Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

TETN Accountability Update Session August 18, 2011 Shannon Housson, Cathy Long, Nancy Rinehart TEA, Division of Performance Reporting.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "TETN Accountability Update Session August 18, 2011 Shannon Housson, Cathy Long, Nancy Rinehart TEA, Division of Performance Reporting."— Presentation transcript:

1 TETN Accountability Update Session August 18, 2011 Shannon Housson, Cathy Long, Nancy Rinehart TEA, Division of Performance Reporting

2 State Accountability Update

3 Ratings Highlights District Ratings by Rating Category (including Charter Operators) ACCOUNTABILITY RATING 2011 CountPercent Exemplary615.0% Recognized % Academically Acceptable % Standard Procedures % AEA Procedures463.7% Academically Unacceptable887.2% Standard Procedures766.2% AEA Procedures121.0% Not Rated: Other20.2% Total1,228100%

4 Ratings Highlights ACCOUNTABILITY RATING 2011 CountPercent Exemplary1, % Recognized2, % Academically Acceptable3, % Standard Procedures2, % AEA Procedures3934.6% Academically Unacceptable5696.7% Standard Procedures5186.1% AEA Procedures510.6% Not Rated: Other6237.3% Not Rated: Data Integrity Issues00.0% Total8,526100% Campus Ratings by Rating Category (including Charter Campuses)

5 Commended Performance 4 Limited to AA Limited to RE Total Campuses Districts25530 The Only Reason for:

6 ELL Progress Indicator Limited six campuses to AA that would have otherwise been RE or EX. No districts were limited to AA due to this indicator. 5

7 6 Additional Features Required Improvement (RI) - Districts Under standard procedures, 82 districts used RI to achieve a higher rating. 65 (79.3%) districts used RI to move to Recognized 17 (20.7%) 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 Required Improvement (RI) - Campuses Under standard procedures, 390 campuses used RI to achieve a higher rating. 260 (66.7%) campuses moved to Recognized 130 (33.3%) campuses moved to Academically Acceptable A portion of these campuses may have used other features for other measures.

9 8 Additional Features Exceptions Provision (EP) - Districts 222 districts applied the Exceptions Provision: 64 moved to Academically Acceptable 147 moved to Recognized 11 moved to Exemplary A portion of these districts may have used other features for other measures.

10 9 Additional Features Exceptions Provision (EP) - Campuses 1,361 campuses used the Exceptions Provision: 371 applied one or more exceptions to move to Academically Acceptable 765 applied one or more exceptions to move to Recognized 225 applied one exception to move to Exemplary A portion of these campuses may have used other features for other measures.

11 Additional Features Summary DistrictsCampuses Any RI , Any EP ,361 Any TPM n/a329631n/a 2,5433,841n/a 10

12 11 AU Rating Reasons Of the 76 Academically Unacceptable districts: 61 due to TAKS only; 7 due to Completion Rate I only; 0 due to Annual Dropout Rate only; and 8 due to a combination of base indicators. Of the 518 Academically Unacceptable campuses: 495 due to TAKS only; 2 due to Completion Rate I only; 5 due to Annual Dropout Rate only; and 16 due to a combination of base indicators.

13 Race / Ethnicity Federal Race/Ethnicity Provision Students who are Two or More Races were evaluated in All Students and not among any of the individual racial student groups. The Federal Race/Ethnicity Provision was applied to the following indicators in 2011 only: State Accountability (Standard): TAKS Met Standard indicator State Accountability (AEA): TAKS Progress indicator AYP: Reading and Mathematics performance and participation indicators 12

14 Race / Ethnicity Federal Race/Ethnicity Provision Results 13 AU to AAAA to RERE to EXTotal Campuses Districts38011

15 14 Appeals deadline for both standard and alternative education accountability (AEA) procedures (postmarked) – August 12, 2011 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

16 15 About 200 registered appeals as of the deadline. Represents about 130 different districts. Almost 90% are for TAKS or Commended Performance. Almost 60% are from AU or AEA: AU rated campuses/districts. Appeals Statistics (Preliminary)

17 Alternative Education Accountability (AEA) Update

18 AEA Ratings Highlights Accountability RatingCount AEA: Academically Acceptable46 AEA: Academically Unacceptable12 AEA: Not Rated - Other1 Total59 Charter Operator AEA Ratings

19 AEA Ratings Highlights Accountability Rating AECs of Choice Residential Facilities Total AEA Campuses AEA: Academically Acceptable AEA: Academically Unacceptable AEA: Not Rated - Other257 Total Campus AEA Ratings by Campus Type (including Charter Campuses)

20 19 AEA: AU Rating Reasons Of the 12 AEA: Academically Unacceptable charter operators: 4 due to TAKS Progress Indicator only; 4 due to Completion Rate II only; 2 due to Annual Dropout Rate only; and 2 due to a combination of base indicators. Of the 51 AEA: Academically Unacceptable campuses: 41 due to TAKS Progress Indicator only; 4 due to Completion Rate II only; 3 due to Annual Dropout Rate only; and 3 due to a combination of base indicators.

21 20 AEA Campus Registration A new accountability system will be developed during the 2011–2012 school year and implemented in As a result, no state accountability ratings will be issued in Decisions regarding evaluation of AECs under the new accountability system have yet to be determined.

22 House Bill (HB) 3 Update

23 HB 3 Implementation Advisory Groups under Department of Assessment and Accountability Policy Advisory Committee Technical Advisory Committee Academic Distinction Designation Committee Other Distinction Designation Committees will be convened under the Division of Curriculum. 22

24 HB 3 Implementation Policy Advisory Committee Advise the commissioner on major policy and design issues. Provide input to the development process and feedback on the recommendations of the Technical Advisory Committee. 23

25 HB 3 Implementation Technical Advisory Committee Advise on development of the system, including assessment indicators and progress measures, completion/graduation/dropout indicators, student groups and minimum size criteria, alternative education accountability, and distinction designations. This committee will consist of small working groups formed around specific topics that will meet with TEA staff between full committee meetings. 24

26 HB 3 Implementation Distinction Designation Committees HB 3 requires campus Distinction Designations beginning in Academic Distinction Designations (ELA, math, science or social studies) is 1 of 5 required areas. The other four are: Fine Arts Physical Education 21 st Century Workforce Development; and, Second Language acquisition. 25

27 HB 3 Implementation Academic Distinction Designation Committee The commissioner will appoint approximately twelve members based on nominations each from the governor, lieutenant governor, and speaker of the house. There are to be three professionals, three experts, three educators, and three community leaders. Committee will advise and provide guidance on criteria and standards based on subject area expertise. 26

28 HB 3 Implementation Calendar Original calendar published in HB 3 Transition Plan has been delayed. The first advisory committee meetings are now scheduled for February, 2012 instead of the fall of February Joint meeting of Policy and Technical advisory committees Additional meetings to be scheduled through 2012 and spring

29 HB 3 Implementation 2011 Legislation Regarding New Accountability System HB 2135 states that performance on EOC assessments taken below grade 9 must be included in the middle or elementary school accountability indicator but does not prohibit use in the high school indicator. How assessment results are used in accountability indicators will be determined by the commissioner during the school year when the new accountability system for 2013 and beyond is developed. 28

30 29 TETN Accountability Update and Tentative Topics November 17Accountability Ratings Update Gold Performance Acknowledgments (GPA) Academic Excellence Indicator System (AEIS) Public Education Grant (PEG) List NCLB Report Card The above session is from 1 p.m. to 3 p.m.

31 30 Accountability Resources the Division of Performance Reporting at or call (512) ESC Accountability Contacts Online: ACCT: AEA: AYP:


Download ppt "TETN Accountability Update Session August 18, 2011 Shannon Housson, Cathy Long, Nancy Rinehart TEA, Division of Performance Reporting."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google