Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

State Accountability System Update Texas Assessment Conference December 7-9, 2009 Shannon Housson and Nancy Rinehart TEA, Performance Reporting Division.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "State Accountability System Update Texas Assessment Conference December 7-9, 2009 Shannon Housson and Nancy Rinehart TEA, Performance Reporting Division."— Presentation transcript:

1 State Accountability System Update Texas Assessment Conference December 7-9, 2009 Shannon Housson and Nancy Rinehart TEA, Performance Reporting Division

2 2 Todays Topics Accountability Calendars – 2009 and Accountability Overview Preview of 2010 and 2011 Standard Accountability Procedures Preview of 2010 AEA Procedures and Indicators Update on HB 3 Implementation TEASE Accountability Accountability Resources

3 3 Recent and Upcoming Events November 17TAT list release (TEASE) November 17AEIS release (TEASE) November 20TAT list release (TEA correspondence site) December 3AEIS release (TEA public website) December 8 PEG list release (TEASE) December 10School Report Cards release (TEA public website) December 10Pocket Edition (TEA public website) December 15 PEG list release (TEA public website)

4 Accountability Timeline Jan - Feb Accountability System Development – 2009 Review / 2010 and beyond Development March 4 - 5Educator Focus Group Meeting March 29Commissioners Accountability Advisory Committee (CAAC) Meeting AprilFinal decisions for 2010 and beyond announced by Commissioner Late May2010 Accountability Manual posted online July Accountability Ratings release Mid-September2011 AEA Campus Registration

5 2009 Accountability Overview

6 Ratings Highlights 2009 to 2008 Comparisons - Districts The percent of students enrolled in districts rated either Exemplary or Recognized increased substantially. 33.8% of total student enrollment in either Exemplary or Recognized districts in 2009, compared to 20.5% in State summary results are posted online at:

7 Ratings Highlights (cont.) 2009 to 2008 Comparisons - Campuses The percent of students enrolled in campuses rated either Exemplary or Recognized also increased substantially. In 2009, campuses rated Exemplary comprised 25.0% of the total student enrollment and campuses rated Recognized comprised 39.2% of total students enrolled. 64.2% of total student enrollment in either Exemplary or Recognized campuses in 2009, compared to 45.5% in 2008.

8 Ratings Highlights (cont.) Required Improvement - Campuses Under standard procedures, 756 campuses used RI to achieve a higher rating, compared to 521 in campuses moved to Recognized (20.6% of all Recognized campuses). 149 campuses moved to Academically Acceptable (7.8% of all Academically Acceptable campuses).

9 Ratings Highlights (cont.) Required Improvement - Districts Under standard procedures, 144 districts used RI to achieve a higher rating, compared to 106 in districts used RI to move to Recognized (27.6% of all Recognized districts). 16 districts used RI to move to Academically Acceptable (3.1% of all Academically Acceptable districts).

10 2009 Ratings Highlights (cont.) 10 Texas Projection Measure (TPM) - Campuses Under standard procedures only, 2,560 campuses used TPM to achieve a higher rating. 358 used TPM to achieve Academically Acceptable 1,088 used TPM to achieve Recognized 1,114 used TPM to achieve Exemplary A portion of these campuses may have used other features for other measures.

11 2009 Ratings Highlights (cont.) 11 Texas Projection Measure (TPM) - Districts Under standard procedures, 331 districts used TPM to achieve a higher rating. 79 used it to achieve Academically Acceptable 179 used it to achieve Recognized 73 used it to achieve Exemplary A portion of these districts may have used other features for other measures.

12 2009 Ratings Highlights (cont.) 12 Exceptions Provision (EP) - Campuses Of the 319 campuses that used the Exceptions Provision: 72 used one or more exceptions to achieve a rating of Academically Acceptable 96 used one or more exceptions to achieve a rating of Recognized 151 used one exception to achieve a rating of Exemplary A portion of these campuses may have used other features for other measures.

13 Ratings Highlights (cont.) Exceptions Provision (EP) - Campuses Of the 319 campuses using exceptions: 263 campuses used 1 37 campuses used 2 19 campuses used 3 0 campuses used 4

14 Ratings Highlights (cont.) Exceptions Provision (EP) - Districts Of the 17 districts that used the Exceptions Provision: 1 used one or more exceptions to achieve a rating of Academically Acceptable 8 used one or more exceptions to achieve a rating of Recognized 8 used one exception to achieve a rating of Exemplary A portion of these districts may have used other features for other measures.

15 Ratings Highlights (cont.) Exceptions Provision (EP) - Districts Of the 17 districts using exceptions: 16 districts used 1 1 district used 2 0 districts used 3 0 districts used 4

16 16 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 13 possible GPAs. Campuses are eligible for a maximum of 15 possible GPAs. Since 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

17 GPA Acknowledgments 17 Of the 1,224 districts evaluated for GPA, approximately 78% earned one or more, compared to 80% in Two districts earned all 13 district acknowledgments. Of the 7,650 campuses evaluated for GPA, approximately 79% earned one or more, compared to 81% in campuses earned 15 or 14 acknowledgments. Five campuses earned 13.

18 AEA GPA Acknowledgments is the second year for evaluating AEA campuses and charters on GPA indicators. Only the All Students group is evaluated; student groups are not evaluated separately. There are 13 AEA GPA indicators. The two Comparable Improvement indicators are not evaluated for AEA GPA. An Attendance Rate standard of 95.0% is applied to all AECs and charters under AEA GPA. Among the 72 charter operators, 25 earned one or more acknowledgments. Among the 448 AECs, 196 earned one or more acknowledgments.

19 19 Key Changes to AEIS NEW INDICATORS – TAKS Met Standard with TPM – TAKS-M Met Standard – TAKS-Alt Met Standard (2011 Preview) – ELL Progress Measure (2011 Preview) – Previews of the TAKS Base Indicator (2010 & 2011)

20 20 Key Changes to AEIS (cont.) NEW SECTION III (First Page of State Report Attached) – Changes to TEC (passed in 2007) require that selected AEIS indicators be disaggregated by bilingual and ESL instructional models. – The new Section III, Bilingual Education/English as a Second Language Report provides this information. – District only – not campus. Must be published. – Section III displays nine new columns for three required indicators: the accountability base indicator, the SSI indicators, and the Progress of Prior Year Failers.

21 21 Key Changes to AEIS (cont.) ABOUT THE TAKS PREVIEW INDICATORS – 2010 TAKS Preview 2009 and 2008 performance built to reflect the changes for These are: a) the inclusion of all TAKS (Accommodated) results; b) use of the new vertical scale cut points for grades 3- 8 reading and mathematics; c) use of only the first administration results for grade 3; and, d) the use of TAKS (Accommodated) results for the second administration of grades 5 and 8.

22 22 Key Changes to AEIS (cont.) ABOUT THE TAKS PREVIEW INDICATORS (cont.) – 2011 TAKS Preview Same as the 2010 preview except that it also includes TAKS-M results (including 2 nd administration TAKS-M results for grades 5 and 8). The included TAKS-M results are for all tested grades and subjects.

23 23 School Report Card (SRC) Overview The School Report Card (SRC) contains a subset of the performance, staff, and financial data in the AEIS reports. SRCs are accessible through the AEIS public website. There is no separate TEASE release of the SRCs. Target release date is December 10, Superintendents and principals will be notified of availability via .

24 Public Education Grant (PEG) Program Overview A statutorily-mandated program of school choice (TEC Ch. 29, Subchapter G, ) Partially aligned with accountability ratings, but not fully aligned with the state system, AYP, or the TAT list. Statute requires districts to notify parents of the list by February 1, The PEG list is based on 2007, 2008, and 2009 performance, but is effective for the school year.

25 25 PEG Criteria Schools are included on the list if: (1)50 percent or fewer of students* passed: (a)Any TAKS reading/English language arts, writing, mathematics, science, or social studies test, summed across the grades tested at the school; (b) In any two of the three years: 2007, 2008, or 2009 OR (2) The school was rated Academically Unacceptable in 2007, 2008, or *Student groups are not evaluated.

26 26 Calendar and Notification Planned release date is December 10, 2009, via TEASE to all districts with one or more campuses on the list. List will be posted to agency correspondence website on December 15, An online FAQ is available through the Division of Performance Reporting Resources link

27 Preview of 2010 and 2011 Standard Accountability Procedures

28 28 Standard Accountability Decisions for 2010 and * Exemplary 90% Recognized 75% 80% Academically Acceptable Reading/ELA 70% Writing, Social Studies 70% Mathematics 55% 60% 65% Science 50% 55% 60% * Standards for 2011 will be reviewed in 2010 and are subject to change. Numbers in bold indicate a change from the prior year. TAKS Indicator

29 29 Standard Accountability Decisions for 2010 and 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) ReportUse TAKS-Modified All Subjects and Grades, combined w/ TAKSReport Use TAKS-Alternate All Students Only, summed Subjects and GradesReport Use English Language Learner Progress Measure All Students OnlyReport Use

30 30 Standard Accountability Decisions for 2010 and 2011 (cont.) * Standards for 2011 will be reviewed in 2010 and are subject to change. Numbers in bold indicate a change from the prior year. 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%

31 31 Standard Accountability Decisions for 2010 and 2011 (cont.) Summary – 2010 Development Topics Annual review of RI, TPM, and Exceptions Provision Annual review of Gold Performance Acknowledgments standards, including Comparable Improvement (CI) 2010 and 2011 Standards for TAKS Indicators Completion/Dropout Indicators and Standards Transition Timeline from TAKS to EOC Assessments Transition to Restructured System for 2011 and Beyond

32 Ethnicity and Race Data Collection and Reporting 32 PEIMS collects ethnicity and race using both old and new definitions. TAKS answer documents collect both old and new definitions (pre-coded from PEIMS). Reporting and Use – State accountability, federal accountability, AEIS (and related reports) use old definitions

33 Ethnicity and Race Data Collection and Reporting (cont.) 33 PEIMS collects ethnicity and race using new definitions only. TAKS answer documents collect new definitions only (pre-coded from PEIMS). Reporting and Use – State accountability, federal accountability, AEIS (and related reports) based on new definitions

34 Preview of 2010 AEA Procedures and Indicators

35 Registered AECs The list of 2010 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 30, 2010.

36 36 At-Risk Registration Criterion In April 2010, 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 2010 standard accountability procedures. The Final 2010 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 30, A list of the charter operators that will be rated under 2010 AEA procedures will be posted on the AEA website in May 2010.

37 37 TAKS Progress Indicator The TAKS Progress indicator includes all TAKS (Accommodated) results as described on slide 29. The TAKS Progress indicator standard remains 50% for The TAKS Progress indicator standard for 2011 will be reviewed with accountability advisory groups in spring 2010.

38 38 TAKS Progress Indicator (cont.) 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.

39 39 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 2009, district at-risk TAKS data were used to evaluate 45 AECs.

40 40 Completion Rate II and Annual Dropout Rate (Grades 7-12) Indicators The Completion Rate II indicator standard remains 60.0% for The Annual Dropout Rate indicator standard remains 20.0% for In spring 2010, the accountability advisory groups will review various options and make recommendations to the commissioner about the leaver indicators evaluated under AEA procedures for 2011.

41 41 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. Since 2008, only All Students are evaluated; student groups are not evaluated separately.

42 42 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 2009, district at-risk Completion Rate II data were used to evaluate 137 AECs of Choice.

43 43 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. Since 2008, only All Students are evaluated; student groups are not evaluated separately.

44 44 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 2009, district at-risk Annual Dropout Rate data were used to evaluate 37 AECs.

45 Update on HB 3 Implementation

46 HB 3 Implementation 46 Transition Plans through 2012 July 30, ratings are issued under current accountability system. By 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.

47 HB 3 Implementation 47 Transition Plans through Assignment of accreditation statuses and performance ratings are suspended for this school year. New accreditation and academic accountability system is developed with input from the educator advisory groups on the timelines specified in the transition plan.

48 HB 3 Implementation 48 Transition Plans for 2013 August 8, 2013District accreditation statuses and district 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 and accreditation statuses issued in and school years will be considered consecutive.

49 HB 3 Implementation 49 Transition Plans for 2014 August 8, 2014District accreditation statuses and district 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.

50 HB 3 Implementation 50 Detailed analysis of HB3 and other education-related legislation that passed during the 2009 legislative session can be found in the TEA publication, 81 st Texas Legislative Session: Briefing Book on Public Education Legislation. Go to the URL shown below and select, Briefing Book – 81 st Texas Legislature

51 HB 3 Implementation 51 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.

52 HB 3 Implementation 52 Exclusions to the NCES Dropout Definition HB3 explicitly requires use of the current NCES dropout definition until TEA is interpreting the effective date to mean the dropouts collected in the year. The dropouts collected in the year (2010 ratings) will be processed using current definitions with no new exclusions applied. The dropouts collected in the year (2011 ratings) will be processed using current definitions with no new exclusions applied.

53 53 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.

54 54 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 7-9, 2009 Shannon Housson and Nancy Rinehart TEA, Performance Reporting Division."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google