Presentation on theme: "State Accountability System Update Texas Assessment Conference December 1-3, 2010 Shannon Housson TEA Performance Reporting Division."— Presentation transcript:
State Accountability System Update Texas Assessment Conference December 1-3, 2010 Shannon Housson TEA Performance Reporting Division
2 Session Topics Accountability Calendars – 2010 and Accountability Overview Preview of 2011 Accountability Procedures Update on HB 3 Implementation Accountability Resources
3 Recent and Upcoming Events November 17CIP list release (TEASE) November 17AEIS release (TEASE) November 19CIP list release (TEA correspondence site) December 2AEIS release (TEA public website) Week of Dec 6PEG list release (TEASE) School Report Cards release (TEA public website) Mid December Pocket Edition (TEA public website) December 16 PEG list release (TEA public website)
Accountability Calendar Jan - Feb Accountability System Development – 2010 Review / 2011 Development March 3 - 4Educator Focus Group Meeting Late March Commissioners Accountability Advisory Committee (CAAC) Meeting Early AprilFinal decisions for 2011 announced by Commissioner Late May2011 Accountability Manual posted online July Accountability Ratings release
2010 Accountability Overview
Ratings Highlights 2010 to 2009 Comparisons - Districts The districts rated Exemplary comprise 8.6% of the total student enrollment, while the districts rated Recognized comprise 55.6% of total students enrolled. 64.2% of total student enrollment in either Exemplary or Recognized districts in 2010, compared to 33.8% in State summary results are posted online at:
Ratings Highlights (cont.) 2010 to 2009 Comparisons - Campuses In 2010, campuses rated Exemplary comprised 30.9% of the total student enrollment and campuses rated Recognized comprised 44.9% of total students enrolled. 75.8% of total student enrollment in either Exemplary or Recognized campuses in 2010, compared to 64.2 % in 2009.
Ratings Highlights (cont.) Required Improvement – Campuses* Under standard procedures, 1518 campuses used RI to achieve a higher rating, compared to 756 in campuses moved to Recognized (40.5% of all Recognized campuses) 238 campuses moved to Academically Acceptable (16.4% of all Academically Acceptable campuses). Required Improvement – Districts* Under standard procedures, 381 districts used RI to achieve a higher rating, compared to 144 in districts used RI to move to Recognized (57.3% of all Recognized districts). 33 districts used RI to move to Academically Acceptable (11.2% of all Academically Acceptable districts). *A portion of these campuses/districts may have used other features for other measures.
2010 Ratings Highlights (cont.) 9 Texas Projection Measure (TPM) – Campuses* Under standard procedures only, 3,869 campuses used TPM to achieve a higher rating. 426 used TPM to achieve Academically Acceptable 1,970 used TPM to achieve Recognized 1,448 used TPM to achieve Exemplary Texas Projection Measure (TPM) – Districts* Under standard procedures, 632 districts used TPM to achieve a higher rating. 64 used it to achieve Academically Acceptable 399 used it to achieve Recognized 167 used it to achieve Exemplary *A portion of these campuses/districts may have used other features for other measures.
2010 Ratings Highlights (cont.) 10 Exceptions Provision (EP) – Campuses * Of the 213 campuses that used the Exceptions Provision: 8 used one or more exceptions to achieve a rating of Academically Acceptable 58 used one or more exceptions to achieve a rating of Recognized 147 used one exception to achieve a rating of Exemplary Exceptions Used Of the 213 campuses using exceptions: 197 campuses used 1 7 campuses used 2 9 campuses used 3 0 campuses used 4 *A portion of these campuses may have used other features for other measures.
Ratings Highlights (cont.) Exceptions Provision (EP) – Districts * Of the 6 districts that used the Exceptions Provision: 1 used one or more exceptions to achieve a rating of Academically Acceptable 2 used one or more exceptions to achieve a rating of Recognized 3 used one exception to achieve a rating of Exemplary Exceptions Used Of the 6 districts using exceptions: 6 districts used 1 0 district used 2 0 districts used 3 0 districts used 4 *A portion of these districts may have used other features for other measures.
14 Changes to AEIS (cont.) TAKS (Accommodated): The 2010 accountability system includes performance on TAKS (Accommodated) assessments for all grades and subjects. The prior year (2009) results were recalculated to include all TAKS (Accommodated) performance. This affects all TAKS indicators, for most subjects and grades. – TAKS by grade: – TAKS Met 2010 Standard with TPM (Sum of All Grades Tested) – TAKS Commended Performance (Sum of All Grades Tested) – Progress of Prior-Year TAKS Failers – Student Success Initiative – English Language Learners Progress Indicator – Texas Success Initiative
15 Changes to AEIS (cont.) TAKS 2011 Preview: This indicator presents 2010 and 2009 performance built to reflect the changes that will be implemented for the TAKS base indicator in These are: a) the inclusion of all TAKS-M results; b) the inclusion of all TAKS-Alt results; and c) use of TAKS-M results for the second administration of reading and mathematics in grades 5 and 8.
16 Changes to AEIS (cont.) TAKS Commended 2011 Preview: This new indicator presents 2010 and 2009 performance of students who met the commended performance on reading/ELA and mathematics. It includes all TAKS- M and TAKS-Alt results. It has been added because commended performance on TAKS reading and mathematics will be evaluated in 2011 as a requirement for a Recognized or Exemplary rating.
17 Changes to AEIS (cont.) 5-Year Completion Rate: This is a new indicator. The 5-year completion rate for the class of 2008 is the percentage of students from a class of beginning 9th graders (from ) who graduated, received a GED, continued in high school, or dropped out within 5 years or by August 31, The methodology used to calculate 5-year rates is similar to the methodology used to calculate 4-year rates, with the exception that students are tracked for an additional year.
18 December 2 nd Public Release Includes TEASE products such as district and campus AEIS reports, Comparable Improvement (CI) reports, and Guidelines. ADDS: – Region reports – State report – A separate report of how mobile students performed (state- level only) – Data download (includes a masking explanation) – Additional CI information – Multi-Year data – Links to prior-year reports – Links to grade level Progress of Prior Year Failers – Glossary
Preview of 2011 Standard Accountability Procedures and Indicators
20 Standard Accountability Decisions for Exemplary 90% Recognized 80% Academically Acceptable Reading/ELA 70% Writing, Social Studies 70% Mathematics 60% 65% Science 55% 60% Numbers in bold indicate a change from the prior year. TAKS Indicator
21 Standard Accountability Decisions for 2011 (cont.) TAKS (Accommodated) Science (grades 5, 8, 10, & 11, incl. gr. 5 Spanish) Social Studies (grades 8, 10, & 11) English Language Arts (grade 11) Mathematics (grade 11) Use Reading/ELA (grades 3 – 10, incl. gr. 3 – 5 Spanish) Mathematics (grades 3 – 10, incl. gr. 3 – 5 Spanish) Writing (grades 4 & 7, incl. gr. 4 Spanish) Use TAKS-Modified All Subjects and Grades, combined w/ TAKSReportUse TAKS-Alternate All Subjects and Grades, combined w/ TAKSReportUse English Language Learners (ELL) Progress All Students OnlyReportUse
*Numbers in bold indicate a change from the prior year. Standard Accountability Decisions for 2011 (cont.) Completion Rate I, Annual Dropout Rate, and Underreported Students * Completion Rate I Exemplary Recognized Academically Acceptable 95.0% 85.0% 75.0% 95.0% 85.0% 75.0% Gr. 7-8 Annual Dropout Rate (All categories) 1.8% 1.6% Underreported Students (District only) 150 and 4.0% 150 and 3.0%
23 Standard Accountability Decisions for 2011 Commended Performance Indicator Requirements In 2011, Commended Performance on TAKS reading/ELA and mathematics will be an additional indicator. Recognized Standard. 15% commended on Reading/ELA, and 15% commended on mathematics Exemplary Standard. 25% commended on Reading/ELA, and 25% commended on mathematics
24 Standard Accountability Decisions for 2011 Commended Performance Indicator Requirements (cont.) Student Groups. All Students (regardless of size) Economically Disadvantaged (if minimum size criteria met) RI and Exceptions.Neither RI nor Exceptions can be used with Commended Performance to attain a higher rating.
25 Standard Accountability Decisions for 2011 Use of Texas Projection Measure (TPM) in 2011 As stated in a July 8, 2010 letter from the commissioner to all district superintendents, proposals to be considered regarding the use of TPM in 2011 accountability include: Suspension of the use of TPM for accountability ratings. Continued use of TPM in state accountability, but only for districts that elect to use it.
26 Standard Accountability Decisions for 2011 Use of Texas Projection Measure (TPM) in 2011 Modifications to the calculation of TPM and/or its use to include additional safeguards, such as: applying performance floors, counting each student who fails but is projected to pass as a fraction of a passer, prohibiting TPM to be used for the same measure in a subsequent year, limiting the number of measures for which TPM can be used in a given year, and limiting which rating categories can use it.
English Language Learners (ELL) Progress Indicator
28 English Language Learners (ELL) Progress Indicator Standard Procedures for 2011 The ELL Progress indicator standard is 60%. It is evaluated only for Recognized and Exemplary ratings. Only All Students are evaluated if meets minimum size of 30 students. Required Improvement (RI) and the Exception Provision will be applied
29 English Language Learners (ELL) Progress Indicator AEA Procedures for 2011 The ELL Progress indicator standard is 55%. Required Improvement (RI) is calculated. The All Students group is evaluated if the minimum size requirement is met. The ELL Progress indicator cannot be the sole reason for an AEA: Academically Unacceptable rating.
30 English Language Learners (ELL) Progress Indicator 2011 Preview of ELL Progress Indicator shown on AEIS Reports. Campus column correlates to All Students data to be evaluated if minimum size criteria are met (30 students). An FAQ on this indicator will be published online by December 2, See AEIS Glossary, including Appendix H until Glossary and FAQ are available.
Preview of 2011 AEA Procedures and Indicators
Registered AECs The list of 2011 Registered AECs is available on the AEA website at Each registered AEC must meet the 75% at-risk registration criterion in order to receive an AEA rating on July 29, 2011.
33 At-Risk Registration Criterion In April 2011, letters will be mailed to the registered AECs that do not meet the 75% at-risk registration criterion informing them the AEC will shift from AEA to standard accountability and that the AEC will be evaluated under 2011 standard accountability procedures. The Final 2011 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 July 29, A list of the charter operators that will be rated under 2011 AEA procedures will be posted on the AEA website in May 2011.
34 TAKS Progress Indicator The TAKS Progress indicator standard increases from 50% to 55%. TAKS-Modified and TAKS-Alternate results are combined with TAKS and TAKS (Accommodated) results to determine AEA ratings. 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.
35 Completion Rate II and Annual Dropout Rate (Grades 7-12) Standards The Annual Dropout Rate indicator standard remains 20.0%. The Completion Rate II indicator standard remains 60.0%.
36 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 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. Only All Students are evaluated; student groups are not evaluated separately.
37 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. Only All Students are evaluated; student groups are not evaluated separately.
39 Race/Ethnicity Data Collection, Reporting, and Use For the 2009–10 school yearFor the school year TEA implemented the new federal standard for the collection of ethnicity and race information beginning with PEIMS data collected for the 2009–10 school year. Beginning with the data collection, race / ethnicity data will be collected using the new definitions only. 2009–10 school year only, PEIMS collected race and ethnicity information using both the old definitions and the new federal definitions. In , PEIMS will collect race / ethnicity information using the new definitions only. State accountability, federal accountability, and the AEIS and its related reports (such as the School Report Card and Snapshot) used the old race / ethnicity definitions for the reporting cycle and for 2010 accountability. The assessment answer documents will collect race / ethnicity information using the new definitions only (pre-coded from PEIMS). State accountability, federal accountability, and AEIS and related reports will use the new definitions for all the current year ( ) indicators for the 2011 cycle. Final recommendations for the selection of the race / ethnicity student groups to be evaluated for state accountability ratings for 2011 will be made by 2011 accountability advisory groups.
40 Race/Ethnicity Data Collection, Reporting, and Use 2011 Preview Indicators shown on AEIS Reports are based on race/ethnicity under old definitions. The 2011 accountability data tables released in July 2011 will report the current year (2011) results and the prior year (2010) results recalculated based on the new federal race/ethnicity definition. Therefore, there will be differences in the 2010 results reported in the 2011 Preview Indicators on AEIS and the 2010 results used for Required Improvement calculations on the 2011 data table for the African American, Hispanic, and White student groups.
41 Race/Ethnicity Data Collection, Reporting, and Use For State Accountability (AEA and Standard ) it is anticipated that the 2011 student groups will include groups with these labels: All Students African American Hispanic White Economically Disadvantaged. No additional student groups beyond these five are anticipated to be added to the 2011 accountability system.
42 Race/Ethnicity Data Collection, Reporting, and Use Definitions: Hispanic: Students who indicate their ethnicity is Hispanic/Latino in question 1, regardless of their selection(s) for race provided in question 2. At a minimum, the definitions for the African American and White student groups will include students with these reported characteristics. African American: Students who indicate their ethnicity is not Hispanic/Latino and who select the single racial category of Black or African American. White: Students who indicate their ethnicity is not Hispanic/Latino and who select the single racial category of White.
43 Race/Ethnicity Data Collection, Reporting, and Use Two or More Races Two or More Races = Not Hispanic/Latino AND multiple racial selections In 2010, there were 74,366 students meeting this definition. 29,770 were Black/African American AND White 14,980 were White AND Asian 14,810 were American Indian/Alaska Native AND White Remainder were dispersed among 23 other combinations How to incorporate Two or More Races into the 2011 accountability system will be determined with advisory groups in March 2011 and published as commissioner decisions in April 2011.
Update on HB 3 Implementation
HB 3 Implementation 45 House Bill 3 Transition Plan Posted online on Wednesday, December 1 at the following URL:
HB 3 Implementation 46 Transition Plan Timelines through 2013 December 1, 2010Transition plan to the new assessment and accountability/accreditation system is submitted to the governor, lieutenant governor, other key legislative members and staff, and the Legislative Budget Board (LBB). August 1, ratings are the last ratings issued under the current accountability system.
HB 3 Transition Plan Timelines Assignment of performance ratings are suspended for this school year. New academic accountability system is developed with input from advisory groups on the timelines specified in the transition plan. 47
HB 3 Transition Plan Timelines August 8, 2013District and campus performance ratings are issued for the first time under new system. Ratings will be based on the percent proficient indicators. The percent college-ready indicators will be report only. Distinction designations will be issued to districts and campuses with acceptable performance concurrent with the release of performance ratings. Performance ratings issued in and school years will be considered consecutive. 48
HB 3 Implementation 49 Transition Plans for 2014 August 8, 2014District and campus performance ratings will be issued for second time. Ratings will be based on both percent proficient and percent college-ready indicators. Distinction designations will be issued to districts and campuses with acceptable performance concurrent with the release of performance ratings.
Features of the New Accountability System 50 Based on STAAR EOC and grades 3 – 8 assessments Evaluation of college-ready performance as well as student proficiency 2020 accountability goals: Top 10 states in terms of college readiness No significant achievement gaps among student groups
Features of the New Accountability System 51 Graduation/completion/dropout rates with new exclusions Two rating levels – acceptable and unacceptable performance Distinction designations Higher ratings of Recognized and Exemplary for postsecondary/college readiness Campus growth Campus closing performance gaps Five additional campus distinctions determined by committees
Features of the New Accountability System 52 The following additional features can be used to elevate the performance rating: Required Improvement over the prior year; Average performance of the last 3 years; or, Performance on 85% of the measures meets the standard.
Overview of Performance Ratings and Distinctions 53
Features of the New Accountability System 54 At least two options may be considered in the assignment of accountability ratings under current statute: A) four rating categories, or B) two ratings Acceptable and Unacceptable with additional distinction ratings, e.g. Acceptable with Recognized Distinction for college/career readiness.
55 Features of the New Accountability System A) Four Rating Categories:
B) Two Rating Categories: Features of the New Accountability System 56
Campus Distinction Designations Campus distinction on criteria developed by five committees for: Academic achievement in ELA, mathematics, science, or social studies Fine arts Physical education 21 st century workforce development program Second language acquisition program 57
Campus Distinction Designations Timelines January Selection of distinction committee members finalized Four separate meetings of each distinction committee will occur. Internal and external reviews of distinction designation committee recommendations will also occur. 58
Campus Distinction Designations Timelines May Release of Commissioners Final Decisions on Distinction Designations Collection of data June Determination of list of campuses that earned distinction designations. August Release of distinction designations. 59
HB 3 Implementation 60 Exclusions to the NCES Dropout Definition HB3 defined certain exclusions that the TEA must make when evaluating dropout and completion rates for accreditation and performance ratings. The exclusions can be grouped into five categories: Previous dropouts; ADA ineligible dropouts; Court-ordered GEDs, not earned; Incarcerated in facilities not served by Texas public schools; and Refugees and asylees.
Features of the New Accountability System Exclusions to the NCES Dropout Definition HB3 requires use of the current NCES dropout definition until TEA is interpreting the effective date to mean the dropout data collected in the school year. 61
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.