY

STEM

S O

F AS

SESS

MEN

TS A

ND

AC

COU

NTA

BILI

TY?

NU

MBE

R O

F VO

TES

Not

Pro

vide

d

GRO

UP'

S RE

SPO

NSE

Busi

ness

Lea

ders

Bu

sine

ss L

eade

rs

Busi

ness

Lea

ders

Bu

sine

ss L

eade

rs

Busi

ness

Lea

ders

Bu

sine

ss L

eade

rs

Busi

ness

Lea

ders

Bu

sine

ss L

eade

rs

Busi

ness

Lea

ders

Bu

sine

ss L

eade

rs

Busi

ness

Lea

ders

Bu

sine

ss L

eade

rs

Educ

ator

s Ed

ucat

ors

Educ

ator

s Ed

ucat

ors

Educ

ator

s Ed

ucat

ors

Educ

ator

s Ed

ucat

ors

Educ

ator

s Ed

ucat

ors

Educ

ator

s

Gre

en =

Bus

ines

s Le

ader

s

Red

= E

duca

tors

B

lue

= Pa

rent

s

RESP

ON

SES

TO T

HIS

QU

ESTI

ON

St

reng

ths

- Dat

a - a

vaila

ble

and

a gr

eat t

ool f

or m

ovin

g st

uden

t gro

wth

and

reso

urce

allo

catio

n - i

f use

d ap

prop

riate

ly a

nd in

tent

iona

lly

Stre

ngth

s - h

ighl

ight

s su

cces

ses

and

best

pra

ctic

es s

o th

ey c

an b

e sh

ared

St

reng

ths

- hig

hlig

hts

the

achi

evem

ent g

ap b

ut d

oes

it he

lp c

lose

it?

Stre

ngth

s - m

ultip

le d

omai

ns

Wea

knes

ses

- acc

ount

abili

ty is

a p

oliti

cal p

roce

ss

Wea

knes

ses

- bec

ause

we

begi

n to

mea

sure

aft

er 2

nd g

rade

, it i

ncen

tiviz

es s

choo

ls to

pla

ce th

eir l

ower

W

eakn

esse

s - m

issi

ng g

ood

grow

th m

easu

rem

ents

W

eakn

esse

s - m

ultip

le d

omai

ns, b

ut s

till t

oo fo

cuse

d on

STA

AR fa

ctor

W

eakn

esse

s - n

o na

tiona

l com

paris

on

Wea

knes

ses

- peo

ple

ques

tion

the

effic

acy

of th

e ST

AAR

test

s W

eakn

esse

s - P

uniti

ve -

mea

sure

s th

e lo

wes

t com

mon

den

omin

ator

, not

cle

ar o

r und

erst

anda

ble,

dat

a is

not

W

eakn

esse

s - t

he ra

ting

syst

ems

are

not t

rans

pare

nt o

r eas

ily u

nder

stan

dabl

e St

reng

ths

- ass

essm

ents

are

not

onl

y m

eans

to m

easu

re s

tude

nt s

ucce

ss

Stre

ngth

s - c

anno

t hid

e by

agg

rega

ting

all d

ata

Stre

ngth

s - c

lear

fram

ewor

k of

wha

t nee

ds to

be

taug

ht

Stre

ngth

s - c

omm

on m

easu

re fo

r all

Stre

ngth

s - c

ompa

rison

gro

ups

(tho

ught

ful t

o di

ffer

ence

s)

Stre

ngth

s - d

ata-

driv

en

Stre

ngth

s - d

istr

icts

can

't hi

de lo

w p

erfo

rmin

g st

uden

ts

Stre

ngth

s - f

ocus

is n

ot ju

st o

n pa

ssin

g, b

ut g

oing

bey

ond

Stre

ngth

s - f

ocus

on

post

-sec

onda

ry re

adin

ess

Stre

ngth

s - f

ocus

on

prog

ress

and

gap

s St

reng

ths

- for

ced

conv

ersa

tions

a/b

equ

ity a

nd a

cces

s


QU

ESTI

ON

#2

WH

AT A

RE T

HE

STRE

NG

THS

AND

WEA

KNES

SES

OF

OU

R CU

RREN

T SY

STEM

S O

F AS

SESS

MEN

TS A

ND

AC

COU

NTA

BILI

TY?

NU

MBE

R O

F VO

TES

GRO

UP'

S RE

SPO

NSE

Ed

ucat

ors

Educ

ator

s Ed

ucat

ors

Educ

ator

s Ed

ucat

ors

Educ

ator

s Ed

ucat

ors

Educ

ator

s Ed

ucat

ors

Educ

ator

s Ed

ucat

ors

Educ

ator

s Ed

ucat

ors

Educ

ator

s Ed

ucat

ors

Educ

ator

s Ed

ucat

ors

Educ

ator

s Ed

ucat

ors

Educ

ator

s Ed

ucat

ors

Educ

ator

s Ed

ucat

ors

Educ

ator

s Ed

ucat

ors

Educ

ator

s

Gre

en =

Bus

ines

s Le

ader

s

Red

= E

duca

tors

B

lue

= Pa

rent

s

RESP

ON

SES

TO T

HIS

QU

ESTI

ON

St

reng

ths

- Ind

ex 2

and

3 a

nd 4

sho

w g

row

th o

f all

subp

opul

atio

ns

Stre

ngth

s - i

nviti

ng d

ialo

gues

rega

rdin

g ac

coun

tabi

lity

Stre

ngth

s - m

ade

publ

ic

Stre

ngth

s - m

easu

res

grow

th fo

r eve

ry c

hild

St

reng

ths

- pro

vide

s a

high

-leve

l sna

psho

t St

reng

ths

- rea

ding

and

mat

h ca

n sh

ow g

row

th

Stre

ngth

s - t

each

ers

have

the

info

to im

prov

e in

stru

ctio

n fo

r stu

dent

s St

reng

ths

- tes

ting

late

r St

reng

ths

- too

l to

lear

n fr

om a

sses

smen

ts a

re a

ligne

d to

sta

ndar

ds

Stre

ngth

s - u

sed

to id

entif

y ar

eas

teac

hers

can

impr

ove

Stre

ngth

s - v

alue

add

ed s

tep

in ri

ght d

irect

ion

Stre

ngth

s - v

ertic

al a

lignm

ent

Wea

knes

ses

- art

ifici

al m

ark

Wea

knes

ses

- doe

sn't

trul

y m

easu

re le

arni

ng

Wea

knes

ses

- elim

inat

es a

uthe

ntic

inst

ruct

ion

Wea

knes

ses

- fee

dbac

k is

not

tim

ely

Wea

knes

ses

- fin

al re

com

men

ded

mig

ht b

e a

chal

leng

e W

eakn

esse

s - i

ncon

sist

ency

in p

assi

ng s

tand

ards

and

whe

n su

bjec

ts a

re a

sses

sed

(whi

ch g

rade

s i.e

. sci

ence

5th

th

en 8

th)

Wea

knes

ses

- inf

orm

atio

n do

es n

ot c

ome

back

in ti

me

or fo

rmat

that

is h

elpf

ul fo

r tea

cher

W

eakn

esse

s - j

udge

s on

sco

res

of s

tude

nts

Wea

knes

ses

- lac

k of

cro

ss-c

urric

ular

W

eakn

esse

s - l

ack

of e

duca

tor/

com

mun

ity in

put

Wea

knes

ses

- lac

k of

val

ue-a

dded

dat

a W

eakn

esse

s - l

earn

ing

a lit

tle b

it of

a lo

t of t

hing

s W

eakn

esse

s - l

imits

flex

ibili

ty

Wea

knes

ses

- lim

its fo

rmat

ive

asse

ssm

ent b

ench

mar

k


QU

ESTI

ON

#2

WH

AT A

RE T

HE

STRE

NG

THS

AND

WEA

KNES

SES

OF

OU

R CU

RREN

T SY

STEM

S O

F AS

SESS

MEN

TS A

ND

AC

COU

NTA

BILI

TY?

NU

MBE

R O

F VO

TES

GRO

UP'

S RE

SPO

NSE

Ed

ucat

ors

Educ

ator

s Ed

ucat

ors

Educ

ator

s Ed

ucat

ors

Educ

ator

s Ed

ucat

ors

Educ

ator

s Ed

ucat

ors

Educ

ator

s Ed

ucat

ors

Educ

ator

s Ed

ucat

ors

Educ

ator

s Ed

ucat

ors

Educ

ator

s Ed

ucat

ors

Educ

ator

s Ed

ucat

ors

Educ

ator

s Ed

ucat

ors

Educ

ator

s Ed

ucat

ors

Educ

ator

s Ed

ucat

ors

Educ

ator

s

Gre

en =

Bus

ines

s Le

ader

s

Red

= E

duca

tors

B

lue

= Pa

rent

s

RESP

ON

SES

TO T

HIS

QU

ESTI

ON

W

eakn

esse

s - l

ower

gra

des

don'

t hav

e sa

me

acce

ss to

tech

for t

estin

g W

eakn

esse

s - n

arro

ws

cont

ent t

hat i

s co

vere

d W

eakn

esse

s - n

egat

ive

effe

ct o

n le

arne

r effi

cien

cy

Wea

knes

ses

- no

perf

orm

ance

bas

ed c

ompo

nent

W

eakn

esse

s - n

on-t

rans

pare

ncy

Wea

knes

ses

- nor

m re

fere

nced

test

dis

guis

ed a

s cr

iterio

n-re

fere

nced

test

W

eakn

esse

s - n

ot a

uthe

ntic

W

eakn

esse

s - n

ot e

noug

h tim

e fo

r ref

lect

ive

thin

king

W

eakn

esse

s - n

umbe

r of t

ests

W

eakn

esse

s - o

nly

thin

king

"in

side

the

box"

W

eakn

esse

s - p

assi

ng s

core

s to

o lo

w

Wea

knes

ses

- pol

icie

s do

n't a

ddre

ss s

yste

mic

ineq

uitie

s W

eakn

esse

s - p

oliti

cally

driv

en

Wea

knes

ses

- pol

itica

lly m

otiv

ated

W

eakn

esse

s - r

esul

ts d

on't

mat

ch o

ther

mea

sure

s (A

P, S

AT, A

CT)

Wea

knes

ses

- san

ctio

ns h

ave

caus

ed s

choo

ls to

teac

h to

test

and

hav

e ta

ken

optio

ns (a

rt, m

usic

, etc

.) fr

om

stud

ents

W

eakn

esse

s - s

tand

ards

are

too

com

plex

W

eakn

esse

s - s

tand

ards

not

prio

ritiz

ed

Wea

knes

ses

- sys

tem

is lo

sing

cre

dibi

lity

beca

use

no o

ne is

doi

ng w

ell

Wea

knes

ses

- tes

t anx

iety

W

eakn

esse

s - t

ests

seg

men

t W

eakn

esse

s - t

imin

g of

test

s W

eakn

esse

s - t

oo b

road

- no

t dee

p W

eakn

esse

s - t

oo m

any

stan

dard

s W

eakn

esse

s - t

oo n

arro

w

Wea

knes

ses

- tra

nspa

renc

y to

par

ent/

com

mun

ity


QU

ESTI

ON

#2

WH

AT A

RE T

HE

STRE

NG

THS

AND

WEA

KNES

SES

OF

OU

R CU

RREN

T SY

STEM

S O

F AS

SESS

MEN

TS A

ND

AC

COU

NTA

BILI

TY?

NU

MBE

R O

F VO

TES

GRO

UP'

S RE

SPO

NSE

Ed

ucat

ors

Educ

ator

s Pa

rent

s Pa

rent

s Pa

rent

s

Pare

nts

Pare

nts

Pare

nts

Pare

nts

Pare

nts

Pare

nts

Pare

nts

Pare

nts

Pare

nts

Pare

nts

Pare

nts

Pare

nts

Pare

nts

Pare

nts

Pare

nts

Pare

nts

Pare

nts

Pare

nts

Pare

nts

Pare

nts

Pare

nts

Gre

en =

Bus

ines

s Le

ader

s

Red

= E

duca

tors

B

lue

= Pa

rent

s

RESP

ON

SES

TO T

HIS

QU

ESTI

ON

W

eakn

esse

s - u

nint

ende

d co

nseq

uenc

es: o

ptin

g ou

t (pa

rent

s, u

nion

s), d

evel

opin

g fa

lse

posi

tives

W

eakn

esse

s - u

sed

puni

tivel

y St

reng

ths

- "lo

ts o

f mon

ey in

test

pro

vide

r's p

ocke

ts"

Stre

ngth

s - a

llow

s fo

r tea

cher

eva

luat

ions

with

out a

dmin

istr

ator

par

ticip

atio

n St

reng

ths

- bas

ed o

n an

opt

imis

tic p

hilo

soph

y ev

ery

child

can

lear

n St

reng

ths

- Dat

a! C

omm

on la

ngua

ge fo

r com

paris

on; i

dent

ifies

und

erse

rved

pop

ulat

ions

; offe

rs m

ore

tran

spar

ency

St

reng

ths

- hel

ps w

ith re

sour

ce a

lloca

tion

Stre

ngth

s - p

rovi

des

stan

dard

izat

ion

acro

ss th

e st

ate

for s

take

hold

ers

Wea

knes

ses

- 50%

con

side

red

pass

ing

Wea

knes

ses

- bra

ndin

g sc

hool

s an

d st

uden

ts w

ith "

A-F"

W

eakn

esse

s - d

elay

ed re

sults

W

eakn

esse

s - d

esig

ned

to m

ake

pass

ing

impo

ssib

le

Wea

knes

ses

- dev

elop

men

tally

inap

prop

riate

W

eakn

esse

s - d

oesn

't ac

com

mod

ate

diff

eren

t tea

chin

g st

yles

W

eakn

esse

s - e

mot

iona

l str

ess,

phy

sica

l illn

ess

(sto

mac

h, h

eada

ches

) W

eakn

esse

s - e

mpt

y th

reat

s w

on't

be p

rom

oted

if fa

il W

eakn

esse

s - h

as c

reat

ed a

cul

ture

of a

nxie

ty a

nd a

cul

ture

of t

est p

rep

Wea

knes

ses

- hig

h st

akes

nat

ure

of s

yste

m p

enal

izes

sub

-pop

s W

eakn

esse

s - i

mpa

ssio

ned

educ

ator

s, p

ay fo

r per

form

ance

W

eakn

esse

s - i

nstr

uctio

nal t

ime

lost

due

to te

st p

rep

Wea

knes

ses

- kid

s do

n't g

et h

elp

they

nee

d W

eakn

esse

s - l

ack

of re

sour

ces

mat

eria

l W

eakn

esse

s - n

o co

ntin

uity

, tes

ts a

re e

ver-

chan

ging

W

eakn

esse

s - n

o su

ppor

t for

par

ents

W

eakn

esse

s - n

o tr

ue a

ccou

ntab

ility

W

eakn

esse

s - p

unis

hed

if fa

il, s

et u

p to

fail


QU

ESTI

ON

#2

WH

AT A

RE T

HE

STRE

NG

THS

AND

WEA

KNES

SES

OF

OU

R CU

RREN

T SY

STEM

S O

F AS

SESS

MEN

TS A

ND

AC

COU

NTA

BILI

TY?

NU

MBE

R O

F VO

TES

GRO

UP'

S RE

SPO

NSE

Pa

rent

s Pa

rent

s Pa

rent

s Pa

rent

s Pa

rent

s Pa

rent

s Pa

rent

s Pa

rent

s

Pare

nts

Pare

nts

Pare

nts

Pare

nts

Pare

nts

Pare

nts

Pare

nts

Pare

nts

Gre

en =

Bus

ines

s Le

ader

s

Red

= E

duca

tors

B

lue

= Pa

rent

s

RESP

ON

SES

TO T

HIS

QU

ESTI

ON

W

eakn

esse

s - s

low

resu

lts (r

etur

n)

Wea

knes

ses

- som

eone

is p

rofit

ing

Wea

knes

ses

- spe

cial

nee

ds c

hild

ren

not s

uffic

ient

ly a

ccom

mod

ated

W

eakn

esse

s - t

each

ing

"app

roxi

mat

ion"

W

eakn

esse

s - t

each

ing

test

pre

p w

ithou

t tea

chin

g or

reac

hing

full

know

ledg

e W

eakn

esse

s - T

EKS

are

not d

evel

opm

enta

lly a

ppro

pria

te

Wea

knes

ses

- tes

t and

pun

ish

syst

em

Wea

knes

ses

- tes

ting

is o

utco

me-

focu

sed

vs. p

roce

ss-fo

cuse

d

Wea

knes

ses

- the

neg

ativ

e im

pact

on

stud

ents

/tea

cher

s/pa

rent

s (p

hysi

cally

, em

otio

nally

, men

tally

) W

eakn

esse

s - t

hese

test

s ar

e po

litic

ally

influ

ence

d

Wea

knes

ses

- too

muc

h pr

essu

re (o

n ki

ds, p

aren

ts, t

each

ers)

and

too

muc

h em

phas

is -

one

test

, one

day

W

eakn

esse

s - u

nrea

listic

goa

ls/o

bjec

tives

W

eakn

esse

s - w

hen

the

test

is o

ver -

zer

o cu

rric

ulum

W

eakn

esse

s - w

hoev

er c

ontr

ols

test

con

trol

s th

e cu

rric

ulum

W

eakn

esse

s - w

ho's

writ

ing

this

stu

ff? E

nglis

h te

ache

rs s

houl

d N

OT

writ

e M

ath

Wea

knes

ses

- wid

ens

the

achi

evem

ent


DAL

LAS

QU

ESTI

ON

#3

WH

AT F

ACTO

RS W

OU

LD Y

OU

LIK

E TH

E CO

MM

ISSI

ON

TO

CO

NSI

DER

AS

THEY

DEV

ELO

P RE

COM

MEN

DAT

ION

S TO

SH

APE

OU

R FU

TURE

ASS

ESSM

ENTS

AN

D A

CCO

UN

TABI

LITY

?

NU

MBE

R O

F VO

TES

Not

Pro

vide

d

GRO

UP'

S RE

SPO

NSE

Busi

ness

Lea

ders

Bu

sine

ss L

eade

rs

Busi

ness

Lea

ders

Bu

sine

ss L

eade

rs

Busi

ness

Lea

ders

Bu

sine

ss L

eade

rs

Educ

ator

s Ed

ucat

ors

Educ

ator

s Ed

ucat

ors

Educ

ator

s Ed

ucat

ors

Educ

ator

s Ed

ucat

ors

Educ

ator

s Ed

ucat

ors

Educ

ator

s Ed

ucat

ors

Educ

ator

s Ed

ucat

ors

Educ

ator

s Ed

ucat

ors

Educ

ator

s

Gre

en =

Bus

ines

s Le

ader

s

Red

= E

duca

tors

B

lue

= Pa

rent

s

RESP

ON

SES

TO T

HIS

QU

ESTI

ON

A

syst

em th

at in

cent

iviz

ed a

cade

mic

ach

ieve

men

ts: p

rogr

ess

and

mat

ricul

atio

n th

roug

h th

e sy

stem

s (g

row

th),

ince

ntiv

ize

in in

vest

ing

in P

K-2

(3rd

gra

de re

adin

ess,

Rea

ding

- EL

L pr

ogre

ss)

Des

ign

cutt

ing

edge

com

pete

ncy

base

d m

easu

rem

ents

Ex

plor

e op

port

uniti

es fo

r sam

plin

g as

opp

osed

mas

s te

stin

g of

stu

dent

s - d

iagn

ostic

tool

s to

hel

p st

uden

ts

prog

ress

thro

ugh

the

syst

em b

ut a

re n

ot u

sed

for h

igh

stak

es a

ccou

ntab

ility

Fa

ctor

s to

con

side

r - m

ultip

le a

sses

smen

ts -

SEL,

life

ski

lls, s

choo

l cul

ture

, equ

ity, p

rogr

ess

for E

LL

Ince

ntiv

izes

teac

her a

ttra

ctio

n an

d re

tent

ion

Ratin

g sy

stem

is tr

ansp

aren

t, un

ders

tand

able

and

eas

ily c

omm

unic

ated

Au

then

tic a

sses

smen

t Ch

ange

the

min

dset

that

har

der t

est i

mpr

oves

lear

ning

focu

s sh

ould

be

on in

stru

ctio

n Co

mm

unity

allo

wed

inpu

t to

legi

slat

ure

Com

mun

ity S

choo

l Mod

el to

sup

port

thos

e sc

hool

s in

nee

d Co

nnec

t HB5

to a

ccou

ntab

ility

and

ass

essm

ent

g p

pp

g p

to

rollo

ut

Do

pare

nts/

com

mun

ities

trus

t the

sch

ools

and

dis

tric

ts to

edu

cate

? Em

bedd

ed in

dai

ly le

arni

ng

Ensu

re s

tude

nts

have

pos

t-se

cond

ary

optio

ns

Ensu

re te

st m

atch

es d

evel

opm

enta

l lev

els

Ensu

re ti

me

for c

onte

nt m

atch

es a

nd is

real

istic

(i.e

. 40%

lab

time

for B

io E

OC)

G

et p

eopl

e in

form

atio

n in

a ti

mel

y fa

shio

n G

ive

a sp

ectr

um o

f res

ults

to s

tude

nts

(not

just

pas

s/fa

il)

Glo

bal m

indf

ulne

ss

How

are

you

gat

herin

g da

ta to

mak

e yo

ur d

ecis

ions

? H

ow s

ubpo

pula

tions

are

bei

ng m

easu

red?

ELL

s, s

peci

al e

duca

tion,

bili

ngua

l In

corp

orat

e TE

LPAS

- to

redu

ce a

mou

nt o

f tes

ts


QU

ESTI

ON

#3

WH

AT F

ACTO

RS W

OU

LD Y

OU

LIK

E TH

E CO

MM

ISSI

ON

TO

CO

NSI

DER

AS

THEY

DEV

ELO

P RE

COM

MEN

DAT

ION

S TO

SH

APE

OU

R FU

TURE

ASS

ESSM

ENTS

AN

D A

CCO

UN

TABI

LITY

?

NU

MBE

R O

F VO

TES

GRO

UP'

S RE

SPO

NSE

Ed

ucat

ors

Educ

ator

s Ed

ucat

ors

Educ

ator

s Ed

ucat

ors

Educ

ator

s Ed

ucat

ors

Educ

ator

s Ed

ucat

ors

Educ

ator

s Ed

ucat

ors

Educ

ator

s Ed

ucat

ors

Educ

ator

s Ed

ucat

ors

Pare

nts

Pare

nts

Pare

nts

Pare

nts

Pare

nts

Pare

nts

Pare

nts

Pare

nts

Pare

nts

Pare

nts

Pare

nts

Pare

nts

Gre

en =

Bus

ines

s Le

ader

s

Red

= E

duca

tors

B

lue

= Pa

rent

s

RESP

ON

SES

TO T

HIS

QU

ESTI

ON

In

stru

ctio

nal r

esou

rces

to s

uppo

rt te

chno

logy

, tex

tboo

ks, s

uppo

rt s

taff

, fun

ding

In

tegr

atio

n of

all

cont

ents

, don

't ig

nore

Soc

ial S

tudi

es

K-16

ver

tical

alig

nmen

t - p

artn

ersh

ips

with

col

lege

and

car

eer

Mea

sure

gro

wth

as

wel

l as

prof

icie

ncy

- kee

ps s

tude

nts

from

losi

ng h

ope,

effo

rt

Min

imum

tim

e - a

way

from

inst

ruct

ions

- as

uno

bstr

uctiv

e M

ore

auth

entic

writ

ing

asse

ssm

ent

Mor

e em

phas

is o

n gr

owth

(Ind

ex 2

) M

ultip

le m

easu

res

Nee

d to

test

in th

e w

ay s

tude

nts

lear

n, c

onsi

der m

oder

n cu

lture

N

O U

NFU

ND

ED M

AND

ATES

Pe

rfor

man

ce-b

ased

ass

essm

ents

, alte

rnat

ive

met

hods

equ

itabl

e Re

defin

e "a

t-ris

k"

Rigo

r HAS

TO

BE

grad

e-ap

prop

riate

Te

ache

r pre

p is

crit

ical

Te

st li

mite

d nu

mbe

r of c

ritic

al s

tand

ards

at d

eepe

r lev

els,

not

too

gran

ular

Addr

ess

the

fact

ors

that

resu

lt in

neg

ativ

e cu

ltura

l fac

tors

(i.e

. str

esse

d ou

t stu

dent

s, p

aren

ts a

nd te

ache

rs)

Adju

st g

oals

for a

chie

vem

ent -

mor

e "r

ealis

tic"

(?)

Age

appr

opria

tene

ss

Alig

nmen

t im

prov

emen

t bet

wee

n cu

rric

ulum

and

ass

essm

ent

Brin

g ba

ck fu

ndam

enta

ls -

read

ing,

writ

ing,

mat

h fa

cts,

gra

mm

ar, s

cien

ce, g

o de

eper

Bu

ildin

g fo

unda

tion

Colle

ge a

nd c

aree

r rea

dine

ss p

ush

is h

avin

g op

posi

te e

ffect

D

evel

opm

enta

lly a

ppro

pria

te -

TEKS

- to

o m

uch,

too

soon

D

iffer

entia

tion

Elim

inat

e as

sess

men

ts fo

r ele

men

tary

sch

ools

Ev

alua

te if

/how

the

prop

osed

sys

tem

wou

ld im

prov

e in

stru

ctio

n G

rade

r are

str

ange

rs


QU

ESTI

ON

#3

WH

AT F

ACTO

RS W

OU

LD Y

OU

LIK

E TH

E CO

MM

ISSI

ON

TO

CO

NSI

DER

AS

THEY

DEV

ELO

P RE

COM

MEN

DAT

ION

S TO

SH

APE

OU

R FU

TURE

ASS

ESSM

ENTS

AN

D A

CCO

UN

TABI

LITY

?

NU

MBE

R O

F VO

TES

GRO

UP'

S RE

SPO

NSE

Pa

rent

s Pa

rent

s Pa

rent

s Pa

rent

s Pa

rent

s Pa

rent

s Pa

rent

s Pa

rent

s Pa

rent

s Pa

rent

s Pa

rent

s Pa

rent

s Pa

rent

s Pa

rent

s

Pare

nts

Pare

nts

Gre

en =

Bus

ines

s Le

ader

s

Red

= E

duca

tors

B

lue

= Pa

rent

s

RESP

ON

SES

TO T

HIS

QU

ESTI

ON

H

eld

host

age

Impl

emen

t non

-impa

ct a

sses

smen

ts (t

hat d

on't

affe

ct m

atric

ulat

ion)

Im

plem

ent w

ell-v

ette

d, g

rade

-spe

cific

, err

or-f

ree

test

ing

Inpu

t fro

m s

peci

al e

duca

tion

expe

rts

Mig

rate

the

test

ing

from

bei

ng a

wea

pon

to b

eing

a re

sour

ce

Mor

e in

put f

rom

tale

nted

edu

cato

rs in

des

ign

of n

ew s

yste

ms

Mor

e pl

ay

Safe

ty/a

war

enes

s - n

atur

al d

isas

ter,

dom

estic

dis

aste

r, op

en g

un p

olic

y So

licit

feed

back

from

teac

hers

- ex

amin

e fla

ws

Spec

ific

dem

ogra

phic

s (n

ot ju

st n

umbe

rs) o

f ind

ivid

ual s

choo

ls a

nd th

eir s

tude

nts

Test

crit

ical

thin

king

with

dis

ambi

guity

Ti

me

inte

nsiv

e - t

oo m

any

hour

s te

achi

ng to

test

To

o lo

ng

Use

ass

essm

ents

as

a ro

adm

ap

Use

mon

ey s

aved

from

not

buy

ing

test

s to

dev

elop

liai

son

team

s to

mon

itor d

aily

/wee

kly/

mon

thly

/sem

este

r st

uden

t/te

ache

r pro

gres

s U

se th

e m

etric

s to

fill

in th

e ga

ps


EL P

ASO

QU

ESTI

ON

#1

REFL

ECT

UPO

N T

HE

PRES

ENTA

TIO

NS

THAT

YO

U P

REVI

EWED

BEF

ORE

TH

E M

EETI

NG

. W

HAT

ARE

SO

ME

KEY

LEAR

NIN

GS

OR

IMPO

RTAN

T TA

KE-A

-WAY

S TH

AT S

HO

ULD

SH

APE

OU

R CO

NVE

RSAT

ION

?

Gre

en =

Bus

ines

s Le

ader

s

Red

= E

duca

tors

B

lue

= Pa

rent

s

NU

MBE

R O

F VO

TES

GRO

UP'

S RE

SPO

NSE

RE

SPO

NSE

S TO

TH

IS Q

UES

TIO

N

Busi

ness

D

efin

e be

tter

role

s, m

echa

nism

s &

acc

ount

abili

ty s

yste

ms

to a

sses

s m

etho

ds fo

r tes

ting

Busi

ness

M

inim

ize

the

adve

rse

impa

ct o

n le

arni

ng fo

r stu

dent

s, p

aren

ts &

edu

cato

rs

Busi

ness

Te

stin

g sh

ould

not

sup

plan

t lea

rnin

g; Q

UIT

TH

E BU

BBLI

NG

TES

TS

17

Educ

ator

H

igh

stak

es a

ccou

ntab

ility

has

resu

lted

in g

amin

g of

the

syst

em

16

Educ

ator

O

ver r

elia

nce

on te

st s

core

s fo

r sch

ools

/ di

stric

ts

14

Educ

ator

La

ck o

f cla

rity

of th

e ac

coun

tabi

lity

syst

em (d

iffic

ult f

or s

take

hold

ers

to u

nder

stan

d &

com

mun

icat

e)

Our

acc

ount

abili

ty s

yste

m h

as e

volv

ed o

ver t

ime

to b

ette

r add

ress

und

erse

rved

pop

ulat

ions

, and

ther

e is

mor

e 13

Ed

ucat

or

wor

k to

be

done

11

Ed

ucat

or

Now

- tes

ting

is d

rivin

g in

stru

ctio

n (b

ecom

ing

a bu

sine

ss)

10

Educ

ator

Ap

prop

riate

ass

essm

ents

for A

LL s

tude

nts

(i.e.

spe

cial

pop

ulat

ions

) 6

Educ

ator

Cl

osin

g th

e ac

hiev

emen

t gap

6

Educ

ator

W

hole

gro

up v

s. s

ubgr

oup

dem

ogra

phic

s 4

Educ

ator

Ev

olvi

ng o

f tes

ting

over

the

deca

des

3 Ed

ucat

or

Early

test

ing-

inst

ruct

ion

drov

e te

stin

g 2

Educ

ator

H

B 28

08: I

ndex

%/

ambi

guity

- O

ther

met

rics?

(Ele

m)

2 Ed

ucat

or

Subg

roup

s po

tent

ial t

o dr

amat

ical

ly a

ffect

ratin

gs

1 Ed

ucat

or

His

toric

al p

ersp

ectiv

es o

f the

80’

s (e

x: T

ABs,

TEA

Ms,

TAA

S, T

AKs,

STA

AR, E

OC)

Ed

ucat

or

Dom

ain

5- to

o su

bjec

tive

Educ

ator

D

omai

n fo

r oth

er m

etric

s?

Educ

ator

Sm

all s

choo

l exe

mpt

ions

Ed

ucat

or

Spec

ific

dom

ain

wei

ghts

Ed

ucat

or

The

hist

ory

of te

stin

g w

as to

est

ablis

h a

norm

or b

asel

ine

of s

tude

nt a

nd m

easu

re g

row

th

Educ

ator

Ti

min

g of

sum

mer

(ret

ake)

EO

Cs- p

refe

rabl

y in

Aug

ust

5 Pa

rent

U

nfun

ded

man

date

s.

El Paso


QU

ESTI

ON

#1

REFL

ECT

UPO

N T

HE

PRES

ENTA

TIO

NS

THAT

YO

U P

REVI

EWED

BEF

ORE

TH

E M

EETI

NG

. W

HAT

ARE

SO

ME

KEY

LEAR

NIN

GS

OR

IMPO

RTAN

T TA

KE-A

-WAY

S TH

AT S

HO

ULD

SH

APE

OU

R CO

NVE

RSAT

ION

?

Gre

en =

Bus

ines

s Le

ader

s

Red

= E

duca

tors

B

lue

= Pa

rent

s

NU

MBE

R O

F VO

TES

GRO

UP'

S RE

SPO

NSE

RE

SPO

NSE

S TO

TH

IS Q

UES

TIO

N

4 Pa

rent

Eq

ual a

ccou

ntab

ility

mus

t be

coup

led

with

equ

al o

ppor

tuni

ty.

4 Pa

rent

Re

mov

al o

f hig

h-st

akes

test

ing.

It s

tigm

atiz

es s

choo

ls, t

each

ers

& s

tude

nts.

3

Pare

nt

Test

ing

look

ing

at h

ard

to e

duca

te k

ids

3 Pa

rent

W

orke

d on

bub

ble

kids

to s

pike

the

data

2

Pare

nt

15 to

5 te

sts

1 Pa

rent

N

egat

ive

stud

ent i

mpa

ct w

as m

issi

ng. I

f tea

cher

s ca

n te

st fo

r ben

chm

arks

, why

so

man

y ex

tra

test

s fr

om s

tate

?


EL P

ASO

QU

ESTI

ON

#2

WH

AT IS

TH

E RO

LE/P

URP

OSE

OF

ASSE

SSM

ENT

AND

ACC

OU

NTA

BILI

TY IN

TH

E ED

UCA

TIO

N O

F O

UR

CHIL

DRE

N?

Gre

en =

Bus

ines

s Le

ader

s

Red

= E

duca

tors

B

lue

= Pa

rent

s

NU

MBE

R O

F VO

TES

GRO

UP'

S RE

SPO

NSE

RE

SPO

NSE

S TO

TH

IS Q

UES

TIO

N

Busi

ness

Al

ign

wor

kfor

ce n

eeds

/com

pete

ncie

s /

with

tale

nt p

rodu

ced

Asse

ssm

ent P

urpo

se-T

o be

tter

"Pr

epar

e st

uden

ts to

be

read

y” fo

r the

ir ne

xt s

tep-

life

chap

ter-

(stu

dent

s de

serv

e Bu

sine

ss

choi

ce in

edu

catio

n op

tions

that

are

bes

t for

them

) Bu

sine

ss

Prov

ide

a to

ol to

iden

tify

wha

t is

wor

king

& n

ot w

orki

ng: s

hare

bes

t pra

ctic

es

Busi

ness

Re

adin

ess

stan

dard

s fo

r stu

dent

s m

ust i

nclu

de: a

cade

mic

s; c

aree

r; c

olle

ge; l

ife

33

Educ

ator

As

sess

men

t Pur

pose

-mea

sure

gro

wth

/nee

ds; a

reas

of o

ppor

tuni

ty; h

ighl

ight

str

engt

hs; v

ertic

al a

lignm

ent

28

Educ

ator

Ac

coun

tabi

lity-

Shou

ld b

e ab

le to

see

stu

dent

gro

wth

with

in s

choo

l yea

r (pr

e &

pos

t)

21

Educ

ator

As

sess

men

t – th

eore

tical

ly it

is to

ens

ure

equi

ty (c

heck

s/ba

lanc

es) i

n st

uden

t ach

ieve

men

t 16

Ed

ucat

or

Fost

er a

cul

ture

of h

igh

expe

ctat

ions

13

Educ

ator

As

sess

men

t-Re

al p

oint

of a

sses

smen

t is

child

kno

ws/

lear

ns w

hat h

e/sh

e ne

eds

to k

now

(par

ents

too!

) 11

Ed

ucat

or

Gau

ging

stu

dent

lear

ning

of i

ndiv

idua

l ski

lls li

nked

to s

tate

cur

ricul

um.

10

Educ

ator

As

sess

men

t-Fo

rmat

ive

asse

ssm

ent f

or te

ache

rs/p

aren

ts a

t agg

rega

te le

vel

8 Ed

ucat

or

To m

ake

sure

wha

t is

bein

g ta

ught

is L

EARN

ED!

6 Ed

ucat

or

Asse

ssm

ent-

Lack

of F

eedb

ack

- ind

ivid

ualiz

ed, i

mm

edia

te, d

escr

iptiv

e 4

Educ

ator

En

surin

g al

igne

d ac

coun

tabi

lity

4 Ed

ucat

or

Sort

and

sep

arat

e st

uden

ts, s

choo

ls, a

nd s

choo

l dis

tric

ts- g

rade

s sc

hool

s 3

Educ

ator

Ac

coun

tabi

lity

is to

rank

and

cla

ssify

3

Educ

ator

As

sess

ing

stud

ent l

earn

ing/

subp

opul

atio

ns

2 Ed

ucat

or

Mea

sure

men

t of r

eadi

ness

1

Educ

ator

M

easu

res

the

clos

ing

of th

e ac

hiev

emen

t gap

and

inst

ruct

iona

l equ

ity

Educ

ator

Ac

coun

tabi

lity-

Curr

ent s

tate

role

is th

e do

cum

enta

tion

of s

tude

nt g

row

th y

ear o

ver y

ear

Educ

ator

ba

sic

skill

s Ed

ucat

or

Asse

ssm

ent-

whe

re is

the

stud

ent a

t, re

mov

ing

all l

abel

s an

d ba

rrie

rs

Educ

ator

Id

entif

y tr

ends

to b

e ad

dres

sed


QU

ESTI

ON

#2

WH

AT IS

TH

E RO

LE/P

URP

OSE

OF

ASSE

SSM

ENT

AND

ACC

OU

NTA

BILI

TY IN

TH

E ED

UCA

TIO

N O

F O

UR

CHIL

DRE

N?

Gre

en =

Bus

ines

s Le

ader

s

Red

= E

duca

tors

B

lue

= Pa

rent

s

NU

MBE

R O

F VO

TES

GRO

UP'

S RE

SPO

NSE

RE

SPO

NSE

S TO

TH

IS Q

UES

TIO

N

6 Pa

rent

s As

sess

men

t Cur

rent

ly: P

uniti

ve A

ppro

ach;

Pun

ishm

ent=

Rem

oval

of F

undi

ng; G

rade

Ret

entio

n, R

emov

al o

f As

sess

men

t Sho

uld

Be: A

dia

gnos

tic to

ol fr

om s

tude

nts

stre

ngth

s an

d w

eakn

esse

s; S

tude

nt p

rogr

ess;

Mea

sure

6

Pare

nts

achi

evem

ent g

aps;

Iden

tify

need

s fo

r add

ition

al re

sour

ces

4 Pa

rent

s N

o in

divi

dual

izat

ion

of le

arni

ng &

teac

hing

3

Pare

nts

Not

eve

ry c

hild

lear

ns a

t sam

e ra

te

Pare

nts

Cook

ie c

utte

r edu

catio

n Pa

rent

s En

sure

qua

lity

educ

atio

n-m

ake

acco

unta

bilit

y


EL P

ASO

QU

ESTI

ON

#3

WH

AT IS

WO

RKIN

G W

ELL

WIT

H O

UR

CURR

ENT

SYST

EM O

F AS

SESS

MEN

T AN

D A

CCO

UN

TABI

LITY

?

Gre

en =

Bus

ines

s Le

ader

s

Red

= E

duca

tors

B

lue

= Pa

rent

s

NU

MBE

R O

F VO

TES

GRO

UP'

S RE

SPO

NSE

RE

SPO

NSE

S TO

TH

IS Q

UES

TIO

N

Busi

ness

A

mor

e co

mpl

ex s

yste

m th

at is

not

sim

plifi

ed w

ill n

ot w

ork,

but

hin

der

Not

sur

e cu

rren

t sys

tem

of a

sses

smen

t and

acc

ount

abili

ty is

pro

vidi

ng a

cces

s fo

r equ

ity to

stu

dent

bes

t Bu

sine

ss

educ

atio

n op

tions

20

Ed

ucat

ors

Awar

enes

s to

sub

-pop

ulat

ions

W

hat i

s w

orki

ng w

ell a

re th

e fo

ur in

dexe

s: o

vera

ll pa

ssin

g; g

row

th m

easu

re; s

ubpo

pula

tions

/clo

sing

per

form

ance

19

Ed

ucat

ors

gaps

; col

lege

read

y

15

Educ

ator

s D

ata

is a

vaila

ble

for a

ll st

akeh

olde

rs (p

aren

ts, c

omm

unity

mem

bers

, etc

.) 14

Ed

ucat

ors

Focu

s on

col

lege

read

ines

s an

d cl

osin

g th

e ac

hiev

emen

t gap

12

Ed

ucat

ors

Opp

ortu

nity

to s

ee s

tude

nt p

rogr

ess

10

Educ

ator

s H

ighl

ight

s un

ders

erve

d po

pula

tions

10

Ed

ucat

ors

Leve

l of a

war

enes

s of

gro

wth

6

Educ

ator

s M

onito

ring

and

incl

usio

n of

sub

-pop

ulat

ions

with

in a

sses

smen

ts

4 Ed

ucat

ors

Iden

tifyi

ng th

e sc

hool

s th

at a

re s

ocio

econ

omic

ally

impa

cted

3

Educ

ator

s Id

entif

y &

mea

surin

g su

bgro

up le

arni

ng

Educ

ator

s In

crea

se in

bal

ance

look

at 4

indi

ces,

not

just

one

Ed

ucat

ors

Obv

ious

lear

ning

gap

s 5

Pare

nts

Hig

hlig

hts

sub-

popu

latio

n pe

rfor

man

ce li

mite

d di

agno

stic

info

4

Pare

nts

Mor

e ac

adem

ic o

ptio

ns &

car

eer p

athw

ays

for s

tude

nts

Pare

nts

Kids

hav

e go

als

Pare

nts

Neg

ativ

e-no

bre

adth

in e

duca

tion

expe

rienc

e Pa

rent

s O

ther

opt

ions

for a

chie

vem

ent


EL P

ASO

QU

ESTI

ON

#4

WH

AT F

ACTO

RS S

HO

ULD

TH

E N

EXT

GEN

ERAT

ION

CO

MM

ISSI

ON

ON

ASS

ESSM

ENTS

AN

D A

CCO

UN

TABI

LITY

CO

NSI

DER

AS

THEY

MAK

E TH

EIR

RECO

MM

END

ATIO

NS?

Gre

en =

Bus

ines

s Le

ader

s

Red

= E

duca

tors

B

lue

= Pa

rent

s

NU

MBE

R O

F VO

TES

GRO

UP'

S RE

SPO

NSE

RE

SPO

NSE

S TO

TH

IS Q

UES

TIO

N

Busi

ness

As

sess

cos

t of i

mpl

emen

tatio

n &

min

imiz

e ne

gativ

e im

pact

on

lear

ning

Busi

ness

D

efin

e be

tter

role

s, m

echa

nism

s &

acc

ount

abili

ty s

yste

ms

to a

sses

s m

etho

ds fo

r tes

ting

Busi

ness

D

on’t

loos

e si

ght o

f who

you

r cus

tom

er is

Bu

sine

ss

Min

imiz

e th

e ad

vers

e im

pact

on

lear

ning

for s

tude

nts,

par

ents

& e

duca

tors

Bu

sine

ss

Sim

plic

ity in

sys

tem

s de

sign

& m

easu

rem

ent

Busi

ness

Te

stin

g sh

ould

not

sup

plan

t lea

rnin

g; Q

UIT

TH

E BU

BBLI

NG

TES

TS

g p

( y

p )

p m

ovem

ent b

y re

gion

-Eve

ry d

istr

ict s

houl

d ha

ve a

str

ateg

ic p

lan

with

spe

cific

KPI

s al

igne

d to

the

regi

on's

Busi

ness

ec

onom

ic p

lan

29

Educ

ator

s M

ore

Pre-

k to

lite

racy

27

Ed

ucat

ors

Indi

vidu

al s

tude

nt n

eeds

(ELL

, spe

cial

edu

catio

n, e

tc.)

Cons

ider

atio

n- n

orm

-bas

ed, t

ech-

driv

en te

sts

with

ada

ptiv

e di

agno

stic

s- c

ost o

f exa

m a

nd e

ffici

ency

of o

utpu

t 26

Ed

ucat

ors

resu

lts a

nd c

onsi

der s

ub p

opul

atio

ns

17

Educ

ator

s Co

nsid

er s

tude

nt a

cade

mic

gro

wth

vs.

a p

assi

ng s

tand

ard

for a

ll 17

Ed

ucat

ors

of te

stin

g 17

Ed

ucat

ors

True

teac

her i

nput

14

Ed

ucat

ors

Not

pol

itica

lly m

otiv

ated

12

Ed

ucat

ors

Stud

ent o

rient

ed

11

Educ

ator

s Be

nchm

ark

vs. f

orm

ativ

e 11

Ed

ucat

ors

Nar

row

ing

curr

icul

um

8 Ed

ucat

ors

Alig

nmen

t bet

wee

n st

ate

& fe

dera

l req

uire

men

ts/

targ

ets

(PBM

AS, s

afeg

uard

s, in

dexe

s)

8 Ed

ucat

ors

Clar

ity o

f the

inde

x ta

rget

s an

d sa

fegu

ards

8

Educ

ator

s Re

sults

sho

uld

be u

sed

to d

rive

inte

rven

tion

& in

stru

ctio

n/ re

med

iatio

n 8

Educ

ator

s U

se a

dapt

ive

test

s 5

Educ

ator

s Fl

exib

ility

in te

stin

g ca

lend

ar (w

indo

w)

5 Ed

ucat

ors

Hea

vier

relia

nce

on c

omm

unity

% H

B 28

04


QU

ESTI

ON

#4

WH

AT F

ACTO

RS S

HO

ULD

TH

E N

EXT

GEN

ERAT

ION

CO

MM

ISSI

ON

ON

ASS

ESSM

ENTS

AN

D A

CCO

UN

TABI

LITY

CO

NSI

DER

AS

THEY

MAK

E TH

EIR

RECO

MM

END

ATIO

NS?

Gre

en =

Bus

ines

s Le

ader

s

Red

= E

duca

tors

B

lue

= Pa

rent

s

NU

MBE

R O

F VO

TES

GRO

UP'

S RE

SPO

NSE

RE

SPO

NSE

S TO

TH

IS Q

UES

TIO

N

5 Ed

ucat

ors

In p

lace

of t

est d

riven

san

ctio

ns, u

se th

e co

mm

unity

-sch

ool’s

app

roac

h to

sch

ool i

mpr

ovem

ent

5 Ed

ucat

ors

Loca

l and

regi

onal

var

iabl

es

4 Ed

ucat

ors

Mor

e co

nsis

tenc

y in

sta

ndar

ds/

from

one

test

yea

r to

next

3

Educ

ator

s El

ectr

onic

del

iver

y/on

line

test

s 3

Educ

ator

s W

ide

varie

ty o

f mea

sure

s …

mul

tiple

mea

sure

s of

dat

a in

clud

ing

perc

eptu

al

6 Pa

rent

s H

igh-

stak

es re

mov

al

5 Pa

rent

s H

olis

tic a

ppro

ach

to s

tude

nt a

sses

smen

t (i.e

. Mon

tess

ori M

odel

) 5

Pare

nts

Lim

it TE

KS

5 Pa

rent

s Re

duce

test

pre

p 4

Pare

nts

Stre

ss p

rogr

ess

esp.

for n

ewco

mer

s 4

Pare

nts

Test

in n

ativ

e la

ngua

ge u

ntil

mas

tery

dem

onst

rate

d in

Eng

lish

3 Pa

rent

s To

o m

uch

pres

sure

on

teac

hers

& s

tude

nts-

not

sup

pose

d to

teac

h to

test

but

all

sign

als

tell

you

othe

rwis

e 1

Pare

nts

Redu

ce th

e te

st le

ngth

and

tim

e 1

Pare

nts

Stre

ss o

f tea

cher

s tr

ansf

erre

d to

stu

dent

s


EL P

ASO

QU

ESTI

ON

#5

WH

AT S

UG

GES

TIO

NS

FOR

IMPR

OVE

MEN

T O

F O

UR

CURR

ENT

SYST

EM W

OU

LD Y

OU

GIV

E TO

TH

E CO

MM

ISSI

ON

?

Gre

en =

Bus

ines

s Le

ader

s

Red

= E

duca

tors

B

lue

= Pa

rent

s

NU

MBE

R O

F VO

TES

GRO

UP'

S RE

SPO

NSE

RE

SPO

NSE

S TO

TH

IS Q

UES

TIO

N

Asse

ss th

e tr

ansi

tion

read

ines

s of

stu

dent

s at

key

poi

nts

& le

vels

of t

heir

educ

atio

n:

o Ea

rly c

hild

hood

to k

inde

rgar

ten

o El

emen

tary

to m

iddl

e o

Mid

dle

to h

igh

scho

ol

o H

igh

scho

ol to

pos

t sec

onda

ry/c

olle

ge

Busi

ness

o

Post

- sec

onda

ry to

wor

kfor

ce

Busi

ness

G

et m

ore

buy-

in to

be

part

of p

roce

ss

Smal

l dia

gnos

tic s

naps

hots

thro

ugh

out t

he y

ear p

rodu

cing

dat

a to

driv

e in

stru

ctio

n. C

ompu

ter b

ased

with

25

Ed

ucat

ors

imm

edia

te fe

edba

ck to

impr

ove

stud

ent g

row

th

One

siz

e do

es n

ot fi

t all-

test

- Ap

prop

riate

ly, i

nclu

de p

ortf

olio

s, c

onsi

der s

choo

l pop

ulat

ion,

dev

elop

men

tally

23

Ed

ucat

ors

appr

opria

te a

sses

smen

t and

acc

ount

abili

ty

21

Educ

ator

s Re

-eva

luat

e EL

L, 2

.4 y

ears

in U

.S s

choo

ls

19

Educ

ator

s Re

vam

p as

sess

men

ts fo

r stu

dent

s w

/var

ied

abili

ties

18

Educ

ator

s N

ew fu

ndin

g m

odel

Mea

ning

ful a

ltern

ativ

es s

uch

as-P

erfo

rman

ce b

ased

ass

essm

ents

with

stu

dent

s de

mon

stra

ting

mas

tery

by

17

Educ

ator

s co

mpl

etin

g re

sear

ch p

aper

& s

cien

ce e

xper

imen

ts

15

Educ

ator

s Fo

rmat

ive

com

pone

nt th

at is

not

pun

itive

but

info

rms

inst

ruct

ion

13

Educ

ator

s Le

ss b

ias

12

Educ

ator

s Re

mov

e th

e bu

sine

sses

mod

el fr

om e

duca

tion

9 Ed

ucat

ors

Gro

wth

sho

uld

be th

e le

adin

g gu

idel

ine

9 Ed

ucat

ors

Prov

ide

clar

ity fo

r all

stak

ehol

ders

8

Educ

ator

s H

oldi

ng h

ighe

r ed.

Acc

ount

able

8

Educ

ator

s Im

prov

ed c

omm

unic

atio

n th

roug

hout

the

Texa

s Ed

Age

ncy

7 Ed

ucat

ors

Incl

ude

varie

d an

d m

eani

ngfu

l dat

a 7

Educ

ator

s Pr

ovid

e re

sour

ces

to a

ll as

sess

men

ts


QU

ESTI

ON

#5

WH

AT S

UG

GES

TIO

NS

FOR

IMPR

OVE

MEN

T O

F O

UR

CURR

ENT

SYST

EM W

OU

LD Y

OU

GIV

E TO

TH

E CO

MM

ISSI

ON

?

Gre

en =

Bus

ines

s Le

ader

s

Red

= E

duca

tors

B

lue

= Pa

rent

s

NU

MBE

R O

F VO

TES

GRO

UP'

S RE

SPO

NSE

RE

SPO

NSE

S TO

TH

IS Q

UES

TIO

N

7 Ed

ucat

ors

Rele

asin

g on

line

tuto

rials

ear

lier

6 Ed

ucat

ors

Prov

ide

timel

y gu

idan

ce &

info

rmat

ion

on a

sses

smen

ts &

acc

ount

abili

ty

5 Ed

ucat

ors

Coho

rt A

sses

smen

ts

5 Ed

ucat

ors

Port

folio

/hol

istic

ass

essm

ents

for s

tude

nts

3 Ed

ucat

ors

Chan

ge a

sses

smen

t dat

es b

ack

to A

pril

6 Pa

rent

s Be

tter

des

crip

tive

diag

nost

ic d

ata

4 Pa

rent

s Bi

lingu

al e

duca

tion-

am

end

and

incr

ease

4

Pare

nts

Prov

ide

fund

ing

and

reso

urce

s


EL P

ASO

QU

ESTI

ON

#6

WH

AT

GO

ALS

FO

R (1

) ASS

ESSM

ENTS

AN

D (2

) ACC

OU

NTA

BILI

TY W

OU

LD Y

OU

REC

OM

MEN

D T

O T

HE

COM

MIS

SIO

N

THA

T W

OU

LD S

HA

PE T

HEI

R W

ORK

?

Gre

en =

Bus

ines

s Le

ader

s

Red

= E

duca

tors

B

lue

= Pa

rent

s

NU

MBE

R O

F VO

TES

GRO

UP'

S RE

SPO

NSE

RE

SPO

NSE

S TO

TH

IS Q

UES

TIO

N

Busi

ness

Ac

coun

tabi

lity-

Anyo

ne g

ettin

g pu

blic

fund

s ne

eds

to u

se th

e sa

me

syst

em

Busi

ness

Ac

coun

tabi

lity-

Appl

es to

App

les

Com

paris

ons

Busi

ness

Ac

coun

tabi

lity-

Equi

tabl

e Bu

sine

ss

Acco

unta

bilit

y-Fa

ir Bu

sine

ss

Acco

unta

bilit

y-Si

mpl

e to

Und

erst

and

Met

rics

Busi

ness

As

sess

men

t-St

uden

t Rea

dine

ss L

evel

s: A

cade

mic

, Car

eer,

Colle

ge, L

ife

32

Educ

ator

s Ac

coun

tabi

lity-

Mor

e th

an o

ne m

easu

re n

eede

d fo

r sch

ool’s

acc

ount

abili

ty/r

atin

g 29

Ed

ucat

ors

Acco

unta

bilit

y-H

olis

tic c

onsi

dera

tion

of s

ocio

-eco

that

con

trib

ute

to s

tude

nt g

row

th

Acco

unta

bilit

y-sh

ould

rede

fine

"gra

duat

ion"

as

"col

lege

read

ines

s" a

s m

easu

red

by c

ours

ewor

k, c

olle

ge e

ntra

nce

23

Educ

ator

s ex

ams,

and

dem

onst

ratio

n of

soc

ial-e

mot

iona

l ski

lls

17

Educ

ator

s As

sess

men

t-Co

nsid

er h

ow E

LL’s

will

be

eval

uate

d fa

irly

to in

clud

e re

cent

imm

igra

nts

Asse

ssm

ent-

Use

nor

mat

ive

refe

renc

e te

sts

with

tech

nolo

gy to

mea

sure

and

sup

port

bot

h st

uden

t gro

wth

and

17

Ed

ucat

ors

teac

her d

riven

info

rmat

ion

for f

ocus

of i

nstr

uctio

n 16

Ed

ucat

ors

Acco

unta

bilit

y-Pr

edet

erm

ined

pas

s cr

iteria

EAR

LY!

12

Educ

ator

s As

sess

men

t-Co

mm

unity

-bas

ed c

riter

ia fo

r det

erm

inin

g w

hat's

wor

king

wel

l & w

hat n

eeds

impr

ovem

ents

. 10

Ed

ucat

ors

Asse

ssm

ent-

Cons

ider

how

this

will

impa

ct s

tude

nt p

rom

otio

n/ re

tent

ion/

gra

duat

ion

rate

8

Educ

ator

s Ac

coun

tabi

lity-

Long

rang

e go

al =

stu

dent

por

tfol

io (I

nter

activ

e)

Educ

ator

s As

sess

men

t-Sa

me

mat

eria

ls, t

rain

ings

, lea

rnin

g op

port

uniti

es a

cros

s th

e st

ate

sinc

e w

e ta

ke th

e sa

me

test

. 7

Educ

ator

s As

sess

men

t-Pr

ovid

e an

ass

essm

ent s

yste

m th

at is

cle

ar to

und

erst

and

for a

ll st

akeh

olde

rs

5 Ed

ucat

ors

Acco

unta

bilit

y-M

ore

wei

ght t

o do

mai

n (V

)-Lo

cal C

omm

unity

Exp

ecta

tions

4

Educ

ator

s As

sess

men

t-Ad

equa

te fe

edba

ck to

par

ents

. 4

Educ

ator

s As

sess

men

t-Re

cons

ider

mod

ified

ass

essm

ents

to in

clud

e m

edic

ally

frag

ile

4 Ed

ucat

ors

Asse

ssm

ent-

Re-e

valu

ate

area

s as

sess

ed

8


QU

ESTI

ON

#6

WH

AT G

OAL

S FO

R (1

) ASS

ESSM

ENTS

AN

D (2

) ACC

OU

NTA

BILI

TY W

OU

LD Y

OU

REC

OM

MEN

D T

O T

HE

COM

MIS

SIO

N

THAT

WO

ULD

SH

APE

THEI

R W

ORK

?

Gre

en =

Bus

ines

s Le

ader

s

Red

= E

duca

tors

B

lue

= Pa

rent

s

NU

MBE

R O

F VO

TES

GRO

UP'

S RE

SPO

NSE

RE

SPO

NSE

S TO

TH

IS Q

UES

TIO

N

1 Ed

ucat

ors

Acco

unta

bilit

y-H

igh

perf

orm

ers

will

hav

e sm

alle

r gro

wth

1

Educ

ator

s Ac

coun

tabi

lity-

Spec

ific

time

fram

e of

gro

wth

. Ed

ucat

ors

Acco

unta

bilit

y-H

ow d

o w

e he

lp &

sup

port

str

uggl

ing

scho

ols

with

out p

unis

hing

the

scho

ol?

Educ

ator

s Ac

coun

tabi

lity-

Spec

ial e

duca

tion

popu

latio

ns m

ay n

ot s

how

gro

wth

5

Pare

nts

Acco

unta

bilit

y-Ta

ke h

olis

tic a

ppro

ach

5 Pa

rent

s As

sess

men

t-Re

mov

e hi

gh s

take

s 4

Pare

nts

Asse

ssm

ent-

Bett

er in

dica

tors

4

Pare

nts

Asse

ssm

ent-

Pair

with

fund

ing

4 Pa

rent

s As

sess

men

t-Re

duce

str

ess

so th

at te

ache

rs e

njoy

teac

hing

and

kid

s en

joy

lear

ning

4

Pare

nts

Asse

ssm

ent-

Relia

ble

and

fair

test

s 3

Pare

nts

Acco

unta

bilit

y-In

divi

dual

lear

ning

pla

ns &

goa

ls fo

r eac

h ch

ild

3 Pa

rent

s Ac

coun

tabi

lity-

Reco

gniz

e th

e ne

eds

of e

ach

com

mun

ity

3 Pa

rent

s Ac

coun

tabi

lity-

Reso

urce

s &

Acc

essi

bilit

y to

pro

gram

min

g 3

Pare

nts

Asse

ssm

ent-

Kids

are

left

beh

ind

beca

use

of c

urre

nt s

yste

m

2 Pa

rent

s Ac

coun

tabi

lity-

Colle

ge R

eady


FORT

WO

RTH

Q

UES

TIO

N #

1 RE

FLEC

T U

PON

TH

E PR

ESEN

TATI

ON

S TH

AT Y

OU

PRE

VIEW

ED B

EFO

RE T

HE

MEE

TIN

G.

WH

AT A

RE S

OM

E KE

Y LE

ARN

ING

S O

R IM

PORT

ANT

TAKE

-A-W

AYS

THAT

SH

OU

LD S

HAP

E O

UR

CON

VERS

ATIO

N?

Gre

en =

Bus

ines

s Le

ader

s

Red

= E

duca

tors

B

lue

= Pa

rent

s

NU

MBE

R O

F VO

TES

GRO

UP'

S RE

SPO

NSE

RE

SPO

NSE

S TO

TH

IS Q

UES

TIO

N

Find

ing

a ba

lanc

e to

test

ing

and

be a

war

e of

uni

nten

ded

cons

eque

nces

…lik

e a

loss

of c

onte

nt in

one

are

a w

hile

18

Ed

ucat

ors

conc

entr

atin

g on

ano

ther

.

Mov

ing

forw

ard

ther

e w

ill b

e 5

dom

ains

. *Q

uest

ion:

With

the

Com

mun

ity/P

aren

t Eng

agem

ent b

eing

loca

lly d

eter

min

ed, w

ill it

be

“sta

cked

?”

*Pro

: Mul

ti-di

men

sion

al.

*Con

? W

ith it

con

stan

tly c

hang

ing,

will

we

ever

be

able

to re

ach

the

goal

? (b

efor

e w

e ge

t the

re, t

hey

chan

ge)

16

Educ

ator

s *G

lad

to s

ee C

omm

unity

/Par

ent e

ngag

emen

t bro

ught

in-e

ncou

rage

s pa

rtne

rshi

p.

Asse

ssm

ent s

houl

d ha

ve a

pur

pose

. 14

Ed

ucat

ors

• As

sess

men

t typ

es s

houl

d m

atch

a c

lear

, rea

listic

edu

catio

nal g

oal.

Prog

ress

ion

tow

ards

gro

wth

. •

Clea

r sta

tem

ents

nee

ded

abou

t exp

ecta

tions

, bef

ore

test

ing!

11

Ed

ucat

ors

• Be

fore

impl

emen

ting

new

acc

ount

abili

ty s

yste

m, w

ork

out t

he k

inks

(thi

nk th

roug

h en

tire

proc

ess)

.

Pres

enta

tions

– O

verv

iew

of e

volu

tion

of a

sses

smen

ts b

egin

ning

with

TEA

MS.

9

Educ

ator

s Ke

y le

arni

ngs

– qu

estio

ns h

ave

deve

lope

d to

a ri

goro

us le

vel-b

eyon

d de

velo

pmen

tal l

evel

of s

tude

nts.

8

Educ

ator

s Fo

cus

on te

st to

o he

avy

8 Ed

ucat

ors

Mea

ning

ful f

eedb

ack

to g

uide

inst

ruct

ion

4 Ed

ucat

ors

Stud

ent e

valu

atio

n ne

eds

to b

e dy

nam

ic –

mor

e m

easu

res

besi

des

“STA

AR”

2 Ed

ucat

ors

Elim

inat

e st

anda

rdiz

ed te

stin

g sc

ores

for e

duca

tor e

valu

atio

n Ef

fect

ive

asse

ssm

ents

ser

ve le

arni

ng, a

lign

with

goa

ls, m

easu

re w

hat m

atte

rs, s

houl

d be

fair

– ar

e th

ese

goal

s 2?

Ed

ucat

ors

bein

g m

et a

nd h

ow d

o w

e en

sure

thes

e go

als

mov

ing

forw

ard?

1

Educ

ator

s Te

sts

shou

ld h

ave

prac

tical

app

licat

ion

10

Pare

nts

Failu

re to

add

ress

the

need

s of

a d

iver

se p

opul

atio

n 7

Pare

nts

Dis

cove

ry, o

pen-

ende

d

Fort Worth


QU

ESTI

ON

#1

REFL

ECT

UPO

N T

HE

PRES

ENTA

TIO

NS

THAT

YO

U P

REVI

EWED

BEF

ORE

TH

E M

EETI

NG

. W

HAT

ARE

SO

ME

KEY

LEAR

NIN

GS

OR

IMPO

RTAN

T TA

KE-A

-WAY

S TH

AT S

HO

ULD

SH

APE

OU

R CO

NVE

RSAT

ION

?

Gre

en =

Bus

ines

s Le

ader

s

Red

= E

duca

tors

B

lue

= Pa

rent

s

NU

MBE

R O

F VO

TES

GRO

UP'

S RE

SPO

NSE

RE

SPO

NSE

S TO

TH

IS Q

UES

TIO

N

4 Pa

rent

s Te

st b

alan

ce is

off

– ne

ed to

re-e

valu

ate

2 Pa

rent

s M

ore

“int

erim

” 2

Pare

nts

Allo

w te

ache

rs to

rete

ach

as n

eede

d pe

r stu

dent

. Pa

rent

s N

eed

acce

ss to

the

info

rmat

ion

Pare

nts

Curr

ent a

ccou

ntab

ility

sys

tem

- H

ow o

ne te

st s

how

s al

l mea

sure

s Pa

rent

s Ru

bric

s Pa

rent

s Te

ache

rs th

at a

re d

edic

ated

to p

rofe

ssio

n Pa

rent

s M

ultip

le m

easu

res

Pare

nts

Mor

e of

“fo

rmat

ive”

eve

rybo

dy le

arni

ng

Pare

nts

Ther

e is

too

muc

h fo

cus

on “

sum

mat

ive”

test

Pa

rent

s Te

ach

the

mat

eria

l the

y ne

ed to

lear

n at

thei

r lev

el v

s. ju

st te

achi

ng te

st

Pare

nts

Leng

th o

f tim

e of

the

test

– m

ore

age

appr

opria

te.

The

test

is to

o lo

ng.

Pare

nts

Non

/AP

we

are

not s

ent

Pare

nts

All t

each

ers,

adm

in, p

aren

ts a

ll of

sam

e pa

ge to

geth

er


FORT

WO

RTH

QU

ESTI

ON

#2

WH

AT IS

TH

E RO

LE/P

URP

OSE

OF

ASSE

SSM

ENT

AND

ACC

OU

NTA

BILI

TY IN

TH

E ED

UCA

TIO

N O

F O

UR

CHIL

DRE

N?

Gre

en =

Bus

ines

s Le

ader

s

Red

= E

duca

tors

B

lue

= Pa

rent

s

NU

MBE

R O

F VO

TES

GRO

UP'

S RE

SPO

NSE

RE

SPO

NSE

S TO

TH

IS Q

UES

TIO

N

Busi

ness

Sh

ould

be

used

as

a to

ol/r

esou

rce

to h

elp

iden

tify

area

s of

sup

port

Bu

sine

ss

Focu

ses

on s

peci

fic n

eeds

of a

ll ch

ildre

n Bu

sine

ss

Dia

gnos

tic –

not

hig

h st

akes

Bu

sine

ss

Auth

entic

ass

essm

ents

– b

road

rang

e

Busi

ness

Sa

mpl

ing

for a

sses

smen

ts –

to d

eter

min

e pr

oces

ses

& fu

nctio

ns –

sam

plin

g fo

r TEK

S –

diag

nost

ics

for a

ll In

form

inst

ruct

ion,

not

rate

sch

ools

•

Impr

ove

scho

ols

22

Educ

ator

s •

Eval

uatio

n of

pro

gram

s 20

Ed

ucat

ors

To m

easu

re E

ACH

stu

dent

’s in

divi

dual

pro

gres

s fr

om th

eir s

tart

ing

poin

t. 17

Ed

ucat

ors

The

role

is to

impr

ove

inst

ruct

ion,

to e

ncou

rage

stu

dent

s to

dem

onst

rate

thei

r kno

wle

dge

and

skill

s.

8 Ed

ucat

ors

Fair

asse

ssm

ent f

or s

tude

nts

w/s

peci

al n

eeds

and

sub

-pop

s.

7 Ed

ucat

ors

Shou

ld fo

cus

on le

arni

ng

6 Ed

ucat

ors

Asse

ssm

ent-

Nor

min

g 5

Educ

ator

s As

sess

men

t driv

es in

stru

ctio

n –

lear

ning

jour

ney/

proc

ess

vs. a

poi

nt in

tim

e 5

Educ

ator

s D

rill d

own

to in

divi

dual

stu

dent

pro

gres

s as

wel

l as

exam

inin

g sy

stem

ic p

rogr

ess.

5

Educ

ator

s Se

t up

stud

ent f

or s

ucce

ss.

4 Ed

ucat

ors

Mea

sure

stu

dent

gro

wth

and

pro

gres

s m

onito

ring.

2

Educ

ator

s Id

entif

y st

reng

ths

and

wea

knes

ses

1 Ed

ucat

ors

Prov

ide

Equi

ty:

All s

tude

nts

are

grow

ing

& h

ave

equa

l acc

ess/

educ

atio

n 1

Educ

ator

s O

bser

vatio

n: A

sses

smen

t sho

uld

not b

e en

d of

itse

lf.

1 Ed

ucat

ors

Are

we

doin

g w

hat w

e’re

cha

rged

to d

o?

Educ

ator

s Ac

coun

tabi

lity

to e

nsur

e ef

fect

ive

educ

ator

s, n

ot ti

ed s

olel

y to

Sta

ndar

dize

d Te

stin

g Ed

ucat

ors

Acco

unta

bilit

y-En

sure

stu

dent

s ar

e pr

epar

ed fo

r pos

t- s

econ

dary

edu

catio

n Ed

ucat

ors

Acro

ss th

e bo

ard

acco

unta

bilit

y at

all

leve

ls

Educ

ator

s As

sess

men

t-As

sess

gap

s in

lear

ning


QU

ESTI

ON

#2

WH

AT IS

TH

E RO

LE/P

URP

OSE

OF

ASSE

SSM

ENT

AND

ACC

OU

NTA

BILI

TY IN

TH

E ED

UCA

TIO

N O

F O

UR

CHIL

DRE

N?

Gre

en =

Bus

ines

s Le

ader

s

Red

= E

duca

tors

B

lue

= Pa

rent

s

NU

MBE

R O

F VO

TES

GRO

UP'

S RE

SPO

NSE

RE

SPO

NSE

S TO

TH

IS Q

UES

TIO

N

Educ

ator

s As

sess

men

t-Pr

ovid

e ed

ucat

ors

an o

ppor

tuni

ty to

mak

e ad

just

men

ts

Educ

ator

s As

sess

men

t Pur

pose

-det

erm

inin

g st

uden

t und

erst

andi

ng a

nd le

arni

ng/i

nfor

min

g in

stru

ctio

n Ed

ucat

ors

Asse

ssm

ent R

ole-

dis

tric

t/te

ache

r acc

ount

abili

ty, d

eter

min

e ca

mpu

s im

prov

emen

t Ed

ucat

ors

To s

how

aut

hent

ic le

arni

ng a

nd m

aste

ry.

Educ

ator

s Ex

amin

e pr

ogre

ss v

s cu

t sco

re p

ass/

fail

prog

ress

21

Pa

rent

s Ad

voca

te fo

r spe

cial

edu

catio

n le

arni

ng c

halle

nges

14

Pa

rent

s St

op th

e sc

hool

-to-

pris

on p

ipel

ine

Curr

ent R

ole

– ca

uses

med

ical

issu

es in

stu

dent

s to

incl

ude

ulce

rs, m

enta

l bre

akdo

wn,

poo

r sel

f-es

teem

, pan

ic

12

Pare

nts

atta

cks

(stu

dent

vie

w)

8 Pa

rent

s To

pre

pare

our

chi

ldre

n fo

r fur

ther

edu

catio

n or

em

ploy

men

t wor

kfor

ce

Basi

c sk

ills

test

is s

omet

hing

we

have

got

ten

away

from

. Th

is s

houl

d ga

uge

whe

re th

ey a

re a

cade

mic

ally

to

8 Pa

rent

s w

here

they

nee

d m

ore

stud

y.

3 Pa

rent

s Te

ache

rs te

ach

to te

st o

nly

– w

hen

test

ove

r, sc

hool

mus

t be

over

3

Pare

nts

Rais

es &

bon

uses

or p

rom

otio

ns b

ased

on

stud

ents

’ sco

res

inst

ead

of te

ache

rs’ a

bilit

y 1

Pare

nts

Iden

tify

mas

tery

of m

ater

ials

(the

re is

no

acco

unta

bilit

y)

1 Pa

rent

s Cu

rren

tly, i

t is

the

driv

ing

forc

e of

edu

catio

n.

Pare

nts

Purp

ose

– to

judg

e te

ache

rs o

n th

eir a

bilit

y to

teac

h te

st ta

king

ski

lls

Pare

nts

To m

ake

sure

you

(stu

dent

) has

lear

ned

wha

t is

nece

ssar

y Pa

rent

s N

orm

refe

renc

ed re

sults

Pa

rent

s U

se a

sses

smen

t as

enric

hmen

t


FORT

WO

RTH

QU

ESTI

ON

#3

WH

AT IS

WO

RKIN

G W

ELL

WIT

H O

UR

CURR

ENT

SYST

EM O

F AS

SESS

MEN

T AN

D A

CCO

UN

TABI

LITY

?

Gre

en =

Bus

ines

s Le

ader

s

Red

= E

duca

tors

B

lue

= Pa

rent

s

NU

MBE

R O

F VO

TES

GRO

UP'

S RE

SPO

NSE

RE

SPO

NSE

S TO

TH

IS Q

UES

TIO

N

Busi

ness

Cu

rren

tly m

easu

res

all

Busi

ness

H

elps

targ

et re

sour

ces

Teac

hers

und

erst

and

the

mat

eria

l, w

e ca

n id

entif

y ar

eas

of im

prov

emen

t/tr

ends

, mee

t fed

eral

gui

delin

es, f

ocus

4?

Ed

ucat

ors

dist

rict r

esou

rces

and

incr

ease

par

ent a

war

enes

s.

4 Ed

ucat

ors

Ther

e is

an

incr

ease

d in

tere

st in

car

eer a

nd c

olle

ge re

adin

ess.

4

Educ

ator

s La

ter d

ates

for t

estin

g 3

Educ

ator

s St

anda

rdiz

ed T

ests

- St

ate

stan

dard

s ne

ed to

be

taug

ht –

but

not

ass

esse

d in

sam

e w

ay (i

n cl

assr

oom

). 2

Educ

ator

s D

ata-

rich

(but

info

rmat

ion

poor

). 2

Educ

ator

s ID

Ach

ieve

men

t Gap

s - S

ubgr

oups

; Acc

ount

abili

ty; I

nstr

uctio

n &

Sup

port

1

Educ

ator

s O

ne in

dex

is b

ased

on

stud

ent p

rogr

ess.

1

Educ

ator

s Te

st M

anag

emen

t 1

Educ

ator

s Lo

gist

ical

Sys

tem

s 1

Educ

ator

s As

sess

men

t-Re

leva

nt fo

r tim

es; R

efle

cts

TEKS

; Tea

cher

s-m

eetin

g m

ovin

g ta

rget

1

Educ

ator

s In

dex

2 - g

row

th

1 Ed

ucat

ors

Cut b

ack

on th

e nu

mbe

r of t

ests

Ed

ucat

ors

Har

d to

iden

tify.

Ed

ucat

ors

# of

EO

C’s

wer

e de

crea

sed.

Ed

ucat

ors

Test

s ar

e re

leas

ed to

exa

min

e an

d an

alyz

e.

Educ

ator

s ST

AAR

is b

ette

r alig

ned

to A

P te

sts

than

(re:

crit

ical

thin

king

ski

lls)

Educ

ator

s Al

low

ed M

odifi

catio

ns

Educ

ator

s Te

ache

r aw

aren

ess

of s

ub-p

opul

atio

ns h

as in

crea

sed

trem

endo

usly

. Ed

ucat

ors

Incl

udes

mul

tiple

mea

sure

s Ed

ucat

ors

Incl

usiv

e of

all

child

ren

16

Pare

nts

Not

hing

is w

orki

ng w

ell.

We

feel

that

the

man

ner o

f ass

essm

ent f

or s

tude

nts

are

exce

edin

gly

lack

ing.

8

Pare

nts

Not

hing

4

Pare

nts

Not

pen

aliz

ing

stud

ents

for n

ot u

sing

pre

sent

ed s

trat

egie

s.


QU

ESTI

ON

#3

WH

AT IS

WO

RKIN

G W

ELL

WIT

H O

UR

CURR

ENT

SYST

EM O

F AS

SESS

MEN

T AN

D A

CCO

UN

TABI

LITY

?

Gre

en =

Bus

ines

s Le

ader

s

Red

= E

duca

tors

B

lue

= Pa

rent

s

NU

MBE

R O

F VO

TES

GRO

UP'

S RE

SPO

NSE

RE

SPO

NSE

S TO

TH

IS Q

UES

TIO

N

3 Pa

rent

s It

has

driv

en p

aren

tal i

nter

est i

n w

ays

to im

prov

e th

eir c

hild

ren’

s ed

ucat

ion

and

acco

unta

bilit

y m

etric

s.

They

sho

uld

not b

e ch

angi

ng th

e re

quire

men

t if i

t was

wor

king

wel

l. If

ther

e is

som

ethi

ng g

ood

coul

d yo

u 2

Pare

nts

expl

ain.

1

Pare

nts

That

ther

e is

a s

yste

m in

pla

ce to

iden

tify

gaps

1

Pare

nts

Not

hav

e pe

p ra

llies

to p

ut e

xtra

str

ess

on te

st.

1 Pa

rent

s Sc

antr

on s

kills


FORT

WO

RTH

QU

ESTI

ON

#4

WH

AT F

ACTO

RS S

HO

ULD

TH

E N

EXT

GEN

ERAT

ION

CO

MM

ISSI

ON

ON

ASS

ESSM

ENTS

AN

D A

CCO

UN

TABI

LITY

CO

NSI

DER

AS

THEY

MAK

E TH

EIR

RECO

MM

END

ATIO

NS?

Gre

en =

Bus

ines

s Le

ader

s

Red

= E

duca

tors

B

lue

= Pa

rent

s

NU

MBE

R O

F VO

TES

GRO

UP'

S RE

SPO

NSE

RE

SPO

NSE

S TO

TH

IS Q

UES

TIO

N

Busi

ness

As

sess

men

ts n

eed

to b

e m

ore

than

one

sho

t Bu

sine

ss

Mor

e th

an o

ne a

sses

smen

t

Busi

ness

Ra

ndom

ized

test

ing

for u

nifo

rmity

acr

oss

stat

es fo

r pro

cess

& fu

nctio

nalit

y Bu

sine

ss

Dia

gnos

tic fo

r eac

h ki

d Bu

sine

ss

Rem

ove

vend

or in

fluen

ce

Busi

ness

G

oal 2

– P

rovi

de th

e ne

cess

ary

reso

urce

s, $

to…

Bu

sine

ss

Goa

l 3 -

Far t

rend

– (n

ot s

ingl

e)

18

Educ

ator

s Te

ache

r’s c

lass

room

is m

ore

than

just

circ

ling

bubb

les

– th

ere

is c

reat

ivity

, inq

uiry

, etc

. Ev

ery

test

righ

t now

is a

read

ing

test

so

it’s

not c

lear

as

to w

heth

er th

ose

not m

eetin

g st

anda

rd a

re d

ue to

16

Ed

ucat

ors

read

ing

prob

lem

s or

lack

of c

onte

nt k

now

ledg

e.

11

Educ

ator

s Re

mov

e sc

hool

ratin

g-El

imin

ate

com

petit

ions

bet

wee

n sc

hool

s 8

Educ

ator

s As

sess

men

t bas

ed o

n le

ss te

stin

g (i.

e. p

ortf

olio

s, p

roje

cts,

etc

.) 8

Educ

ator

s As

sess

Who

le C

hild

W

e ne

ed to

thin

k ab

out t

he e

mot

iona

l str

ain

on e

very

one

and

how

do

we

mak

e th

e as

sess

men

ts

8 Ed

ucat

ors

deve

lopm

enta

lly a

ppro

pria

te.

5 Ed

ucat

ors

Asse

ssm

ent-

Mor

e fle

xibi

lity

for i

ndiv

idua

l stu

dent

nee

ds

5 Ed

ucat

ors

Asse

ssm

ents

sho

uld

mea

sure

indi

vidu

al g

row

th.

4 Ed

ucat

ors

Asse

ssm

ent-

Focu

s on

equ

ity fo

r sub

pop

ulat

ion

4 Ed

ucat

ors

Test

s ar

e to

o flu

id –

mov

ing

targ

et -

• N

ot a

ble

to s

how

gro

wth

whe

n te

st is

diff

eren

t eac

h ye

ar

4 Ed

ucat

ors

Teac

her &

stu

dent

acc

ount

abili

ty n

eeds

sup

port

from

legi

slat

ure,

SBO

E, S

choo

l Boa

rd, e

tc.

4 Ed

ucat

ors

Stud

ent p

opul

atio

n to

day

is v

ery

diffe

rent

so

we

cann

ot u

se p

revi

ous

test

s to

pre

pare

test

s of

tom

orro

w.

3 Ed

ucat

ors

Stat

e re

cogn

ition

for s

choo

l pro

gram

s &

suc

cess

bey

ond

core

con

tent

– i.

e.: e

ngin

eerin

g , f

ine

arts


QU

ESTI

ON

#4

WH

AT F

ACTO

RS S

HO

ULD

TH

E N

EXT

GEN

ERAT

ION

CO

MM

ISSI

ON

ON

ASS

ESSM

ENTS

AN

D A

CCO

UN

TABI

LITY

CO

NSI

DER

AS

THEY

MAK

E TH

EIR

RECO

MM

END

ATIO

NS?

Gre

en =

Bus

ines

s Le

ader

s

Red

= E

duca

tors

B

lue

= Pa

rent

s

NU

MBE

R O

F VO

TES

GRO

UP'

S RE

SPO

NSE

RE

SPO

NSE

S TO

TH

IS Q

UES

TIO

N

3 Ed

ucat

ors

Cons

iste

ncy

in g

row

th s

cale

by

grad

e - P

ract

ical

ver

tical

sca

le; R

IT s

cale

; Ada

ptiv

e fo

r fin

ding

inst

ruct

iona

l lev

el

3 Ed

ucat

ors

Are

we

tryi

ng to

mea

sure

con

tent

kno

wle

dge

or a

bilit

y to

take

test

?

2 Ed

ucat

ors

Curr

icul

um/a

sses

smen

ts a

lignm

ent t

o po

st-s

econ

dary

sta

ndar

ds-S

AT, A

CT, C

ritic

al T

hink

ing

2 Ed

ucat

ors

Mak

e as

sess

men

ts v

arie

d; a

sses

smen

ts n

ot a

s w

eigh

ted.

1

Educ

ator

s D

on’t

“tw

eak”

a b

roke

n sy

stem

– re

inve

nt s

yste

m

1 Ed

ucat

ors

Elim

inat

e m

ovin

g ta

rget

- m

ake

asse

ssm

ents

that

are

pro

gres

sive

from

gra

de to

gra

de

1 Ed

ucat

ors

Iden

tify

high

prio

rity

stan

dard

s - d

epth

of i

nstr

uctio

n; u

nder

stan

dabl

e fo

r edu

cato

rs/p

aren

ts

1 Ed

ucat

ors

Ther

e no

mor

e ad

ditio

nal m

inut

es in

a d

ay.

1 Ed

ucat

ors

Cons

ider

stu

dent

s w

ith s

peci

al n

eeds

.

1 Ed

ucat

ors

How

pov

erty

impa

cts

lang

uage

(voc

abul

ary)

and

lear

ning

.

Educ

ator

s Em

otio

nal w

elfa

re o

f tes

ting

for s

tude

nts

& te

ache

rs

Educ

ator

s Re

duce

teac

hing

to th

e te

st

Educ

ator

s Ke

ep th

e co

re c

onte

nt e

ven

in n

on-t

este

d ye

ars

Educ

ator

s As

sess

men

ts a

re n

ot u

sed

to e

valu

ate

teac

hers

Ed

ucat

ors

Rest

rict D

istr

ict/

Cam

pus

Benc

hmar

k Te

stin

g 15

Pa

rent

s Ta

ke in

divi

dual

lear

ning

sty

le in

to a

ccou

nt fo

r eac

h ch

ild.

They

all

lear

n di

ffere

ntly

. 5

Pare

nts

Mon

ey b

eing

spe

nt o

n te

stin

g vs

. edu

catio

n 5

Pare

nts

Teac

her w

orkl

oad

havi

ng to

acc

omm

odat

e th

e ST

AAR

test

5

Pare

nts

Cultu

re, n

eeds

, lan

guag

e 4

Pare

nts

Stud

ents

w/l

earn

ing

disa

bilit

ies

Test

sho

uld

be s

mal

ler s

egm

ents

spa

ced

thro

ugho

ut y

ear-

Base

d on

wha

t is

taug

ht d

urin

g th

e se

ssio

n &

be

grad

e 4

Pare

nts

leve

l app

ropr

iate

(6 w

eek

test

) (se

cond

ary

sem

este

r tes

ts).

3 Pa

rent

s Al

l tea

cher

s as

sess

men

ts s

houl

d no

t be

base

d so

lely

bas

ed o

n st

uden

ts te

st s

core

s.

3 Pa

rent

s Te

chno

logy

nee

ds to

upd

ate.

3

Pare

nts

Thin

k ou

t of t

he b

ox, c

omm

issi

on b

e fu

lly in

volv

ed


QU

ESTI

ON

#4

WH

AT F

ACTO

RS S

HO

ULD

TH

E N

EXT

GEN

ERAT

ION

CO

MM

ISSI

ON

ON

ASS

ESSM

ENTS

AN

D A

CCO

UN

TABI

LITY

CO

NSI

DER

AS

THEY

MAK

E TH

EIR

RECO

MM

END

ATIO

NS?

Gre

en =

Bus

ines

s Le

ader

s

Red

= E

duca

tors

B

lue

= Pa

rent

s

NU

MBE

R O

F VO

TES

GRO

UP'

S RE

SPO

NSE

RE

SPO

NSE

S TO

TH

IS Q

UES

TIO

N

2 Pa

rent

s Im

pact

to S

AT &

ACT

sco

res

of T

exas

stu

dent

s 2

Pare

nts

Mai

ntai

n gr

owth

mea

sure

2

Pare

nts

Clos

e at

tent

ion

for S

WD

, ELL

2

Pare

nts

Mul

tiple

hig

h st

akes

test

s at

the

sam

e tim

e 2

Pare

nts

Wat

ch th

e ki

ds ta

ke th

e te

st.

“Acc

ount

abili

ty”

1 Pa

rent

s St

atis

tical

sam

plin

g 1

Pare

nts

Redu

ce th

e fr

eque

ncy

of th

e be

nchm

arks

put

into

pla

ce.

1 Pa

rent

s St

ate

goal

s - N

eed

to b

e lo

oked

at.

Are

they

att

aina

ble?

Are

they

infla

ted?

1

Pare

nts

Hol

d pa

rent

s ac

coun

tabl

e fo

r the

ir ch

ildre

n.

Pare

nts

Focu

s on

func

tiona

l & re

leva

nt c

urric

ulum

.


FORT

WO

RTH

QU

ESTI

ON

#5

WH

AT S

UG

GES

TIO

NS

FOR

IMPR

OVE

MEN

T O

F O

UR

CURR

ENT

SYST

EM W

OU

LD Y

OU

GIV

E TO

TH

E CO

MM

ISSI

ON

?

Gre

en =

Bus

ines

s Le

ader

s

Red

= E

duca

tors

B

lue

= Pa

rent

s

NU

MBE

R O

F VO

TES

GRO

UP'

S RE

SPO

NSE

RE

SPO

NSE

S TO

TH

IS Q

UES

TIO

N

Busi

ness

Re

mov

e A-

F sy

stem

Bu

sine

ss

C in

Ale

do c

ompa

red

to C

in R

io G

rand

e Va

lley?

Bu

sine

ss

Mov

ing

the

bar t

oo m

uch

& to

o of

ten

Busi

ness

Ch

angi

ng p

erfo

rman

ce in

dica

tors

cre

ates

inco

nsis

tenc

y Bu

sine

ss

Inap

prop

riate

or s

kew

ed

Busi

ness

H

ow d

oes

this

tell

us h

ow k

ids

are

prep

ared

for b

usin

ess

or c

olle

ge-p

ost s

econ

dary

read

ines

s?

15

Educ

ator

s Co

nsid

er c

ogni

tive

abili

ties

of s

tude

nts

whe

n cr

eatin

g te

sts.

11

Ed

ucat

ors

Star

t Ove

r 10

Ed

ucat

ors

Crea

te re

alis

tic p

assi

ng s

tand

ards

& te

sts

that

refle

ct th

em.

8 Ed

ucat

ors

Wha

t is

the

purp

ose

of s

tate

ass

essm

ents

? 6

Educ

ator

s Re

turn

to lo

cal c

ontr

ol

4 Ed

ucat

ors

Alte

rnat

ives

to p

en a

nd p

aper

test

In

clud

e m

ultip

le (m

eani

ngfu

l) m

easu

res

for s

tude

nt g

row

th, i

.e.:

writ

ing

port

folio

, han

ds-o

n ex

perie

nce

and

4 Ed

ucat

ors

expo

sure

3

Educ

ator

s Co

nsid

er a

val

ue a

dded

gra

ding

sys

tem

3

Educ

ator

s Is

ther

e a

need

to te

st a

ll or

wou

ld ra

ndom

wor

k to

sho

w w

hat d

istr

icts

are

doi

ng w

ell

3 Ed

ucat

ors

Poss

ible

sm

alle

r “un

it te

st”

rath

er th

an y

early

kill

er te

st!

2 Ed

ucat

ors

Cons

ider

test

ing

gro

wth

and

mea

sure

gro

wth

. 2

Educ

ator

s Fe

wer

Tes

ts

2 Ed

ucat

ors

Test

ing

Late

r 2

Educ

ator

s Re

alig

n TE

KS to

app

ropr

iate

1

Educ

ator

s Co

nsid

er th

at a

ll ad

min

istr

ator

s ar

e no

t aca

dem

ic le

ader

s 1

Educ

ator

s N

ot e

noug

h tim

e/da

ys to

teac

h re

quire

d/te

sted

cur

ricul

um

1 Ed

ucat

ors

Cons

ider

test

ing

only

fede

ral r

equi

rem

ents

to re

duce

am

ount

of t

estin

g 1

Educ

ator

s Re

view

Nat

iona

l vs.

Sta

te S

tand

ards


QU

ESTI

ON

#5

WH

AT S

UG

GES

TIO

NS

FOR

IMPR

OVE

MEN

T O

F O

UR

CURR

ENT

SYST

EM W

OU

LD Y

OU

GIV

E TO

TH

E CO

MM

ISSI

ON

?

Gre

en =

Bus

ines

s Le

ader

s

Red

= E

duca

tors

B

lue

= Pa

rent

s

NU

MBE

R O

F VO

TES

GRO

UP'

S RE

SPO

NSE

RE

SPO

NSE

S TO

TH

IS Q

UES

TIO

N

1 Ed

ucat

ors

Nat

ive

lang

uage

opt

ions

at h

igh

scho

ol le

vel

1 Ed

ucat

ors

Port

folio

1

Educ

ator

s Le

t cur

rent

edu

cato

r fro

m a

ll ty

pes

of d

istr

icts

hav

e a

seat

at t

he ta

ble

- Titl

e I,

high

inco

me,

etc

. 1

Educ

ator

s Ag

e/br

ain

leve

l Ed

ucat

ors

Brin

g ba

ck te

ache

r pan

els.

Ed

ucat

ors

Also

the

test

nee

ds to

be

shor

tene

d fo

r ele

men

tary

sch

ools

. Ed

ucat

ors

Reco

nsid

er A

-F s

yste

m.

Educ

ator

s H

ow d

oes

stat

e as

sess

men

t sup

port

the

goal

of e

duca

tion?

Ed

ucat

ors

Dat

a Tu

rnar

ound

Tim

e Ed

ucat

ors

Bett

er w

ay to

ass

ess

prog

ress

Ed

ucat

ors

Supp

orts

and

reso

urce

s - k

eep

up w

ith th

e ch

ange

s in

acc

ount

abili

ty a

nd s

tand

ards

Ed

ucat

ors

Elim

inat

ion

of c

ompa

rison

gro

ups

11

Pare

nts

Mor

e po

wer

to p

aren

ts to

opt

out

thei

r chi

ldre

n fr

om th

e ST

AAR

test

11

Pa

rent

s El

imin

ate

tric

k qu

estio

ns.

8 Pa

rent

s W

hy a

re w

e te

stin

g ev

ery

year

3-8

. Th

ey s

houl

d do

sho

rter

term

test

ing

(min

i tes

t).

8 Pa

rent

s St

op h

oldi

ng te

ache

rs re

spon

sibl

e fo

r stu

dent

s’ S

TAAR

test

sco

res

7 Pa

rent

s H

ave

a bo

ard

that

repr

esen

ts th

at it

ser

ves

Stop

forc

ing

elem

enta

ry k

ids

to th

ink

of c

olle

ge o

r car

eer.

Let

them

be

kids

- N

ovel

idea

. Rec

ess

for p

hysi

cal

6 Pa

rent

s ac

tivity

Fo

cus

on th

e m

ajor

ity o

f you

r stu

dent

s w

hat t

heir

need

s ar

e &

dis

pers

e m

oney

acc

ordi

ng to

thei

r ind

ivid

ual

5 Pa

rent

s ne

eds,

i.e.

tech

nolo

gy, s

port

s, a

fter

sch

ool p

rogr

ams

– 5

Pare

nts

Opt

out

form

Sc

rap

it - R

ealig

nmen

t to

prev

ious

teac

hing

met

hods

so

stud

ents

are

taug

ht li

fe-lo

ng s

kills

and

the

kids

will

be

4 Pa

rent

s ab

le to

rese

arch

and

dev

ise

answ

ers.

4

Pare

nts

How

to g

ive

auth

ority

to lo

cal d

istr

icts

2

Pare

nts

Div

ide

up th

e su

bjec

ts a

nd th

e tim

efra

me

of te

stin

g. D

ata

over

load

. 2

Pare

nts

Too

muc

h da

ta

2 Pa

rent

s Es

tabl

ish

a st

ate-

leve

l boa

rd o

f par

ents

of T

exas

stu

dent

s


QU

ESTI

ON

#5

WH

AT S

UG

GES

TIO

NS

FOR

IMPR

OVE

MEN

T O

F O

UR

CURR

ENT

SYST

EM W

OU

LD Y

OU

GIV

E TO

TH

E CO

MM

ISSI

ON

?

Gre

en =

Bus

ines

s Le

ader

s

Red

= E

duca

tors

B

lue

= Pa

rent

s

NU

MBE

R O

F VO

TES

GRO

UP'

S RE

SPO

NSE

RE

SPO

NSE

S TO

TH

IS Q

UES

TIO

N

2 Pa

rent

s El

imin

ate

elem

enta

ry &

juni

or h

igh/

inte

rmed

iate

test

ing

thro

ugh

STAA

RS.

1 Pa

rent

s Q

ualit

y co

mm

unity

mee

tings

with

eve

ryon

e ac

coun

tabl

e 1

Pare

nts

Hav

ing

them

test

ed o

n th

e ex

am &

sch

ool d

istr

ict

1 Pa

rent

s N

ot a

n “A

-F”

labe

l 1

Pare

nts

Not

as

man

y te

sts

1 Pa

rent

s Po

rtfo

lio s

yste

m

Pare

nts

Dev

elop

men

tally

app

ropr

iate


FORT

WO

RTH

Q

UES

TIO

N #

6 W

HAT

GO

ALS

FOR

(1) A

SSES

SMEN

TS A

ND

(2) A

CCO

UN

TABI

LITY

WO

ULD

YO

U R

ECO

MM

END

TO

TH

E CO

MM

ISSI

ON

TH

AT W

OU

LD S

HAP

E TH

EIR

WO

RK?

Gre

en =

Bus

ines

s Le

ader

s

Red

= E

duca

tors

B

lue

= Pa

rent

s

NU

MBE

R O

F VO

TES

GRO

UP'

S RE

SPO

NSE

RE

SPO

NSE

S TO

TH

IS Q

UES

TIO

N

Busi

ness

As

sess

men

ts n

eed

to b

e m

ore

than

one

sho

t Bu

sine

ss

Mor

e th

an o

ne a

sses

smen

t Bu

sine

ss

Rand

omiz

ed te

stin

g fo

r uni

form

ity a

cros

s st

ates

for p

roce

ss &

func

tiona

lity

Busi

ness

D

iagn

ostic

for e

ach

kid

Busi

ness

Re

mov

e ve

ndor

influ

ence

Bu

sine

ss

Goa

l 2 –

Pro

vide

the

nece

ssar

y re

sour

ces,

$ to

…

Busi

ness

G

oal 3

- Fa

r tre

nd –

(not

sin

gle)

17

Ed

ucat

ors

Do

not l

ink

asse

ssm

ent r

esul

ts to

pay

/tea

cher

eva

luat

ions

M

eani

ngfu

l fee

dbac

k to

gui

de in

stru

ctio

n fo

r edu

cato

rs/p

aren

ts/s

tude

nts-

Asse

ss th

e pr

oces

s of

lear

ning

ove

r 13

Ed

ucat

ors

time;

Indi

vidu

ally

ada

ptiv

e 12

Ed

ucat

ors

Com

mun

ity b

ased

acc

ount

abili

ty -

unde

rsta

ndab

le b

y th

e ge

nera

l pub

lic a

nd c

lear

exp

ecta

tions

10

Ed

ucat

ors

Goa

ls –

ass

essm

ents

– a

ddre

ss a

var

iety

of m

odal

ities

9

Educ

ator

s Re

cogn

ize

the

dive

rsity

of t

he s

tate

’s p

opul

atio

n-O

ne s

ize

fits

all d

oes

NO

T w

ork.

7

Educ

ator

s En

sure

that

it is

dev

elop

men

tally

app

ropr

iate

, equ

itabl

e, c

ultu

rally

resp

onsi

ve, a

nd fa

ir.

6 Ed

ucat

ors

Mak

e ac

coun

tabi

lity

part

of a

com

preh

ensi

ve s

yste

m.

6 Ed

ucat

ors

Brin

g ba

ck th

e jo

y in

lear

ning

5

Educ

ator

s Te

st le

ss, t

each

mor

e!

3 Ed

ucat

ors

STAA

R A

on c

ompu

ter-

reco

nsid

er th

is!

2 Ed

ucat

ors

Focu

s on

stu

dent

(hum

an b

eing

) rat

her t

han

data

. 2

Educ

ator

s H

ave

each

mem

ber g

o si

t in

a Ti

tle I

clas

sroo

m o

n te

st d

ays

(and

sit

thro

ugh

secu

rity

trai

ning

requ

ired

of a

ll Ev

en th

ough

Dom

ain

II is

Stu

dent

Pro

gres

s, if

test

cha

nges

from

gra

de le

vel-t

o-gr

ade

leve

l and

yea

r to

year

, it’s

2

Educ

ator

s no

t tru

e pi

ctur

e of

impr

ovem

ent.

2 Ed

ucat

ors

Do

not a

dd m

ore

test

s to

pro

ve a

ccou

ntab

ility

. 2

Educ

ator

s Co

mm

unity

Con

vers

atio

n (n

eed

cons

iste

nt) -

man

date

cha

nges

2 y

ears

out

2

Educ

ator

s G

oal –

Acc

ount

abili

ty -

wei

gh o

ther

fact

ors

(in a

dditi

on to

) tha

n st

ate

test

s


QU

ESTI

ON

#6

WH

AT G

OAL

S FO

R (1

) ASS

ESSM

ENTS

AN

D (2

) ACC

OU

NTA

BILI

TY W

OU

LD Y

OU

REC

OM

MEN

D T

O T

HE

COM

MIS

SIO

N

THAT

WO

ULD

SH

APE

THEI

R W

ORK

?

Gre

en =

Bus

ines

s Le

ader

s

Red

= E

duca

tors

B

lue

= Pa

rent

s

NU

MBE

R O

F VO

TES

GRO

UP'

S RE

SPO

NSE

RE

SPO

NSE

S TO

TH

IS Q

UES

TIO

N

If te

st is

goi

ng to

rem

ain

the

sam

e, g

o ba

ck to

allo

win

g dy

slex

ic s

tude

nts

to ta

ke re

adin

g te

st o

ver c

ours

e of

2

1 Ed

ucat

ors

days

.

1 Ed

ucat

ors

If st

uden

ts a

re re

ceiv

ing

mod

ified

inst

ruct

ion,

then

the

asse

ssm

ent s

houl

d re

flect

this

and

hav

e m

odifi

catio

ns.

1 Ed

ucat

ors

Allo

w m

ore

varie

ty/b

road

er s

pect

rum

of l

evel

of d

iffic

ulty

of q

uest

ions

. (N

ot a

ll ha

rd)

1 Ed

ucat

ors

Don

’t al

low

test

sco

re d

efin

e th

e st

uden

t (or

teac

her)

. 1

Educ

ator

s Fo

cus

on m

ovin

g ea

ch in

divi

dual

stu

dent

forw

ard

rath

er th

an c

losi

ng a

gap

. 1

Educ

ator

s In

form

sch

ools

, but

not

con

stric

t the

lear

ning

pro

cess

1

Educ

ator

s Co

nsid

er h

ow m

uch

time/

$ is

exp

ende

d an

d th

eir r

esul

ts -

is it

wor

th it

?

Educ

ator

s O

ptio

ns, f

lexi

bilit

y an

d in

divi

dual

ized

Ed

ucat

ors

Prac

ticin

g cl

assr

oom

edu

cato

r inc

lude

d in

cre

atin

g (n

ot ju

st a

toke

n pr

esen

ce)

Educ

ator

s Ac

hiev

e ba

lanc

ed te

stin

g (B

alan

ced

Asse

ssm

ent)

Ed

ucat

ors

Incl

ude

mul

tiple

mea

sure

s Ed

ucat

ors

Incl

usiv

e of

loca

lly d

efin

ed p

riorit

ies

Educ

ator

s In

clus

ive

of a

ll ch

ildre

n ta

kes

into

acc

ount

the

“lev

el”

that

eac

h ch

ild is

at

Educ

ator

s Al

low

for i

nnov

atio

n/cr

eativ

ity

Educ

ator

s Al

low

for s

tude

nts

to h

ighl

ight

thei

r str

engt

hs

Educ

ator

s Re

mem

ber,

all s

tude

nts

are

not c

reat

ed e

qual

ly

33

Pare

nts

Get

rid

of s

tand

ardi

zed

test

ing

27

Pare

nts

Flex

ibili

ty to

the

teac

hers

to te

ach

to c

onte

nt m

atte

r vs.

teac

hing

the

test

13

Pa

rent

s Fa

ir eq

uita

ble

syst

em

13

Pare

nts

Prov

ide

mor

e re

sour

ces

and

optio

ns to

acc

omm

odat

e ES

L, d

ysle

xia,

spe

cial

nee

ds s

tude

nts

11

Pare

nts

Giv

e th

em b

ack

thei

r cre

ativ

ity

11

Pare

nts

Redu

ce a

sses

smen

ts to

free

up

reso

urce

s (m

oney

, tim

e, s

taff

) for

teac

hing

7

Pare

nts

Asse

ssm

ents

are

fine

but

mus

t tea

ch e

duca

tion

cont

ent n

ot o

nly

test

taki

ng s

kills

. 4

Pare

nts

Redu

ces

anxi

ety

of s

tude

nt, t

each

ers

& p

aren

ts &

adm

inis

trat

ors

– go

als

3

Pare

nts

Less

jarg

on

3 Pa

rent

s Al

ign

with

cur

rent

cur

ricul

um


QU

ESTI

ON

#6

WH

AT G

OAL

S FO

R (1

) ASS

ESSM

ENTS

AN

D (2

) ACC

OU

NTA

BILI

TY W

OU

LD Y

OU

REC

OM

MEN

D T

O T

HE

COM

MIS

SIO

N

THAT

WO

ULD

SH

APE

THEI

R W

ORK

?

Gre

en =

Bus

ines

s Le

ader

s

Red

= E

duca

tors

B

lue

= Pa

rent

s

NU

MBE

R O

F VO

TES

GRO

UP'

S RE

SPO

NSE

RE

SPO

NSE

S TO

TH

IS Q

UES

TIO

N

2 Pa

rent

s Ac

coun

tabi

lity

to te

achi

ng m

ater

ial –

teac

hers

ade

quat

ely

teac

h m

ater

ial a

nd s

tude

nts

asse

ssm

ents

will

sho

w.

1 Pa

rent

s Ta

ke in

to a

ccou

nt a

ge o

f gro

up.


HO

UST

ON

QU

ESTI

ON

#1

REFL

ECT

UPO

N T

HE

PRES

ENTA

TIO

NS

THAT

YO

U P

REVI

EWED

BEF

ORE

TH

E M

EETI

NG

. W

HAT

ARE

SO

ME

KEY

LEAR

NIN

GS

OR

IMPO

RTAN

T TA

KE-A

-WAY

S TH

AT S

HO

ULD

SH

APE

OU

R CO

NVE

RSAT

ION

?

Gre

en =

Bus

ines

s Le

ader

s

Red

= E

duca

tors

B

lue

= Pa

rent

s

NU

MBE

R O

F VO

TES

GRO

UP'

S RE

SPO

NSE

RE

SPO

NSE

S TO

TH

IS Q

UES

TIO

N

Stud

ents

lear

n in

com

fort

able

, saf

e en

viro

nmen

ts in

ord

er to

lear

n. T

he e

nviro

nmen

t nee

ds to

be

acce

ssib

le a

nd

2 Ed

ucat

ors

acco

mm

odat

e th

ese

lear

ning

act

iviti

es to

take

pla

ce.

2 Ed

ucat

ors

Colle

ge re

adin

ess

is th

e go

al, a

nd te

ache

rs a

re e

ntru

sted

with

pro

perly

pre

parin

g st

uden

ts.

1 Ed

ucat

ors

Ther

e is

an

abun

danc

e of

TEK

S an

d te

ache

rs d

o th

eir b

est t

o te

ach

them

all.

Ed

ucat

ors

His

toric

al p

ersp

ectiv

e Ed

ucat

ors

Colle

ges

not a

lway

s se

eing

sta

ndar

dize

d te

st s

ide

Educ

ator

s Eq

uity

with

EO

C is

not

ther

e 1

Pare

nts

Fina

ncia

l and

men

tal e

qual

ity

Pare

nts

At ri

sk g

roup

s ar

e be

ing

iden

tifie

d an

d se

rvic

ed

Pare

nts

Atte

mpt

ing

to le

vel t

he p

layi

ng fi

eld

Pare

nts

We

have

a s

yste

m o

f acc

ount

abili

ty w

ithin

the

stat

e Pa

rent

s H

opef

ully

if y

our c

hild

gra

duat

es fr

om a

Tex

as H

S, th

ey w

ill b

e pr

epar

ed

Pare

nts

Com

mun

icat

ion

with

pos

t-se

cond

ary

scho

ols

Houston


HO

UST

ON

QU

ESTI

ON

#2

WH

AT IS

TH

E RO

LE/P

URP

OSE

OF

ASSE

SSM

ENT

AND

ACC

OU

NTA

BILI

TY IN

TH

E ED

UCA

TIO

N O

F O

UR

CHIL

DRE

N?

Gre

en =

Bus

ines

s Le

ader

s

Red

= E

duca

tors

B

lue

= Pa

rent

s

NU

MBE

R O

F VO

TES

GRO

UP'

S RE

SPO

NSE

RE

SPO

NSE

S TO

TH

IS Q

UES

TIO

N

6 Ed

ucat

ors

Allo

w s

tude

nts

to d

emon

stra

te th

eir b

est.

Not

a b

alan

ce o

f stu

dent

str

engt

hs n

ow.

1 Ed

ucat

ors

Allo

w s

tude

nts

to d

emon

stra

te c

olla

bora

tion,

gro

up, c

onve

rsat

ion

Educ

ator

s Is

ther

e co

nflic

t with

100

% c

olle

ge re

adin

ess

and

whe

re s

tude

nts

will

go?

Ed

ucat

ors

Mor

e ab

out d

emon

stra

tion

and

not r

eten

tion


HO

UST

ON

QU

ESTI

ON

#3

WH

AT IS

WO

RKIN

G W

ELL

WIT

H O

UR

CURR

ENT

SYST

EM O

F AS

SESS

MEN

T AN

D A

CCO

UN

TABI

LITY

?

Gre

en =

Bus

ines

s Le

ader

s

Red

= E

duca

tors

B

lue

= Pa

rent

s

NU

MBE

R O

F VO

TES

GRO

UP'

S RE

SPO

NSE

RE

SPO

NSE

S TO

TH

IS Q

UES

TIO

N

2 Ed

ucat

ors

Stan

dard

ized

test

ing

shou

ld n

ot d

icta

te te

achi

ng

2 Ed

ucat

ors

Sub-

grou

ps o

f stu

dent

s w

ho h

ad b

een

prev

ious

ly d

isen

gage

d or

oth

erw

ise

mar

gina

lized

fina

lly g

ot a

tten

tion

2 Ed

ucat

ors

We

have

lear

ned

how

not

to te

st

1 Ed

ucat

ors

Mor

e de

tails

bre

akdo

wn

of d

ata

Educ

ator

s St

akeh

olde

rs h

ave

an e

qual

voi

ce

Educ

ator

s Pa

cing

Ed

ucat

ors

Loca

l Con

trol

Ed

ucat

ors

Dom

ain

5 - c

omm

unity

inpu

t Ed

ucat

ors

Post

seco

ndar

y re

adin

ess

dire

ctio

n Ed

ucat

ors

Dec

reas

e (s

light

) on

Stan

dard

ized

Ass

essm

ents

Ed

ucat

ors

Appr

opria

te g

row

th m

easu

re

Educ

ator

s Co

llege

pre

p co

urse

Pa

rent

s Ac

coun

tabi

lity

for t

each

ers

Pare

nts

Publ

ic, d

oesn

't le

ave

kids

out

s, g

ives

info

on

child

ren,

agr

eed

upon

= e

quity

Pa

rent

s Pe

rfor

man

ce g

ap g

ets

cred

it at

all

leve

ls; e

very

kid

has

thei

r ow

n bu

bble

Pa

rent

s G

reat

er e

mph

asis

on

grow

th!


HO

UST

ON

Q

UES

TIO

N #

4 W

HAT

FAC

TORS

SH

OU

LD T

HE

NEX

T G

ENER

ATIO

N C

OM

MIS

SIO

N O

N A

SSES

SMEN

TS A

ND

ACC

OU

NTA

BILI

TY

CON

SID

ER A

S TH

EY M

AKE

THEI

R RE

COM

MEN

DAT

ION

S?

Gre

en =

Bus

ines

s Le

ader

s

Red

= E

duca

tors

B

lue

= Pa

rent

s

NU

MBE

R O

F VO

TES

GRO

UP'

S RE

SPO

NSE

RE

SPO

NSE

S TO

TH

IS Q

UES

TIO

N

Busi

ness

Si

mpl

e/fa

ir Bu

sine

ss

Wha

t doe

s a

HS

dipl

oma

stan

d fo

r?

Busi

ness

W

hat d

oes

post

-sec

onda

ry m

ean?

– In

crea

se re

adin

ess?

6

Educ

ator

s M

ultip

le fo

rms

– ev

en w

ith te

ache

r inp

ut li

ke T

ELPA

S - P

roje

ct/p

erfo

rman

ce b

ased

; stu

dent

cho

ice;

inte

rnsh

ip

6 Ed

ucat

ors

Mea

ning

ful a

sses

smen

t to

driv

e ac

coun

tabi

lity

- Bas

ed o

n hi

gh p

riorit

y le

arni

ng s

tand

ards

4

Educ

ator

s N

ot a

nnua

l ass

essm

ents

- Re

adin

g 3,

6, 1

0; M

ath

5, 8

, 9; W

ritin

g 4.

7, 1

0; S

cien

ce 5

, 11;

Soc

ial S

tudi

es 8

3

Educ

ator

s Fo

rmat

ive

asse

ssm

ent –

pus

h fr

om s

tate

leve

l 2

Educ

ator

s Fa

irnes

s fo

r Spe

cial

Nee

ds

2 Ed

ucat

ors

STAA

R M

odifi

ed n

eeds

to c

ome

back

2

Educ

ator

s ES

L ac

com

mod

atio

ns

2 Ed

ucat

ors

Sam

ple

test

ing

for a

ccou

ntab

ility

1

Educ

ator

s Ac

coun

tabi

lity

shou

ld s

uppo

rt s

tude

nts

and

asse

ssm

ents

sho

uld

supp

ort t

each

ers

1 Ed

ucat

ors

Varia

nce

in le

arni

ng s

tyle

/inf

orm

atio

n co

mpr

ehen

sion

1

Educ

ator

s Re

duce

pre

ssur

e on

chi

ldre

n. S

top

abus

ing

kids

. 1

Educ

ator

s Ex

empt

sev

erel

y di

sabl

ed

1 Ed

ucat

ors

No

EOC;

sta

te fu

nd P

SAT,

SAT

, TSI

, CTE

cer

tific

atio

ns, A

P 1

Educ

ator

s Al

l que

stio

ns s

houl

d be

mea

ning

ful

1 Ed

ucat

ors

Acco

unta

bilit

y ba

sed

on s

tand

ards

– n

ot c

ompa

rabi

lity

(no

bott

om 5

%)

Educ

ator

s Ex

empt

ions

for I

B/AP

exa

ms

Educ

ator

s Fr

eedo

m to

teac

h: d

o no

t tea

ch to

the

test

Ed

ucat

ors

Mis

lead

ing

ques

tions

nee

d to

be

rem

oved

Ed

ucat

ors

Equi

ty a

nd F

airn

ess

for a

ll Ed

ucat

ors

Is a

sta

tew

ide

asse

ssm

ent r

eally

nec

essa

ry?

Educ

ator

s St

uden

t cho

ice

for a

sses

smen

ts

Educ

ator

s As

sess

men

ts ta

ilore

d to

end

orse

men

ts


QU

ESTI

ON

#4

WH

AT F

ACTO

RS S

HO

ULD

TH

E N

EXT

GEN

ERAT

ION

CO

MM

ISSI

ON

ON

ASS

ESSM

ENTS

AN

D A

CCO

UN

TABI

LITY

CO

NSI

DER

AS

THEY

MAK

E TH

EIR

RECO

MM

END

ATIO

NS?

Gre

en =

Bus

ines

s Le

ader

s

Red

= E

duca

tors

B

lue

= Pa

rent

s

NU

MBE

R O

F VO

TES

GRO

UP'

S RE

SPO

NSE

RE

SPO

NSE

S TO

TH

IS Q

UES

TIO

N

Educ

ator

s Tr

ue g

row

th m

easu

re, e

ven

if no

t pas

s Ed

ucat

ors

Exam

ple:

MAP

– B

egin

ning

of Y

ear,

End

of Y

ear –

look

at t

his

gap

for g

row

th/p

rofe

ssio

nal d

evel

opm

ent

Educ

ator

s En

listm

ent i

n m

ilita

ry -

shou

ld b

e in

clud

ed

Educ

ator

s Eq

uity

in re

sour

ces

for f

ree/

redu

ced

lunc

h –

and

equi

ty in

ratin

gs

4 Pa

rent

s Ed

ucat

ors

and

com

pani

es th

at a

re h

iring

sho

uld

eval

uate

the

test

3 Pa

rent

s Th

e st

ate

shou

ld b

e ev

alua

ted

by th

e bu

sine

ss a

nd c

olle

ge c

omm

unity

for T

EKS

sepa

rate

ly

3 Pa

rent

s En

viro

nmen

t of c

lass

room

Co

nsis

tenc

y, tr

ust,

com

mun

icat

ion

to p

aren

ts, l

engt

hy e

xam

s, b

ackg

roun

ds m

ake

som

e te

sts

mor

e di

ffic

ult,

test

s sh

ould

mirr

or re

al w

orld

task

s, m

ore

flexi

ble

writ

ing

piec

e (e

xam

ine

it), l

imit

bias

with

in s

choo

l dis

tric

ts, H

S le

vel

2 Pa

rent

s be

ing

prep

ared

for S

TAAR

but

not

col

lege

leve

l tes

ting

1 Pa

rent

s M

ultip

le d

ata

poin

ts

1 Pa

rent

s G

oal o

f tes

t 1

Pare

nts

Alig

nmen

t with

inst

ruct

ion

and

asse

ssm

ents

nee

ds a

tten

tion

Pare

nts

ELL

stud

ents

hav

e le

ss th

an o

ne y

ear b

efor

e th

ey a

re re

quire

d to

test

Pa

rent

s H

ow m

uch

time

the

stud

ents

spe

nd te

stin

g Pa

rent

s M

ove

form

ativ

e an

d in

terim

focu

s-cl

eare

r sta

ndar

ds

Pare

nts

The

SAT

scor

es re

flect

ing

the

sam

e th

ings

Pa

rent

s Ar

e th

e te

sts

deve

lopm

enta

lly a

ppro

pria

te fo

r ele

men

tary

stu

dent

s Pa

rent

s H

igh

stak

es

Pare

nts

Diff

eren

t typ

es a

nd ti

mes

of y

ear t

estin

g Pa

rent

s Te

st te

ache

rs o

n ta

ught

info

rmat

ion

Pare

nts

Teac

her a

sses

smen

t of t

est a

nd c

hild

’s d

ay o

f tes

t tak

en

Pare

nts

Asse

ssm

ent &

acc

ount

abili

ty is

con

stan

tly c

hang

ing;

har

d to

kee

p up

for a

ll Pa

rent

s G

ood

- ext

ra p

oint

s fo

r spe

cific

thin

gs; l

ook

@ w

ide

spec

trum

Pare

nts

Shou

ld k

ids

who

do

wel

l be

allo

wed

to s

kip

exam

s?

Pare

nts

Don

't el

imin

ate

crite

rion

ques

tions

that

stu

dent

s m

ost g

et ri

ght


HO

UST

ON

QU

ESTI

ON

#5

WH

AT S

UG

GES

TIO

NS

FOR

IMPR

OVE

MEN

T O

F O

UR

CURR

ENT

SYST

EM W

OU

LD Y

OU

GIV

E TO

TH

E CO

MM

ISSI

ON

?

Gre

en =

Bus

ines

s Le

ader

s

Red

= E

duca

tors

B

lue

= Pa

rent

s

NU

MBE

R O

F VO

TES

GRO

UP'

S RE

SPO

NSE

RE

SPO

NSE

S TO

TH

IS Q

UES

TIO

N

Busi

ness

Pa

y at

tent

ion

to th

e ot

her s

ecto

r sta

ndar

diza

tion

exam

ples

/loo

se-t

ight

Bu

sine

ss

Stop

yie

ldin

g to

the

test

-mak

ers

Busi

ness

W

hat s

kill

set d

o gr

adua

tes

need

? Bu

sine

ss

Too

muc

h co

nten

t?

5 Ed

ucat

ors

A w

ay to

mea

sure

pro

gres

s fo

r stu

dent

s w

ho im

prov

e bu

t stil

l don

’t pa

ss

2 Ed

ucat

ors

Exem

pt s

ever

ely

disa

bled

Ed

ucat

ors

Who

goe

s to

col

lege

and

how

suc

cess

ful t

hey

are

Educ

ator

s St

ate

asse

ssm

ent s

core

s sh

ould

be

shar

ed w

ith te

ache

rs

Educ

ator

s Vi

sit c

lass

room

s, s

ee w

hat’s

hap

peni

ng. G

ain

qual

itativ

e pe

rspe

ctiv

e of

obj

ectiv

es/e

xpec

tatio

ns

Educ

ator

s D

ecre

ase

# of

ass

essm

ents

. Giv

e ch

oice

Ed

ucat

ors

Mor

e $

Educ

ator

s M

eani

ngfu

l tes

ting.

Tes

ts n

ot re

lata

ble

Pare

nts

shou

ld b

e gi

ven

the

resu

lts o

f abo

ve m

entio

ned

test

s in

the

sam

e gr

ade-

resu

lts s

houl

d be

spe

cific

to h

elp

12

Pare

nts

pare

nts

unde

rsta

nd w

hat t

heir

child

ren

have

mis

sed

3 Pa

rent

s As

sess

how

com

fort

able

the

child

ren

are

with

thei

r tea

cher

s vi

a st

uden

t bas

ed s

urve

ys

3 Pa

rent

s Ta

ke o

ut th

e tr

icke

ry -

qual

ity

3 Pa

rent

s El

ectr

onic

por

tfol

io

3 Pa

rent

s So

me

proo

f of a

spe

cific

ski

ll in

add

ition

to te

sts

1 Pa

rent

s M

easu

re/c

ompa

re o

utsi

de o

f the

sta

te

1 Pa

rent

s U

se te

ache

r inp

ut –

giv

e te

ache

r a %

of t

he in

put o

f the

test

1

Pare

nts

Reco

mm

end

perf

orm

ance

bas

ed a

sses

smen

ts

Pare

nts

Use

nat

iona

lly n

orm

-bas

ed te

stin

g, li

ke th

e SA

T Pa

rent

s D

o no

t use

stu

dent

s to

hel

p de

velo

p te

sts

Pare

nts

Teac

hers

sho

uld

not b

e al

low

ed to

refe

renc

e th

e te

st b

efor

ehan

d an

d st

ress

the

stud

ents

out

Pa

rent

s Be

thou

ghtf

ul o

n ho

w th

e re

sults

are

repo

rted

to p

aren

ts a

nd s

tude

nts

– su

ppor

t the

kid

s, e

tc.


QU

ESTI

ON

#5

WH

AT S

UG

GES

TIO

NS

FOR

IMPR

OVE

MEN

T O

F O

UR

CURR

ENT

SYST

EM W

OU

LD Y

OU

GIV

E TO

TH

E CO

MM

ISSI

ON

?

Gre

en =

Bus

ines

s Le

ader

s

Red

= E

duca

tors

B

lue

= Pa

rent

s

NU

MBE

R O

F VO

TES

GRO

UP'

S RE

SPO

NSE

RE

SPO

NSE

S TO

TH

IS Q

UES

TIO

N

Pare

nts

The

test

s sh

ould

be

only

to h

elp

the

stud

ents

impr

ove

Pare

nts

Chan

ge th

e w

ay w

e as

sess

spe

cial

edu

catio

n st

uden

ts

Pare

nts

Rele

vanc

y Pa

rent

s D

emon

stra

te y

our o

wn

mea

sure

s th

at a

re e

quita

ble

Pare

nts

Cert

ifica

tions

be

a pa

rt o

f stu

dent

por

tfol

io

Pare

nts

Too

muc

h be

nchm

arki

ng -

bala

nce


HO

UST

ON

QU

ESTI

ON

#6

WH

AT G

OAL

S FO

R (1

) ASS

ESSM

ENTS

AN

D (2

) ACC

OU

NTA

BILI

TY W

OU

LD Y

OU

REC

OM

MEN

D T

O T

HE

COM

MIS

SIO

N

THAT

WO

ULD

SH

APE

THEI

R W

ORK

?

Gre

en =

Bus

ines

s Le

ader

s

Red

= E

duca

tors

B

lue

= Pa

rent

s

NU

MBE

R O

F VO

TES

GRO

UP'

S RE

SPO

NSE

RE

SPO

NSE

S TO

TH

IS Q

UES

TIO

N

Busi

ness

Li

sten

to c

omm

unity

Bu

sine

ss

Incr

ease

col

lege

/car

eer r

eadi

ness

Bu

sine

ss

Tim

ely

and

deliv

erab

le p

rodu

ct

2 Ed

ucat

ors

Stud

ents

ser

ved

by s

peci

al e

duca

tion

dese

rve

diff

eren

tiate

d, n

on-s

tand

ardi

zed

asse

ssm

ents

of t

he IE

Ps

1 Ed

ucat

ors

Asse

ssm

ents

- M

ultip

le a

sses

smen

t mea

sure

s 1

Educ

ator

s Ac

coun

tabi

lity

- Re-

wei

gh p

erce

ntag

es o

f 5 d

omai

ns

1 Ed

ucat

ors

Less

pai

nful

ly s

tres

sful

for k

ids,

fam

ilies

, sch

ools

Ed

ucat

ors

Asse

ssm

ents

- Re

al li

fe a

pplic

atio

ns a

nd c

ritic

al th

inki

ng (p

ortf

olio

s)

Educ

ator

s As

sess

men

ts -

Prof

essi

onal

dev

elop

men

t L

Educ

ator

s As

sess

men

ts -

Posi

tive,

not

pun

itive

ass

essm

ent

Educ

ator

s Ac

coun

tabi

lity

- Inf

orm

inst

ruct

ion

and

less

test

ing

Educ

ator

s Ac

coun

tabi

lity

- T24

Ed

ucat

ors

Acco

unta

bilit

y - R

e-th

ink

dist

rict g

radi

ng s

yste

m b

ased

on

% o

f im

prov

emen

t, no

t on

arbi

trar

y go

als

Educ

ator

s Tr

uly

sum

mat

ive

asse

ssm

ents

– le

ss c

ram

min

g, m

ore

lear

ning

Educ

ator

s M

ore

mea

ning

ful f

or s

tude

nts

spea

king

mor

e th

an E

nglis

h Ed

ucat

ors

Sim

plify

TEK

S

Educ

ator

s In

cent

ives

for g

row

th re

lativ

e to

indi

vidu

al s

tude

nt s

ucce

ss

7 Pa

rent

s M

ake

sure

the

curr

icul

um is

mea

ning

ful a

nd d

evel

opm

enta

lly a

ppro

pria

te

7 Pa

rent

s H

ow d

o w

e co

mpa

re o

n na

tiona

lly n

orm

ed te

sts

5 Pa

rent

s Re

duce

tim

e pr

epar

ing

for t

he te

st/t

each

ing

to it

5

Pare

nts

Asse

ssm

ents

to e

nsur

e eq

uity

for a

ll ki

ds; c

halle

nge

all s

tude

nts,

pus

hed

to n

ext l

evel

4

Pare

nts

Use

ful i

nfor

mat

ion

for t

each

ers

and

pare

nts

3 Pa

rent

s Pu

t a g

rade

on

post

-sec

onda

ry re

adin

ess

dete

rmin

ed b

y pr

ofes

sors

(not

onl

y in

TX)

2

Pare

nts

Reso

urce

s to

teac

hers

to m

eet g

oals


QU

ESTI

ON

#6

WH

AT G

OAL

S FO

R (1

) ASS

ESSM

ENTS

AN

D (2

) ACC

OU

NTA

BILI

TY W

OU

LD Y

OU

REC

OM

MEN

D T

O T

HE

COM

MIS

SIO

N

THAT

WO

ULD

SH

APE

THEI

R W

ORK

?

Gre

en =

Bus

ines

s Le

ader

s

Red

= E

duca

tors

B

lue

= Pa

rent

s

NU

MBE

R O

F VO

TES

GRO

UP'

S RE

SPO

NSE

RE

SPO

NSE

S TO

TH

IS Q

UES

TIO

N

1 Pa

rent

s Fu

ndin

g fo

r int

erve

ntio

nist

s to

hel

p st

rugg

ling

kids

1

Pare

nts

Actu

ally

test

the

TEKS

1

Pare

nts

Prov

isio

n fo

r alte

rnat

ive

asse

ssm

ents

; ens

ure

alig

nmen

t 1

Pare

nts

Perf

orm

ance

task

– w

ays

to m

easu

re b

esid

es th

e te

st

1 Pa

rent

s D

iagn

ostic

and

info

rmat

ive

1 Pa

rent

s Te

ache

r hel

d m

ore

acco

unta

ble

for e

ach

child

+ p

aren

t and

stu

dent

acc

ount

able

Pa

rent

s St

ate

fund

ing

Pare

nts

Redu

ce ti

me

test

ing

Pare

nts

Test

s re

turn

ed q

uick

er


KILG

ORE

QU

ESTI

ON

#1

REFL

ECT

UPO

N T

HE

PRES

ENTA

TIO

NS

THAT

YO

U P

REVI

EWED

BEF

ORE

TH

E M

EETI

NG

. W

HAT

ARE

SO

ME

KEY

LEAR

NIN

GS

OR

IMPO

RTAN

T TA

KE-A

-WAY

S TH

AT S

HO

ULD

SH

APE

OU

R CO

NVE

RSAT

ION

?

Gre

en =

Bus

ines

s Le

ader

s

Red

= E

duca

tors

B

lue

= Pa

rent

s

NU

MBE

R O

F VO

TES

GRO

UP'

S RE

SPO

NSE

RE

SPO

NSE

S TO

TH

IS Q

UES

TIO

N

Gro

wth

of s

tude

nts,

not

just

pas

s/fa

il. I

n lo

okin

g at

the

hist

ory

of a

sses

smen

t, di

d w

e im

prov

e th

e te

achi

ng a

nd

3 Ed

ucat

ors

lear

ning

pro

cess

or d

id w

e de

trac

t fro

m th

e pr

oces

s?

3 Ed

ucat

ors

The

“bub

ble

kids

” m

etho

d le

ft o

ther

stu

dent

s ex

clud

ed.

1 Ed

ucat

ors

Colle

ge R

eadi

ness

/Wor

k.

Educ

ator

s M

ovin

g aw

ay fr

om “

teac

hing

to th

e m

iddl

e” o

r “bu

bble

kid

”.

Educ

ator

s Ev

olvi

ng a

ccou

ntab

ility

- ra

ised

rigo

r Ed

ucat

ors

STAA

R st

ill e

ncou

rage

s fo

cus

on k

ids

on th

e “b

ubbl

e” b

ecau

se th

ey c

an m

ake

or b

reak

a ra

ting.

Ed

ucat

ors

“Per

form

ance

gap

” an

d “p

rogr

ess”

don

’t ap

ply

to “

base

line”

gra

de le

vels

. Ed

ucat

ors

His

tory

, acc

ount

abili

ty a

nd s

ub-o

ps.

Lack

of c

onsi

sten

cy fr

om th

e st

ate

dow

n to

the

loca

l lev

el à

cha

nges

hap

pen

so o

ften

that

dis

tric

ts c

anno

t Ed

ucat

ors

suff

icie

ntly

mee

t stu

dent

nee

ds.

4 Pa

rent

s Al

low

the

teac

her t

he o

ppor

tuni

ty to

teac

h 2

Pare

nts

Focu

s of

f tes

t & b

ack

to te

achi

ng

Pare

nts

Dom

ain

V Pa

rent

s Co

mm

unity

Pa

rent

s St

op te

achi

ng to

a te

st

Pare

nts

Teac

h ch

ildre

n to

thin

k ou

tsid

e of

the

box

Pare

nts

Nee

d to

allo

w li

fe le

sson

s to

be

taug

ht

Pare

nts

Use

sub

grou

ps

Kilgore


KILG

ORE

QU

ESTI

ON

#2

WH

AT IS

TH

E RO

LE/P

URP

OSE

OF

ASSE

SSM

ENT

AND

ACC

OU

NTA

BILI

TY IN

TH

E ED

UCA

TIO

N O

F O

UR

CHIL

DRE

N?

Gre

en =

Bus

ines

s Le

ader

s

Red

= E

duca

tors

B

lue

= Pa

rent

s

NU

MBE

R O

F VO

TES

14

12

11

GRO

UP'

S RE

SPO

NSE

Ed

ucat

ors

Educ

ator

s Ed

ucat

ors

RESP

ON

SES

TO T

HIS

QU

ESTI

ON

Th

e ro

le o

f ass

essm

ent i

s to

mea

sure

gro

wth

. As

sess

men

ts s

houl

d be

use

d to

mea

sure

gro

wth

and

refle

ct w

hat s

tude

nts

are

lear

ning

in th

e cl

assr

oom

. M

ore

owne

rshi

p an

d tr

ust s

houl

d be

giv

en to

teac

hers

. To

judg

e st

uden

ts a

nd te

ache

rs o

n on

e da

y –

no o

ther

dat

a co

nsid

ered

.

10

8 5

Educ

ator

s Ed

ucat

ors

Educ

ator

s

Purp

ose

– W

e sh

ould

be

focu

sed

on a

sses

smen

t for

lear

ning

– n

ot th

e as

sess

men

t of l

earn

ing

whi

ch im

plie

s th

e en

d of

lear

ning

; Dat

a fr

om a

ccou

ntab

ility

sho

uld

be u

sed

to im

prov

e cu

rric

ulum

and

inst

ruct

ion.

It s

houl

d no

t be

used

for a

labe

l or A

-F ra

ting;

We

need

to u

se m

ultip

le re

sour

ces

to a

sses

s a

wel

l-rou

nded

edu

catio

n.

Trac

king

for c

olle

ge o

r car

eer.

Tra

ckin

g fo

r sch

ools

and

stu

dent

impr

ovem

ent.

Gro

wth

mea

sure

men

t is

a tr

uer i

ndic

ator

of s

ucce

ss in

edu

catio

n.

3 Ed

ucat

ors

Qua

ntifi

able

mea

sure

for s

tude

nts

and

scho

ols.

2 2 1 8 6

Educ

ator

s Ed

ucat

ors

Educ

ator

s

Pare

nts

Pare

nts

“Sho

uld

be”

to e

nsur

e le

arni

ng o

f ALL

stu

dent

s an

d to

faci

litat

e th

e in

divi

dual

and

app

ropr

iate

edu

catio

n of

ALL

! Fo

rmat

ive

asse

ssm

ent i

nvol

ves

stud

ent o

wne

rshi

p. T

he s

tude

nts

chal

leng

e th

emse

lves

. Ac

cord

ing

to th

e st

ate

for a

gra

de.

Acco

unta

bilit

y =

a la

bel n

ot a

bout

kid

s; m

ore

abou

t adu

lts

a. C

itize

ns w

ithin

sch

ool d

istr

icts

hav

e va

rious

exp

ecta

tions

b.

Sho

uld

have

mor

e to

do

with

loca

l inp

ut

c. C

ultu

re p

lays

a ro

le

Wan

t our

chi

ldre

n to

lear

n no

t jus

t pus

h th

roug

h te

sts


QU

ESTI

ON

#2

WH

AT IS

TH

E RO

LE/P

URP

OSE

OF

ASSE

SSM

ENT

AND

ACC

OU

NTA

BILI

TY IN

TH

E ED

UCA

TIO

N O

F O

UR

CHIL

DRE

N?

Gre

en =

Bus

ines

s Le

ader

s

Red

= E

duca

tors

B

lue

= Pa

rent

s

NU

MBE

R O

F VO

TES

GRO

UP'

S RE

SPO

NSE

RE

SPO

NSE

S TO

TH

IS Q

UES

TIO

N

Asse

ssm

ent =

Tes

t a.

Ens

ure

that

our

chi

ldre

n ar

e ge

ttin

g a

qual

ity e

duca

tion

b. “

Qua

lity”

is re

lativ

e.

--W

hat i

s qu

ality

? --

Who

dec

ides

? c.

Mak

ing

sure

kid

s ar

e le

arni

ng w

hat t

hey

need

to le

arn

--TE

KS –

too

spec

ific

--W

ho d

ecid

es?

--Why

? 1

Pare

nts

--W

hy d

oes

my

kid

need

to k

now

exa

ctly

wha

t oth

ers

need

to k

now

? Pa

rent

s Ac

coun

tabi

lity

show

n in

cla

ssro

om


KILG

ORE

QU

ESTI

ON

#3

WH

AT IS

WO

RKIN

G W

ELL

WIT

H O

UR

CURR

ENT

SYST

EM O

F AS

SESS

MEN

T AN

D A

CCO

UN

TABI

LITY

?

Gre

en =

Bus

ines

s Le

ader

s

Red

= E

duca

tors

B

lue

= Pa

rent

s

NU

MBE

R O

F VO

TES

GRO

UP'

S RE

SPO

NSE

RE

SPO

NSE

S TO

TH

IS Q

UES

TIO

N

6 Ed

ucat

ors

Look

ing

at th

e gr

owth

of s

tude

nts

is im

port

ant e

spec

ially

for o

ur to

p ac

hiev

ers.

3

Educ

ator

s St

uden

t pro

gres

s –

whe

re th

ey w

ere/

whe

re th

ey a

re n

ow.

3 Ed

ucat

ors

Reco

gniz

ing

care

er re

adin

ess.

2

Educ

ator

s G

PA c

an b

e a

bett

er in

dica

tor o

f lik

elih

ood

to c

ompl

ete

colle

ge th

an S

AT o

r ACT

. 1

Educ

ator

s Co

mm

unity

Eng

agem

ent T

ool.

Educ

ator

s In

dex

2, g

row

th.

Educ

ator

s Ki

ds (a

s ad

ults

) will

face

ass

essm

ent a

nd a

ccou

ntab

ility

. Ed

ucat

ors

Look

ing

at s

tude

nt a

ccou

ntab

ility

in d

etai

l. 4

Pare

nts

At th

e po

int,

we

feel

that

ther

e is

no

bene

fit

1 Pa

rent

s In

dex

2 Pa

rent

s St

uden

t Pro

gres

s Pa

rent

s AL

L st

uden

ts c

ount


KILG

ORE

QU

ESTI

ON

#4

WH

AT F

ACTO

RS S

HO

ULD

TH

E N

EXT

GEN

ERAT

ION

CO

MM

ISSI

ON

ON

ASS

ESSM

ENTS

AN

D A

CCO

UN

TABI

LITY

CO

NSI

DER

AS

THEY

MAK

E TH

EIR

RECO

MM

END

ATIO

NS?

Gre

en =

Bus

ines

s Le

ader

s

Red

= E

duca

tors

B

lue

= Pa

rent

s

NU

MBE

R O

F VO

TES

GRO

UP'

S RE

SPO

NSE

RE

SPO

NSE

S TO

TH

IS Q

UES

TIO

N

26

23

20

11

Educ

ator

s

Educ

ator

s Ed

ucat

ors

Educ

ator

s

All k

ids

are

diffe

rent

! W

e ar

e to

diff

eren

tiate

inst

ruct

ion

(esp

ecia

lly s

peci

al e

duca

tion

in R

esou

rce

w/I

EP),

but

then

all

take

sta

ndar

dize

d te

sts.

We

only

hav

e tim

e to

“sn

orke

l” T

EKS

– te

sted

at “

scub

a le

vel.

Age

appr

opria

te fo

r all

kids

bas

ed o

n br

ain

rese

arch

– S

peci

al e

duca

tion,

504

, ESL

. Ju

st b

ecau

se w

e ca

n m

ove

TEKS

dow

n tw

o gr

ade

leve

ls, d

oes

it m

ean

we

shou

ld?

Dev

elop

men

tally

app

ropr

iate

mat

eria

l. C

onst

antly

mov

ing

targ

et.

Inde

x 2

& 3

are

mea

surin

g th

e sa

me

thin

g. O

ur s

peci

al e

duca

tion

stud

ents

nee

d m

ore

optio

ns –

brin

g ba

ck

optio

ns th

at a

re a

ppro

pria

te fo

r the

indi

vidu

aliz

ed s

tude

nt (I

EP).

Als

o, E

LL’s

! W

e ne

ed a

sys

tem

that

has

m

ultip

le m

easu

res

base

d on

the

expe

ctat

ions

of t

he lo

cal c

omm

unity

.

10

8 6

Educ

ator

s Ed

ucat

ors

Educ

ator

s

Cons

ider

the

diff

eren

t typ

es o

f stu

dent

s, th

e “n

on-t

radi

tiona

l” s

tude

nts,

new

-com

ers,

teen

par

ents

, low

-soc

io.

Real

ize

that

all

stud

ents

are

not

the

sam

e, b

ut w

e ex

pect

them

to b

e te

sted

the

sam

e w

ay.

Gro

wth

sco

re v

s. S

cale

sco

re.

9 8

Educ

ator

s Ed

ucat

ors

Educ

ator

s Pa

rent

s Pa

rent

s Pa

rent

s Pa

rent

s

We

are

test

ing

wha

t we

are

expe

cted

to te

ach.

M

ake

the

pass

ages

and

oth

er a

sses

smen

ts m

ore

high

-inte

rest

and

real

life

. W

hat a

re w

e re

ally

nee

ding

for T

exas

to b

e su

cces

sful

? P

rope

r alig

nmen

t. Co

nsid

er c

omm

unity

cul

ture

/exp

ecta

tions

/nee

ds

Sim

plify

! Too

com

plex

, diff

icul

t to

unde

rsta

nd

Cultu

re c

reat

ed d

ue to

ass

essm

ents

& a

ccou

ntab

ility

Sc

hedu

ling

of te

st (S

TAAR

)


KILG

ORE

QU

ESTI

ON

#5

WH

AT S

UG

GES

TIO

NS

FOR

IMPR

OVE

MEN

T O

F O

UR

CURR

ENT

SYST

EM W

OU

LD Y

OU

GIV

E TO

TH

E CO

MM

ISSI

ON

?

Gre

en =

Bus

ines

s Le

ader

s

Red

= E

duca

tors

B

lue

= Pa

rent

s

NU

MBE

R O

F VO

TES

GRO

UP'

S RE

SPO

NSE

RE

SPO

NSE

S TO

TH

IS Q

UES

TIO

N

One

sys

tem

doe

s no

t acc

urat

ely

mea

sure

all

stud

ents

in T

exas

: a.

Tea

cher

s, n

ew to

the

prof

essi

on, a

re n

ot p

repa

red

for t

he e

xpec

tatio

ns (a

cade

mic

& e

mot

iona

l) of

toda

y’s

clas

sroo

m.

b. M

ultip

le m

easu

res

to a

sses

s th

e st

uden

t – n

o on

e si

ze fi

ts a

ll (o

r all

dist

ricts

) c.

Stu

dent

por

tfol

ios

as a

met

hod

of a

sses

smen

t!

d. N

ot e

very

test

sho

uld

be a

read

ing

test

. Th

e m

ath

and

scie

nce

test

s ar

e re

adin

g te

sts

first

(let

’s m

easu

re th

eir

mat

hem

atic

al s

kills

and

sci

ence

ski

lls).

Bal

ance

! 25

Ed

ucat

ors

e. S

top

tryi

ng to

rate

the

Alt C

ampu

ses

(dro

pout

reco

very

cam

puse

s).

Reco

nsid

er te

st s

truc

ture

to b

ecom

e m

ore

age

appr

opria

te (4

hou

r tes

ts fo

r you

ng c

hild

ren

are

NO

T 21

Ed

ucat

ors

APPR

OPR

IATE

!).

Low

“pa

ssin

g st

anda

rds”

giv

e st

uden

ts a

fals

e se

nse

of s

ecur

ity.

Dev

elop

way

s to

ass

ess

stud

ent w

ork

16

Educ

ator

s et

hic/

educ

atio

nal g

rit a

nd re

war

d it.

Le

ngth

/tim

e of

test

. Sh

orte

r, m

ore

freq

uent

ass

essm

ents

thro

ugho

ut th

e ye

ar th

at a

ctua

lly m

easu

res

indi

vidu

al

14

Educ

ator

s gr

owth

. Im

med

iate

resu

lts.

14

Educ

ator

s “R

eal t

ime”

resu

lts.

Alig

n pu

rpos

e w

ith a

ctua

l pro

duct

. 8

Educ

ator

s A,

B, C

, D, F

– n

o th

anks

! 6

Educ

ator

s Be

com

e m

ore

diag

nost

ic.

5 Ed

ucat

ors

Mak

e it

feel

less

pun

itive

tow

ards

teac

hers

, sch

ools

, dis

tric

ts.

Rew

ard

the

GRO

WTH

of s

tude

nts.

3

Educ

ator

s Ad

ditio

nal l

ocal

con

trol

.

3 Ed

ucat

ors

Hav

e th

e sa

me

pass

ing

stan

dard

for a

ll gr

ade

leve

ls/s

ubje

cts

that

is a

ttai

nabl

e-if

39%

is p

assi

ng, t

est i

s to

o ha

rd.

1 Ed

ucat

ors

Cert

ain

popu

latio

ns b

ecom

e a

“num

bers

gam

e” fo

r you

r dis

tric

t – c

hang

e it!

Ed

ucat

ors

Diff

eren

tiate

test

. Ed

ucat

ors

Stan

dard

s ap

prop

riate

wha

t am

ount

is g

iven

.


QU

ESTI

ON

#5

WH

AT S

UG

GES

TIO

NS

FOR

IMPR

OVE

MEN

T O

F O

UR

CURR

ENT

SYST

EM W

OU

LD Y

OU

GIV

E TO

TH

E CO

MM

ISSI

ON

?

Gre

en =

Bus

ines

s Le

ader

s

Red

= E

duca

tors

B

lue

= Pa

rent

s

NU

MBE

R O

F VO

TES

GRO

UP'

S RE

SPO

NSE

RE

SPO

NSE

S TO

TH

IS Q

UES

TIO

N

17

8 1

Pare

nts

Pare

nts

Pare

nts

A. R

educ

e TE

KS –

mor

e ge

nera

l a.

Sta

te a

sses

smen

ts m

ore

basi

c/Re

duci

ng T

EKS

will

hel

p of

fer o

ppor

tuni

ties

for m

ore

diff.

inst

ruct

. b.

Allo

w te

ache

rs m

ore

inpu

t/Te

ache

rs n

eed

to b

e tr

eate

d as

pro

fess

iona

ls

Mor

e/ad

d Re

cess

bac

k in

to s

ched

ule

Smal

ler g

roup

test

ing

(acc

ordi

ng to

sub

grou

p)


KILG

ORE

QU

ESTI

ON

#6

WH

AT G

OAL

S FO

R (1

) ASS

ESSM

ENTS

AN

D (2

) ACC

OU

NTA

BILI

TY W

OU

LD Y

OU

REC

OM

MEN

D T

O T

HE

COM

MIS

SIO

N

THAT

WO

ULD

SH

APE

THEI

R W

ORK

?

Gre

en =

Bus

ines

s Le

ader

s

Red

= E

duca

tors

B

lue

= Pa

rent

s

NU

MBE

R O

F VO

TES

GRO

UP'

S RE

SPO

NSE

RE

SPO

NSE

S TO

TH

IS Q

UES

TIO

N

14

Educ

ator

s M

ake

it m

ore

form

ativ

e ba

sed.

Gro

wth

mea

sure

d ra

ther

than

eve

ryon

e m

eetin

g th

e sa

me

stan

dard

. AS

SESS

MEN

TS –

mak

e th

em re

flect

the

TEKS

, rem

ove

the

stre

ss. W

e ar

e lo

sing

teac

hers

. a.

Ref

lect

stu

dent

pro

gres

s ov

er ti

me.

b.

Tes

t cre

ator

s an

d st

ake

hold

ers

shou

ld c

ome

to c

ampu

ses

to s

ee w

hat i

t’s re

ally

like

on

test

day

(ret

urn

to

12

Educ

ator

s ho

me

dist

ricts

and

wat

ch th

e pr

oces

s pl

ay o

ut).

12

Educ

ator

s eP

ortf

olio

s w

ith c

omm

unity

ser

vice

. 8

Educ

ator

s Co

nsid

er v

aria

bles

bey

ond

teac

her c

ontr

ols

“gro

wth

” as

par

t of a

ccou

ntab

ility

. 7

Educ

ator

s Fa

ir, n

o “g

otch

as”.

7

Educ

ator

s D

iffer

entia

tion.

5

Educ

ator

s Pe

arso

n=$.

5

Educ

ator

s D

evel

opm

enta

lly a

ppro

pria

te.

5 Ed

ucat

ors

No

mor

e “t

rick”

que

stio

ns “

chun

king

” in

stea

d of

4 h

our m

arat

hon.

4

Educ

ator

s G

reat

er fo

cus

on s

ucce

ss/p

rogr

ess.

3

Educ

ator

s Co

nsid

erat

ion

of d

iver

sity

. 2

Educ

ator

s Re

visi

t Sta

ndar

dize

d te

st –

incl

ude

Educ

ator

sta

keho

lder

s fo

r inp

ut.

2 Ed

ucat

ors

Less

focu

s on

pun

itive

. Ed

ucat

ors

Mak

e it

feel

less

pun

itive

tow

ards

teac

hers

, sch

ools

, dis

tric

ts.

Rew

ard

the

GRO

WTH

of s

tude

nts.

Ed

ucat

ors

A, B

, C, D

, F –

no

than

ks!

Educ

ator

s Le

ngth

/tim

e of

test

. Ed

ucat

ors

Shor

ter,

mor

e fr

eque

nt a

sses

smen

ts th

roug

hout

the

year

that

act

ually

mea

sure

s in

divi

dual

gro

wth

. Ed

ucat

ors

Imm

edia

te re

sults

. Ed

ucat

ors

Cert

ain

popu

latio

ns b

ecom

e a

“num

bers

gam

e” fo

r you

r dis

tric

t – c

hang

e it!

Ed

ucat

ors

Mea

sure

bas

ed o

n le

vels

of c

ompl

etio

n (s

elf-p

aced

) 12

Pa

rent

s Le

ss e

mph

asis

on

stan

dard

ized

test

s 5

Pare

nts

Mor

e lo

cal i

nput

/dec

isio

n-m

akin

g fo

r pro

gres

s m

onito

ring


QU

ESTI

ON

#6

WH

AT G

OAL

S FO

R (1

) ASS

ESSM

ENTS

AN

D (2

) ACC

OU

NTA

BILI

TY W

OU

LD Y

OU

REC

OM

MEN

D T

O T

HE

COM

MIS

SIO

N

THAT

WO

ULD

SH

APE

THEI

R W

ORK

?

Gre

en =

Bus

ines

s Le

ader

s

Red

= E

duca

tors

B

lue

= Pa

rent

s

NU

MBE

R O

F VO

TES

GRO

UP'

S RE

SPO

NSE

RE

SPO

NSE

S TO

TH

IS Q

UES

TIO

N

5 Pa

rent

s W

hole

stu

dent

vie

wed

inst

ead

of a

sna

psho

t St

anda

rds-

base

d gr

adin

g/re

port

ing

a. M

aste

red

b. S

till w

orki

ng

Pare

nts

c. N

ot y

et in

trod

uced

Pa

rent

s Si

x w

eeks

ass

essm

ent N

OT

one

test

Pa

rent

s St

agge

r ass

essm

ent b

ased

on

grad

e &

cou

rse


SAN

AN

TON

IO

QU

ESTI

ON

#1

REFL

ECT

UPO

N T

HE

PRES

ENTA

TIO

NS

THAT

YO

U P

REVI

EWED

BEF

ORE

TH

E M

EETI

NG

. W

HAT

ARE

SO

ME

KEY

LEAR

NIN

GS

OR

IMPO

RTAN

T TA

KE-A

-WAY

S TH

AT S

HO

ULD

SH

APE

OU

R CO

NVE

RSAT

ION

?

Gre

en =

Bus

ines

s Le

ader

s

Red

= E

duca

tors

B

lue

= Pa

rent

s

NU

MBE

R O

F VO

TES

GRO

UP'

S RE

SPO

NSE

RE

SPO

NSE

S TO

TH

IS Q

UES

TIO

N

Busi

ness

M

ulti-

dim

ensi

onal

one

day

, one

test

, one

tim

e, d

oesn

’t se

rve

educ

ator

, stu

dent

, or b

usin

ess.

22

Ed

ucat

ors

The

conn

ectio

n be

twee

n CI

A (C

urric

ulum

, Ins

truc

tor,

Asse

ssm

ent)

17

Ed

ucat

ors

Mea

ning

ful a

sses

smen

t doe

s N

OT

have

to b

e hi

gh s

take

s ev

ery

year

to b

e ef

fect

ive.

16

Educ

ator

s To

ok a

way

the

flexi

bilit

y an

d cr

eativ

ity o

f cur

ricul

um. S

tand

ards

oth

er th

an te

stin

g/co

mm

unity

inpu

t. 13

Ed

ucat

ors

Asse

ssm

ents

sho

win

g st

uden

t’s g

row

th.

Ther

e is

a la

ck o

f con

sist

ency

in th

e w

ay w

e ha

ve a

sses

sed.

The

con

tinue

d ev

olvi

ng s

yste

m re

sults

in in

valid

and

9

Educ

ator

s un

relia

ble

data

. 9

Educ

ator

s M

odifi

ed is

not

real

ly m

odifi

ed c

hang

ing

one

wor

d or

om

ittin

g a

wor

d.

9 Ed

ucat

ors

Perh

aps

look

at d

iffer

ent t

ypes

or l

evel

s of

ass

essm

ents

. 9

Educ

ator

s Ac

coun

tabi

lity

is n

eces

sary

in s

ome

form

. 9

Educ

ator

s To

o m

uch

time

spen

t tes

ting,

not

lear

ning

. Th

e CI

A w

heel

is b

roke

n - T

each

ing

shou

ld s

tart

with

the

stan

dard

s an

d bu

ild c

urric

ulum

from

thos

e.

8 Ed

ucat

ors

Whe

el a

llow

s fo

r sta

rt p

oint

to d

iffer

bas

ed o

n pe

rspe

ctiv

e.

7 Ed

ucat

ors

Mor

e fo

cus

on s

tude

nt p

rogr

ess

than

a p

assi

ng s

tand

ards

. 7

Educ

ator

s Co

mm

unity

and

stu

dent

eng

agem

ent n

ow h

as v

alue

. Su

mm

ativ

e as

sess

men

ts a

re g

iven

too

muc

h w

eigh

t/m

ust b

e al

igne

d be

tter

with

cur

ricul

um a

nd

5 Ed

ucat

ors

inst

ruct

ion.

A s

choo

l is

too

com

plex

to b

e m

easu

red

by te

sts

alon

e.

Com

paris

on: s

tude

nt a

chie

vem

ent-

mee

ting

stan

dard

; stu

dent

pro

gres

s-gr

owth

mea

sure

; pos

t-4

Educ

ator

s se

cond

ary

read

ines

s-co

ntin

ue to

look

at s

peci

al p

opul

atio

ns

4 Ed

ucat

ors

Test

s ha

ve b

ecom

e cu

rric

ulum

. 3

Educ

ator

s M

ovin

g aw

ay fr

om m

ultip

le c

hoic

e.

2 Ed

ucat

ors

Nee

d fo

r bet

ter,

easi

er c

omm

unic

atio

n w

ith g

ener

al p

ublic

abo

ut a

sses

smen

t and

acc

ount

abili

ty.

2 Ed

ucat

ors

HB

shor

tene

d th

e te

st.

2 Ed

ucat

ors

Rese

arch

relia

ble

and

serv

e th

e pu

rpos

e fo

r whi

ch it

mea

nt.

2 Ed

ucat

ors

We

have

a b

ifurc

ated

issu

e: T

he te

sts

and

how

we

use

the

test

s.

1 Ed

ucat

ors

Vert

ical

sca

le a

nd g

row

th p

roje

ctio

n no

t ava

ilabl

e in

H.S

.



San Antonio


QU

ESTI

ON

#1

REFL

ECT

UPO

N T

HE

PRES

ENTA

TIO

NS

THAT

YO

U P

REVI

EWED

BEF

ORE

TH

E M

EETI

NG

. W

HAT

ARE

SO

ME

KEY

LEAR

NIN

GS

OR

IMPO

RTAN

T TA

KE-A

-WAY

S TH

AT S

HO

ULD

SH

APE

OU

R CO

NVE

RSAT

ION

?

Gre

en =

Bus

ines

s Le

ader

s

Red

= E

duca

tors

B

lue

= Pa

rent

s

NU

MBE

R O

F VO

TES

GRO

UP'

S RE

SPO

NSE

RE

SPO

NSE

S TO

TH

IS Q

UES

TIO

N

1 Ed

ucat

ors

Failu

re to

reco

gniz

e re

sour

ces

and

oppo

rtun

ities

in c

lass

room

Pr

ogre

ssio

n of

test

ing

hist

ory

has

forc

ed c

ampu

s ad

min

and

teac

hers

to b

e da

ta d

riven

and

focu

s on

all

stud

ents

1

Educ

ator

s to

add

val

ue. T

estin

g w

ill n

ever

go

away

. D

omai

n 5:

How

will

it b

e as

sess

ed fo

r eac

h sc

hool

, acr

oss

the

boar

d, e

tc. R

esou

rces

ava

ilabl

e to

1

Educ

ator

s im

plem

ent?

1

Educ

ator

s Lo

ng te

rm s

usta

inab

ility

is n

eede

d fo

r nex

t gen

erat

ion.

1

Educ

ator

s Ev

olut

ion

look

at v

isio

n ov

ertim

e, e

spec

ially

sin

ce w

e sw

itch.

1

Educ

ator

s O

vera

ll th

eme

of m

ultip

le m

easu

rem

ents

. 1

Educ

ator

s Te

stin

g co

mpe

titio

n st

ops

colla

bora

tion.

Tie

d to

rais

es, n

ot g

ood.

Ed

ucat

ors

Test

ing

not n

ew b

ut h

ave

less

ons

from

pas

t Ac

coun

tabi

lity

is e

volv

ing

to n

ot d

isco

unt a

sses

smen

t sco

re b

ut lo

ok fo

r add

ition

al a

venu

es to

eva

luat

e Ed

ucat

ors

stud

ent m

aste

ry a

nd le

arni

ng

Educ

ator

s Ca

n w

e fin

d co

ntin

uity

and

ass

essm

ent s

yste

m th

at c

an e

asily

fit a

ny te

st w

e ad

opt?

Ed

ucat

ors

Incr

ease

d re

spec

t for

non

-tes

ting

mea

sure

s Ed

ucat

ors

Ove

r rel

ianc

e on

test

ing

over

tim

e Ed

ucat

ors

Scho

ols

rate

d on

sub

pop

ulat

ion

as o

ppos

ed to

wea

kest

. Ed

ucat

ors

Incr

ease

in d

iffer

entia

ted

inst

ruct

ion

the

com

p. w

as n

ot v

alid

. The

equ

ity is

que

stio

nabl

e.

Educ

ator

s Cl

osin

g th

e ac

hiev

emen

t gap

. Ed

ucat

ors

Ever

y te

st g

ets

mor

e rig

orou

s an

d in

clud

es m

ore

stud

ent g

roup

s.

Educ

ator

s Ev

olvi

ng a

ccou

ntab

ility

sys

tem

. Ed

ucat

ors

Is te

stin

g eq

ual f

or a

ll po

pula

tions

? Sm

all p

opul

atio

ns s

houl

d no

t tai

nt o

vera

ll ra

tings

. 9

Pare

nts

Doe

s it

have

to b

e ev

ery

year

? 8

Pare

nts

“Mea

ning

ful”

ass

essm

ent a

s fo

cus

as w

e m

ove

forw

ard.

8

Pare

nts

Mor

e ne

eded

to a

ddre

ss n

eeds

of s

tude

nts

outs

ide

the

bubb

le.

7 Pa

rent

s Ca

usin

g an

xiet

y?

6 Pa

rent

s W

hat a

re y

ou tr

ying

to te

st?

5 Pa

rent

s D

oes

it ha

ve to

be

mul

tiple

cho

ice?

4

Pare

nts

Wou

ld li

ke to

see

rigi

dity

of e

xam

s ad

dres

sed.

2

Pare

nts

Less

focu

s on

“bu

bble

,” lo

wes

t, &

hig

hest

to fo

cus

on A

LL s

tude

nts.

Pa

rent

s W

ho is

acc

ount

able

?


QU

ESTI

ON

#1

REFL

ECT

UPO

N T

HE

PRES

ENTA

TIO

NS

THAT

YO

U P

REVI

EWED

BEF

ORE

TH

E M

EETI

NG

. W

HAT

ARE

SO

ME

KEY

LEAR

NIN

GS

OR

IMPO

RTAN

T TA

KE-A

-WAY

S TH

AT S

HO

ULD

SH

APE

OU

R CO

NVE

RSAT

ION

?

Gre

en =

Bus

ines

s Le

ader

s

Red

= E

duca

tors

B

lue

= Pa

rent

s

NU

MBE

R O

F VO

TES

GRO

UP'

S RE

SPO

NSE

RE

SPO

NSE

S TO

TH

IS Q

UES

TIO

N

Pare

nts

Is it

the

test

or a

re w

e no

t usi

ng it

righ

t?

Upc

omin

g fo

cus

in a

ccou

ntab

ility

has

str

onge

r em

phas

is o

n ad

ditio

nal c

ompo

nent

s (d

omai

n IV

& V

)-no

t Pa

rent

s ju

st o

ne a

sses

smen

t. Pa

rent

s W

ould

like

mor

e in

form

atio

n ab

out D

omai

n 5

(com

mun

ity a

nd s

tude

nt e

ngag

emen

t)


SAN

AN

TON

IO

QU

ESTI

ON

#2

WH

AT IS

TH

E RO

LE/P

URP

OSE

OF

ASSE

SSM

ENT

AND

ACC

OU

NTA

BILI

TY IN

TH

E ED

UCA

TIO

N O

F O

UR

CHIL

DRE

N?

Gre

en =

Bus

ines

s Le

ader

s

Red

= E

duca

tors

B

lue

= Pa

rent

s

NU

MBE

R O

F VO

TES

GRO

UP'

S RE

SPO

NSE

RE

SPO

NSE

S TO

TH

IS Q

UES

TIO

N

Benc

hmar

k an

d ga

uge

prog

ress

ion

educ

atio

nal s

yste

m (c

omm

unity

) han

d an

d ha

nd/o

nce

can’

t be

mor

e Bu

sine

ss

impo

rtan

t. Th

e pu

rpos

e/ro

le is

to tr

ack

prog

ress

and

ach

ieve

men

t, bu

t doe

s no

t foc

us o

n th

e w

hole

chi

ld o

r dis

cipl

ine

of th

e 26

Ed

ucat

ors

subj

ect.

24

Educ

ator

s M

inim

ize

influ

ence

of 1

test

: Mul

tiple

mea

sure

s (n

ot o

nly

the

test

) 18

Ed

ucat

ors

Det

erre

nt to

cre

ativ

ity.

17

Educ

ator

s M

inim

ize

influ

ence

of 1

test

: Lim

iting

num

ber o

f ass

essm

ents

. 16

Ed

ucat

ors

Shou

ld n

ot b

e so

le m

easu

rem

ent o

f stu

dent

ach

ieve

men

t or a

ccou

ntab

ility

Ac

coun

tabi

lity

shou

ld p

rovi

de m

ultip

le n

onac

adem

ic p

erfo

rman

ce fa

ctor

s an

d sh

ould

sup

port

11

Ed

ucat

ors

unde

rser

ved

stud

ents

in s

choo

l. 10

Ed

ucat

ors

Form

ativ

e as

sess

men

t sha

pes

inst

ruct

ion.

10

Ed

ucat

ors

Shou

ld d

rive

inst

ruct

ion

and

info

rm s

tude

nt le

arni

ng a

nd p

rogr

ess.

7

Educ

ator

s To

mea

sure

lear

ning

of A

LL s

tude

nts.

7

Educ

ator

s En

sure

qua

lity/

rigor

ous

inst

ruct

ion

7 Ed

ucat

ors

Prof

icie

ncy

or m

aste

ry o

f key

con

cept

s 5

Educ

ator

s M

inim

ize

influ

ence

of 1

test

: Tec

hnol

ogy

base

d as

sess

men

ts.

5 Ed

ucat

ors

Pare

nts

unde

rsta

ndin

g th

e pu

rpos

es.

5 Ed

ucat

ors

Def

. Col

lege

wor

kpla

ce re

adin

ess.

4

Educ

ator

s Pr

epar

edne

ss fo

r car

eers

and

jobs

4

Educ

ator

s Pr

ofic

ienc

y le

vel o

f stu

dent

s.

3 Ed

ucat

ors

To id

entif

y ar

eas

for i

nstr

uctio

nal i

mpr

ovem

ent.

3 Ed

ucat

ors

To fi

nd o

ut w

here

they

are

goi

ng. L

ooki

ng fo

r the

futu

re o

f the

T te

st.

3 Ed

ucat

ors

Min

imiz

e in

fluen

ce o

f 1 te

st: O

ppor

tuni

ties

to le

arn

mea

sure

s.

3 Ed

ucat

ors

Info

rms

deci

sion

mak

ing

at m

ultip

le le

vels

(dis

tric

t, ca

mpu

s, c

lass

room

, stu

dent

) 2

Educ

ator

s Ev

alua

te if

eff

icie

nt a

nd e

ffec

tive

in o

ur in

stru

ctio

nal p

rogr

am th

at w

e in

vest

mon

ey in

2

Educ

ator

s W

hat g

est m

easu

red,

get

s do

ne

2 Ed

ucat

ors

Hol

d ev

eryo

ne a

ccou

ntab

le a

nd m

easu

re o

ur in

stru

ctio

nal p

rogr

am.

2 Ed

ucat

ors

To g

uide

inst

ruct

ion

and

mon

itor g

row

th. E

nsur

e qu

ality

edu

catio

n fo

r suc

cess

in th

e re

al w

orld

.


QU

ESTI

ON

#2

WH

AT IS

TH

E RO

LE/P

URP

OSE

OF

ASSE

SSM

ENT

AND

ACC

OU

NTA

BILI

TY IN

TH

E ED

UCA

TIO

N O

F O

UR

CHIL

DRE

N?

Gre

en =

Bus

ines

s Le

ader

s

Red

= E

duca

tors

B

lue

= Pa

rent

s

NU

MBE

R O

F VO

TES

GRO

UP'

S RE

SPO

NSE

RE

SPO

NSE

S TO

TH

IS Q

UES

TIO

N

2 Ed

ucat

ors

Wan

t the

kid

’s h

ighe

r ord

er o

f thi

nkin

g.

2 Ed

ucat

ors

Min

imiz

e in

fluen

ce o

f 1 te

st: P

erfo

rman

ce a

sses

smen

ts.

2 Ed

ucat

ors

Acad

emic

ass

essm

ents

sho

uld

inco

rpor

ate

care

er re

adin

ess.

1 Ed

ucat

ors

Wan

t the

test

fair

and

lead

a w

ay fo

r the

m to

be

expo

sed

to fu

rthe

r tes

ting

(hig

h sc

hool

, col

lege

leve

l) Ed

ucat

ors

Perf

orm

ance

mea

sure

of t

each

er a

nd s

yste

mic

env

ironm

ent

Educ

ator

s Ac

coun

tabi

lity

can

prot

ect k

ids

whe

n w

e m

ake

sure

we

are

doin

g w

hat i

s ap

prop

riate

En

sure

s th

at s

choo

ls a

re c

reat

ing

a le

arni

ng e

nviro

nmen

t whe

re s

tude

nts

mee

t sta

ndar

ds a

nd s

how

Ed

ucat

ors

prog

ress

. Ed

ucat

ors

Iden

tify

area

s fo

r im

prov

emen

t. Ed

ucat

ors

Ensu

re th

at s

tate

mon

ey =

stu

dent

suc

cess

. Ed

ucat

ors

Ulti

mat

ely,

ass

essm

ent s

houl

d in

spire

, not

dem

oral

ize

(stu

dent

s, te

ache

rs, o

r par

ents

) Ed

ucat

ors

Dat

a co

llect

ion.

Ed

ucat

ors

To e

nsur

e qu

ality

and

equ

ity.

Educ

ator

s In

terim

kno

wle

dge

and

skill

s as

sess

men

ts to

gui

de o

ppor

tuni

ties

for a

cade

mic

/ski

lls s

ucce

ss.

18

Pare

nts

One

siz

e fit

s al

l tes

t is

not a

ll th

at u

sefu

l bec

ause

stu

dent

s le

arn

diff

eren

tly.

10

Pare

nts

Tim

e to

hel

p ot

hers

at a

ll le

vels

. 6

Pare

nts

Go

beyo

nd m

ultip

le c

hoic

e/pr

ojec

t bas

ed.

Inte

nded

pur

pose

ver

sus

utili

zed

purp

ose

are

not n

eces

saril

y th

e sa

me,

with

uni

nten

ded

cons

eque

nce

4 Pa

rent

s of

focu

s on

how

to ta

ke te

st v

ersu

s le

arni

ng c

onte

nt.

3 Pa

rent

s In

tend

ed p

urpo

se=e

nsur

e qu

ality

inst

ruct

ion/

lear

ning

. 3

Pare

nts

Acco

unta

bilit

y te

stin

g is

a d

istr

actio

n fr

om le

arni

ng.

2 Pa

rent

s In

tend

ed p

urpo

se=e

quita

ble

acce

ss/p

rogr

ess

for A

LL s

tude

nts.

1

Pare

nts

Test

s ar

e us

ed to

bla

me

teac

hers

, sch

ools

, and

stu

dent

s.

Pare

nts

Doe

s it

show

they

are

lear

ning

? Pa

rent

s En

d of

cou

rse

test

at m

iddl

e an

d el

emen

tary

?


SAN

AN

TON

IO

QU

ESTI

ON

#3

WH

AT IS

WO

RKIN

G W

ELL

WIT

H O

UR

CURR

ENT

SYST

EM O

F AS

SESS

MEN

T AN

D A

CCO

UN

TABI

LITY

?

Gre

en =

Bus

ines

s Le

ader

s

Red

= E

duca

tors

B

lue

= Pa

rent

s

NU

MBE

R O

F VO

TES

GRO

UP'

S RE

SPO

NSE

RE

SPO

NSE

S TO

TH

IS Q

UES

TIO

N

Busi

ness

As

a b

usin

ess

com

mun

ity n

ot e

noug

h da

ta. (

3 sy

stem

s cu

rren

tly)

25

Educ

ator

s Re

cogn

izes

ach

ieve

men

t am

ong

sub

pops

and

the

will

ingn

ess

to c

onsi

der g

row

th.

20

Educ

ator

s Lo

okin

g at

stu

dent

gro

wth

Th

e pa

rts

that

are

wor

king

wel

l are

pro

gres

s m

easu

ring,

and

the

part

s of

STA

AR th

at a

re a

ligne

d w

ith th

e TE

KS.

13

Educ

ator

s *s

ome

port

ions

* 12

Ed

ucat

ors

Use

of i

ndex

es, p

rogr

ess

mea

sure

s.

11

Educ

ator

s In

dice

s in

clud

e st

uden

t pro

gres

s.

Addi

tiona

l rel

ianc

e on

oth

er fa

ctor

s su

ch a

s po

st-s

econ

dary

read

ines

s, c

omm

unity

, fam

ily e

ngag

emen

t, 11

Ed

ucat

ors

grad

uatio

n ra

nks,

and

dip

lom

a pl

ans

9 Ed

ucat

ors

Has

bro

ught

“cl

osin

g th

e ga

ps”

into

the

spot

light

. Pro

gres

s is

now

ack

now

ledg

ed.

9 Ed

ucat

ors

No

equa

lity

acro

ss e

cono

mic

s, e

thni

citie

s, p

erso

nal e

xper

ienc

e, s

peci

al n

eeds

, and

dem

ogra

phic

s.

9 Ed

ucat

ors

Suck

ed jo

y ou

t of l

earn

ing

and

teac

hing

. 9

Educ

ator

s Sp

ecia

l pop

ulat

ions

, gap

, diff

eren

tiatio

n, c

urric

ulum

, equ

ity, s

ound

dat

a, d

riven

dec

isio

ns.

6 Ed

ucat

ors

Show

s gr

owth

and

gap

s.

5 Ed

ucat

ors

A st

rong

focu

s on

clo

sing

the

achi

evem

ent g

ap.

5 Ed

ucat

ors

Und

erva

lues

non

test

ing

grad

es.

5 Ed

ucat

ors

Colla

bora

tion

betw

een

scho

ols.

4

Educ

ator

s Pu

sh b

ack

on c

alen

dar f

or d

ates

of a

sses

smen

t 4

Educ

ator

s D

isag

greg

atio

n of

dat

a.

3 Ed

ucat

ors

Rigo

r is

incr

easi

ng. I

ndex

fram

ewor

k is

fair

and

prov

ides

a “

who

le p

ictu

re”

view

. 3

Educ

ator

s Pr

iorit

izin

g su

bjec

t val

ue.

3 Ed

ucat

ors

Tied

to th

e TE

KS a

lignm

ent.

3 Ed

ucat

ors

Scho

ols

com

pare

d to

pee

rs: g

row

th p

eers

for g

row

th.

2 Ed

ucat

ors

Colle

ctio

n of

dat

a fo

r 2

Educ

ator

s N

othi

ng

2 Ed

ucat

ors

Gro

wth

incl

uded

, but

cou

ld b

e im

prov

ed.

2 Ed

ucat

ors

Atte

mpt

to le

ave

no c

hild

beh

ind:

inte

rven

tion

built

in.

1 Ed

ucat

ors

Dis

tinct

ions

pul

l in

othe

r dat

a po

ints

abo

ut s

choo

l 1

Educ

ator

s Co

hort

com

paris

on


QU

ESTI

ON

#3

WH

AT IS

WO

RKIN

G W

ELL

WIT

H O

UR

CURR

ENT

SYST

EM O

F AS

SESS

MEN

T AN

D A

CCO

UN

TABI

LITY

?

Gre

en =

Bus

ines

s Le

ader

s

Red

= E

duca

tors

B

lue

= Pa

rent

s

NU

MBE

R O

F VO

TES

GRO

UP'

S RE

SPO

NSE

RE

SPO

NSE

S TO

TH

IS Q

UES

TIO

N

1 Ed

ucat

ors

STAA

R as

sess

men

t enc

oura

ges

qual

ity in

stru

ctio

n th

at p

rodu

ces

criti

cal t

hink

ers

1 Ed

ucat

ors

Tim

e lim

ited.

Ed

ucat

ors

Vert

ical

alig

nmen

t of S

TAAR

Ed

ucat

ors

Mon

etar

ily d

rain

ing.

Ed

ucat

ors

Exce

ssiv

e pr

essu

re to

stu

dent

s, fa

mili

es, a

nd e

duca

tors

. 17

Pa

rent

s M

ove

away

from

look

ing

at o

nly

one

test

as

sole

mea

sure

. 11

Pa

rent

s D

ecre

ase

in n

umbe

r of r

equi

red

asse

ssm

ents

. 7

Pare

nts

Lim

it to

num

ber o

f ben

chm

arks

allo

wed

(2/s

ubje

ct)

4 Pa

rent

s In

divi

dual

gra

duat

ion

plan

s.

3 Pa

rent

s N

ot w

orki

ng

3 Pa

rent

s O

ppor

tuni

ty fo

r com

mun

ity in

put a

s pa

rt o

f acc

ount

abili

ty s

yste

m.

1 Pa

rent

s H

eigh

tens

par

ent’s

aw

aren

ess.


SAN

AN

TON

IO

QU

ESTI

ON

#4

WH

AT F

ACTO

RS S

HO

ULD

TH

E N

EXT

GEN

ERAT

ION

CO

MM

ISSI

ON

ON

ASS

ESSM

ENTS

AN

D A

CCO

UN

TABI

LITY

CO

NSI

DER

AS

THEY

MAK

E TH

EIR

RECO

MM

END

ATIO

NS?

Gre

en =

Bus

ines

s Le

ader

s

Red

= E

duca

tors

B

lue

= Pa

rent

s

NU

MBE

R O

F VO

TES

GRO

UP'

S RE

SPO

NSE

RE

SPO

NSE

S TO

TH

IS Q

UES

TIO

N

Busi

ness

As

sess

teac

hers

and

adm

inis

trat

ors

Dat

a in

tegr

atio

n be

twee

n: T

EA, T

HEC

B, T

WC,

NSC

. Rep

orte

d in

an

acce

ssib

le a

nd c

ompr

ehen

dibl

e Bu

sine

ss

form

at.

23

Educ

ator

s M

ore

cons

ider

atio

n to

stu

dent

s w

ith s

peci

al n

eeds

21

Ed

ucat

ors

Mee

t nee

ds o

f all

stud

ents

’ lev

els.

(GT,

GEN

, ELL

, SPE

D)

18

Educ

ator

s Is

the

test

wor

th ta

king

/doe

s it

impr

ove

stud

ent l

earn

ing?

16

Ed

ucat

ors

Alte

rnat

e in

stru

men

ts a

s re

plac

emen

ts (A

CT, T

SI, S

AT) a

ligns

with

diff

eren

t ins

truc

tion.

16

Ed

ucat

ors

Diff

eren

tiatio

n pu

shed

in c

lass

room

s bu

t not

in a

sses

smen

t. 14

Ed

ucat

ors

Cultu

ral d

iver

sity

. 14

Ed

ucat

ors

Asse

ssm

ent s

houl

d in

clud

e gr

owth

and

if s

tude

nt is

read

y, m

ove

them

on.

Not

sta

tic.

12

Educ

ator

s Va

lidity

and

relia

bilit

y.

10

Educ

ator

s Am

ount

of T

EKS

(R&

S) a

sses

sed

They

nee

d to

con

side

r com

mun

ity m

etric

s fo

r the

gra

ding

sys

tem

. •

Perf

orm

a b

atte

ry o

f ass

essm

ents

that

will

look

at s

tude

nt’s

soc

ial,

phys

ical

, and

men

tal d

evel

opm

ent.

• Pe

rfor

man

ce c

ompe

titio

n 10

Ed

ucat

ors

• AC

ES=A

dver

se c

hild

hood

exp

erie

nce

10

Educ

ator

s Ed

ucat

ors

need

to b

e in

volv

ed in

pla

nnin

g.

8 Ed

ucat

ors

Age

appr

opria

te

8 Ed

ucat

ors

Mov

e be

yond

raw

sco

re

8 Ed

ucat

ors

Curr

ent s

yste

m is

frus

trat

ing

for p

aren

ts, d

emor

aliz

ing

for t

each

ers

and

stud

ents

. 8

Educ

ator

s W

hat d

oes

post

-sec

onda

ry re

adin

ess

real

ly m

ean?

7

Educ

ator

s N

o sc

hool

s ar

e eq

ually

reso

urce

d or

pop

ulat

ed.

7 Ed

ucat

ors

Best

pra

ctic

es fo

r ELL

stu

dent

s.

6 Ed

ucat

ors

Com

mun

ity p

iece

mus

t be

som

ethi

ng o

ur c

omm

unity

und

erst

ands

6

Educ

ator

s So

cio-

econ

omic

por

tfol

io.

6 Ed

ucat

ors

Elim

inat

e du

plic

ate

acco

unta

bilit

y m

easu

res

(PEG

)


QU

ESTI

ON

#4

WH

AT F

ACTO

RS S

HO

ULD

TH

E N

EXT

GEN

ERAT

ION

CO

MM

ISSI

ON

ON

ASS

ESSM

ENTS

AN

D A

CCO

UN

TABI

LITY

CO

NSI

DER

AS

THEY

MAK

E TH

EIR

RECO

MM

END

ATIO

NS?

Gre

en =

Bus

ines

s Le

ader

s

Red

= E

duca

tors

B

lue

= Pa

rent

s

NU

MBE

R O

F VO

TES

GRO

UP'

S RE

SPO

NSE

RE

SPO

NSE

S TO

TH

IS Q

UES

TIO

N

Play

ing

field

. Ser

vice

s, re

sour

ces,

hom

e an

d sc

hool

to a

ttai

n kn

owle

dge

and

skill

s re

quire

d fo

r suc

cess

6

Educ

ator

s in

cla

ss. F

orm

ativ

e, in

terim

, ass

essm

ents

, pro

ject

s, p

robl

em s

olvi

ng s

kills

, etc

. 5

Educ

ator

s W

ritin

g sa

mpl

es s

core

d ev

ery

year

, mor

e im

port

ant t

han

read

ing.

4

Educ

ator

s Re

alis

tic te

st q

uest

ions

-> th

at w

ould

yie

ld m

ore

real

istic

pas

sing

sta

ndar

d Co

nsta

ntly

mov

e ve

rtic

al s

cale

to s

usta

in c

urre

nt s

yste

m s

o st

akeh

olde

rs k

now

sys

tem

and

we

still

hav

e 4

Educ

ator

s ac

cura

te m

easu

res

4 Ed

ucat

ors

Pilo

t ass

essm

ents

bef

ore

stat

ewid

e ro

ll ou

t. 4

Educ

ator

s In

clud

ing

mul

tiple

mea

sure

s fo

r pro

duct

ion,

and

con

trib

utio

n, e

tc.

Asse

ssm

ents

nee

d to

be

a hy

brid

mod

el o

f sta

ndar

d ST

AAR

type

and

por

tfol

io. R

ater

trai

ning

, pro

duct

s,

4 Ed

ucat

ors

inte

rim.

3 Ed

ucat

ors

Cons

ider

fact

ors

that

are

bes

t for

stu

dent

s 3

Educ

ator

s To

day’

s st

uden

ts w

ill e

nter

a w

orkf

orce

that

may

not

be

fully

def

ined

by

the

time

of g

radu

atio

n.

3 Ed

ucat

ors

Bure

aucr

atic

met

hods

do

not n

eces

saril

y fo

ster

the

inno

vatio

n th

at is

nee

ded

for f

utur

e ge

nera

tions

. 2

Educ

ator

s Ba

lanc

ed a

ccou

ntab

ility

sys

tem

. 2

Educ

ator

s Ea

sy to

und

erst

and

and

fair.

2

Educ

ator

s Al

ign

with

ESS

A an

d ot

her s

tate

acc

ount

abili

ty m

easu

res.

1

Educ

ator

s W

ant c

onsi

sten

cy

1 Ed

ucat

ors

Expe

nditu

re p

er s

tude

nt in

eac

h di

stric

t, ci

ty, o

r sta

te.

1 Ed

ucat

ors

Alig

nmen

t to

colle

ge c

aree

r rea

dine

ss/h

ighe

r ed.

1

Educ

ator

s Co

nsid

er im

pact

on

teac

her e

valu

atio

n.

Educ

ator

s Q

uant

itate

met

rics

Educ

ator

s Co

nsid

er th

e “o

pt o

ut”

mov

emen

t and

lack

of t

each

er re

tent

ion.

Ed

ucat

ors

Chal

leng

es in

here

nt to

eac

h in

divi

dual

dis

tric

t. Ed

ucat

ors

Fact

she

et te

stin

g pl

an.

Focu

s on

diff

eren

t “w

ays”

of t

estin

g fo

r uni

que

situ

atio

ns o

n BO

TH e

nds

of th

e le

arni

ng s

pect

rum

s (i.

e.

15

Pare

nts

stud

ents

with

inte

llect

ual d

isab

ilitie

s->

stud

ents

who

are

gift

ed.)

9 Pa

rent

s M

ore

flexi

bilit

y lo

cally

for s

peci

al e

duca

tion.

9

Pare

nts

Acce

ss to

see

if m

y ki

d re

ally

nee

ds to

revi

ew o

r sim

ple

mis

take

s.

9 Pa

rent

s Co

nsid

er a

ddin

g a

true

gro

wth

mea

sure

.


QU

ESTI

ON

#4

WH

AT F

ACTO

RS S

HO

ULD

TH

E N

EXT

GEN

ERAT

ION

CO

MM

ISSI

ON

ON

ASS

ESSM

ENTS

AN

D A

CCO

UN

TABI

LITY

CO

NSI

DER

AS

THEY

MAK

E TH

EIR

RECO

MM

END

ATIO

NS?

Gre

en =

Bus

ines

s Le

ader

s

Red

= E

duca

tors

B

lue

= Pa

rent

s

NU

MBE

R O

F VO

TES

GRO

UP'

S RE

SPO

NSE

RE

SPO

NSE

S TO

TH

IS Q

UES

TIO

N

7 Pa

rent

s D

etai

ls a

bout

test

ing.

How

can

I he

lp m

y ki

d?

7 Pa

rent

s Co

nsid

er m

easu

rem

ent t

ools

app

licab

le to

diff

eren

t lea

rnin

g st

yles

. 5

Pare

nts

Just

opt

out

, spe

cial

ed.

Q

ualit

y vs

. qua

ntity

-> w

ell w

ritte

n, w

ell p

lann

ed, w

ell d

eliv

ered

inst

ruct

ion

that

is e

qual

ly w

ell

5 Pa

rent

s as

sess

ed.

Cons

ider

uni

nten

ded

cons

eque

nces

of t

he h

igh

stak

es a

ttac

hed

to te

stin

g: fu

ndin

g, p

rom

otio

ns, s

choo

l 5

Pare

nts

ratin

gs.

4 Pa

rent

s Le

ss fo

cus

on a

sin

gle

test

, mor

e fo

cus

on w

hole

stu

dent

. 3

Pare

nts

Cons

ider

giv

ing

the

flexi

bilit

y th

at c

hart

er s

choo

l boa

rds

have

to IS

D b

oard

s.

1 Pa

rent

s Tr

ansp

aren

cy o

f tes

ts.

Pare

nts

Som

ehow

inco

rpor

ate

crea

tive

writ

ing

rath

er th

an “

form

ulat

e” w

ritin

g to

mee

t a p

rom

pt


SAN

AN

TON

IO

QU

ESTI

ON

#5

WH

AT S

UG

GES

TIO

NS

FOR

IMPR

OVE

MEN

T O

F O

UR

CURR

ENT

SYST

EM W

OU

LD Y

OU

GIV

E TO

TH

E CO

MM

ISSI

ON

?

Gre

en =

Bus

ines

s Le

ader

s

Red

= E

duca

tors

B

lue

= Pa

rent

s

NU

MBE

R O

F VO

TES

GRO

UP'

S RE

SPO

NSE

RE

SPO

NSE

S TO

TH

IS Q

UES

TIO

N

Busi

ness

Be

tter

def

ine

indi

cato

rs.

18

Educ

ator

s As

sess

men

ts s

houl

d be

rese

arch

bas

ed, w

ell d

esig

ned

for a

ll st

uden

t dem

ogra

phic

s

17

Educ

ator

s Ca

n st

ate

alig

n w

ith fe

dera

l sta

ndar

ds?

Qui

cker

turn

aro

und

on re

sults

. Set

targ

ets

befo

re a

sses

smen

ts o

r SY

stat

s.

17

Educ

ator

s Be

will

ing

to c

onsi

der a

com

plet

ely

diff

eren

t mod

el o

f ass

essm

ent.

17

Educ

ator

s Va

riety

of a

sses

smen

t: •

Verb

al 1

0; •

Por

tfol

io 1

1; •

Pro

blem

sol

ve 9

; • P

roje

ct b

ased

14;

• W

ritte

n 7

16

Educ

ator

s Em

phas

is o

n gr

owth

ove

r sco

res.

16

Ed

ucat

ors

Trus

t tea

cher

s an

d de

-em

phas

ize

the

impo

rtan

ce o

f the

test

. Re

duce

ass

essm

ent s

ched

ule:

a m

ajor

test

eve

ry y

ear i

s to

o fr

eque

nt to

sho

w re

al p

rogr

ess.

The

focu

s 14

Ed

ucat

ors

beco

mes

on

impr

ovin

g th

e TE

ST ra

ther

than

stu

dent

per

form

ance

. In

pla

ce o

f san

ctio

ns, c

reat

e po

sitiv

e so

lutio

ns s

uch

as c

omm

unity

sch

ools

to c

lose

gap

s ou

tsid

e of

the

13

Educ

ator

s ac

adem

ic.

13

Educ

ator

s Fu

ndin

g m

ust m

eet p

olic

y re

quire

men

ts.

12

Educ

ator

s M

inim

ize

impa

ct o

f raw

sco

res

Cons

ider

exe

mpt

ions

for s

peci

al n

eeds

out

liers

like

STA

AR a

nd A

LFT.

A lo

t of r

esou

rces

, tim

e, a

nd

12

Educ

ator

s fr

ustr

atio

ns.

11

Educ

ator

s ST

AAR

A is

not

app

ropr

iate

for s

ome

stud

ents

with

dis

abili

ties

Wai

ver f

or s

tude

nts

cons

iste

ntly

exc

eeds

sta

ndar

ds a

nd c

reat

e an

inte

rim le

vel:

stud

ent e

nrol

led

in

11

Educ

ator

s rig

orou

s cl

assr

oom

. 10

Ed

ucat

ors

Nar

row

the

TEKS

Ass

esse

d Re

duct

ion

of e

lem

enta

ry a

sses

smen

ts, b

ut fi

nd n

ew s

olut

ion

for m

easu

ring

grow

th (t

est e

very

oth

er

10

Educ

ator

s ye

ar)

If al

l stu

dent

s w

ill b

e te

sted

equ

ally

, mak

e su

re a

ll st

uden

ts h

ave

sam

e re

sour

ces

prio

r to

year

9

Educ

ator

s be

ginn

ing.

VA

M d

oes

not t

ake

into

acc

ount

num

erou

s va

riabl

es a

nd h

as b

een

dete

rmin

ed to

not

be

relia

ble

or

9 Ed

ucat

ors

valid

. 9

Educ

ator

s Pr

ovid

e op

port

uniti

es fo

r pra

ctiti

oner

s to

giv

e fe

edba

ck.

9 Ed

ucat

ors

Enha

ncin

g th

e ac

com

mod

atio

ns fo

r dys

lexi

c/sp

ecia

l ed.


QU

ESTI

ON

#5

WH

AT S

UG

GES

TIO

NS

FOR

IMPR

OVE

MEN

T O

F O

UR

CURR

ENT

SYST

EM W

OU

LD Y

OU

GIV

E TO

TH

E CO

MM

ISSI

ON

?

Gre

en =

Bus

ines

s Le

ader

s

Red

= E

duca

tors

B

lue

= Pa

rent

s

NU

MBE

R O

F VO

TES

GRO

UP'

S RE

SPO

NSE

RE

SPO

NSE

S TO

TH

IS Q

UES

TIO

N

9 Ed

ucat

ors

Acco

unta

bilit

y sh

ould

con

side

r im

prov

emen

t. 9

Educ

ator

s Ex

pand

mea

sure

men

t too

ls b

esid

es m

ultip

le c

hoic

e (p

roje

cts,

por

tfol

ios,

etc

.) 8

Educ

ator

s W

ithin

the

55%

inde

x 2

shou

ld h

ave

mor

e w

eigh

t 8

Educ

ator

s Ar

e w

e as

sess

ing

for l

earn

ing

or a

ccou

ntab

ility

? 6

Educ

ator

s In

terim

test

s (in

sam

e ye

ar o

r pro

gres

sive

yea

rs)

6 Ed

ucat

ors

Elim

inat

e du

plic

ate

acco

unta

bilit

y m

easu

res

(PEG

) 6

Educ

ator

s N

urtu

re c

reat

ivity

- alig

n w

ith 2

1st c

entu

ry le

arni

ng.

5 Ed

ucat

ors

Dia

gnos

tic te

stin

g 5

Educ

ator

s To

o m

any

test

s in

8th

gra

de.

5 Ed

ucat

ors

Refr

ain

from

ear

ly la

belin

g (p

ost-

seco

ndar

y re

adin

ess

at e

lem

enta

ry)

4 Ed

ucat

ors

Scar

city

of q

ualif

ied

bilin

gual

edu

catio

n Te

ache

rs

4 Ed

ucat

ors

Cons

tant

cha

nge

of a

sses

smen

t sys

tem

s is

det

rimen

tal t

o th

eir p

rogr

ess

and

grow

th.

3 Ed

ucat

ors

4th

grad

e w

ritin

g sh

ould

be

a na

rrat

ive

piec

e 3

Educ

ator

s Re

sults

nee

d to

be

tran

spar

ent.

2 Ed

ucat

ors

Scar

city

of q

ualif

ied

teac

hers

1

Educ

ator

s N

ot s

o m

any

test

s fr

eshm

an y

ear b

ut re

dist

ribut

e 1

Educ

ator

s Fi

ndin

g a

way

to e

nsur

e st

uden

ts h

ave

acce

ss to

hig

h qu

ality

inst

ruct

ion

Educ

ator

s Si

mpl

ify a

nd lo

ok a

t ins

truc

tiona

l im

pact

. Not

par

ticip

atin

g in

ext

racu

rric

ular

act

iviti

es fo

r exa

mpl

e Ed

ucat

ors

Incl

usio

n of

opp

ortu

nity

to le

arn

met

rics

(ele

men

tary

teac

her q

uant

ity, r

esou

rces

) Ed

ucat

ors

Teac

her t

rain

ing

on s

tude

nt a

sses

smen

ts

Educ

ator

s Ra

ndom

ized

sam

ple

test

ing

Educ

ator

s Su

ppor

tive

inte

rven

tion

for s

trug

glin

g st

uden

ts in

sch

ools

Ed

ucat

ors

Sub

pop

do p

oorly

: So

wha

t do

we

do, w

hat a

ctio

n pl

an w

ill re

ally

add

ress

the

“wha

t’s n

ext?

” Ed

ucat

ors

Inte

rim (s

tand

ardi

zed

benc

hmar

k) B

ench

mar

ks to

kee

p pl

ayin

g fie

ld, l

evel

acr

oss

the

stat

e.

Allo

w fo

r a m

ore

“nat

ural

” te

stin

g en

viro

nmen

t, to

redu

ce s

tude

nt s

tres

s le

vels

(i.e

. rem

ove

“art

ifici

al”

19

Pare

nts

rule

s lik

e te

ache

r can

’t sp

eak.

May

be “

stan

dard

” an

swer

s &

lim

its o

n ba

thro

om w

ith y

oung

er s

tude

nts)

15

Pa

rent

s Ad

aptiv

e te

stin

g fo

r stu

dent

to b

ette

r mea

sure

aca

dem

ic g

row

th.

12

Pare

nts

Qui

t tea

chin

g to

the

test

.


QU

ESTI

ON

#5

WH

AT S

UG

GES

TIO

NS

FOR

IMPR

OVE

MEN

T O

F O

UR

CURR

ENT

SYST

EM W

OU

LD Y

OU

GIV

E TO

TH

E CO

MM

ISSI

ON

?

Gre

en =

Bus

ines

s Le

ader

s

Red

= E

duca

tors

B

lue

= Pa

rent

s

NU

MBE

R O

F VO

TES

GRO

UP'

S RE

SPO

NSE

RE

SPO

NSE

S TO

TH

IS Q

UES

TIO

N

Allo

w fl

exib

ility

in s

tude

nt a

sses

smen

t- s

imila

r to

the

flexi

bilit

y te

ache

rs h

ave

in a

sses

sing

gen

eral

8

Pare

nts

clas

sroo

m in

stru

ctio

n ->

diff

eren

tiate

d as

sess

men

t. 7

Pare

nts

Mor

e tr

ansp

aren

cy w

ith p

aren

ts a

bout

aca

dem

ic re

sour

ces

avai

labl

e.

6 Pa

rent

s Cl

ass

size

, too

div

erse

of l

earn

ing

leve

l. 3

Pare

nts

Cont

inue

to fo

cus

on in

divi

dual

stu

dent

GRO

WTH

rath

er th

an “

just

” a

sing

le s

core

. 2

Pare

nts

Usi

ng b

ench

mar

ks, i

nste

ad o

f a o

ne d

ay s

naps

hot.

2 Pa

rent

s M

anda

te a

nnua

l par

ent f

eedb

ack

with

rega

rd to

teac

her e

ffec

tiven

ess.

1

Pare

nts

Not

eve

ry s

choo

l yea

r. 1

Pare

nts

Stea

lth te

stin

g.

1 Pa

rent

s D

on’t

take

aw

ay s

choo

l spe

cial

ists

.


SAN

AN

TON

IO

QU

ESTI

ON

#6

WH

AT G

OAL

S FO

R (1

) ASS

ESSM

ENTS

AN

D (2

) ACC

OU

NTA

BILI

TY W

OU

LD Y

OU

REC

OM

MEN

D T

O T

HE

COM

MIS

SIO

N

THAT

WO

ULD

SH

APE

THEI

R W

ORK

?

Gre

en =

Bus

ines

s Le

ader

s

Red

= E

duca

tors

B

lue

= Pa

rent

s

NU

MBE

R O

F VO

TES

GRO

UP'

S RE

SPO

NSE

RE

SPO

NSE

S TO

TH

IS Q

UES

TIO

N

1 Bu

sine

ss

Valu

e al

l pat

hway

s 1

Busi

ness

M

ake

sure

nat

ural

pro

gres

sion

alig

n Bu

sine

ss

Equi

ty is

sue,

ens

ure

oppo

rtun

ity

Busi

ness

M

ake

it in

dust

ry re

leva

nt

Busi

ness

Le

gisl

atio

n th

at m

anda

tes

scho

ol b

oard

s or

com

mitt

ees

to h

ave

busi

ness

mem

bers

hip

Crea

te a

sys

tem

that

hon

ors

mul

tiple

mea

sure

s, a

uthe

ntic

lear

ning

, and

pro

duct

ion

of w

ork

(wor

k fo

rce

23

Educ

ator

s de

velo

pmen

t)

Rele

ase

mor

e qu

estio

ns fo

r ins

truc

tiona

l use

. Rel

ease

onl

ine

asse

ssm

ent.

Keep

inde

x fr

amew

ork.

LES

S TE

KS

22

Educ

ator

s as

sess

ed fo

r yea

r.

18

Educ

ator

s Fi

nd a

way

to h

elp

stru

gglin

g sc

hool

s w

ithou

t pun

itive

mea

sure

s As

sess

men

t sho

uld

info

rm/i

nspi

re im

prov

emen

t for

teac

hers

, stu

dent

s, s

choo

ls, p

aren

ts, a

nd

17

Educ

ator

s co

mm

unity

. Not

an

end,

but

a m

eans

to g

row

. 17

Ed

ucat

ors

“Don

’t ki

ll lo

ve fo

r lea

rnin

g”

17

Educ

ator

s Re

al w

orld

dat

a.

17

Educ

ator

s H

onor

div

erse

stu

dent

s an

d th

eir i

nter

ests

. 14

Ed

ucat

ors

Incr

ease

wei

ght o

f stu

dent

pro

gres

s in

sys

tem

(Dom

ain

II)

14

Educ

ator

s M

ake

sure

ben

chm

arks

alig

n w

ith w

hat t

hey

inte

nd to

mea

sure

(i.e

. pos

t-se

cond

ary

read

ines

s)

13

Educ

ator

s As

sess

men

t - W

orth

taki

ng, h

igh

qual

ity, f

ully

tran

spar

ent t

o st

uden

ts, p

aren

ts a

nd te

ache

rs

12

Educ

ator

s Fr

ontli

ne c

onve

rsat

ions

(tea

cher

s, a

ssoc

iatio

ns, p

aren

ts, s

tude

nts)

12

Ed

ucat

ors

De-

emph

asiz

e a

one

day,

one

sho

t tes

t. Re

view

the

proc

ess

and

stan

dard

s fo

r the

ELL

pop

ulat

ions

. Whe

re a

re th

e ge

ttin

g th

eir d

ata

to k

now

how

they

are

11

Ed

ucat

ors

colle

ge re

ady?

Ac

coun

tabi

lity

- Bro

ad m

easu

re o

f sch

ool e

ffec

tiven

ess

need

ed, m

easu

re p

ost-

seco

ndar

y st

uden

t 11

Ed

ucat

ors

succ

ess

11

Educ

ator

s M

ore

accu

rate

way

to m

easu

ring

stud

ent p

rogr

ess

indi

vidu

ally

. Gro

wth

mea

sure

for t

he re

test

ers.

Co

ntin

ue to

cre

ate

asse

ssm

ent i

tem

s th

at a

sses

s of

pra

ctic

al k

now

ledg

e. T

he g

oal i

s no

t to

tric

k 10

Ed

ucat

ors

stud

ents


QU

ESTI

ON

#6

WH

AT G

OAL

S FO

R (1

) ASS

ESSM

ENTS

AN

D (2

) ACC

OU

NTA

BILI

TY W

OU

LD Y

OU

REC

OM

MEN

D T

O T

HE

COM

MIS

SIO

N

THAT

WO

ULD

SH

APE

THEI

R W

ORK

?

Gre

en =

Bus

ines

s Le

ader

s

Red

= E

duca

tors

B

lue

= Pa

rent

s

NU

MBE

R O

F VO

TES

GRO

UP'

S RE

SPO

NSE

RE

SPO

NSE

S TO

TH

IS Q

UES

TIO

N

10

Educ

ator

s Ac

coun

tabi

lity

shou

ld n

ot re

side

sol

ely

on th

e ST

AAR

test

10

Ed

ucat

ors

Incr

ease

met

rics

at h

igh

scho

ol s

o w

e ca

n m

easu

re s

tude

nt g

row

th

Not

a “

gotc

ha”

but a

“te

ach

ya”

men

talit

y fo

r sch

ools

who

do

not m

eet s

tand

ard

posi

tive

9 Ed

ucat

ors

rein

forc

emen

t. 9

Educ

ator

s D

o no

har

m/p

enal

ty to

stu

dent

s w

ho h

ave

achi

eved

and

rem

aine

d in

adv

ance

d le

vel.

9 Ed

ucat

ors

Mor

e w

eigh

t to

stud

ent p

ortf

olio

. Ac

coun

tabi

lity

for t

hose

in a

dmin

who

are

resp

onsi

ble

for p

rovi

ding

fund

ing

and

reso

urce

s to

all

8 Ed

ucat

ors

scho

ols

equa

lly.

From

a g

roup

that

nee

ds h

elp-

cultu

rally

wha

t are

we

doin

g to

hel

p th

em b

y in

divi

dual

izin

g th

e ne

eds

of

8 Ed

ucat

ors

that

par

ticul

ar g

roup

? 5

Educ

ator

s Be

tter

com

mun

icat

ion

with

sta

keho

lder

s: p

aren

ts, t

each

ers,

pub

lic.

5 Ed

ucat

ors

Reco

gniz

e th

e in

divi

dual

ity o

f the

chi

ld.

5 Ed

ucat

ors

Visi

t sch

ools

the

who

le d

ay/m

ultip

le v

isits

. 5

Educ

ator

s Ac

coun

tabi

lity

repo

rts

refle

ct: a

tten

danc

e, s

tude

nt g

row

th, g

aps,

and

sub

pop

. 4

Educ

ator

s En

sure

pro

per a

lignm

ent b

etw

een

expe

ctat

ions

and

reso

urce

s 4

Educ

ator

s Ac

coun

tabi

lity

not t

ied

to P

DAS

3

Educ

ator

s In

clud

e hi

gher

ed.

Off

icia

ls in

dev

elop

men

t of a

ccou

ntab

ility

sys

tem

s 3

Educ

ator

s Th

e ar

t of t

each

ing

(des

ign

less

ons)

3

Educ

ator

s G

row

th m

easu

res

alig

ned

with

col

lege

and

car

eer r

eadi

ness

. D

iffer

entia

tion

in o

ffic

ial a

sses

smen

t bey

ond

read

ing

alou

d. N

umbe

r of a

nsw

er o

ptio

ns, p

refe

rent

ial

2 Ed

ucat

ors

seat

ing,

and

font

siz

e.

2 Ed

ucat

ors

Wha

t stu

dent

s sh

ould

kno

w a

nd d

o (t

he a

sses

smen

t sid

e)

2 Ed

ucat

ors

Wha

t sho

uld

stud

ents

lear

n?

Eval

uate

col

lect

or c

onse

quen

ces

of a

sses

smen

t and

acc

ount

abili

ty s

yste

m (w

ritin

g ig

nore

d in

non

-1

Educ

ator

s te

stin

g ye

ars)

1

Educ

ator

s W

hat c

an w

e br

ing

in to

the

cam

pus

to h

elp

that

gro

up?

Allo

w g

row

th, p

ossi

bly

a ca

mpu

s RT

I Ed

ucat

ors

Stan

dard

ized

form

at fo

r tes

ts. S

TAAR

on

com

pute

r? S

ome

on p

aper

? Ed

ucat

ors

How

will

it b

e de

mon

stra

ted?

Ed

ucat

ors

Com

mun

ity-b

usin

ess.

15

Pa

rent

s Ta

ke a

ccou

nt e

ach

child

’s c

ogni

tive,

soc

ial,

emot

iona

l, be

havi

oral

abi

litie

s.

14

Pare

nts

Crea

te a

n as

sess

men

t with

lear

ning

in m

ind.


QU

ESTI

ON

#6

WH

AT G

OAL

S FO

R (1

) ASS

ESSM

ENTS

AN

D (2

) ACC

OU

NTA

BILI

TY W

OU

LD Y

OU

REC

OM

MEN

D T

O T

HE

COM

MIS

SIO

N

THAT

WO

ULD

SH

APE

THEI

R W

ORK

?

Gre

en =

Bus

ines

s Le

ader

s

Red

= E

duca

tors

B

lue

= Pa

rent

s

NU

MBE

R O

F VO

TES

GRO

UP'

S RE

SPO

NSE

RE

SPO

NSE

S TO

TH

IS Q

UES

TIO

N

12

Pare

nts

Less

ass

essm

ent b

y th

e st

ate.

8

Pare

nts

Not

a te

st th

at te

sts,

test

taki

ng s

trat

egie

s an

d ab

ilitie

s.

5 Pa

rent

s M

ore

teac

her i

nput

on

stud

ent a

sses

smen

ts.

4 Pa

rent

s St

uden

t led

sys

tem

/stu

dent

inpu

t. 2

Pare

nts

Mea

ning

ful,

auth

entic

ass

essm

ent r

athe

r tha

n “b

ubbl

e” te

sts.

1

Pare

nts

Dis

cove

r wha

t the

kid

s kn

ow.

1 Pa

rent

s W

ho is

acc

ount

able

? W

hat a

re th

ey g

oing

to d

o to

hel

p?

1 Pa

rent

s Re

duce

pre

ssur

e on

teac

hers

rega

rdin

g sc

ore

on s

ingl

e “b

ubbl

e” te

st.

Som

ehow

con

side

r chi

ld d

evel

opm

ent m

ilest

ones

in d

esig

n- in

clud

ing

stud

ent:

teac

her r

atio

s an

d ho

w

Pare

nts

that

impa

cts

indi

vidu

aliz

atio

n.

Pare

nts

Incl

ude

scho

ol c

ultu

re in

to a

ccou

ntab

ility

(i.e

. mea

sure

how

the

scho

ol e

nviro

nmen

t “fe

els”

)

State Board of Education1701 N. Congress Ave.Austin, Texas 78701BR16-130-04

Documents

Texans Speak: Public Feedback on Assessment and ... · Texans Speak: Public Feedback on Assessment and Accountability Systems 10 Sampling of Comments from the Community Conversations