Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

TETN Accountability Update Session August 19, 2010.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "TETN Accountability Update Session August 19, 2010."— Presentation transcript:

1 TETN Accountability Update Session August 19, 2010

2 State Accountability Update

3 2010 Ratings Highlights Compared to the 2009 TAKS results using the 2010 indicator definition, the 2010 statewide performance on the TAKS improved for all students and all student groups in each subject area tested. Completion Rate I results improved for all students and for each student group between the class of 2009 and the class of The state average grade 7-8 annual dropout rate remained at 0.3% between 2009 and

4 Ratings Highlights (cont.) District Ratings by Rating Category (including Charter Operators) ACCOUNTABILITY RATING 2010 CountPercent Exemplary % Recognized % Academically Acceptable % Standard Procedures % AEA Procedures483.9% Academically Unacceptable453.6% Standard Procedures302.4% AEA Procedures151.2% Not Rated: Other100.8% Total1,237100%

5 Ratings Highlights (cont.) ACCOUNTABILITY RATING 2010 CountPercent Exemplary2, % Recognized3, % Academically Acceptable1, % Standard Procedures1, % AEA Procedures4305.1% Academically Unacceptable1251.5% Standard Procedures1011.2% AEA Procedures240.3% Not Rated: Other6477.7% Not Rated: Data Integrity Issues00.0% Total8,435100% Campus Ratings by Rating Category (including Charter Campuses)

6 Additional Features There are three additional features in the system: Required Improvement (RI) Texas Projection Measure (TPM) Exceptions Provision (EP) Only one feature can be used per measure. However, different features can be used for different measures. 5

7 6 Additional Features (cont.) Required Improvement (RI) - Districts Under standard procedures, 381 districts used RI to achieve a higher rating. 348 (58.3%) districts used RI to move to Recognized 33 (11%) districts used RI to move to Academically Acceptable A portion of these districts may have used other features for other measures.

8 7 Additional Features (cont.) Required Improvement (RI) - Campuses Under standard procedures, 1,521 campuses used RI to achieve a higher rating in ,282 (40.7%) campuses moved to Recognized 239 (16.4%) campuses moved to Academically Acceptable A portion of these campuses may have used other features for other measures.

9 8 Additional Features (cont.) Texas Projection Measure (TPM) - Districts 632 districts used TPM to achieve a higher rating. 64 moved to Academically Acceptable 399 moved to Recognized 167 moved to Exemplary 2 moved to AEA: Academically Acceptable A portion of these districts may have used other features for other measures.

10 9 Additional Features (cont.) Texas Projection Measure (TPM) - Campus 3,866 campuses used TPM to achieve a higher rating. 426 moved to Academically Acceptable 1,972 moved to Recognized 1,433 moved to Exemplary 25 moved to AEA: Academically Acceptable A portion of these districts may have used other features for other measures.

11 10 Additional Features (cont.) Exceptions Provision (EP) - Districts 6 districts applied the Exceptions Provision: 1 moved to Academically Acceptable 2 moved to Recognized 3 moved to Exemplary A portion of these districts may have used other features for other measures.

12 11 Additional Features (cont.) Exceptions Provision (EP) - Campuses 218 campuses used the Exceptions Provision: 8 applied one or more exceptions to move to Academically Acceptable 61 applied one or more exceptions to move to Recognized 149 applied one exception to move to Exemplary A portion of these campuses may have used other features for other measures.

13 Additional Features Summary DistrictsCampuses Any RI ,514 Any TPMn/a329631n/a2,5433,841 Any EP RI is also available for the Completion Rate I and Annual Dropout Rate indicators. In 2010, 17 districts and 24 campuses used RI with the Completion Rate indicator. In 2010, no districts or campuses used RI with the Annual Dropout Rate indicator. These counts are not included in the table.

14 13 Additional Features (cont.) New in 2010 are campus and district lists that show the number of times additional features were used by each campus or district in determining their 2010 accountability ratings. These lists are available as a PDF download or Excel download at:

15 14 Additional Features (cont.) Also, the following comments were added to the district/campus listings posted on the TEA website to describe the use of additional features in the determination of the rating shown. RI Only TPM Only EP Only RI/TPM RI/EP TPM/EP RI/TPM/EP Met Absolute Standards

16 15 Additional Features (cont.) Campuses and districts that Met Absolute Standards achieved their ratings without the use of Required Improvement (RI), the Texas Projection Measure (TPM), or the Exceptions Provision (EP). For example, for districts and campuses evaluated under standard procedures, the comment, RI only, indicates that the assigned rating was achieved as a result of the use of the Required Improvement feature for one or more of the assessment, completion, and/or dropout rate indicators.

17 16 Additional Features (cont.) If the RI and/or TPM features were used to achieve the 2010 rating, it cannot be assumed that the next lower rating would have been assigned if those features had not been applied. Since the Exceptions Provision allows districts and campuses to achieve a higher rating if specific criteria are met, it is possible that the rating assigned based on the use of RI and/or TPM would not differ from the rating assigned without the use of those two features.

18 17 AU Rating Reasons Standard Procedures Of the 30 Academically Unacceptable districts: 3 due to TAKS only; 15 due to Completion Rate I only; 6 due to Annual Dropout Rate only; and 6 due to a combination of base indicators. Of the 101 Academically Unacceptable campuses: 46 due to TAKS only; 31 due to Completion Rate I only; 17 due to Annual Dropout Rate only; and 2 due to a combination of base indicators.

19 18 AEA: AU Rating Reasons (cont.) Alternative Education Accountability (AEA) Procedures Of the 15 AEA: Academically Unacceptable charter operators: 2 due to TAKS only; 5 due to Completion Rate II only; 3 due to Annual Dropout Rate only; and 5 due to a combination of base indicators. Of the 24 AEA: Academically Unacceptable campuses: 10 due to TAKS only; 4 due to Completion Rate II only; 5 due to Annual Dropout Rate only; and 5 due to a combination of base indicators.

20 AU Rating Reasons (cont.) Completion Rate I – Exemplary and Recognized Ratings Missed Exemplary due to Completion Rate only: 27 districts 28 campuses Missed Recognized due to Completion Rate only: 63 districts 80 campuses See the Highlights document for more details on the 2010 system: 19

21 20 Appeals deadline (postmarked) – August 13, 2010 Appeals Panel meets – early October Appeal decisions mailed to districts (and posted on secure web) – mid-October Ratings change due to granted appeals will be published concurrent with Gold Performance Acknowledgment (GPA) release – late October. Appeals Process and Dates

22 21 Texas Projection Measure (TPM) How TPM was Used in State Accountability Calculations in 2009 and 2010 Actual percent passing compared to accountability standards (met absolute standards). Required Improvement (RI) attempted for measures not meeting absolute standards. (RI uses actual percent passing.) TPM evaluates on the percentage of students who either met the passing standard or are projected to meet the passing standard in a future grade with TPM. TPM evaluated for measures not meeting absolute standards and not demonstrating RI.

23 22 Texas Projection Measure (TPM) How TPM was Used in State Accountability Calculations in 2009 and 2010 The Exceptions Provision is applied last to determine if the rating can be evaluated. Minimum performance floors must be met and other safeguards are applied. For details about use of TPM in the state accountability system, see Chapters 2-4, Chapters 10-11, and Appendix D of the 2010 Accountability Manual located at:

24 23 Texas Projection Measure (TPM) TPM Questions and Answers Concurrent with the July 30 state ratings release, a TPM Questions and Answers document was posted to the Student Assessment website at: The document included a number of Questions and Answers related to the use of TPM in state and federal accountability.

25 24 Texas Projection Measure (TPM) Analysis of 2009 Ratings Distributions, Standard Procedures When Actual 2010 Performance Results are Substituted for 2009 Projections* DISTRICTS Actual 2009 State Ratings 2009 Ratings with TPM Recomputed based on Actual 2010 Results Exemplary Recognized Academically Acceptable Academically Unacceptable56 Not Rated: Other87 Total1,163 *If 2009 TPM projections for grades 4, 7, and 10 were updated with actual 2010 results.

26 25 Texas Projection Measure (TPM) Analysis of 2009 Ratings Distributions, Standard Procedures When Actual 2010 Performance Results are Substituted for 2009 Projections* CAMPUSES Actual 2009 State Ratings 2009 Ratings with TPM Recomputed based on Actual 2010 Results Exemplary2,1582,197 Recognized2,9432,932 Academically Acceptable1,9111,898 Academically Unacceptable Not Rated: Other Total7,874 *If 2009 TPM projections for grades 4, 7, and 10 were updated with actual 2010 results.

27 26 Texas Projection Measure (TPM) Analysis of 2009 Ratings Distributions, Standard Procedures When Actual 2010 Performance Results are Substituted for 2009 Projections The recomputed 2009 ratings are based on the TPM projections that have been updated with the actual 2010 results for the following eight grade/subject combinations: grade 4 reading and mathematics projected to grade 5 grade 7 reading and mathematics projected to grade 8 grade 10 English language arts, mathematics, science social studies projected to grade 11 A full accuracy analysis using more of the grade/subject combinations is not possible until However, a complete accuracy analysis will never be possible due to the transition from the TAKS to STAAR testing program in This analysis only includes the final data for the April 2010 primary administration of TAKS and the first retest in May It does not include the results from the second retest in June 2010, nor does it include results from the exit level retest administration in July 2010.

28 27

29 28 Texas Projection Measure (TPM) For 2011 state accountability, the commissioner will consider several options in the use of TPM to ensure that student performance is acknowledged and that the state accountability system remains transparent. (See TEA Correspondence - July 8, 2010) Suspension of the use of TPM; Continued use of TPM in state accountability, but only for districts that elect to use it; or Include additional safeguards: o Applying performance floors, o Counting each student who fails, but it projected to pass as a fraction of a passer, o Prohibiting TPM to be used for the same measure in a subsequent year, o Limiting the number of measures for which TPM can be used in a given year, and o Limiting which rating categories can use TPM.

30 29 Standard Accountability Decisions for 2011 and Beyond 2011**2012 Exemplary 90% No Ratings in 2012 Recognized 80% Academically Acceptable Reading/ELA 70% Writing, Social Studies 70% Mathematics 65% Science 60% * In 2011, all TAKS-Modified (TAKS-M), TAKS-Alternate (TAKS-Alt), and TAKS (Accommodated) results will be used and combined with TAKS. ** The 2011 standards are final as determined by the commissioner. Numbers in bold indicate an increase in rigor from the prior year. TAKS Indicator*

31 30 Standard Accountability Decisions for 2011 and Beyond 2011* Exemplary 2011* Recognized No Ratings in 2012 TAKS- Commended Performance (All Students group and if meets minimum size, Economically Disadvantaged) 25% in Reading/ELA & Mathematics for Commended or Commended Performance with TPM (TBD) 15% in Reading/ELA & Mathematics for Commended or Commended Performance with TPM (TBD) English Language Learners (ELL) Progress (If meets minimum size, All Students group only) 60% Standard or Meets Required Improvement or Meets criteria for use of Exceptions Provision * The 2011 standards are final as determined by the commissioner. Additional Indicators

32 31 Standard Accountability Decisions for 2011 and Beyond English Language Learner (ELL) Progress Measure A detailed summary of the ELL Progress Measure can be found in Appendix H of the Academic Excellence Indicator System (AEIS) Glossary located at:

33 * The 2011 standards are final as determined by the commissioner. Numbers in bold indicate an increase in rigor from the prior year. Standard Accountability Decisions for 2011 and Beyond (cont.) Completion Rate I, Annual Dropout Rate, and Underreported Students 2011* No Ratings in 2012 Completion Rate I Exemplary Recognized Academically Acceptable Class of % 85.0% 75.0% Gr. 7-8 Annual Dropout Rate (All categories) Dropouts 1.6% Underreported Students (District only) 150 and 3.0%

34 33 Ethnicity/Race Data Collection and Reporting 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 , 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) will use 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. How student groups will be evaluated for Accountability under the Federal Race/Ethnicity coding

35 Alternative Education Accountability (AEA) Update

36 35 AEA Decisions for 2011 TAKS Progress Indicator The TAKS Progress indicator standard will increase from 50% to 55%. TAKS-Modified and TAKS-Alternate results will be combined with TAKS and TAKS (Accommodated ) results to determine AEA ratings.

37 36 AEA Decisions for 2011 (cont.) Annual Dropout Rate (Grades 7-12) and Completion Rate II Indicators The Annual Dropout Rate indicator standard remains 20.0%. The Completion Rate II indicator standard remains 60.0%.

38 37 AEA Decisions for 2011 (cont.) English Language Learner (ELL) Progress Indicator The ELL Progress Indicator standard will be 55%. Required Improvement (RI) will be calculated. The All Students group will be evaluated if the minimum size requirement is met.

39 AEA Campus Registration Process The 2011 AEA campus registration process will be conducted online using the TEASE Accountability website. The 2011 AEA campus registration process opens September 8, An notification will be sent to all superintendents stating that alternative education campuses (AECs) rated under 2010 AEA procedures will be re-registered automatically in 2011 subject to the 75% at-risk registration criterion.

40 AEA Campus Registration Process (cont.) AECs wishing to rescind AEA registration must complete an electronic AEA Campus Rescission Form. AECs requesting AEA registration must complete an electronic AEA Campus Registration Form. AECs for which 2010 AEA registration was rescinded due to not meeting the at-risk registration criterion must submit an electronic AEA Campus Registration Form if the AEC wishes to request AEA campus registration in AEA rescission and registration forms submitted via TEASE Accountability must be printed and maintained locally as official documentation of AEA campus registration requests.

41 AEA Campus Registration Process (cont.) The 2011 AEA registration process closes September 22, 2010, at 1:00 p.m. C.D.T. AEA rescissions and registrations will not be processed after this time. When finalized, the list of 2011 Registered AECs will be available on the AEA website at:

42 41 AEA At-Risk Registration Criterion Each registered AEC must have a minimum percentage of at-risk students enrolled on the AEC verified through current-year PEIMS fall enrollment data in order to be evaluated under AEA procedures and receive an AEA rating. Two safeguards have been incorporated for those AECs that are below the at-risk requirement. 1. Prior-Year PEIMS At-Risk Data Safeguard: If a registered AEC does not meet the at-risk criterion in 2011, then it remains under AEA if the AEC had at least 75% at-risk enrollment in New Campus Safeguard: If a new campus is registered for evaluation under AEA procedures, then the AEC is not required to meet the at-risk criterion in its first year of operation. This safeguard provides an accommodation for new campuses with no prior-year data.

43 42 AEA At-Risk Registration Criterion (cont.) The AEA at-risk registration criterion was 65% in 2006, 70% in 2007, and 75% in 2008 and beyond. AEA registration is rescinded for AECs that do not meet the at-risk registration criterion or utilize the safeguards. As a result, the AECs are evaluated under standard accountability procedures. Below is a history of the number of campuses not meeting the at-risk registration criterion that were shifted to standard accountability procedures – 17 AECs 2007 – 24 AECs 2008 – 17 AECs 2009 – 17 AECs 2010 – 10 AECs

44 43 AEA At-Risk Registration Criterion (cont.) The PEIMS Edit+ reports below may be helpful when analyzing at-risk student enrollment data. These reports may be run at the district and campus levels. PRF5D003 – Student Roster. Lists all students enrolled by grade. The AT RS column indicates whether a student is at-risk. PRF5D018 – At-Risk Students by Sex, Ethnicity, and Grade. One-page report of at-risk students by sex, ethnicity, and grade. PRF5D025 – At-Risk Roster by Grade. Lists at-risk students by grade. Other student demographics are included on this report.

45 Campuses With Additional Campus Improvement Plan (CIP) Requirements

46 45 Additional CIP Requirements (formerly known as Technical Assistance Teams) Districts with identified campuses will be notified in early November through TEASE at the same time the AEIS reports are posted to TEASE. Campuses rated Academically Acceptable in 2010 are identified if performance does not meet 2011 accountability system criteria. Required Improvement (RI) and the Exception Provision will be part of the 2011 methodology. The TPM feature will not be part of the 2011 methodology.

47 46 Additional CIP Requirements (cont.) (formerly known as Technical Assistance Teams) The 2011 TAKS Preview indicator is evaluated for additional CIP requirements. This indicator includes TAKS (Accommodated), TAKS-Modified (TAKS-M), and TAKS-Alternate (TAKS-Alt) assessments. Campuses will be able to see their data for this indicator on their AEIS reports. Ethnicity will be based on current ethnic definitions.

48 House Bill (HB) 3 Update

49 HB 3 Implementation Transition Plan - Next Steps By December 1, 2010Transition plan for the new assessment and accountability/accreditation system is submitted to the governor, lieutenant governor, other key legislative staff and the Legislative Budget Board (LBB). July 29, ratings are the last issued under the current accountability system Assignment of performance ratings are suspended. New academic accountability system is developed with input from the educator advisory groups on the timelines specified in the transition plan. 48

50 HB 3 Implementation (cont.) 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. 49

51 HB 3 Implementation (cont.) 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 (2011 ratings) will be processed using current definitions with no new exclusions applied. 50

52 51 TETN Accountability Update Session and Tentative Agenda Topics November 18Accountability Ratings Update Gold Performance Acknowledgment (GPA) TAT Lists AEIS Reports School Report Cards PEG List NCLB Report Card The above session is from1 p.m. to 3 p.m.

53 TETN Accountability Update Sessions and Tentative Agenda Topics February 17Update on Accountability Development April 19Accountability Decisions for 2011 June 16Accountability Manuals – State and AYP August 18Accountability Results for 2011 November 17Accountability Ratings Update Gold Performance Acknowledgments (GPA) AEIS Reports School Report Cards Public Education Grant (PEG) List The above sessions are from 1 p.m. to 3 p.m.

54 53 Accountability Resources the Division of Performance Reporting at Call the Division of Performance Reporting at (512) ESC Accountability Contacts Online: ACCT: AEA: AYP:


Download ppt "TETN Accountability Update Session August 19, 2010."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google