Presentation on theme: "TETN | September 21, 2012 Texas Education Agency | Office of Assessment and Accountability Division of Performance Reporting State and Federal Accountability."— Presentation transcript:
TETN | September 21, 2012 Texas Education Agency | Office of Assessment and Accountability Division of Performance Reporting State and Federal Accountability Update
2012 AYP Timeline 3 July 31, 2012 TEASE release of Preliminary 2012 AYP Data Tables without AYP/SIP labels for all districts and campuses Appeals begin August 8, 2012 Public release of Preliminary 2012 AYP/SIP statuses for all districts and campuses September 7, 2012Appeals and Federal Cap Exceptions Deadline Late November, Early December 2012 Final 2012 AYP Status released Preview of NCLB School Report Card data (Part I only) January 2013 Public release of the 2011-12 Texas NCLB Report Card
2013 AYP Waiver Request 4 Notice of intent to request a waiver was posted in a September 6, 2012, letter to LEAs on the TEA web site and posted on the To the Administrator Addressed listserv. LEAs and the public may submit comments regarding this waiver application until 5:00 p.m. CST, Thursday, September 27, 2012, to firstname.lastname@example.org@tea.state.tx.us For questions regarding the waiver requests, contact the Division of Federal and State Education Policy via e-mail at email@example.com or at (512) 463-9414. firstname.lastname@example.org
2012 Academic Excellence Indicator System (AEIS)
2012 AEIS Release 6 District and campus AEIS reports will be posted to the TEA secure environment (TEASE) and the TEA public website in mid-November. Email notifications will be sent to district superintendents and ESC directors. The TEASE release provides the information that districts need to fulfill publishing and notification requirements for the AEIS. The AEIS Guidelines will provide details about district responsibilities.
2012 AEIS Release 7 PUBLISHING MUST publish: Performance and profile sections of district and campus AEIS reports MAY publish: Glossary (English Glossary will be available mid-November. Spanish translation will be available in January 2013.) MUST ADD and publish: o Campus performance objectives o Report of violent or criminal incidents o Information from THECB about performance of students in postsecondary institutions
District Responsibilities 8 HEARING FOR PUBLIC DISCUSSION Must be held within 90 calendar days after the November TEASE release. District winter break days do not count towards the 90 days. Within 2 weeks after the hearing, the AEIS report must be disseminated.
District Responsibilities 9 AEIS AND THE DISTRICT WEBSITE TEC §39.362 requires districts with websites to post the most current accountability ratings, AEIS reports, and School Report Cards (SRC) not later than the 10th day after the first day of instruction of each school year. There is no requirement in this statute that district websites must be updated with new AEIS reports after the 10th instructional day. However, districts are encouraged to do so. Refer to our FAQ web page about this requirement at http://www.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport/3297_faq.html http://www.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport/3297_faq.html
Changes to the 2011-12 AEIS 10 Assessment results include TAKS, TAKS (Accommodated), and TAKS-M for grades 10-11 only STAAR EOC results will not be included TAKS data are shown only for the 2011-12 school year ELL Progress Measure will not be reported for 2012 Campus-level variables for the at-risk student group added to data download Non-Educationally Disadvantaged Student Group percentage added to Student Profile section
Changes to the 2011-12 AEIS 11 TEC §39.053 (g-1) requires the reporting of longitudinal graduation rates with exclusions for state accountability purposes. The following graduation/completion rates will be reported in 2012: o Four-year Completion Rate for Class of 2011 with exclusions applied o Four-year and Five-year Graduation Rates without exclusions that match the graduation rates used for federal AYP evaluations. District Instructional Staff Percent added to Campus AEIS District Instructional Expenditure Ratio added to Campus AEIS
November Public Release 12 Includes TEASE products such as district and campus AEIS reports and Guidelines. Other available information: o Region reports o State report o Report of mobile student performance (state-level only) o Data download (includes a masking explanation) o Multi-year data o Links to prior-year reports o Links to grade level Progress of Prior Year Failers o Glossary
School Report Cards 13 Since state accountability ratings were not assigned to Texas public schools and districts in 2012, the requirements under TEC§39.361 Notice in Student Grade Report (formerly§39.251) and§39.362 Notice on District Website (formerly§39.252) are modified for fall 2012 reporting requirements. For fall 2012 only, the reporting requirements for the School Report Card are suspended, and the most current campus performance rating is not required to be sent home with the first written notice of a student's performance that a school district gives during a school year.
Campuses With Additional Campus Improvement Plan (CIP) Requirements
15 Statute requires identification of campuses meeting current year standards for acceptable performance that do not meet accountability standards for the subsequent year. These campuses are subject to additional campus improvement plan (CIP) requirements. Since ratings were not assigned in the 2011–12 school year, and the ratings criteria will not be final until spring 2013, it is not possible to identify these campuses for the 2012–13 school year. After the initial performance ratings of the new accountability system are final in fall 2013, the list of campuses with additional CIP requirements will be released for the 2013–14 school year.
PEG Overview 17 A statutorily-mandated program of school choice (TEC Ch. 29, Subchapter G, § §29.201-29.205) that was not affected by changes made by the Texas Legislature in HB 3 in 2009. Partially aligned with accountability ratings, but not fully aligned with the state system or AYP. Statute requires districts to notify parents of the 2013-14 list by February 1, 2013. However, The PEG list for 2013-14 may be delayed until STAAR standards for grades 3-8 are final. Since accountability ratings will not be released in 2012 and a new accountability system will be implemented in 2013, the following table shows the anticipated criteria for the 2013-14 PEG list.
Criteria 18 Released by End of Applies to School Year Identifying Criteria for a School to be Placed on Public Education Grant (PEG) List 2012*2013–2014 TAKS/STAAR passing rate 50% in two of the three preceding years (TAKS: 2010, 2011; STAAR: 2012) OR rated Academically Unacceptable in 2010 or 2011. * The PEG list for 2013-14 may be delayed until STAAR standards for grades 3-8 are final.
Calendar and Notification 19 Planned release date to affected districts is early December 2012 via TEASE to all districts with one or more campuses on the list. Planned release date to public is mid-December 2012 via the agency correspondence website. An online FAQ page is available at http://www.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport/resources/index.html http://www.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport/resources/index.html
2013: Advisory Committees 21 Accountability Policy Advisory Committee (APAC) and Accountability Technical Advisory Committee (ATAC) Meeting Outcomes A summary of meeting outcomes for the APAC and ATAC meetings are posted online at: http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport/account/2013/materials.html http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport/account/2013/materials.html
2013 State Accountability Development 22 Recent postings to the 2013 development website include: Overview of Proposed Performance Index Framework that provides a brief description of the features and safeguards of the proposed four performance indexes in the new accountability system. Overview of Assessment Indicators in the Previous State Accountability System provides a visual overview of the previous system. http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport/account/2013/index.html
Overview of Proposed Performance Index Framework 23 Features of Index 1: Student Achievement STAAR Satisfactory Performance All Students only Combination of all subject areas Credit is given for satisfactory performance (Level II) on: STAAR Grades 3-8 English and Spanish at final Level II performance standard for assessments administered in the spring, EOC at final Level II performance standard for assessments administered in the spring and the previous fall and summer, STAAR grades 3-8 and EOC Modified and Alternate at final Level II performance standard, STAAR L (linguistically accommodated) based on the ATAC ELL Workgroup recommendations in progress, and TAKS grade 11 results at the Met Standard performance standard (included in 2013 only).
Overview of Proposed Performance Index Framework 24 Features of Index 2: Student Progress Student Progress to Satisfactory or Advanced Performance Levels All Students and each race/ethnicity African American, American Indian, Asian, Hispanic, Pacific Islander, White, Two or More Races By subject area (Reading and Mathematics; Writing for EOC only; Science and Social Studies for EOC only, if growth measures are available) Same assessments used in Index 1 where student progress measures are available Credit is given for meeting the student progress measure requirements for: Progress to Satisfactory performance (Level II), or Progress to Advanced performance (Level III).
Overview of Proposed Performance Index Framework 25 Features of Index 3: Closing Performance Gaps Achievement Gaps Measured for Satisfactory and Advanced Performance Levels All Economically Disadvantaged and lowest performing racial/ethnic group(s) based on Index 1 performance By subject area (Reading, Mathematics, Writing, Science, and Social Studies) Same assessments used in Index 1 Credit given for meeting the gap measure requirements
Overview of Proposed Performance Index Framework 26 Features of Index 4: Measures of Postsecondary Readiness All Students and each race/ethnicity group evaluated in Index 2 Credit based on average of two postsecondary indicators: (1) high school graduation rates (HS) and diploma plans; and (2) STAAR advanced performance (Level III) STAAR Advanced Performance Combination of all subject areas Credit given for Advanced performance (Level III) on same assessments used in Index 1 at final Level III performance standard
Overview of Proposed Performance Index Framework 27 Features of Index 4: Measures of Postsecondary Readiness (cont.) High School Graduation Four-year or Five-year Graduation Rate Percent of Recommended or Advanced HS Program Plan graduates Credit given for percent of HS graduates and percent of graduates in the four-year graduation rate who satisfied requirements for RHSP or AHSP Annual Dropout Rate (if no Graduation Rate)
Input on Advisory Committee Proposals 28 Educators are invited to comment on proposals made by the advisory groups. Proposals are posted online for educator review and comment at the 2013 Accountability Development page: http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport/account/2013/index.html http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport/account/2013/index.html Click on the Recommendations link, scroll to the bottom of the page, and click on the Comments link.
2013: HB 3 Transition Summary 29 Transition Plan Charts and Tables Details about the transition plans for the new accountability system for 2013, 2014, and 2015 are available from the March 2012 meeting materials. http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport/account/2013/materials.html http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport/account/2013/materials.html A summary of the HB 3 legislative requirements are also available in the Reference Materials at the 2013 Accountability Development page. http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport/account/2013/reference/lege_ interpretation.html http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport/account/2013/reference/lege_ interpretation.html
2013: Calendar 30 The Comprehensive Meeting Calendar posted at the link below outlines the timeline for the various topics to be considered by the APAC and ATAC groups. http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport/account/2013/materials.html http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport/account/2013/materials.html
2013 and 2014 Accountability - Summary 31 20132014 Acceptable/ Unacceptable* (Campuses & Districts) STAAR Level II Performance STAAR Level III Performance TBD STAAR Growth MeasuresTBD 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.
2013 and 2014 Accountability - Summary 32 20132014 Distinction Designations for Top 25% in: Student Growth Closing Gaps (Campuses Only) STAAR Level III Performance TBD 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
34 Distinction Designation Indicators 1)Completion of Algebra I by end of grade 8 (Level III). 2)Greater than expected student growth on the state assessment 3)Participation and performance on ELA/Mathematics sections o grade 10 (PSAT, PLAN) o grade 11 (PSAT) and Participation and performance on college readiness assessments
Academic Achievement Distinction Designations 35 Distinction Designation Indicators (cont.) 4)Participation and performance on AP/IB ELA or Mathematics and Percentage of students completing and receiving credit for at least one ELA or Mathematics advanced course/ dual enrollment course 5)Performance on grade 3 Reading (Level III) 6)Performance on grade 5 Mathematics (Level III) 7) Attendance Rate
Distinction Designation Framework The proposed framework for distinction designations uses four stages to determine a campus distinction. The first stage identifies a campus comparison group for each campus and calculates campus performance for each distinction indicator by subject. The second stage compares the performance of the target campus to the performance of the campuses in the comparison group for each indicator. For example, Campus A is in the top 10% of campuses among a 40 campus comparison group on a particular distinction indicator. 36 Academic Achievement Distinction Designations
Distinction Designation Framework The third stage generates a single outcome by subject for each campus. For example, Campus A achieved the top 10% in three of the six distinction indicators that were evaluated for the campus. The fourth and final stage is a statewide evaluation of campus outcomes in order to identify the top campus distinction designations by subject. For example, campuses that outperformed their peers on 50% or more of the mathematics distinction indicators evaluated receive an academic distinction in mathematics. 37 Academic Achievement Distinction Designations
Distinction Designation Framework For details, refer to the AADDC framework document at http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport/account/2013/20120625mtg/frame.pdf http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport/account/2013/20120625mtg/frame.pdf 38 Academic Achievement Distinction Designations
Resources 39 2013 Development Site http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport/account/2013/index.html http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport/account/2013/index.html Frequently Asked Questions About Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/ayp/faq/faq.html http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/ayp/faq/faq.html Performance Reporting Home Page http://www.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport http://www.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Home Page http://www.tea.state.tx.us/ayp http://www.tea.state.tx.us/ayp Performance Reporting Email email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org Division of Performance Reporting Telephone (512) 463-9704