texans speak: public feedback on assessment and ... · texans speak: public feedback on assessment...
TRANSCRIPT
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
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
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
Texans Speak: Public Feedback on Assessment and Accountability Systems
A report from the State Board of EducationJuly 2016
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.
Texans Speak: Public Feedback on Assessment and Accountability Systems
A report from the State Board of EducationJuly 2016
Executive Summary
Texans Speak: Public Feedback on Assessment and Accountability Systems 8
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.
Texans Speak: Public Feedback on Assessment and Accountability Systems 9
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.
Texans Speak: Public Feedback on Assessment and Accountability Systems 10
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)
Texans Speak: Public Feedback on Assessment and Accountability Systems 11
– 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%
Parent or community leader 2242.6%
1451.7%
4114.8%
250.2%
7,63290.4%
8,43730.6%
Business leader 21.9%
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
Texans Speak: Public Feedback on Assessment and Accountability Systems
A report from the State Board of EducationJuly 2016
State Assessments and Accountability Survey
Texans Speak: State Assessments and Accountability Survey 14
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%
Parent or community leader 5706.9%
3,09837.7%
1,10413.4%
1,97924.1%
1,45817.7%
8,20930.4%
Business leader 1717.7%
2930.2%
1414.5%
1919.7%
1717.7%
960.3%
Student 416.6%
19331.4%
11518.7%
13922.6%
12520.3%
6132.2%
Institution of higher education employee 4210%
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%
Parent or community leader 6227.5%
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%
Institution of higher education employee 399.3%
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
Stronglyagree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
disagree Responses
Educator 2,20713.4%
7,39945%
1,5909.6%
3,33420.3%
1,88111.4%
16,41161%
Parent or community leader 86110.4%
2,88235.1%
83910.2%
1,91323.3%
1,70620.8%
8,20130.5%
Business leader 3335.1%
2829.7%
55.3%
1313.8%
1515.9%
940.3%
Student 528.4%
18329.6%
6811%
16526.6%
15024.2%
6182.2%
Institution of higher education employee 6014.4%
16239.1%
4510.8%
8721%
6014.4%
4141.5%
Other 22219.4%
45139.4%
1149.9%
20517.9%
15113.2%
1,1434.2%
Texans Speak: Public Feedback on Assessment and Accountability Systems
A report from the State Board of EducationJuly 2016
State Assessment Goal
Texans Speak: State Assessments and Accountability Survey 15
Measure student readinessfor the next grade level or
high school graduation(mastery of curriculum
standards)
Stronglyagree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
disagree Responses
Educator 1,4799%
6,73741%
2,05512.5%
4,16325.3%
1,97212%
16,40661%
Parent or community leader 5947.2%
2,44329.7%
98311.9%
2,20426.8%
1,98324.1%
8,20730.5%
Business leader 2122.1%
3435.7%
99.4%
1616.8%
1515.7%
950.3%
Student 416.6%
14222.9%
9415.2%
17227.8%
16927.3%
6182.2%
Institution of higher education employee 419.9%
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
Stronglyagree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
disagree Responses
Educator 1,0546.4%
4,46027.1%
2,63416%
5,22331.8%
3,04518.5%
16,41661%
Parent or community leader 4845.9%
1,68420.5%
1,19914.6%
2,42529.5%
2,40729.3%
8,19930.4%
Business leader 2020.8%
2526%
1212.5%
1717.7%
2222.9%
960.3%
Student 396.3%
11218%
8213.2%
19331.1%
19331.1%
6192.3%
Institution of higher education employee 4310.3%
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
Stronglyagree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
disagree Responses
Educator 1,5169.2%
7,45645.4%
2,23213.6%
3,48521.2%
1,71210.4%
16,40161%
Parent or community leader 5656.8%
2,65932.4%
1,28015.6%
1,98524.2%
1,70020.7%
8,18930.4%
Business leader 2526%
2728.1%
1010.4%
1515.6%
1919.7%
960.3%
Student 447%
16626.7%
13822.2%
12420%
14823.8%
6202.3%
Institution of higher education employee 5713.7%
14635.1%
5914.2%
8019.2%
7317.5%
4151.5%
Other 17014.8%
46040.2%
14913%
21819%
14712.8%
1,1444.2%
Texans Speak: State Assessments and Accountability Survey 16
Assessment Format, Content, and DistributionState ASSESSMENT should:
Be administered based onTexas state standards toensure we have the same
expectations for everystudent in every school
Stronglyagree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
disagree Responses
Educator 1,87411.4%
6,68940.7%
2,20613.4%
3,60821.9%
2,03112.3%
16,40860.9%
Parent or community leader 6037.3%
2,10025.5%
1,30315.8%
2,17326.4%
2,04124.8%
8,22030.5%
Business leader 1212.5%
2728.1%
1212.5%
2425%
2121.8%
960.3%
Student 508%
15925.7%
9916%
13421.6%
17628.4%
6182.2%
Institution of higher education employee 4510.7%
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)
Stronglyagree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
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%
Business leader 4344.7%
1616.6%
88.3%
1717.7%
1212.5%
960.3%
Student 29847.9%
14623.4%
8713.9%
609.6%
314.9%
6222.3%
Institution of higher education employee 16639.6%
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
Texans Speak: State Assessments and Accountability Survey 17
Have one clear purpose(e.g., assessment,
diagnostic, accountability)
Stronglyagree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
disagree Responses
Educator 3,59121.9%
7,08743.3%
2,58915.8%
2,39814.6%
6984.2%
16,36360.9%
Parent or community leader 1,74921.3%
3,08437.5%
1,65420.1%
1,08713.2%
6377.7%
8,21130.5%
Business leader 2425.5%
2930.8%
2021.2%
1617%
55.3%
940.3%
Student 14222.9%
22035.4%
12119.5%
8213.2%
558.8%
6202.3%
Institution of higher education employee 10224.5%
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
Stronglyagree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
disagree Responses
Educator 5,69534.7%
6,23638%
1,67810.2%
1,74010.6%
1,0286.2%
16,37760.9%
Parent or community leader 2,26927.6%
2,81834.2%
1,11213.5%
1,00812.2%
1,01012.2%
8,21730.5%
Business leader 3132.2%
2930.2%
1212.5%
1212.5%
1212.5%
960.3%
Student 17528.2%
17928.9%
9515.3%
7411.9%
9615.5%
6192.3%
Institution of higher education employee 14935.6%
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
Stronglyagree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
disagree Responses
Educator 8,42951.4%
6,46439.4%
1,1286.8%
2421.4%
1170.7%
16,38060.9%
Parent or community leader 3,33840.6%
3,31740.3%
1,09413.3%
2563.1%
2152.6%
8,22030.5%
Business leader 4244.2%
3435.7%
99.4%
77.3%
33.1%
950.3%
Student 29146.7%
21534.5%
7912.7%
182.8%
193%
6222.3%
Institution of higher education employee 16439.6%
18143.7%
419.9%
194.5%
92.1%
4141.5%
Other 49042.7%
44739%
14712.8%
403.4%
221.9%
1,1464.2%
Texans Speak: State Assessments and Accountability Survey 18
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)
Stronglyagree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
disagree Responses
Educator 4,19825.6%
5,08431%
2,68516.4%
3,19919.5%
1,2037.3%
16,36960.9%
Parent or community leader 1,97023.9%
2,26627.6%
1,47317.9%
1,52418.5%
97611.8%
8,20930.5%
Business leader 2627.3%
1717.8%
1515.7%
1616.8%
2122.1%
950.3%
Student 16025.8%
14122.7%
12319.8%
10717.2%
8914.3%
6202.3%
Institution of higher education employee 9923.7%
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
Stronglyagree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
disagree Responses
Educator 12,76477.7%
3,08218.7%
3802.3%
1100.6%
810.4%
16,41760.9%
Parent or community leader 5,64568.6%
1,94623.6%
3734.5%
1171.4%
1441.7%
8,22530.5%
Business leader 6265.2%
1717.8%
1313.6%
11%
22.1%
950.3%
Student 36859.3%
16927.2%
436.9%
223.5%
182.9%
6202.3%
Institution of higher education employee 31876.2%
7718.4%
153.5%
40.9%
30.7%
4171.5%
Other 77567.5%
28024.3%
665.7%
141.2%
131.1%
1,1484.2%
Texans Speak: State Assessments and Accountability Survey 19
Not contain trick questionsor developmentally
inappropriate questions
Stronglyagree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
disagree Responses
Educator 15,08691.8%
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%
Business leader 6771.2%
1313.8%
99.5%
33.1%
22.1%
940.3%
Student 47476.3%
8313.3%
314.9%
203.2%
132%
6212.3%
Institution of higher education employee 35585.1%
4310.3%
122.8%
40.9%
30.7%
4171.5%
Other 94181.9%
14012.1%
393.3%
171.4%
110.9%
1,1484.2%
Texans Speak: State Assessments and Accountability Survey 20
Use of Assessment DataState ASSESSMENT data should:
Determine post-secondaryreadiness
Stronglyagree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
disagree Responses
Educator 1,5329.3%
5,50033.4%
3,95024%
3,92023.8%
1,5189.2%
16,42060.9%
Parent or community leader 7038.5%
2,27927.6%
1,94723.6%
1,95423.7%
1,35416.4%
8,23730.5%
Business leader 2021.2%
2728.7%
1819.1%
1617%
1313.8%
940.3%
Student 7411.9%
15925.6%
18329.4%
13221.2%
7311.7%
6212.3%
Institution of higher education employee 7016.7%
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
Stronglyagree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
disagree Responses
Educator 3,77122.9%
8,03648.8%
2,23313.5%
1,6309.9%
7694.6%
16,43961%
Parent or community leader 1,21414.7%
3,47942.2%
1,67220.3%
1,01512.3%
84910.3%
8,22930.5%
Business leader 2425.5%
3234%
1414.8%
1414.8%
1010.6%
940.3%
Student 8814.1%
23537.9%
16726.9%
7512%
558.8%
6202.3%
Institution of higher education employee 8921.2%
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
Stronglyagree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
disagree Responses
Educator 7,77547.2%
4,95730.1%
1,90711.5%
1,4048.5%
4142.5%
16,45760.9%
Parent or community leader 5,14462.3%
1,81421.9%
6267.5%
4525.4%
2132.5%
8,24930.5%
Business leader 4648.4%
1313.6%
1313.6%
1515.7%
88.4%
950.3%
Student 38461.7%
15024.1%
386.1%
274.3%
233.6%
6222.3%
Institution of higher education employee 20448.6%
10525%
5112.1%
389%
215%
4191.5%
Other 54847.7%
35330.7%
1139.8%
958.2%
393.3%
1,1484.2%
State Assessment Data
Texans Speak: State Assessments and Accountability Survey 21
Identify gaps in individualstudent learning
Stronglyagree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
disagree Responses
Educator 4,56527.7%
9,16255.7%
1,2547.6%
1,0086.1%
4492.7%
16,43861%
Parent or community leader 2,02324.5%
4,08949.6%
96611.7%
6497.8%
5036.1%
8,23030.5%
Business leader 3234%
3840.4%
1313.8%
66.3%
55.3%
940.3%
Student 14923.9%
26742.9%
10316.5%
6510.4%
375.9%
6212.3%
Institution of higher education employee 10725.7%
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
Stronglyagree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
disagree Responses
Educator 2901.7%
1,4448.7%
1,4438.7%
4,51127.4%
8,76953.2%
16,45760.9%
Parent or community leader 4745.7%
1,15514%
1,04112.6%
2,32528.2%
3,24639.3%
8,24130.5%
Business leader 1818.9%
1515.7%
77.3%
2021%
3536.8%
950.3%
Student 619.8%
10516.9%
8313.3%
14523.3%
22636.4%
6202.2%
Institution of higher education employee 204.7%
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
Stronglyagree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
disagree Responses
Educator 3502.1%
3,34220.2%
2,70416.4%
5,09530.9%
4,97930.2%
16,47061%
Parent or community leader 4555.5%
1,75321.2%
1,45717.6%
2,26427.4%
2,31228%
8,24130.5%
Business leader 1515.7%
2223.1%
1111.5%
1920%
2829.4%
950.3%
Student 6210%
12219.6%
11518.5%
15525%
16626.7%
6202.2%
Institution of higher education employee 225.2%
8119.3%
7016.7%
10725.5%
13833%
4181.5%
Other 786.8%
27023.5%
25121.9%
29625.8%
25121.9%
1,1464.2%
Texans Speak: State Assessments and Accountability Survey 22
Identify low and highperforming students
Stronglyagree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
disagree Responses
Educator 1,3958.4%
7,06842.9%
2,99418.1%
3,01818.3%
1,98112%
16,45661%
Parent or community leader 7398.9%
2,61931.7%
1,53418.6%
1,72920.9%
1,61619.6%
8,23730.5%
Business leader 1818.9%
3031.5%
1212.6%
1616.8%
1920%
950.3%
Student 7812.6%
15825.5%
13922.4%
12219.7%
12219.7%
6192.2%
Institution of higher education employee 5513.1%
13632.4%
8520.2%
7618.1%
6715.9%
4191.5%
Other 12510.8%
43537.7%
23220.1%
20717.9%
15213.2%
1,1514.2%
Texans Speak: State Assessments and Accountability Survey 23
Purpose and FunctionThe goal of state ACCOUNTABILITY is to:
Identify top- andlow-performing schools
Stronglyagree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
disagree Responses
Educator 1,3238.5%
5,73937%
2,42515.6%
3,77324.3%
2,24314.4%
15,50361.2%
Parent or community leader 6668.6%
2,78136.3%
1,48019.3%
1,54220.1%
1,19015.5%
7,65930.2%
Business leader 1718.8%
2325.5%
1011.1%
2022.2%
2022.2%
900.3%
Student 6611.6%
16929.9%
12822.6%
11119.6%
9116.1%
5652.2%
Institution of higher education employee 359%
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
Stronglyagree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
disagree Responses
Educator 1,73111.1%
8,16052.6%
1,95612.6%
2,33815%
1,3138.4%
15,49861.2%
Parent or community leader 1,01513.2%
3,73348.7%
1,07614%
97112.6%
86911.3%
7,66430.2%
Business leader 2224.4%
3437.7%
1112.2%
1314.4%
1011.1%
900.3%
Student 7913.9%
24843.8%
9516.8%
6812%
7513.2%
5652.2%
Institution of higher education employee 6617.1%
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
Stronglyagree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
disagree Responses
Educator 1,3768.8%
6,14439.6%
2,82818.2%
3,44122.2%
1,69410.9%
15,48361.2%
Parent or community leader 82310.7%
2,98638.9%
1,59920.8%
1,27516.6%
97412.7%
7,65730.2%
Business leader 2022.2%
3437.7%
1314.4%
1314.4%
1011.1%
900.3%
Student 8314.6%
18532.6%
12922.7%
8414.8%
8615.1%
5672.2%
Institution of higher education employee 5413.9%
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
Texans Speak: State Assessments and Accountability Survey 24
Ensure that educationaleffectiveness is a primary
factor in determiningschool/school districtperformance ratings
Stronglyagree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
disagree Responses
Educator 8465.4%
5,33434.4%
3,79024.4%
3,73424.1%
1,76811.4%
15,47261.2%
Parent or community leader 5537.2%
2,52433%
1,97025.7%
1,49319.5%
1,09814.3%
7,63830.2%
Business leader 1820.6%
2427.5%
1517.2%
1719.5%
1314.9%
870.3%
Student 6912.2%
16028.4%
15727.8%
10017.7%
7713.6%
5632.2%
Institution of higher education employee 4210.9%
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
Stronglyagree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
disagree Responses
Educator 1,4519.3%
5,09933%
3,81824.7%
3,48622.5%
1,59410.3%
15,44861.2%
Parent or community leader 7109.2%
2,51732.8%
2,01426.3%
1,39818.2%
1,01513.2%
7,65430.3%
Business leader 1314.4%
2527.7%
1617.7%
2022.2%
1617.7%
900.3%
Student 6611.6%
16228.6%
18232.1%
8615.1%
7012.3%
5662.2%
Institution of higher education employee 5213.5%
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
Stronglyagree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
disagree Responses
Educator 2,57516.6%
5,36934.7%
2,46815.9%
3,00519.4%
2,04413.2%
15,46161.2%
Parent or community leader 1,46819.1%
2,59333.8%
1,21015.8%
1,19515.6%
1,18315.4%
7,64930.3%
Business leader 2730.6%
2225%
910.2%
1415.9%
1618.1%
880.3%
Student 13123.1%
16729.5%
10218%
7012.3%
9616.9%
5662.2%
Institution of higher education employee 10126.3%
12131.5%
6015.6%
5313.8%
4812.5%
3831.5%
Other 25823.5%
39235.7%
19717.9%
13312.1%
11510.5%
1,0954.3%
Texans Speak: State Assessments and Accountability Survey 25
Foster a culture of highperformance expectations
Stronglyagree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
disagree Responses
Educator 1,79611.6%
6,22740.3%
2,61416.9%
2,78918%
2,01413%
15,44061.2%
Parent or community leader 82010.7%
2,34530.7%
1,64421.5%
1,45919.1%
1,37017.9%
7,63830.3%
Business leader 2426.9%
2831.4%
1011.2%
1415.7%
1314.6%
890.3%
Student 8214.5%
13624.1%
17330.6%
8715.4%
8615.2%
5642.2%
Institution of higher education employee 7118.6%
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
Stronglyagree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
disagree Responses
Educator 1,77811.5%
5,49535.5%
2,57616.6%
3,36021.7%
2,24214.5%
15,45161.2%
Parent or community leader 97012.6%
2,37531%
1,44718.9%
1,52219.9%
1,32517.3%
7,63930.2%
Business leader 2426.9%
2831.4%
44.4%
2123.5%
1213.4%
890.3%
Student 8114.3%
15627.6%
11720.7%
10819.1%
10318.2%
5652.2%
Institution of higher education employee 6015.6%
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
Stronglyagree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
disagree Responses
Educator 1,66710.7%
6,27440.6%
2,86218.5%
2,94719%
1,69810.9%
15,44861.2%
Parent or community leader 96812.6%
2,67034.9%
1,43618.8%
1,34917.6%
1,21515.9%
7,63830.2%
Business leader 2932.5%
2224.7%
1112.3%
1213.4%
1516.8%
890.3%
Student 9516.9%
18833.4%
12221.7%
8014.2%
7713.7%
5622.2%
Institution of higher education employee 8722.7%
16041.7%
5514.3%
3910.1%
4210.9%
3831.5%
Other 19918.1%
44140.2%
20118.3%
14913.5%
1079.7%
1,0974.3%
Texans Speak: State Assessments and Accountability Survey 26
Areas for ImprovementThe current state ASSESSMENT and ACCOUNTABILITY system
could be improved byDecreasing the number of
state assessmentsStrongly
agree Agree Neutral Disagree Stronglydisagree Responses
Educator 9,67565%
3,32222.3%
1,0457%
7114.7%
1200.8%
14,87361.6%
Parent or community leader 5,18371.4%
1,39519.2%
4055.5%
1992.7%
741%
7,25630%
Business leader 5361.6%
1416.2%
1112.7%
44.6%
44.6%
860.3%
Student 34367.3%
10019.6%
336.4%
193.7%
142.7%
5092.1%
Institution of higher education employee 25169.1%
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
Stronglyagree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
disagree Responses
Educator 11,18375.1%
2,72818.3%
5013.3%
3872.6%
780.5%
14,87761.5%
Parent or community leader 5,82680.1%
97713.4%
2443.3%
1582.1%
630.8%
7,26830%
Business leader 6474.4%
1315.1%
44.6%
44.6%
11.1%
860.3%
Student 35068.7%
8015.7%
275.3%
367%
163.1%
5092.1%
Institution of higher education employee 28277.9%
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
Stronglyagree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
disagree Responses
Educator 12,61184.7%
2,03913.6%
1631%
340.2%
420.2%
14,88961.6%
Parent or community leader 5,30273.1%
1,52921%
2914%
560.7%
751%
7,25330%
Business leader 4856.4%
2731.7%
78.2%
11.1%
22.3%
850.3%
Student 31862.3%
14428.2%
316%
50.9%
122.3%
5102.1%
Institution of higher education employee 26673.6%
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
Texans Speak: State Assessments and Accountability Survey 27
Improving timeliness andusefulness of assessmentresults for students and
parents
Stronglyagree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
disagree Responses
Educator 11,06474.3%
3,08920.7%
5573.7%
1040.6%
640.4%
14,87861.6%
Parent or community leader 4,60463.5%
1,82625.1%
6128.4%
901.2%
1161.6%
7,24830%
Business leader 5160%
2225.8%
89.4%
22.3%
22.3%
850.3%
Student 28957%
15530.5%
469%
101.9%
71.3%
5072.1%
Institution of higher education employee 22261.4%
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
Stronglyagree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
disagree Responses
Educator 6,88546.3%
3,56924%
2,24915.1%
1,4069.4%
7445%
14,85361.6%
Parent or community leader 2,51234.7%
1,65522.8%
1,45420%
87412%
74010.2%
7,23530%
Business leader 2731.7%
1517.6%
2225.8%
910.5%
1214.1%
850.3%
Student 23646.5%
12725%
5911.6%
489.4%
377.2%
5072.1%
Institution of higher education employee 11231.2%
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
Stronglyagree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
disagree Responses
Educator 6,25742.1%
4,29128.8%
2,78718.7%
1,1427.6%
3762.5%
14,85361.6%
Parent or community leader 3,29845.5%
2,09128.8%
1,12515.5%
4816.6%
2483.4%
7,24330%
Business leader 3945.8%
2327%
89.4%
1011.7%
55.8%
850.3%
Student 20440.4%
13526.7%
9318.4%
377.3%
356.9%
5042%
Institution of higher education employee 15042%
10328.8%
6016.8%
257%
195.3%
3571.4%
Other 40037.9%
32530.8%
19618.6%
969.1%
363.4%
1,0534.3%
Texans Speak: State Assessments and Accountability Survey 28
Moving to a computer-based, adaptable
assessment that will showstudent progress and
learning gaps
Stronglyagree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
disagree Responses
Educator 3,68024.7%
4,18828.2%
3,12421%
2,15114.4%
1,69611.4%
14,83961.6%
Parent or community leader 2,00427.7%
2,32432.1%
1,55021.4%
6859.4%
6719.2%
7,23430%
Business leader 2327.3%
2023.8%
1922.6%
1113%
1113%
840.3%
Student 14027.8%
13326.4%
11623%
509.9%
6412.7%
5032%
Institution of higher education employee 10027.8%
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
Stronglyagree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
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%
Business leader 2023.5%
1112.9%
78.2%
2225.8%
2529.4%
850.3%
Student 13827.2%
7414.6%
11021.7%
8216.2%
10220.1%
5062.1%
Institution of higher education employee 9225.5%
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
Stronglyagree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
disagree Responses
Educator 12,05481.2%
2,27415.3%
3392.2%
890.5%
780.5%
14,83461.6%
Parent or community leader 4,85967.1%
1,66623%
5187.1%
871.2%
1041.4%
7,23430%
Business leader 4655.4%
1821.6%
1113.2%
33.6%
56%
830.3%
Student 33666.5%
11222.1%
356.9%
40.7%
183.5%
5052%
Institution of higher education employee 23164.1%
9325.8%
287.7%
30.8%
51.3%
3601.4%
Other 73769.8%
24323%
474.4%
151.4%
131.2%
1,0554.3%
Texans Speak: State Assessments and Accountability Survey 29
Streamlining standards toreduce the amount of
content taught each year
Stronglyagree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
disagree Responses
Educator 7,75452.3%
3,61224.3%
1,82512.3%
1,2648.5%
3542.3%
14,80961.6%
Parent or community leader 2,85439.5%
1,75724.3%
1,26517.5%
86712%
4806.6%
7,22330%
Business leader 3035.2%
1112.9%
1315.2%
1821.1%
1315.2%
850.3%
Student 21442.8%
12725.4%
9418.8%
418.2%
244.8%
5002%
Institution of higher education employee 12935.8%
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
Stronglyagree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
disagree Responses
Educator 8,21855.5%
4,72431.9%
1,2598.5%
3922.6%
2091.4%
14,80261.6%
Parent or community leader 2,46934.2%
2,45033.9%
1,26917.5%
5928.2%
4346%
7,21430%
Business leader 2630.9%
2428.5%
1315.4%
1011.9%
1113%
840.3%
Student 18737.5%
16833.7%
7915.8%
357%
295.8%
4982%
Institution of higher education employee 13236.8%
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
Stronglyagree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
disagree Responses
Educator 8,32156.2%
4,34229.3%
1,2528.4%
5533.7%
3232.1%
14,79161.6%
Parent or community leader 2,99241.4%
2,35232.6%
1,00313.9%
4085.6%
4586.3%
7,21330%
Business leader 4552.9%
2023.5%
89.4%
44.7%
89.4%
850.3%
Student 22043.9%
15430.7%
7114.1%
326.3%
244.7%
5012%
Institution of higher education employee 17448.3%
11130.8%
4913.6%
102.7%
164.4%
3601.5%
Other 46944.7%
37836%
13012.3%
434%
292.7%
1,0494.3%
Texans Speak: State Assessments and Accountability Survey 30
Deemphasizing the role ofassessment in teacher
evaluation
Stronglyagree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
disagree Responses
Educator 10,33569.8%
2,97920.1%
9126.1%
4162.8%
1491%
14,79161.6%
Parent or community leader 4,27959.2%
1,69423.4%
72810%
3024.1%
2173%
7,22030%
Business leader 4855.8%
1719.7%
66.9%
55.8%
1011.6%
860.3%
Student 27554.8%
11522.9%
6613.1%
224.3%
234.5%
5012%
Institution of higher education employee 23264.4%
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
Stronglyagree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
disagree Responses
Educator 8,39756.8%
4,18328.3%
1,4309.6%
5563.7%
2101.4%
14,77661.6%
Parent or community leader 4,39660.9%
1,92526.7%
5918.1%
1622.2%
1351.8%
7,20930%
Business leader 4147.6%
2023.2%
1213.9%
78.1%
66.9%
860.3%
Student 26753.1%
13426.6%
7013.9%
122.3%
193.7%
5022%
Institution of higher education employee 21860.8%
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
Stronglyagree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
disagree Responses
Educator 9,72165.9%
4,03627.3%
8045.4%
1280.8%
620.4%
14,75161.6%
Parent or community leader 4,40461.1%
2,07228.7%
5527.6%
731%
1021.4%
7,20330%
Business leader 5564.7%
2428.2%
55.8%
11.1%
00%
850.3%
Student 29559.1%
14729.4%
336.6%
71.4%
173.4%
4992%
Institution of higher education employee 22963.9%
10429%
236.4%
20.5%
00%
3581.4%
Other 63760.7%
30929.4%
868.1%
90.8%
80.7%
1,0494.3%
Texans Speak: State Assessments and Accountability Survey 31
Ensuring that stateassessments are a primary
factor in determiningschool accountability
Stronglyagree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
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%
Business leader 1416.4%
1214.1%
910.5%
2225.8%
2832.9%
850.3%
Student 6312.5%
7815.5%
9218.3%
12224.3%
14629.1%
5012%
Institution of higher education employee 277.5%
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
Stronglyagree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
disagree Responses
Educator 10,37370.1%
3,59124.2%
5033.4%
1911.2%
1360.9%
14,79461.6%
Parent or community leader 4,85667.3%
1,69223.4%
3594.9%
1622.2%
1462%
7,21530%
Business leader 5159.3%
1820.9%
55.8%
55.8%
78.1%
860.3%
Student 33967.5%
11222.3%
275.3%
71.3%
173.3%
5022%
Institution of higher education employee 22662.9%
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
Stronglyagree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
disagree Responses
Educator 8,61458.2%
4,81332.5%
9856.6%
2461.6%
1200.8%
14,77861.6%
Parent or community leader 3,96154.9%
2,27631.5%
6719.3%
1542.1%
1441.9%
7,20630%
Business leader 3743.5%
2832.9%
89.4%
67%
67%
850.3%
Student 26652.7%
15731.1%
5611.1%
71.3%
183.5%
5042.1%
Institution of higher education employee 20657.3%
10830%
298%
92.5%
71.9%
3591.4%
Other 55953.2%
34733%
10810.2%
201.9%
161.5%
1,0504.3%
Texans Speak: State Assessments and Accountability Survey 32
Areas of StrengthThe current state ASSESSMENT and ACCOUNTABILITY system
works well becauseIt measures and tracks
student growthStrongly
agree Agree Neutral Disagree Stronglydisagree Responses
Educator 1,1277.5%
3,11220.9%
2,12414.2%
4,79632.2%
3,72425%
14,88361.6%
Parent or community leader 4516.2%
95613.1%
98213.5%
2,05528.3%
2,80238.6%
7,24630%
Business leader 78.3%
1416.6%
1619%
2023.8%
2732.1%
840.3%
Student 7213.9%
10019.4%
5410.4%
12524.2%
16431.8%
5152.1%
Institution of higher education employee 256.9%
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
Stronglyagree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
disagree Responses
Educator 6424.3%
3,70724.9%
2,67017.9%
4,68731.5%
3,15521.2%
14,86161.6%
Parent or community leader 2974.1%
1,20616.6%
1,26717.5%
2,03328%
2,43733.6%
7,24030%
Business leader 55.8%
2327%
1922.3%
1214.1%
2630.5%
850.3%
Student 499.5%
9017.5%
9017.5%
13626.5%
14728.7%
5122.1%
Institution of higher education employee 195.2%
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
Stronglyagree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
disagree Responses
Educator 8245.5%
4,44929.9%
2,35815.8%
4,01827%
3,20721.5%
14,85661.6%
Parent or community leader 3204.4%
1,28417.7%
1,18016.2%
1,95627%
2,50134.5%
7,24130%
Business leader 78.2%
2124.7%
1214.1%
2023.5%
2529.4%
850.3%
Student 5210.1%
11422.2%
8416.3%
12223.7%
14127.4%
5132.1%
Institution of higher education employee 195.2%
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
Texans Speak: State Assessments and Accountability Survey 33
It aligns well to Texascurriculum standards
Stronglyagree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
disagree Responses
Educator 7685.1%
4,05127.2%
3,74625.2%
3,94226.5%
2,34515.7%
14,85261.6%
Parent or community leader 2703.7%
88412.2%
2,01727.9%
1,74924.1%
2,30831.9%
7,22830%
Business leader 78.4%
1214.4%
2226.5%
2226.5%
2024%
830.3%
Student 458.8%
8316.2%
12524.4%
11221.9%
14628.5%
5112.1%
Institution of higher education employee 184.9%
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
Stronglyagree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
disagree Responses
Educator 6034%
4,91733.1%
2,65917.9%
4,16528%
2,48816.7%
14,83261.6%
Parent or community leader 2533.4%
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%
Institution of higher education employee 215.8%
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
Stronglyagree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
disagree Responses
Educator 4232.8%
1,1857.9%
1,84112.4%
5,44836.7%
5,93640%
14,83361.6%
Parent or community leader 1962.7%
4526.2%
1,00113.8%
2,01027.8%
3,56549.3%
7,22430%
Business leader 44.7%
67.1%
1517.8%
2226.1%
3744%
840.3%
Student 448.5%
5610.9%
7113.8%
13125.5%
21041%
5122.1%
Institution of higher education employee 113%
256.9%
4713%
11331.3%
16445.5%
3601.4%
Other 312.9%
827.8%
19718.7%
36134.3%
37936%
1,0504.3%
Texans Speak: State Assessments and Accountability Survey 34
It prepares high schoolstudents for higher
education
Stronglyagree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
disagree Responses
Educator 3432.3%
1,0717.2%
2,32715.6%
5,00533.7%
6,07941%
14,82561.6%
Parent or community leader 1762.4%
4566.3%
90812.5%
1,90526.3%
3,78152.3%
7,22630%
Business leader 44.7%
44.7%
1214.2%
2125%
4351.1%
840.3%
Student 387.4%
5811.3%
5410.5%
13325.9%
22944.7%
5122.1%
Institution of higher education employee 123.3%
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
Stronglyagree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
disagree Responses
Educator 4733.1%
3,40822.9%
2,40616.2%
4,35229.3%
4,18128.2%
14,82061.6%
Parent or community leader 1962.7%
89112.3%
1,10215.2%
1,89326.2%
3,14243.4%
7,22430%
Business leader 55.9%
89.5%
1517.8%
2023.8%
3642.8%
840.3%
Student 377.2%
10320%
7214%
11923.1%
18235.4%
5132.1%
Institution of higher education employee 174.7%
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
Stronglyagree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
disagree Responses
Educator 6304.2%
5,22135.2%
3,35022.6%
3,00320.3%
2,58717.4%
14,79161.6%
Parent or community leader 1862.5%
1,46520.3%
1,58421.9%
1,57421.8%
2,40033.2%
7,20930%
Business leader 89.7%
1923.1%
1720.7%
1821.9%
2024.3%
820.3%
Student 367%
10219.9%
12624.6%
10019.5%
14728.7%
5112.1%
Institution of higher education employee 215.8%
10027.8%
7721.4%
6518.1%
9626.7%
3591.4%
Other 424%
31329.8%
29828.3%
20319.3%
19418.4%
1,0504.3%
Texans Speak: State Assessments and Accountability Survey 35
It encourages collaborationamong schools to improve
results
Stronglyagree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
disagree Responses
Educator 3512.3%
1,81412.2%
2,03613.7%
5,19735.1%
5,40736.5%
14,80561.6%
Parent or community leader 1692.3%
7179.9%
1,31318.2%
1,93026.7%
3,07742.7%
7,20630%
Business leader 67.2%
1012%
1922.8%
1619.2%
3238.5%
830.3%
Student 479.2%
6312.3%
8717%
13626.6%
17734.7%
5102.1%
Institution of higher education employee 154.1%
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
Stronglyagree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
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%
Business leader 44.7%
89.5%
1416.6%
2023.8%
3845.2%
840.3%
Student 387.4%
5110%
6512.7%
13927.3%
21542.3%
5082.1%
Institution of higher education employee 154.1%
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
Stronglyagree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
disagree Responses
Educator 3732.5%
2,29915.5%
2,25715.2%
4,96033.5%
4,90133.1%
14,79061.6%
Parent or community leader 1852.5%
80211.1%
91712.7%
1,94226.9%
3,35346.5%
7,19930%
Business leader 44.8%
67.2%
1416.8%
2125.3%
3845.7%
830.3%
Student 367.1%
5611%
6913.6%
12825.3%
21642.7%
5052.1%
Institution of higher education employee 143.8%
5615.5%
4512.5%
10729.7%
13838.3%
3601.5%
Other 323%
16315.5%
18117.3%
33231.7%
33832.3%
1,0464.3%
Texans Speak: State Assessments and Accountability Survey 36
It increases rigor andraises expectations
Stronglyagree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
disagree Responses
Educator 4753.2%
3,24821.9%
2,24215.1%
4,43530%
4,37729.6%
14,77761.6%
Parent or community leader 2293.1%
77910.8%
91312.6%
1,92226.7%
3,35046.5%
7,19330%
Business leader 33.5%
89.5%
1315.4%
2732.1%
3339.2%
840.3%
Student 346.7%
8717.2%
469.1%
13426.5%
20440.3%
5052.1%
Institution of higher education employee 164.4%
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
Stronglyagree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
disagree Responses
Educator 7905.3%
4,93833.4%
2,32115.7%
3,49123.6%
3,23821.9%
14,77861.6%
Parent or community leader 2563.5%
1,31718.3%
1,24817.3%
1,67523.3%
2,68937.4%
7,18529.9%
Business leader 910.8%
1416.8%
2024%
1315.6%
2732.5%
830.3%
Student 5410.6%
8817.4%
7715.2%
11322.3%
17334.2%
5052.1%
Institution of higher education employee 195.2%
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)
Stronglyagree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
disagree Responses
Educator 6204.1%
3,37422.8%
2,40916.3%
4,25028.7%
4,11427.8%
14,76761.6%
Parent or community leader 3184.4%
99813.8%
1,04314.5%
1,76724.5%
3,06242.5%
7,18830%
Business leader 1011.9%
78.3%
1416.6%
1821.4%
3541.6%
840.3%
Student 438.6%
8116.2%
8016%
10921.8%
18637.2%
4992%
Institution of higher education employee 236.3%
4913.6%
5415%
9827.2%
13637.7%
3601.5%
Other 585.5%
18517.6%
19318.4%
30929.5%
30128.7%
1,0464.3%
Texans Speak: State Assessments and Accountability Survey 37
All students count as partof the current
accountability process
Stronglyagree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
disagree Responses
Educator 6244.2%
3,27022.1%
2,59817.6%
3,91426.5%
4,35129.4%
14,75761.6%
Parent or community leader 2863.9%
1,16716.2%
1,53821.4%
1,48520.6%
2,70137.6%
7,17730%
Business leader 1011.7%
89.4%
2124.7%
1821.1%
2832.9%
850.3%
Student 397.8%
8416.9%
9719.5%
12224.5%
15531.1%
4972%
Institution of higher education employee 185%
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
Stronglyagree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
disagree Responses
Educator 1,1397.7%
4,92833.4%
3,21921.8%
2,87319.4%
2,58517.5%
14,74461.6%
Parent or community leader 6799.4%
1,53221.3%
1,64222.9%
1,27917.8%
2,03828.4%
7,17030%
Business leader 1011.7%
2225.8%
1720%
1315.2%
2327%
850.3%
Student 5811.6%
10420.8%
13527.1%
8717.4%
11422.8%
4982%
Institution of higher education employee 4612.8%
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)
Stronglyagree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
disagree Responses
Educator 6194.1%
3,13221.2%
2,56517.3%
4,08527.7%
4,34129.4%
14,74261.7%
Parent or community leader 2413.3%
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%
Institution of higher education employee 174.7%
7019.4%
7320.2%
8323%
11732.5%
3601.5%
Other 424%
23522.5%
25124.1%
26725.6%
24623.6%
1,0414.3%
Texans Speak: State Assessments and Accountability Survey 38
Accountability isdetermined using a varietyof measures that include
several performanceindexesnot just state
assessment data
Stronglyagree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
disagree Responses
Educator 6364.3%
2,93219.8%
3,00920.3%
4,08827.6%
4,11727.8%
14,78261.7%
Parent or community leader 2653.6%
80411.2%
1,63822.8%
1,79725%
2,66737.1%
7,17129.9%
Business leader 55.8%
1618.8%
2225.8%
1214.1%
3035.2%
850.3%
Student 509.9%
7114.1%
11623%
11723.2%
14929.6%
5032.1%
Institution of higher education employee 174.6%
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
Stronglyagree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
disagree Responses
Educator 3322.2%
2,46016.6%
2,93819.9%
4,81832.6%
4,20928.5%
14,75761.7%
Parent or community leader 2032.8%
94913.2%
1,28717.9%
1,90926.6%
2,81639.3%
7,16429.9%
Business leader 67.1%
1011.9%
1821.4%
1922.6%
3136.9%
840.3%
Student 407.9%
7314.5%
8817.5%
13126%
17033.8%
5022%
Institution of higher education employee 143.8%
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
Texans Speak: Community Conversations 40
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
Texans Speak: Community Conversations 41
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.
Texans Speak: Community Conversations 42
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.
Texans Speak: Community Conversations 43
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.
Texans Speak: Community Conversations 44
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.
Texans Speak: Community Conversations 45
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.
Texans Speak: Community Conversations 46
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).
Texans Speak: Community Conversations 47
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
.
Texans Speak: Community Conversations 48
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
.
Texans Speak: Community Conversations 49
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.)
Texans Speak: Community Conversations 50
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.
Texans Speak: Community Conversations 51
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.
Texans Speak: Community Conversations 52
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
.
Texans Speak: Community Conversations 53
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.
Texans Speak: Community Conversations 54
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.
Texans Speak: Community Conversations 55
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
Texans Speak: Community Conversations 56
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
Texans Speak: Community Conversations 57
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
Texans Speak: Community Conversations 58
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
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
Texans Speak: Community Conversations 59
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
Texans Speak: Community Conversations 60
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
Texans Speak: Community Conversations 61
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
Texans Speak: Community Conversations 62
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)
Texans Speak: Community Conversations 63
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
Texans Speak: Community Conversations 64
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
Texans Speak: Community Conversations 65
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
Texans Speak: Community Conversations 66
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
Texans Speak: Community Conversations 67
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
Texans Speak: Community Conversations 68
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.
Texans Speak: Community Conversations 69
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
Texans Speak: Community Conversations 70
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.
Texans Speak: Community Conversations 71
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
Texans Speak: Community Conversations 72
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.
Texans Speak: Community Conversations 73
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.
Texans Speak: Community Conversations 74
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
Texans Speak: Community Conversations 75
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.
Texans Speak: Community Conversations 76
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.
Texans Speak: Community Conversations 77
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.
Texans Speak: Community Conversations 78
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
Texans Speak: Community Conversations 79
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.
Texans Speak: Community Conversations 80
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
Texans Speak: Community Conversations 81
Key Focal Points Key Concerns Recommendations Accountability is needed in secondary which will serve as a college entrance.
Assessment should mirror the needs. ACT or SAT
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.
Texans Speak: Community Conversations 82
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.
Assessment should mirror the needs. ACT or SAT
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
Texans Speak: Community Conversations 83
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)
Texans Speak: Community Conversations 84
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.
Texans Speak: Community Conversations 85
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
Texans Speak: Community Conversations 86
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.
Texans Speak: Community Conversations 87
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.
Texans Speak: Community Conversations 88
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
Texans Speak: Community Conversations 89
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
Texans Speak: Community Conversations 90
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
Texans Speak: Community Conversations 91
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.
Texans Speak: Community Conversations 92
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
Texans Speak: Community Conversations 93
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
Texans Speak: Community Conversations 94
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
Texans Speak: Community Conversations 95
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
Texans Speak: Community Conversations 96
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
Texans Speak: Community Conversations 97
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
Texans Speak: Community Conversations 98
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
Texans Speak: Community Conversations 99
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
Texans Speak: Community Conversations 100
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
Texans Speak: Community Conversations 101
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
Texans Speak: Community Conversations 102
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
?
Texans Speak: Community Conversations 103
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
Texans Speak: Community Conversations 104
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
Texans Speak: Community Conversations 105
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
Texans Speak: Community Conversations 106
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
Texans Speak: Community Conversations 107
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
Texans Speak: Community Conversations 108
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
Texans Speak: Community Conversations 109
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
Texans Speak: Community Conversations 110
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
Texans Speak: Community Conversations 111
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
Texans Speak: Community Conversations 112
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
Texans Speak: Community Conversations 113
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
Texans Speak: Community Conversations 114
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
Texans Speak: Community Conversations 115
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
Texans Speak: Community Conversations 116
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.
Texans Speak: Community Conversations 117
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
Texans Speak: Community Conversations 118
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
Texans Speak: Community Conversations 119
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
Texans Speak: Community Conversations 120
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
.
Texans Speak: Community Conversations 121
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
Texans Speak: Community Conversations 122
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
Texans Speak: Community Conversations 123
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
Texans Speak: Community Conversations 124
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
Texans Speak: Community Conversations 125
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
Texans Speak: Community Conversations 126
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.
Texans Speak: Community Conversations 127
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
Texans Speak: Community Conversations 128
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
Texans Speak: Community Conversations 129
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!
Texans Speak: Community Conversations 130
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
Texans Speak: Community Conversations 131
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
Texans Speak: Community Conversations 132
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.
Texans Speak: Community Conversations 133
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
Texans Speak: Community Conversations 134
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
Texans Speak: Community Conversations 135
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
Texans Speak: Community Conversations 136
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
Texans Speak: Community Conversations 137
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
Texans Speak: Community Conversations 138
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
Texans Speak: Community Conversations 139
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
Texans Speak: Community Conversations 140
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
)
Texans Speak: Community Conversations 141
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
.
Texans Speak: Community Conversations 142
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)
Texans Speak: Community Conversations 143
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
Texans Speak: Community Conversations 144
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
Texans Speak: Community Conversations 145
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
.
Texans Speak: Public Feedback on Assessment and Accountability Systems
A report from the State Board of EducationJuly 2016
San Antonio
Texans Speak: Community Conversations 146
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
?
Texans Speak: Community Conversations 147
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)
Texans Speak: Community Conversations 148
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
.
Texans Speak: Community Conversations 149
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
?
Texans Speak: Community Conversations 150
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
Texans Speak: Community Conversations 151
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.
Texans Speak: Community Conversations 152
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
)
Texans Speak: Community Conversations 153
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
.
Texans Speak: Community Conversations 154
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
Texans Speak: Community Conversations 155
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.
Texans Speak: Community Conversations 156
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
.
Texans Speak: Community Conversations 157
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
.
Texans Speak: Community Conversations 158
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
Texans Speak: Community Conversations 159
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.
Texans Speak: Community Conversations 160
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