Community Based Accountability (CBAS)
In the Spring of 2017, a committee of NISD stakeholders that included students, parents, community members, teachers, and administrators assembled multiple times to review the Profile of Graduate and the ways we measure our progress towards that goal. The work of the committee will be implemented beginning with the 2017-2018 school year and is highlighted below. It is designed to both align with the aspirations of the Profile of a Graduate as well as the previously developed Community-Based Accountability System (CBAS) as well as the state prescribed Community and Student Engagement (CaSE) format. Below is an implementation timeline of the progress of NISD towards a comprehensive accountability system for our schools.
|
 |

Local Academic Goals
Accountability: Community and Student Engagement Rubrics
With the passage of HB 5 in 2014, each school district and campus self-rated eight domains of the Community and Student Engagement (CaSE) rubric (see table below) as exemplary, recognized, acceptable, and unacceptable. The Community and Student Engagement CaSE rubric is reported to TEA for each campus and district. TEA gives districts flexibility on what criteria to self-evaluate in order to develop a single score for each domain.
In 2015, HB 2804 added Texas Education Code (TEC), §39.0546 requires districts and campuses to select three of the eight domains to self-evaluate as 10% of the new A-F accountability system. Beginning with the 2017-18 school year, districts and campuses still must report the ratings for all eight domains to TEA, but the three domains each district and campus selects will be rated on the A-F scoring system.
Determining Ratings:
The chart below lists the number of indicators in each category.
Northwest ISD CaSE Domains |
Number of Indicators |
|
District |
ES |
MS |
HS |
Fine Arts |
4 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
Wellness and Physical Education |
5 |
3 |
5 |
4 |
Community and Parent Involvement |
4 |
8 |
8 |
8 |
21st Century Workforce Development |
14 |
2 |
4 |
8 |
Second Language Acquisition |
6 |
5 |
2 |
4 |
Digital Learning Environment |
6 |
5 |
5 |
6 |
Dropout Prevention Strategies |
11 |
7 |
10 |
10 |
Education Programs for Gifted and Talented Students |
8 |
6 |
6 |
6 |
The district and each campus determines the domain area rating based on the data in the table below.
Performance Rating |
Exemplary/A |
Recognized/B |
Acceptable/C |
Unacceptable/D |
Unacceptable/F |
Rating System with 1-3 indicators |
At least 1 exemplary indicator |
At least 2 exemplary indicators |
At least 3 exemplary indicators
|
At least 4 exemplary indicators
|
At least 5 exemplary indicators
|
Rating System with 4-5 indicators |
At least 1 recognized indicator |
4/4 or 5/5 acceptable or above indicators
+At least 1 exemplary indicators
|
6/6 or 7/7 or 8/8 acceptable or above indicators
+At least 1 exemplary indicator
|
9/9 or 10/10 or 11/11 acceptable or above
+At least 1 exemplary indicator
|
12/12 or 13/13 or 14/14 acceptable or above indicators
+At least 1 exemplary indicator
|
Rating Systemwith 6-8 indicators |
1/1 or 2/2 or 3/3 acceptable or above indicators
No exemplary indicator
|
4/4 or 5/5 acceptable or above indicators
No exemplary indicator
|
6/6 or 7/7 or 8/8 acceptable or above indicators
No exemplary indicator
|
9/9 or 10/10 or 11/11 acceptable or above indicators
No exemplary indicator
|
12/12 or 13/13 or 14/14 acceptable or above indicators
No exemplary indicator
|
Rating System with 9-11 indicators
|
One indicator in the unacceptable range |
One indicator in the unacceptable range |
One indicator in the unacceptable range |
One indicator in the unacceptable range |
One indicator in the unacceptable range |
Rating System with 12-14 indicators |
|
Two or more indicators in the unacceptable range |
Two or more indicators in the unacceptable range |
Two or more indicators in the unacceptable range |
Two or more indicators in the unacceptable range |