Presentation on theme: "State Accountability System Update Texas Assessment Conference December 4 - 5, 2007 Shannon Housson and Nancy Rinehart TEA, Performance Reporting Division."— Presentation transcript:
State Accountability System Update Texas Assessment Conference December 4 - 5, 2007 Shannon Housson and Nancy Rinehart TEA, Performance Reporting Division
2 Todays Discussion will cover… Accountability Calendars – 2007 and Accountability Overview o 2007 Ratings o Gold Performance Acknowledgment Summary o Key Changes to AEIS Reports o Student Report Card Summary o Public Education Grant Program Summary Technical Assistance Teams (TAT) Preview of 2008 Standard Accountability Procedures Preview of 2008 AEA Procedures and Indicators TEASE Accountability Accountability Resources
3 Recent and Upcoming Events August Ratings release on TEA public website Sept and Nov2008 AEA Campus Registration October 24Final 2007 Ratings and GPA release on TEA public website November AEIS release on TEASE November AEIS release on TEA public website December Public Education Grant (PEG) list released to districts on TEASE December School Report Cards (SRCs) released December PEG list posted on TEA Correspondence
Accountability Timeline Jan. - Feb. Accountability System Development – Review 2008, Develop 2009 and beyond March 3 - 4Educator Focus Group Meeting March 26Commissioners Accountability Advisory Committee Meeting Early AprilFinal Decisions for 2008 and beyond announced by Commissioner Late May2008 Accountability Manual posted online August 1Release of 2008 Accountability Ratings September2009 AEA Campus Registration
2007 Accountability Overview
District Ratings by Category (Including Charter Operators) Accountability RatingCountPercent Exemplary272.2% Recognized % Academically Acceptable % Standard Procedures % AEA Procedures615.0% Academically Unacceptable564.6% Standard Procedures544.4% AEA Procedures20.2% Not Rated: Other (Standard and AEA)20.2% Not Rated – Data Integrity Issues00.0% Total1, %
Campus Ratings by Category (Including Charter Campuses) Accountability RatingCountPercent Exemplary6438.0% Recognized2, % Academically Acceptable4, % Standard Procedures3, % AEA Procedures3864.8% Academically Unacceptable2763.4% Standard Procedures2673.3% AEA Procedures90.1% Not Rated: Other (Standard and AEA)6808.4% Not Rated – Data Integrity Issues00.0% Total8, %
Ratings Highlights School Leaver Provision – District Impact (Standard Procedures) 25 districts and charters used the School Leaver Provision for Dropout Rate only. 32 districts and charters used the School Leaver Provision for Completion rate only. 8 districts and charters used the School Leaver Provision for both Dropout and Completion Rates. 2 districts used the School Leaver Provision for excessive underreported students.
Ratings Highlights (cont.) School Leaver Provision – Campus Impact (Standard Procedures) 90 campuses used the School Leaver Provision for Dropout Rate only. 60 campuses used the School Leaver Provision for Completion rate only. 1 campus used the School Leaver Provision for both Dropout and Completion Rates.
Ratings Highlights (cont.) School Leaver Provision – Charter District Impact (AEA Procedures) 10 charters used the School Leaver Provision for Annual Dropout Rate only. 3 charters used the School Leaver Provision for Completion Rate II only. 19 charters used the School Leaver Provision for both Dropout and Completion Rates.
Ratings Highlights (cont.) School Leaver Provision – Campus Impact (AEA Procedures) 132 AECs used the School Leaver Provision for Annual Dropout Rate only. 7 AECs used the School Leaver Provision for Completion Rate II only. 42 AECs used the School Leaver Provision for both Dropout and Completion Rates.
12 School Leaver Provision in 2008 This provision will no longer apply in 2008 and may be the cause for lower district and campus ratings for : o Completion Rate I (Standard Procedures) o Grades 7-8 Annual Dropout Rate (Standard Procedures) o Completion Rate II (AEA Procedures) o Underreported students (District Only) This provision will apply for Annual Dropout Rate (Gr ) under AEA Procedures.
13 School Leaver Provision in 2008 (cont.) Districts that used the School Leaver Provision should pay special attention to the quality of leaver data that will be submitted in fall This information will be the basis for dropout and completion indicators used in 2008 ratings.
14 Gold Performance Acknowledgment Overview Gold Performance Acknowledgment (GPA) was created to publicly recognize districts and campuses for high performance on indicators that are in addition to those used to determine state accountability ratings. Districts are eligible for a maximum of 12 possible GPAs. Campuses are eligible for a maximum of 14 possible GPAs. List of Gold Performance Acknowledgments link on TEA website shows lists of districts or schools by GPA categories or by any combination of acknowledgments. List of Gold Performance Acknowledgments
16 GPA Snapshot (cont.) GPA Indicators Recommended High School Program (RHSP)/ Distinguished Achievement Program (DAP) >= 80.0% 10 SAT/ACT Results (College Admissions Tests) >= 70.0% and >= 40.0% (new SAT reading and mathematics only) 11 Texas Success Initiative: Higher Education Readiness Component- English Language Arts 50% 12 Texas Success Initiative: Higher Education Readiness Component- Mathematics 50% Comparable Improvement (campus only acknowledgments) Reading/ELA Mathematics Top Quartile (top 25%)
17 GPA Snapshot (cont.) At the district level, the number of districts earning acknowledgments declined for every GPA indicator, except the two TSI indicators. The greatest increase was for the TSI in ELA where there are 266 more districts earning this acknowledgment. 76% of districts earned 1 or more and 60% of districts earned 2 or more acknowledgments.
18 GPA Snapshot (cont.) At the campus level, the number of campuses earning acknowledgments declined for 8 of the possible 14 GPA indicators. The greatest increase was for the TSI in ELA where there are 307 more campuses earning this acknowledgment. 78% of campuses earned 1 or more and 59% of campuses earned 2 or more acknowledgments.
19 Changes to AEIS Accountability Preview of 2008: An indicator is included that shows TAKS performance constructed to reflect the indicator definition that will be used in the 2008 accountability system. This indicator is titled, TAKS Met 2008 Standard (Sum of All Grades Tested, INCLUDING grade 8 Science and TAKS-I2008 Preview at Panel Recommended). Participation: TAKS-Alternate Only and Combination have been added to the tested subsection.
20 Changes to AEIS (cont.) TAKS-Inclusive: TAKS-I results, previously reported as a separate indicator, have been deleted. The TAKS-I results (for selected subjects and grades) are now included with other TAKS data in the Accountability Preview indicator described above. TAKS-I results are not included in the TAKS results by grade. Although TAKS-I has been renamed TAKS (Accommodated), the AEIS reports and Glossary use TAKS-I.
21 Changes to AEIS (cont.) Annual Dropout Rate: The annual dropout rate for grades 9-12 is added. All three annual dropout rates (7-8, 7-12, and 9-12) will appear on each district, region, and state report. However, only the 7-8 and 9-12 rates will appear on campuses evaluated under standard procedures. The 7-8 and 7-12 rates will appear on campuses evaluated under AEA procedures. Due to definition changes to the annual dropout rate, only the current year of dropout data is shown.
22 Changes to AEIS (cont.) College-Ready Graduates: A new indicator of college readiness is added to the college-ready section of the report. To be considered college-ready, a graduate must have achieved a certain performance level on any one of the following tests: the exit-level TAKS, the SAT, or the ACT. English Language Learners Progress Measure: For the first time, two years of information are available for this indicator ( and ). Also, more details are provided for the definition of this indicator in a new appendix to the Glossary, Appendix H.
School Report Card (SRC) Overview A subset of the AEIS Governed by its own statute (TEC ) and Commissioners Rule (TAC ) Intent is for this report to get to the homes of each child
24 Delivery & Notification from TEA A website release only. Paper copies not mailed. Web products are accessible through the AEIS site no separate TEASE release. Target release date – December 11. Superintendents and principals notified of availability via .
25 SRC District Responsibilities Districts must provide SRCs to their campuses. Must be disseminated to parents within six weeks after districts are notified by TEA. The district winter break doesnt count toward the six week period. There are various ways to achieve the distribution requirements (see TAC ). Supplemental materials are provided by TEA o Sample cover letters to parents (English and Spanish) o Definitions (English and, as soon as available, Spanish)
Public Education Grant (PEG) Program Overview A statutorily-mandated program of school choice (TEC Ch. 29, Subchapter G, ). Statute addresses campus identification, funding issues, and student eligibility issues. PEG lists have been issued since September 1995.
27 PEG Criteria Partially tied to accountability ratings, but not aligned with either the state system or AYP. PEG criteria are tougher on the evaluation of TAKS results than the state standards currently are. There is a 3 year moving time period, so even improved schools stay on the list if they were AU in any of the previous three years. The number of campuses anticipated this year is expected to be fewer than last year. Last year there were 924 schools identified.
28 PEG District Responsibilities Statute requires that districts notify parents of the list by February 1, List is based on 2005, 2006 and 2007 performance, but is in effect for the school year. PEG Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) provides useful information on various PEG-related issues and can be found online at the Resources link.
Technical Assistance Teams
30 TAT Methodology The TAKS data was rebuilt for both and to include selected TAKS-Inclusive grades and subjects and to include grade 8 science results. These data are reported on the AEIS reports as a Preview Indicator (example to follow). SDAA II results are not evaluated. Paired campuses and obsolete campuses are removed from the TAT list. There is no waiver provision for the TAT list.
31 TAT Facts There are 395 unique districts with one or more campuses on the TAT list. This compares to 157 unique districts on the list. The most common campus type on the list is Middle School with 40% (among the Both, Elementary, Middle School, and Secondary categories). The TAT list had 234 campuses, with 35 waivers, so only 199 campuses had TAT requirements. The list is almost four times as large with 877 campuses and no waivers.
32 The TAT Data The AEIS reports contain a 2008 Preview Indicator. Economically. Disadvantaged = All Students
33 The TAT Data (cont.) The 2008 Preview Indicator is the data that was used to identify campuses for the TAT list. The TAT processing also evaluated student group size, checked for requirement improvement, and applied the Exceptions Provision. These details cannot be discerned from the Preview Indicator.
34 TAT Consequences Team membership forms should have been submitted to PMI Division by November 30, Questions about TAT membership should be directed to the PMI Division at (512)
35 TAT FAQs I cant reconcile my data with your data. How did you get the results you used? We recomputed both the 2007 data and the 2006 data to include grade 8 science results at the PR level as well as TAKS-I (science and social studies and grade 11). Will the agency provide data in the future? No recomputation of data is necessary next year, so August 1 Accountability Data Tables can be used. Reasons will be provided on the TAT list. It is also anticipated that notification will occur via TEASE instead of via mailing.
36 TAT FAQs (cont.) I have a 2007 granted appeal based on data quality issues, yet you evaluated me for the TAT list based on the bad data anyway. Why? Even with granted appeals the underlying data are not altered. The 2007 data was the only performance data available to evaluate against the 2008 system criteria.
Preview of 2008 Standard Accountability Procedures
38 Standard Accountability Decisions for 2008 and Beyond TAKS Indicator Beginning in 2008: includes Grade 8 science includes TAKS (Accommodated) o combined with TAKS o limited subjects/grades in 2008 and 2009 o all subjects/grades in 2010
39 Standard Accountability Decisions for 2008 and Beyond (cont.) 2008 (Final Decision) Recommended 2009*2010* Exemplary 90% Recognized 75% 80% 80 %** Academically Acceptable Reading/ELA 70% 70% ** Writing, Social Studies 65% 70% Mathematics 50% 55% 60% Science 45% 50% 55% * Standards for 2009 and beyond will be reviewed annually and are subject to change. ** A Reading/ELA Academically Acceptable standard of 75% will be considered for If altered, the Recognized standard will also be reconsidered. Numbers in bold indicate a change from the prior year. TAKS Indicator (cont.)
40 Standard Accountability Decisions for 2008 and Beyond (cont.) TAKS (Accommodated) Science (grades 5, 8, 10, & 11) Science (grade 5 Spanish) Social Studies (grades 8, 10, & 11) English Language Arts (grade 11) Mathematics (grade 11) Use Reading/ELA (grades 3 – 10) Reading (grades 3 – 6 Spanish) Mathematics (grades 3 – 10) Mathematics (grades 3 – 6 Spanish) Writing (grades 4 & 7) Writing (grade 4 Spanish) Report in AEIS Only Use
41 Standard Accountability Decisions for 2008 and Beyond (cont.) TAKS-Modified Designed to meet the federal requirements mandated under NCLB Will be administered for the first time in spring 2008, with the first possible use in the state accountability system in 2010
42 Standard Accountability Decisions for 2008 and Beyond (cont.) TAKS-Alternate (TAKS-Alt) Designed for students with significant cognitive disabilities Results will be reported for two years beginning with 2008, with the first possible use in the state accountability system in 2010
43 Standard Accountability Decisions for 2008 and Beyond (cont.) School Leaver provision does not apply in 2008 under standard procedures Required Improvement – Available beginning in (Final Decision) Academically Acceptable 1.0%TBD Recognized 0.7%TBD Exemplary 0.2%TBD Annual Dropout Rate (Grades 7-8)
44 Standard Accountability Decisions for 2008 and Beyond (cont.) 2008 (Final Decision) 2009* (Recommended) 2010* (Recommended) Academically Acceptable 75.0% Recognized 85.0% Exemplary 95.0% Completion Rate I Definition of a Completer Graduates + Continued HS Dropout Definition (used in denominator) Phase-in NCES Definition NCES Definition * Standards for 2009 and beyond will be reviewed annually and are subject to change. Completion Rate I (Grade 9-12) Indicator
45 Standard Accountability Decisions for 2008 and Beyond (cont.) School Leaver Provision does not apply. Specific appeals policy for hurricane-displaced students who are non-completers will be considered. Required Improvement - Continues to be used Completion Rate I (Grade 9-12) Indicator (cont.)
46 Standard Accountability Decisions for 2008 and Beyond (cont.) Underreported Students The School Leaver Provision will no longer apply for underreported students. The number and percent of underreported students that can prevent a district from being rated Exemplary or Recognized will remain at greater than 5.0%, or greater than 200 students. Districts with fewer than 5 underreported students will not be evaluated on this indicator.
47 Standard Accountability Decisions for 2008 and Beyond (cont.) English Language Learner (ELL) Indicator Will be reported for 2 nd year on AEIS reports First possible use in state accountability ratings in 2009 When used, the ELL measure will be a separate indicator evaluated at the All Students level only
48 Standard Accountability Decisions for 2008 and Beyond (cont.) Commended Label for Ratings 2007 accountability advisory groups endorsed plan to append a label of Commended to state accountability ratings of Academically Acceptable or higher advisory groups will review options on criteria for the Commended label. First possible use in state accountability ratings in 2008
49 Select Committee on Accountability SB 1031 established a 15-member committee to review the accountability system and make recommendations regarding how the system should be structured. Statute requires that committee shall provide a report not later than December 1, The Legislature will be required to adopt a new public accountability system by September 1, (Sec Sec , Education Code). Selection of committee members is underway. Initial meeting is planned for January 2008.
Preview of 2008 AEA Procedures
51 AEA Acknowledgments The 2008 accountability development process will consider Gold Performance Acknowledgments (GPA) for AEA campuses and charters. The performance results for registered AECs and charters will be evaluated against the 2008 standards for the existing GPA indicators. A GPA-type commendation that would recognize the efforts taken to recover dropouts including the identification and accountability for recovered dropouts will be examined.
Registered AECs The list of 2008 Registered AECs will be posted on the AEA website at in December.http://www.tea.state.tx.us/aea/ Each registered AEC must meet the 75% at-risk registration criterion in order to receive an AEA rating on August 1, 2008.
53 At-Risk Registration Criterion In April 2008, letters will be mailed to the AECs that do not meet the 2008 at-risk registration criterion informing them that the AEC will shift from AEA to standard accountability and that the AEC will be evaluated under 2008 standard accountability procedures. The Final 2008 Registered AEC list will be posted on the AEA website in May This list will contain the AECs that will receive an AEA rating on August 1, A list of the charter operators that will be rated under 2008 AEA procedures will also be posted on the AEA website in May 2008.
AEA Registration Like in 2008, the 2009 AEA campus registration process will be conducted electronically using TEASE Accountability. Details will be included in the 2008 Accountability Manual. The 2009 AEA campus registration process will occur in September 2008.
56 TAKS Progress Indicator The TAKS Progress indicator sums performance results across grades (3-12) and subjects to determine ratings under AEA procedures. This indicator is based on the number of tests taken, not on the number of students tested.
57 TAKS Progress Indicator (cont.) The TAKS Progress numerator is calculated as the number of tests meeting the student passing standard or having a Texas Growth Index (TGI) score that meets the student growth standard of 0 (zero) or higher and TAKS exit-level retests meeting the student passing standard at the February and April administrations or in the previous October or July. The denominator is the number of TAKS tests taken and the number of TAKS exit-level retests meeting the student passing standard at the February and April administrations or in the previous October or July. TAKS-Accommodated results will be used in 2008 (slide 40). Grade 8 science results will be used in 2008.
58 Use of District At-Risk TAKS Data Applies to AECs only – performance results of all students in the charter are included in the charters performance and used in determining the charters rating. If the AEC does not meet the TAKS Progress standard or demonstrate Required Improvement based on results for fewer than 10 TAKS tests, or if there are no TAKS results for the AEC, then the AEC is evaluated on the district performance of at-risk students.
59 Completion Rate II Indicator This longitudinal rate shows the percent of students who completed or who are continuing their education four years after first attending grade 9 in Texas. Completion Rate II counts graduates, continuing students (students who return to school for a fifth year), and GED recipients in the definition of Completion Rate II for AECs of Choice and charters evaluated under AEA procedures. Residential Facilities are not evaluated on the Completion Rate II indicator. Charters that operate only Residential Facilities are not evaluated on the Completion Rate II indicator.
60 Use of District At-Risk Completion Rate II Data Applies to AECs of Choice only – performance results of all students in the charter are included in the charters performance and used in determining the charters rating. If the AEC of Choice does not meet the accountability standard or demonstrate Required Improvement, or if the AEC of Choice has students in grades 9, 10, 11, and/or 12 but does not have a Completion Rate II, then the AEC of Choice is evaluated on Completion Rate II (including GED recipients) of at-risk students in the district. In 2007, district at-risk Completion Rate II data were used to evaluate 181 AECs of Choice.
61 Annual Dropout Rate Indicator The Annual Dropout Rate indicator is grade 7-12 dropouts as a percent of total students enrolled at the registered AEC or charter in grades 7-12 in a single school year. The dropout definition transitioned from the state definition to the NCES definition in Students dropping out of school in and beyond are reported in accordance with the NCES dropout definition. The School Leaver Provision (SLP) will be utilized in 2008 and will apply only to the Annual Dropout Rate indicator under AEA procedures.
62 TEASE Accountability The TEASE Accountability secure website provides school districts and charters with performance-based monitoring analysis system (PBMAS) reports and state and federal accountability products, such as confidential unmasked data tables, summary tables, confidential student listings, data files, and other helpful accountability information. Each superintendent and charter school executive director should apply for access and may designate others in their district (and at the ESC) to also have access.