Legislative Requirements for State Accountability – 2013 and Beyond Accountability Policy Advisory Committee (APAC) and Accountability Technical Advisory.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
No Child Left Behind Adequate Yearly Progress Report July 22, 2009.
Advertisements

1 Adequate Yearly Progress 2005 Status Report Research, Assessment & Accountability November 2, 2005 Oakland Unified School District.
State Accountability System Update ACET Conference April 2006.
2012 TASA Midwinter Conference State and Federal Accountability Update January 31, 2012 Criss Cloudt, Associate Commissioner, Assessment and Accountability.
1 TETN Accountability Update Session State Accountability Update February 18, 2010.
AIE Annual Conference| September 24, 2013 Texas Education Agency | Office of Assessment and Accountability Division of Performance Reporting Shannon Housson,
Special Education Assessments TETN January 5, 2011 State and Federal Accountability Systems Update Shannon Housson Ester Regalado TEA Performance Reporting.
1 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) U.S. Department of Education Adapted by TEA September 2003.
State and Federal Accountability Update 2012 Association for Compensatory Educators of Texas (ACET) Conference April 11, 2012 Shannon Housson Ester Regalado.
TETN Accountability Update Session February 19, 2009.
Graduation, Completion, and Dropout Data Accountability Policy Advisory Committee and Accountability Technical Advisory Committee Joint Meeting March 5,
August 8, 2013 Texas Education Agency | Office of Assessment and Accountability Division of Performance Reporting Shannon Housson, Director Overview of.
1 Overview of STAAR State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness Academic Achievement Distinction Designation Committee (AADDC) April 16, 2012.
TETN Accountability Update Session June 18, 2009.
Federal Accountability/ AYP Update Texas Assessment Conference December 1-3, 2010 Shannon Housson and Ester Regalado TEA, Performance Reporting Division.
Accountabil ity System Student Achievement Index I Student Progress Index 2 Closing Performanc e Gaps Index 3 Postsecondary Readiness Index 4 Overview.
TETN | September 21, 2012 Texas Education Agency | Office of Assessment and Accountability Division of Performance Reporting State and Federal Accountability.
AYP Federal Cap Process Performance Reporting Division Texas Education Agency May 23, 2008.
State Accountability System Update Special Education TETN January 6, 2010 Shannon Housson TEA, Performance Reporting Division.
1 Approaches to Implementing the 2% Cap for Adequate Yearly Progress NCES Summer Data Conference Washington, DC July 2008.
TETN| June 14, 2012 Texas Education Agency | Office of Assessment and Accountability Division of Performance Reporting Shannon Housson and Ester Regalado.
1 Monthly Rules Education Session January 2012 Transfer Eligibility.
Understanding the Basics
PSSA Preparation.
Miami ISD Texas Academic Performance Report (TAPR)
History of State Accountability Accountability Policy Advisory Committee (APAC) and Accountability Technical Advisory Committee (ATAC)| March.
Staar Trek The Next Generation STAAR Trek: The Next Generation.
Data Analysis State Accountability. Data Analysis (What) Needs Assessment (Why ) Improvement Plan (How) Implement and Monitor.
1 Accountability System Overview of the Accountability Rating System for Texas Public Schools and Districts.
Accountability preview Major Mindshift Out with the Old – In with the New TEPSA - May 2013 (Part 2) Ervin Knezek John Fessenden
Current legislation requires the phase-out of high school TAKS and replaces it with 12 EOC assessments in  English I, English II, English III  Algebra.
STAAR/EOC Overview of Assessment Program HISD Professional Support & Development High School Science Team.
Texas State Accountability 2013 and Beyond Current T.E.A. Framework as of March 22, 2013 Austin Independent School District Bill Caritj, Chief Performance.
Legislative Update #1 Changes in Assessment and Graduation 83 rd Texas Legislature.
APAC Meeting | January 22, 2014 Texas Education Agency | Office of Assessment and Accountability Division of Performance Reporting Overview of Performance.
Accountability Update Ty Duncan Coordinator of Accountability and Compliance, ESC
PSP Summer Institute| July 29 – August 2, 2013 Texas Education Agency | Office of Assessment and Accountability Division of Performance Reporting Shannon.
2013 State Accountability System Allen ISD. State Accountability under TAKS program:  Four Ratings: Exemplary, Recognized, Academically Acceptable, Academically.
State Accountability Overview 1 Performance Index Framework: For 2013 and beyond, an accountability framework of four Performance Indexes includes a broad.
TETN Session #30124 | November 13, 2014 | 1:00-3:00 p.m. Texas Education Agency | Office of Assessment and Accountability Division of Performance Reporting.
HOUSE BILL 5 UPDATE. Curriculum Graduation Plans Endorsement Pathways College Readiness requirements Accountability Community and Student Engagement Student.
Index Accountability 2014 Created by Accountability and Compliance staff of Region 17 Education Service Center.
Staar Trek The Next Generation STAAR Trek: The Next Generation Performance Standards.
Information provided by LISD Assessment Office.  STAAR stands for: › State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness  Implemented in for school year.
State Accountability and Federal Adequate Yearly Progress.
STATE ACCOUNTABILITY OVERVIEW Back To School| August 19-22, 2013 Dean Munn Education Specialist Region 15 ESC.
2013 Accountability System Design Assessment & Accountability, Plano ISD.
1 Accountability System Overview of the PROPOSED Accountability Rating System for Texas Public Schools and Districts.
Texas Public School Accountability Presented at Midwinter by the Texas Education Agency.
Ysleta Independent School District 2004 Accountability State and AYP.
2015 Texas Accountability System Overview and Updates August 13, 2015.
March 7, 2013 Texas Education Agency | Office of Assessment and Accountability Division of Performance Reporting Accountability Policy Advisory Committee.
TETN Session #18319 | November 14, 2013 | 1:00-3:00 p.m. Texas Education Agency | Office of Assessment and Accountability Division of Performance Reporting.
Assigns one of three ratings:  Met Standard – indicates campus/district met the targets in all required indexes. All campuses must meet Index 1 or 2.
School and District Accountability Reports Implementing No Child Left Behind (NCLB) The New York State Education Department March 2004.
Texas Assessment Conference| February 16, 2016 Shannon Housson, Director, Division of Performance Reporting Department of Assessment and Accountability.
HISD Becoming #GreatAllOver 1 Accountability Rating System Commissioner’s Final Rules 2014.
 House Bill  During the 84 th legislative session (2015) HB 2804 was passed.  HB 2804: o Modifies the accountability specifications o Identifies.
MARCH 2, 2016 ACCOUNTABILITY WEBINAR Kim Gilson, Doni CashRegion 10 ESC 1.
The State of Texas Assessment of Academic Readiness January 2012.
TAKS Release Plan  In 2007 SB 1031 changed the release of tests to every three years  In 2009 HB 3 changed the release of tests to exclude retests 2.
2016 Accountability Texas Education Agency | Department of Assessment and Accountability | Division of Performance Reporting February 25, 2016.
Accountability Overview 2016
Changes Ahead: Accountability
Section II Accountability
Accountability Update
Section II Accountability
State and Federal Accountability Overview
Accountability Updates
Presentation transcript:

Legislative Requirements for State Accountability – 2013 and Beyond Accountability Policy Advisory Committee (APAC) and Accountability Technical Advisory Committee (ATAC)| March 5, 2012 Texas Education Agency | Office of Assessment and Accountability Division of Performance Reporting

Overview House Bill (HB) 3, passed during the 81 st Legislative Session in 2009, made significant changes to parts of Chapter 39, Public School System Accountability, in the Texas Education Code (TEC). Focus of the state accountability system shifts from meeting satisfactory standards to meeting both satisfactory (Level II) and college-ready (Level III) standards on new State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness (STAAR) assessments. The information that follows is organized by the base ratings acceptable/unacceptable; then by the recognized/exemplary distinction designation ratings. Within each of these categories the legislative mandates are listed first, followed by the items where there is TEA flexibility. 2

Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings Legislative Requirements

Calendar Campus and district ratings of acceptable/unacceptable are to be issued by the commissioner on or before August 8th of each year. Districts and campuses that received an unacceptable rating in the prior year must be notified by June 15th of an unacceptable rating for the current year. 4

Indicators: General The following indicators must be used in determining accountability ratings: STAAR grades 3-8 English, STAAR grades 3-5 Spanish, STAAR End-of-Course (EOC) assessments* including retests, Dropout Rates grades 9-12 or district completion rates, and High School Graduation Rates. Grade 11 TAKS performance must also be included in the 2013 ratings. * EOC results for students enrolled below grade 9 must be combined with assessment results for other students in the same grade. 5

Indicators: Assessment The assessment indicators must include evaluation of: Level II performance, and for students who do not meet the Level II standard, progress toward the Level II standard. Level III: performance, and for students who do not meet the Level III standard, progress toward the Level III standard. Level III performance cannot be evaluated for acceptable/ unacceptable ratings in Progress measures will not be available for use in accountability ratings will be based on Level II performance, and dropout/graduation rates. Assessment indicators must combine performance across grades for each subject area. 6

Indicators: Leaver The dropout, completion, and graduation rates refer to the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) dropout definition and No Child Left Behind (NCLB) graduation rate. However, other provisions in statute require exclusions that are not allowed under the NCES dropout definition and NCLB graduation rate calculation. Therefore, the leaver indicators used for state accountability will differ from the indicators used for federal accountability and federal reporting. 7

Indicators: Leaver Statute requires the exclusion of certain groups of students from the district and campus rates used for state accountability: 1.previous dropouts; 2.students not in membership for purposes of average daily attendance; 3.students ordered by courts to attend GED programs, but have not earned GED certificates; 4.students incarcerated in state jails and federal penitentiaries as adults and certified to stand trial as adults; 5.students whose initial enrollment in a school in the U.S. in grades 7-12 was as unschooled refugees or asylees; and 6.students detained in county detention facilities located outside the students' home districts. 8

Student Groups The indicators must include performance of race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status student groups, as well as all students. 9

Additional Features Additional features are available to improve the rating outcome. Two are required and one is optional. Statute specifies that additional features be used for the assessment and dropout/graduation indicators. Additional features are: Required Improvement (RI) over the prior year (required), or Average performance of the last three years (required), or Performance on 85 percent of the measures meets the standard (optional). 10

Additional Features: RI For the assessment indicator, Required Improvement (RI) must be applied to the evaluation of both Level II and Level III performance. RI does not apply to Level II or Level III progress measures. For the dropout/graduation rate indicator, statute specifies that RI is the progress necessary for the campus or district to meet accountability targets. 11

Additional Features: 3-Year Average Performance Districts and campuses have the option of meeting the acceptable accountability target (Level II or Level III) using either current-year performance or three-year average performance. Three-year averaging does not apply to Level II or Level III progress measures. Three-year average performance also applies to the dropout/graduation indicators. 12

85 Percent Option Statute does not require the commissioner to implement a proportional or exceptions provision. See further discussion of this optional feature under TEA Flexibility. 13

Additional Features Summary PerformanceProgress Dropout Rate Graduation Rate FeatureLevel IILevel IIILevel IILevel III RI * * * * 85% * * * * 3-Year Avg. * * * * If implemented, statute specifies it applies to these indicators. 14

Targets The commissioner is required to set accountability targets and RI targets. The commissioner is required to set targets for the current year and the next two years. Statute requires the commissioner to periodically raise the target for the Level III performance indicator. This requirement does not apply to Level III progress indicator. 15

Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings Texas Education Agency (TEA) Flexibility

Overall Framework The commissioner has the authority to select the overall framework for the system design. A range of options from a system of separate indicators to a performance index may be selected and still satisfy statutory requirements. The commissioner has authority to determine the number of rating levels and the labels associated with each rating level. The commissioner has the authority to determine to what extent the state and federal AYP accountability systems are aligned. State statute neither requires nor prohibits the alignment of these systems. 17

Indicators: General The commissioner may include additional indicators in the accountability system and set their targets. 18

Indicators: Assessment The commissioner may include additional assessment results in the indicators, such as results from modified and alternate assessments, STAAR-L, and Texas English Language Proficiency Assessment System (TELPAS) results. The modified and alternate assessments are required to be evaluated for the Recognized/Exemplary Distinction Designation ratings. The requirement to combine performance across grade levels does not prohibit the commissioner from developing separate indicators for elementary, middle, and high school grade spans or separate indicators for STAAR grades 3-8 results and high school EOC results. 19

Indicators: Assessment Though required for students who do not meet the standards, the progress indicator may also be used for students who do meet the Level II standard or the Level III standard. The use of progress does not require that students who fail the test be counted as passing. The commissioner has the authority to determine which EOC retest results are included in the assessment indicator. The commissioner will determine whether other non-STAAR test results* will be used in the assessment indicator. * Advanced placement, international baccalaureate, or SAT subject area test or other test equal in rigor to a STAAR EOC test may be used in place of STAAR EOC results to meet graduation requirements. 20

Indicators: Leaver The dropout rate requirement does not prohibit the commissioner from using a dropout rate indicator for students below grade 9. 21

Student Groups The commissioner has the authority to determine which race/ethnicity student groups will be included in the ratings evaluation. The commissioner has the authority to establish minimum size criteria to determine which student groups will be considered in the ratings evaluation. 22

Additional Features: RI The commissioner shall determine how to apply RI to the indicators. 23

Additional Features: 3-Year Average Performance The commissioner shall determine how to apply a three-year average to the indicators. The statute does not require or prohibit use of two- year average performance to meet the target until three years of data are available. 24

85 Percent Option Statute allows the commissioner to implement a proportional or exceptions provision. With this provision an acceptable rating can be assigned if the district or campus meets accountability targets on 85 percent of the assessments and dropout/graduation indicators on which it is evaluated. If used, other criteria must be applied as safeguards. 25

85 Percent Option The commissioner may consider alternative criteria to the 85 percent provision for campuses and districts with student groups that are substantially similar to all students. The commissioner will determine the sequential priority assigned to the three additional features. 26

Targets Authority to set accountability targets is assigned to the commissioner. 27

Recognized/Exemplary Distinction Designation Ratings Legislative Requirements

Calendar The commissioner is required to assign recognized and exemplary distinction designation ratings to campuses and districts annually. Higher level distinction designations must be awarded by August 8 each yearthe same date as the ratings release. Only campuses and districts rated as acceptable are eligible for distinctions. 29

Indicators: General The following assessments must be used in determining recognized / exemplary distinction designation ratings: STAAR grades 3–8 English, STAAR grades 3–5 Spanish, and STAAR End-of-Course (EOC) assessments* In addition to the STAAR assessment indicator, recognized/exemplary criteria must include other postsecondary readiness indicators. *Inclusion of EOC retests is not specified. 30

Indicators: Assessment The assessment indicators must include evaluation of: Level III performance, and For students who do not meet the Level III standard, progress toward the Level III standard. However, Level III performance may not be evaluated for ratings in 2013; therefore, the recognized and exemplary ratings cannot be issued until Note that in 2013, Level III performance will be used to award academic achievement distinction designations in English language arts and mathematics. This is the only use of Level III performance in Assessment indicators must combine performance across grade levels for each subject area. 31

Recognized/Exemplary Distinction Designation Ratings Texas Education Agency (TEA) Flexibility

Overall Framework The commissioner has the authority to select the overall framework for the distinction designation system design. A range of options from a system of separate indicators to a performance index can be chosen and still satisfy the statutory requirements outlined above. The commissioner has the authority to determine the number of distinction rating levels and the labels associated with each rating level. The commissioner has the option of treating recognized and exemplary ratings as higher ratings or as additional acknowledgments attached to an acceptable rating. 33

Indicators: General The commissioner has the authority to define the other non-STAAR indicators of postsecondary readiness. The commissioner may require that recommended high school/distinguished achievement program graduation rates are evaluated for the recognized/exemplary distinction ratings. 34

Indicators: Assessment The commissioner may include additional assessment results in the indicators, such as STAAR-L and TELPAS results. Inclusion of EOC retests is not prohibited. The requirement to combine performance across grade levels does not prohibit the commissioner from developing separate indicators for elementary, middle, and high school grade spans or separate indicators for STAAR Grade 3-8 results and high school EOC results. Combining EOC results for students enrolled below grade 9 with assessment results for other students in the same grade is not required but is also not prohibited. The use of progress does not require that students who do not meet the standard be counted as meeting the standard. 35

Student Groups The use of student group performance is neither required nor prohibited for the recognized and exemplary distinction designation ratings. 36

Additional Features The commissioner has the authority to determine whether additional features, such as Required Improvement, are applied to the recognized/ exemplary distinction ratings. 37

Targets The commissioner has the authority to set the targets for these distinction designation ratings. While statute requires that Level III targets for acceptable/unacceptable be raised periodically, these same increases are not mandated for recognized/exemplary targets. 38