Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

State and Federal Accountability Update 2012 Association for Compensatory Educators of Texas (ACET) Conference April 11, 2012 Shannon Housson Ester Regalado.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "State and Federal Accountability Update 2012 Association for Compensatory Educators of Texas (ACET) Conference April 11, 2012 Shannon Housson Ester Regalado."— Presentation transcript:

1 State and Federal Accountability Update 2012 Association for Compensatory Educators of Texas (ACET) Conference April 11, 2012 Shannon Housson Ester Regalado Division of Performance Reporting Texas Education Agency 1

2 2012 Accountability 2

3 No State Accountability Ratings 2012 AYP evaluations and SIP statuses will be released in early August

4 AYP 2012 AYP Timeline May/June Expected USDE approval of requested amendments to the 2012 Texas AYP Workbook. Thursday, May 24, 2012 TETN Session on Federal AYP Cap (Event #4851) for ESCs and Districts May 22 – June 22, 2012 Campus Priority List for the 2% Federal Cap available online

5 AYP 2012 AYP Timeline June2012 AYP Guide released Last Week of July TEASE release of Preliminary 2012 AYP Data Tables without AYP/SIP labels for all districts and campuses. First Week of August Public release of Preliminary 2012 AYP/SIP statuses for all districts and campuses.

6 AYP 2012 AYP Timeline First Week of September Appeals and Federal Cap Exceptions Deadline. November/ December Final 2012 AYP Status released. Preview of NCLB Report Card (Part I only) JanuaryPublic release of the NCLB Report Card.

7 2012 AYP 2012 AYP Performance Standards increase: 87% in Reading/English language arts 83% in Mathematics Federal regulations require 2012 AYP graduation rate evaluations of All Students and every student group. Participation Rate and Attendance Rate Indicator standards remain unchanged. 7

8 2012 AYP Summary of Texas Amendment Requests AYP Texas Workbook for 2012 AYP was submitted on February, 15, references to Graduation Rate Goals and Targets (Sections 1.2 and 7.1) Graduation Rate Goals and Targets will show constant targets for 2011 and 2012 AYP. 8

9 2012 AYP Summary of Texas Amendment Requests Evaluate 2012 AYP and School Improvement Program (SIP) statuses based on: TAKS results for grade 10, and STAAR results for grade 3-8 at the TAKS proficiency standard. 9

10 2012 AYP Summary of the Texas Amendment Requests In order to provide 2012 AYP results on a timely basis, Texas will use bridge studies that identify the existing TAKS performance standards on the new STAAR assessments for tests of grade 3–8 on which STAAR performance standards will not yet be available. The STAAR Bridge Study for AYP was approved by the USDE on February 17, The complete study is posted online at Bridge Study for AYP 10

11 2012 AYP Summary of the Texas Amendment Requests See Summary of Possible 2012 AYP Components for detailed listing of TAKS and STAAR assessment results that will be evaluated for 2012 AYP at 11

12 Overview of Accountability System for 2013 and Beyond 12

13 House Bill (HB) 3 Accountability Provisions Focus of district and campus performance is postsecondary readiness standards Rigorous standards ensure that Texas performs among top ten states by 2020 Higher ratings are distinctions based on higher levels of student performance 13

14 House Bill (HB) 3 Accountability Provisions Campuses earn distinctions for student growth and closing achievement gaps Campuses earn distinctions for excellence in areas other than state assessment results Reports are relevant, meaningful, and easily accessible State and federal accountability requirements are aligned to the extent possible 14

15 Accountability System for 2013 and Beyond Legislation provides new flexibility as well as constraints Every aspect of accountability system will be reevaluated New system may look very different from current system, not just variation on former systems used in Texas Seamless system of ratings – reporting – monitoring – interventions 15

16 New Accountability Indicators Considered End-of-Course (EOC) cumulative scores for cohorts of graduates Four-, five-, and six-year graduation rates Three-year average performance 16

17 New Frameworks Considered Performance Index Allows more indicators without more hurdles Rating based on overall performance rather than lowest performing area Interventions focus on specific problem areas 17

18 New Frameworks Considered Alignment of State/Federal Systems Broad goals in common postsecondary readiness, student progress, closing performance gaps Range of options Develop state system that meets federal requirements – replace Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) with new state system Separate AYP as component of state system 18

19 New Rating Labels Statutory labels removed Separate district ratings from elementary, middle, and high schools are possible Multiple degrees of acceptable/unacceptable statuses possible Higher ratings based on postsecondary ready Separate ratings for status and growth possible 19

20 New Progress Measures Developed Multiple measures developed for reporting Accountability indicators that do not count failing students as passing Required Improvement based on student growth measure possible Campus distinction designations for growth to postsecondary ready Closing performance gaps can be measured across achievement spectrum (scale scores or percentiles) 20

21 New Student Groups New race/ethnicity student group definitions produce seven groups Economically disadvantaged and non-economically disadvantaged in statute Limited English proficient (LEP) and special education in AYP blueprint Gap measures to evaluate student group performance 21

22 New Accountability Standards – New Issues Phase-in of State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness (STAAR) assessments Phase-in of student passing standard Phase-in of graduation requirements Percentiles or rankings versus accountability standards 22

23 2013 Accountability 23

24 Ratings Based on: STAAR Level II: Satisfactory Academic Performance (not Level III: Advanced Academic Performance) student passing standard TAKS grade 11 Met Standard 24

25 Ratings Rating labels will be acceptable/satisfactory and unacceptable/unsatisfactory only Recognized and Exemplary ratings will not be awarded in

26 Data Growth measures not available for 2013 ratings Multiple growth measures being developed for reporting Accountability indicators that incorporate growth will be developed after 2013 results 26

27 Graduation/Dropout Rate Indicators Class of 2012 graduation/completion/dropout rates and annual dropout rates released June 2013 The first cohort to graduate under EOC are the grade 10 students in the school year (most have not taken English III, Algebra II, Physics, U.S. History) 27

28 Distinction Designations Campus Academic Distinctions Developed via committees Reading/ELA and mathematics awarded in 2013 likely based on: Grades 3-8 STAAR advanced performance High school measures of college-readiness other than EOC Science and Social Studies will be phased in 28

29 Distinction Designations New Areas for Recognition Developed via committees 21 st Century Workforce Development Program scheduled to be awarded in 2013 Additional areas that will be phased in: fine arts, physical education, and second language acquisition program 29

30 Distinction Designations Additional distinctions for campuses based on top 25% in growth and closing performance gaps will not be awarded in 2013 These distinctions will likely be based on growth measures and the Level III: Advanced Academic Performance student passing standard that will not be evaluated until

31 Alternative Education Accountability (AEA) Options No separate system Same system for all in 2013, separate AEA procedures in 2014 Same system, different standards and/or growth measures 31

32 2013 and 2014 Accountability – Summary Acceptable/ Unacceptable* (Campuses & Districts) STAAR Level II Performance STAAR Level III Performance TBD STAAR Growth Measures TBD Improvement FeatureTBD Release Date Deadline8/8 Distinction Designations for Recognized & Exemplary (Campuses & Districts) STAAR Level III Performance Not Awarded STAAR Growth MeasuresTBD Release Date Deadline8/8 * Labels to be determined. 32

33 2013 and 2014 Accountability – Summary Distinction Designations for Top 25% in: Student Growth Closing Gaps (Campuses Only) STAAR Level III Performance Not Awarded STAAR Growth MeasuresTBD Release Date Deadline8/8 Distinction Designations for Academic Achievement (1 of 5 committees) (Campuses Only) STAAR Level III Performance (Gr. 3-8) Reading/ELA & Mathematics Only STAAR Growth Measures TBD Other College-Readiness HS Indicators Reading/ELA & Mathematics Only Release Date Deadline8/8 33

34 Accountability Development Process 34

35 Development Calendar Beginning of 18-month accountability system development process First advisory committee meeting March 5 - 6, 2012 Advisory committees meet about every three months through February/March 2013 Final decisions will be released by the commissioner in March/April

36 Website for Accountability Development Post status reports, issue documents, presentations, and advisory group recommendations. Opportunity for structured input from broad constituency New web pages and FAQ added to Division of Performance Reporting website at: 36

37 Advisory Groups Accountability Technical Advisory Committee (ATAC) Accountability Policy Advisory Committee (APAC) 37

38 Advisory Groups – ATAC Duties Consider complex, technical issues Work with TEA staff and national experts to develop recommendations including: overall framework, integration of state and federal systems, assessment indicators, progress measures, completion indicators, student groups, minimum size criteria, alternative education accountability (AEA), and distinction designations. 38

39 Advisory Groups – ATAC Expectations Attend up to five meetings at TEA offices in Austin between March 2012 and spring 2013; Actively and constructively participate during meetings; Solicit input from peers within their geographic region; Participate in at least one small work group that will meet between the ATAC meetings with TEA staff. 39

40 Advisory Groups – ATAC and APAC Process The smaller work groups will present their proposals at the main ATAC meetings. The ATAC committees final proposals will be reviewed by the Accountability Policy Advisory Committee (APAC). The APAC will provide feedback on the ATAC proposals to the commissioner of education. The commissioner will make final accountability decisions in spring

41 AYP Resources For more information on AYP, see the 2011 AYP Guide, accessible at Texas AYP Workbook, as of October 12, 2011, is located at FAQs about AYP are located at USDE information is available at Contact the Division of Performance Reporting by at or phone at (512) 41

42 Accountability Resources Division of Performance Reporting Division of Performance Reporting telephone number (512) ESC Accountability Contacts Online at 42

Download ppt "State and Federal Accountability Update 2012 Association for Compensatory Educators of Texas (ACET) Conference April 11, 2012 Shannon Housson Ester Regalado."

Similar presentations

Ads by Google