Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

State Accountability System Update Texas Assessment Conference December 9, 2008 Shannon Housson and Nancy Rinehart TEA, Performance Reporting Division.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "State Accountability System Update Texas Assessment Conference December 9, 2008 Shannon Housson and Nancy Rinehart TEA, Performance Reporting Division."— Presentation transcript:

1 State Accountability System Update Texas Assessment Conference December 9, 2008 Shannon Housson and Nancy Rinehart TEA, Performance Reporting Division

2 2 Todays Topics Accountability Calendars – 2008 and Accountability Overview Technical Assistance Teams ( TAT ) Preview of Standard Accountability Procedures Preview of AEA Procedures and Indicators TEASE Accountability Accountability Resources

3 3 Recent and Upcoming Events August Ratings release (TEA website) Sept 10 – Oct AEA Campus Registration (TEASE) October 23Final 2008 Ratings and GPA release (TEA website) November AEIS release (TEASE) November AEIS release (TEA website) December PEG list release (TEASE) December School Report Cards release (TEA website) December PEG list posted online (TEA website)

4 Accountability Timeline Jan - Feb Accountability System Development – 2008 Review / 2009 and beyond Development February 26-27Educator Focus Group Meeting March 24Commissioners Accountability Advisory Committee ( CAAC ) Meeting AprilFinal decisions for 2009 and beyond announced by Commissioner Late May2009 Accountability Manual posted online July Accountability Ratings release Mid-September2010 AEA Campus Registration

5 2008 Accountability Overview

6 Ratings Highlights 2008 to 2007 Comparisons - Districts The percent of students enrolled in districts rated either Exemplary or Recognized increased substantially. 20.5% of total student enrollment in either Exemplary or Recognized districts in 2008, compared to 6.1% in State summary results are posted online at:

7 Ratings Highlights (cont.) 2008 to 2007 Comparisons - Campuses The percent of students enrolled in campuses rated either Exemplary or Recognized also increased substantially. In 2008, campuses rated Exemplary comprised 12.0% of the total student enrollment and campuses rated Recognized comprised 33.5% of total students enrolled. 45.5% of total student enrollment in either Exemplary or Recognized campuses in 2008, compared to 35.6% in 2007.

8 Ratings Highlights (cont.) Required Improvement - Campuses Under standard procedures, 521 campuses used RI to achieve a higher rating, compared to 360 in campuses moved to Recognized (13.3% of all Recognized campuses). 147 campuses moved to Academically Acceptable (4.7% of all Academically Acceptable campuses).

9 Ratings Highlights (cont.) Required Improvement - Districts Under standard procedures, 106 districts used RI to achieve a higher rating, compared to 37 in districts used RI to move to Recognized (26.2% of all Recognized districts). 20 districts used RI to move to Academically Acceptable (2.7% of all Academically Acceptable districts).

10 Ratings Highlights (cont.) Exceptions Provision – Overview Exceptions Provision was significantly modified in 2008 compared to prior years: available for Recognized and Exemplary ratings expanded from three to four for Academically Acceptable and Recognized ratings increased minimum performance floors from five points to ten points below standard for mathematics and science.

11 Ratings Highlights (cont.) Exceptions Provision – Overview Rationale for modifications to Exceptions Provision: Originally intended to provide a mechanism for avoiding the Academically Unacceptable rating due to new indicators or indicators that were being phased-in to the system. Changes were designed to provide relief for larger campuses and districts serving more diverse student populations that are evaluated on more measures.

12 Ratings Highlights (cont.) Exceptions Provision – Overview Rationale for modifications to Exceptions Provision: In 2008, students receiving special education services taking TAKS (Accommodated) at selected grades and subjects were included in the TAKS results. Grade 8 science results were included at the Panel Recommended standard

13 Ratings Highlights (cont.) Exceptions Provision – Campuses 832 campuses increased their rating due to the Exceptions Provision, compared to 210 in campuses used campuses used 2 69 campuses used 3 8 campuses used 4

14 Ratings Highlights (cont.) Exceptions Provision – Campuses Of the 832 campuses that used the Exceptions Provision: 313 used one or more exceptions to achieve a rating of Academically Acceptable (10.1% of all Academically Acceptable campuses) ; 342 used one or more exceptions to achieve a rating of Recognized (12.1% of all Recognized campuses) ; 177 used one exception to achieve a rating of Exemplary (17.7% of all Exemplary campuses).

15 Ratings Highlights (cont.) Exceptions Provision - Districts 90 districts increased their rating due to the Exceptions Provision, compared to 31 in districts used 1 11 district used 2 2 districts used 3 1 district used 4

16 Ratings Highlights (cont.) Exceptions Provision - Districts Of the 90 districts that used the Exceptions Provision: 37 used one or more exceptions to achieve a rating of Academically Acceptable (4.9% of all Academically Acceptable districts) ; 45 used one or more exceptions to achieve a rating of Recognized (13.7% of all Recognized districts) ; 8 used one exception to achieve a rating of Exemplary (18.6% of all Exemplary districts).

17 Ratings Highlights (cont.) Exceptions Provision - Districts In 2008, 19 of the Recognized districts are large (10,000 or more enrolled) compared to only 2 districts of this size earning Recognized in Only 1 of the 19 large Recognized districts used an exception to achieve the Recognized rating. The Exceptions Provision will be examined by the accountability advisory groups in spring 2009 to determine whether modifications are needed.

18 Ratings Highlights (cont.) School Leaver Provision - District Impact (Standard Procedures) 3 districts and charters used the School Leaver Provision (SLP) due to the Annual Dropout Rate only. 80 districts and charters used the SLP due to the Completion Rate I only. 6 districts and charters used the SLP due to both Annual Dropout and Completion I Rates. 6 districts used the SLP due to excessive underreported students.

19 Ratings Highlights (cont.) School Leaver Provision - Campus Impact (Standard Procedures) 27 campuses used the SLP due to the Annual Dropout Rate only. 115 campuses used the SLP due to the Completion Rate I only. 0 campuses used the SLP due to both Annual Dropout and Completion Rate I.

20 Ratings Highlights (cont.) School Leaver Provision – Charter District Impact (AEA Procedures) 9 charters used the SLP for Annual Dropout Rate only. 6 charters used the SLP for Completion Rate II only. 15 charters used the SLP for both Dropout and Completion Rates.

21 Ratings Highlights (cont.) School Leaver Provision – Campus Impact (AEA Procedures) 19 AECs used the SLP for Annual Dropout Rate only. 26 AECs used the SLP for Completion Rate II only. 20 AECs used the SLP for both Dropout and Completion Rates.

22 22 Gold Performance Acknowledgments (GPA) Overview GPA was created to recognize districts and campuses for high performance on indicators that are in addition to those used to determine state accountability indicators. Districts are eligible for a maximum of 12 possible GPAs. Campuses are eligible for a maximum of 14 possible GPAs. Beginning in 2008, AEA GPA indicators recognize charters and AECs evaluated under AEA procedures for high performance. Lists of districts or schools by GPA categories or by any combination of acknowledgments are located at

23 23 Key Changes to AEIS TAKS (Accommodated) The 2008 accountability system included performance on the following subjects and grades: Science (grades 5, 8, 10, & 11) Science (grade 5 Spanish) Social Studies (grades 8, 10, & 11) English Language Arts and Mathematics (grade 11) This affects the following indicators on the AEIS report: TAKS Met 2008 Standard, shown by grade TAKS Met 2008 Standard, shown summed across grades TAKS Commended Performance Texas Success Initiative (both ELA and mathematics) Comparable Improvement (grade 11 only)

24 24 Key Changes to AEIS (cont.) TAKS 2010 Preview Includes performance on all TAKS (Accommodated) tests, in all subjects, all grades. Only 2008 is available for preview, because TAKS (Accommodated) tests were first administered to all grades and subjects in Grade 8 Science TAKS Grade 8 science results are based on the 2008 student passing standardPanel Recommendation ( PR ). Grade 8 science results are shown by grade, and are included in the summed across grade accountability indicators and the Commended Performance results.

25 25 Key Changes to AEIS (cont.) Participation TAKS-M Only has been added to the Tested subsection, and SDAA II has been deleted. ARD Exempt has been deleted from the Not Tested subsection. Student Success Initiative – Grade is the first year for the student success initiative for grade 8. TAKS grade 8 reading and mathematics performance is included in this indicator. Only one year is available, for the first two measures: (1) Students Requiring Accelerated Instruction, and (2) TAKS Cumulative Met Standard.

26 26 Key Changes to AEIS (cont.) English Language Learners Progress Measure For 2008, the RPTE has been replaced by the Texas English Language Proficiency Assessment System ( TELPAS ). Because two years of comparable assessment data are not yet available, the ELL progress measure cannot be computed in A progress measure based on two years of TELPAS results will be reported for the first time on the AEIS reports.

27 27 Key Changes to AEIS (cont.) TAKS-M TAKS-M results are reported at the state level only in Since TAKS-M was only given in reading, mathematics, and science at grades 3-8 and 10, all grades and subjects are not available to be reported at the district and campus levels until TAKS-M state results can be accessed online via an embedded hyperlink on the HTML version of the state AEIS report, similar to the existing link to Performance of Mobile Students.

28 28 Key Changes to AEIS (cont.) TAKS -Alt TAKS -Alt performance results will not be incorporated in the 2008 AEIS reports. TAKS -Alt will continue to be included in the participation data reported on the AEIS reports. TAKS -Alt performance will be reported at the district and campus levels in 2009 in coordination with the TAKS -M results.

29 School Report Card (SRC) Overview The SRC contains a subset of the performance, staff, and financial data that is reported in the AEIS reports. As required by statute, these report cards must be disseminated to the parent, guardian, conservator, or other person having lawful control of each student at the campus. The intent is for the SRC to be distributed to the homes of each student.

30 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.

31 31 PEG Criteria Partially aligned with accountability ratings, but is not aligned with the state system, AYP, or the TAT list. PEG criteria are more rigorous on the evaluation of science results than the state standards. There is a three year moving time frame, so even improved schools stay on the list if they were AU in any of the prior three years. The number of campuses this year is anticipated to be lower than last year. Last year there were 831 schools identified.

32 32 PEG District Responsibilities Statute requires that districts notify parents of the PEG list by February 1, PEG list is based on 2006, 2007, and 2008 performance, but is effective for the school year. The PEG Frequently Asked Questions ( FAQ ) web page provides useful information on various PEG -related issues and is located at

33 Technical Assistance Teams ( TAT )

34 34 Technical Assistance Teams ( TAT ) For , there are 292 unique districts with one or more campuses on the TAT list compared to the 395 unique districts for the prior year. Secondary is the most common campus type on the list representing 54% of all campuses listed (among the Both, Elementary, Middle School, and Secondary categories). The TAT list has 510 campuses with no waivers. This is a reduction of 367 campuses from the prior year.

35 35 TAT Campus Identification A campus is included on the TAT list if the following conditions occur: o The campus was rated Academically Acceptable (under standard procedures) or AEA: Academically Acceptable (under AEA procedures); and o The performance does not meet the 2009 for AA or AEA: AA accountability standards; or o The campus avoided being rated AU or AEA: AU in 2008 due to the School Leaver Provision.

36 TAT Methodology TAKS will include the same TAKS (Accommodated) results as were used in 2008: science (English) for grades 5,8,10, & 11; science (Spanish) for grade 5; social studies for grades 8,10, & 11; English language arts ( ELA ) for grade 11; and mathematics for grade 11. The TAT list utilizes and TAKS results. The TAKS performance indicators have been recalculated to include grade 8 science and the TAKS (Accommodated) results. Campuses that meet the 2009 accountability standards using the Exception Provision or Required Improvement are not included on the TAT list.

37 Preview of 2009 Standard Accountability Procedures

38 38 Standard Accountability Decisions for 2009 and Beyond 2009 Final Decision 2010 * Recommended Exemplary 90% Recognized 75% 80% Academically Acceptable Reading/ELA 70% Writing, Social Studies 70% Mathematics 55% 60% Science 50% 55% * Standards for 2010 will be reviewed in 2009 and are subject to change. Numbers in bold indicate a change from the prior year. TAKS Indicator - Standards

39 39 Standard Accountability Decisions for 2009 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

40 40 Standard Accountability Decisions for 2009 and Beyond (cont.) Texas Projection Measure The 2009 accountability development process will review the possible use of the new student projection measure in the 2009 accountability system. Final decisions will be announced by the Commissioner in April 2009.

41 41 Standard Accountability Decisions for 2009 and Beyond (cont.) The School Leaver Provision (SLP) will no longer apply in 2009 accountability and beyond. Required Improvement - Continued use Academically Acceptable 2.0% 1.8% Recognized 2.0% 1.8% Exemplary 2.0% 1.8% Annual Dropout Rate (Grades 7-8)

42 42 Standard Accountability Decisions for 2009 and Beyond (cont.) 2008 (Class of 2007) 2009* (Class of 2008) 2010* (Class of 2009) 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 are recommended and subject to change after the spring 2009 development cycle is completed. Completion Rate I (Grade 9-12) Indicator

43 43 Standard Accountability Decisions for 2009 and Beyond (cont.) School Leaver Provision will no longer be applicable in 2009 accountability and beyond. Required Improvement - Continued use Completion Rate I (Grade 9-12) Indicator (cont.)

44 44 Standard Accountability Decisions for 2009 and Beyond (cont.) Underreported Students The School Leaver Provision will no longer apply to underreported students. In 2009, the number and percent of underreported students that can prevent a district from being rated Exemplary or Recognized becomes more rigorous with greater than 5.0% or greater than 150 students (down from 200 students). Districts with fewer than 5 underreported students will not be evaluated on this indicator.

45 45 Standard Accountability Decisions for 2009 and Beyond (cont.) Summary – 2009 Development Topics Annual review of RI and Exceptions Provision Annual review of Gold Performance Acknowledgments standards, including Comparable Improvement (CI) 2010 Standards for TAKS Indicators Options for Districts Impacted by Hurricane Ike Completion/Dropout Indicators and Standards Transition Timeline from TAKS to EOC Assessments Transition to Restructured System for 2011 and Beyond

46 46 Select Committee on Accountability The 15-member Select Committee held public hearings across the state in 2008 to review the accountability system and make recommendations regarding how the system should be restructured. The Select Committee submitted their final report to the Legislature on December 1, 2008 and is available online at

47 Preview of 2009 AEA Procedures

48 Registered AEC s The list of 2009 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 31, 2009.

49 49 At-Risk Registration Criterion In April 2009, 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 2009 standard accountability procedures. The Final 2009 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 31, A list of the charter operators that will be rated under 2009 AEA procedures will be posted on the AEA website in May 2009.

50 AEA Standards TAKS Progress indicator standard increases to 50%. Completion Rate II (including GED recipients) indicator standard remains 70.0%. Annual Dropout Rate (Grades 7-12) indicator standard is scheduled to remain 10.0%.

51 51 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.

52 52 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 March and April/May 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 March and April/May administrations or in the previous October or July.

53 53 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. In 2008, district at-risk TAKS data were used to evaluate 50 AECs.

54 54 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. Beginning in 2008, only All Students are evaluated; student groups are not evaluated separately.

55 55 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 2008, district at-risk Completion Rate II data were used to evaluate 168 AECs of Choice.

56 56 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. Beginning in 2008, only All Students are evaluated; student groups are not evaluated separately. Use of the School Leaver Provision (SLP) in 2009 and beyond will be reviewed with advisory groups in spring 2009.

57 57 Use of District At-Risk Annual Dropout Rate Data District at-risk dropout data were used for the first time in 2008 AEA ratings. 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 accountability standard or demonstrate Required Improvement, then the AEC is evaluated on Annual Dropout Rate of at-risk students in the district. In 2008, district at-risk Annual Dropout Rate data were used to evaluate 110 AECs.

58 58 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.

59 59 Accountability Resources ESC Accountability Staff Division of Performance Reporting Phone: (512) AEA Accountability Accountability Resources


Download ppt "State Accountability System Update Texas Assessment Conference December 9, 2008 Shannon Housson and Nancy Rinehart TEA, Performance Reporting Division."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google