State Accountability System Update Texas Assessment Conference December 1-3, 2010 Shannon Housson...

State Accountability System Update

Texas Assessment ConferenceDecember 1-3, 2010

Shannon HoussonTEA Performance Reporting Division

2

Session Topics

Accountability Calendars – 2010 and 2011

2010 Accountability Overview

Preview of 2011 Accountability Procedures

Update on HB 3 Implementation

Accountability Resources

3

Recent and Upcoming Events

November 17 CIP list release (TEASE)

November 17 AEIS release (TEASE)

November 19 CIP list release (TEA correspondence site)

December 2 AEIS release (TEA public website)

Week of Dec 6 PEG list release (TEASE)

School Report Cards release (TEA public website)

Mid December Pocket Edition (TEA public website)

December 16 PEG list release (TEA public website)

4

2011 Accountability Calendar

Jan - Feb Accountability System Development – 2010 Review / 2011 Development

March 3 - 4 Educator Focus Group Meeting

Late March Commissioner’s Accountability Advisory Committee (CAAC) Meeting

Early April Final decisions for 2011announced by Commissioner

Late May 2011 Accountability Manual posted online

July 29 2011 Accountability Ratings release

2010 Accountability Overview

6

2010 Ratings Highlights

2010 to 2009 Comparisons - Districts

The districts rated Exemplary comprise 8.6% of the total student enrollment, while the districts rated Recognized comprise 55.6% of total students enrolled.

64.2% of total student enrollment in either Exemplary or Recognized districts in 2010, compared to 33.8% in 2009.

State summary results are posted online at: http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport/account/2010/index.html

7

2010 Ratings Highlights (cont.)

2010 to 2009 Comparisons - Campuses

In 2010, campuses rated Exemplary comprised 30.9% of the total student enrollment and campuses rated Recognized comprised 44.9% of total students enrolled.

75.8% of total student enrollment in either Exemplary or Recognized campuses in 2010, compared to 64.2 % in 2009.

8



9

Texas Projection Measure (TPM) – Campuses* Under standard procedures only, 3,869 campuses used TPM to achieve a higher rating.

426 used TPM to achieve Academically Acceptable

1,970 used TPM to achieve Recognized

1,448 used TPM to achieve Exemplary

Texas Projection Measure (TPM) – Districts* Under standard procedures, 632 districts used TPM to achieve a higher rating.

64 used it to achieve Academically Acceptable

399 used it to achieve Recognized

167 used it to achieve Exemplary

*A portion of these campuses/districts may have used other features for other measures.


10

Exceptions Provision (EP) – Campuses * Of the 213 campuses that used the Exceptions Provision:

8 used one or more exceptions to achieve a rating of Academically Acceptable

58 used one or more exceptions to achieve a rating of Recognized

147 used one exception to achieve a rating of Exemplary

Exceptions Used Of the 213 campuses using exceptions:

197 campuses used 1

7 campuses used 2

9 campuses used 3

0 campuses used 4

*A portion of these campuses may have used other features for other measures.

11


Exceptions Provision (EP) – Districts * Of the 6 districts that used the Exceptions Provision:

1 used one or more exceptions to achieve a rating of Academically Acceptable

2 used one or more exceptions to achieve a rating of Recognized

3 used one exception to achieve a rating of Exemplary

Exceptions Used Of the 6 districts using exceptions:

6 districts used 1

0 district used 2

0 districts used 3

0 districts used 4

*A portion of these districts may have used other features for other measures.

12

2009-10 Academic Excellence Indicator System (AEIS)

13

Changes to 2009-10 AEIS

– TAKS (Accommodated )

– TAKS 2011 Preview

– TAKS Commended 2011 Preview

– 4-Year Completion Rate

– 5-Year Completion Rate

14

Changes to 2009-10 AEIS (cont.)

TAKS (Accommodated): The 2010 accountability system includes performance on TAKS (Accommodated) assessments for all grades and subjects. The prior year (2009) results were recalculated to include all TAKS (Accommodated) performance. This affects all TAKS indicators, for most subjects and grades.

– TAKS by grade: – TAKS Met 2010 Standard with TPM (Sum of All Grades Tested)– TAKS Commended Performance (Sum of All Grades Tested)– Progress of Prior-Year TAKS Failers– Student Success Initiative– English Language Learners Progress Indicator– Texas Success Initiative

15


TAKS 2011 Preview: This indicator presents 2010 and 2009 performance built to reflect the changes that will be implemented for the TAKS base indicator in 2011. These are: a) the inclusion of all TAKS-M results; b) the inclusion of all TAKS-Alt results; and c) use of TAKS-M results for the second administration of reading and mathematics in grades 5 and 8.

16


TAKS Commended 2011 Preview: This new indicator presents 2010 and 2009 performance of students who met the commended performance on reading/ELA and mathematics. It includes all TAKS-M and TAKS-Alt results. It has been added because commended performance on TAKS reading and mathematics will be evaluated in 2011 as a requirement for a Recognized or Exemplary rating.

17


5-Year Completion Rate: This is a new indicator. The 5-year completion rate for the class of 2008 is the percentage of students from a class of beginning 9th graders (from 2004-05) who graduated, received a GED, continued in high school, or dropped out within 5 years or by August 31, 2009.

The methodology used to calculate 5-year rates is similar to the methodology used to calculate 4-year rates, with the exception that students are tracked for an additional year.

18

December 2nd Public Release

Includes TEASE products such as district and campus AEIS reports, Comparable Improvement (CI) reports, and Guidelines.

ADDS:– Region reports– State report– A separate report of how mobile students performed (state-

level only)– Data download (includes a masking explanation)– Additional CI information– Multi-Year data– Links to prior-year reports– Links to grade level Progress of Prior Year Failers – Glossary

Preview of 2011 Standard Accountability Procedures and Indicators

20

Standard Accountability Decisions for 2011

2010 2011

Exemplary ≥ 90% ≥ 90%

Recognized ≥ 80% ≥ 80%

Academically Acceptable

Reading/ELA ≥ 70% ≥ 70%

Writing, Social Studies ≥ 70% ≥ 70%

Mathematics ≥ 60% ≥ 65%

Science ≥ 55% ≥ 60%

Numbers in bold indicate a change from the prior year.

TAKS Indicator

21

Standard Accountability Decisions for 2011 (cont.)

TAKS (Accommodated) 2010 2011

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 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)

Use Use

TAKS-Modified

All Subjects and Grades, combined w/ TAKS Report Use

TAKS-Alternate

All Subjects and Grades, combined w/ TAKS Report Use

English Language Learners (ELL) Progress

All Students Only Report Use

*Numbers in bold indicate a change from the prior year.

Standard Accountability Decisions for 2011 (cont.)

Completion Rate I, Annual Dropout Rate, and Underreported Students

2010 2011*

Completion Rate I

Exemplary

Recognized


≥ 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%

23

Standard Accountability

Decisions for 2011

Commended Performance Indicator Requirements

In 2011, Commended Performance on TAKS reading/ELA and mathematics will be an additional indicator.

Recognized Standard. 15% commended on Reading/ELA, and 15% commended on mathematics

Exemplary Standard. 25% commended on Reading/ELA, and 25% commended on mathematics

24


Decisions for 2011

Commended Performance Indicator Requirements (cont.)

Student Groups. All Students (regardless of size)Economically Disadvantaged (if minimum size criteria met)

RI and Exceptions. Neither RI nor Exceptions can be used with Commended Performance to attain a

higher rating.

25


Decisions for 2011

Use of Texas Projection Measure (TPM) in 2011

As stated in a July 8, 2010 letter from the commissioner to all district superintendents, proposals to be considered regarding the use of TPM in 2011 accountability include:

Suspension of the use of TPM for accountability ratings.

Continued use of TPM in state accountability, but only for districts that elect to use it.

26


Decisions for 2011

Use of Texas Projection Measure (TPM) in 2011

Modifications to the calculation of TPM and/or its use to include additional safeguards, such as:

• applying performance floors, • counting each student who fails but is projected to pass as a fraction of a passer, • prohibiting TPM to be used for the same measure in a subsequent year, • limiting the number of measures for which TPM can be used in a given year, and • limiting which rating categories can use it.

English Language Learners (ELL) Progress Indicator

28


Standard Procedures for 2011

The ELL Progress indicator standard is 60%. It is evaluated only for Recognized and Exemplary

ratings. Only All Students are evaluated if meets minimum size

of 30 students. Required Improvement (RI) and the Exception

Provision will be applied

29


AEA Procedures for 2011

The ELL Progress indicator standard is 55%. Required Improvement (RI) is calculated. The All Students group is evaluated if the minimum size

requirement is met. The ELL Progress indicator cannot be the sole reason for an AEA:

Academically Unacceptable rating.

30


2011 Preview of ELL Progress Indicator shown on 2009-10 AEIS Reports.

Campus column correlates to ‘All Students’ data to be evaluated if minimum size criteria are met (30 students).

An FAQ on this indicator will be published online by December 2, 2010.

See 2008-09 AEIS Glossary, including Appendix H until 2009-10 Glossary and FAQ are available.

Preview of 2011 AEA Procedures and Indicators

32

2011 Registered AECs

The list of 2011 Registered AECs is available on the AEA website at http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/aea/.

Each registered AEC must meet the 75% at-risk registration criterion in order to receive an AEA rating on July 29, 2011.

33

At-Risk Registration Criterion

In April 2011, 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 2011 standard accountability procedures.

The Final 2011 Registered AEC list will be posted on the AEA website in May 2011. This list will contain the AECs that will receive an AEA rating on July 29, 2011.

A list of the charter operators that will be rated under 2011 AEA procedures will be posted on the AEA website in May 2011.

34

TAKS Progress Indicator

The TAKS Progress indicator standard increases from 50% to 55%.

TAKS-Modified and TAKS-Alternate results are combined with TAKS and TAKS (Accommodated) results to determine AEA ratings.

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.

35

Completion Rate II and Annual Dropout Rate (Grades 7-12) Standards

The Annual Dropout Rate indicator standard remains 20.0%.

The Completion Rate II indicator standard remains 60.0%.

36

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.

Only All Students are evaluated; student groups are not evaluated separately.

37

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.

Only All Students are evaluated; student groups are not evaluated separately.

Ethnicity/Race 2011

39

Race/Ethnicity Data Collection, Reporting, and Use

For the 2009–10 school year For the 2010-11 school yearTEA 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 2010-11 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.

In 2010-11, 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) used the old race / ethnicity definitions for the 2009-10 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 (2010-11) 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.

40


2011 Preview Indicators shown on 2009-10 AEIS Reports are based on race/ethnicity under old definitions.

The 2011 accountability data tables released in July 2011 will report the current year (2011) results and the prior year (2010) results recalculated based on the new federal race/ethnicity definition.

Therefore, there will be differences in the 2010 results reported in the 2011 Preview Indicators on 2009-2010 AEIS and the 2010 results used for Required Improvement calculations on the 2011 data table for the African American, Hispanic, and White student groups.

41


For State Accountability (AEA and Standard ) it is anticipated that the 2011 student groups will include groups with these labels: All Students

African American

Hispanic

White

Economically Disadvantaged.

No additional student groups beyond these five are anticipated to be

added to the 2011 accountability system.

42


Definitions: Hispanic: Students who indicate their ethnicity is Hispanic/Latino in

question 1, regardless of their selection(s) for race provided

in question 2.

At a minimum, the definitions for the African American and White student groups will include students with these reported characteristics.

African American: Students who indicate their ethnicity is not Hispanic/Latino and who select the single racial category of Black or African American.

White: Students who indicate their ethnicity is not Hispanic/Latino and who select the single racial category of White.

43


Two or More Races Two or More Races = Not Hispanic/Latino AND multiple racial selections In 2010, there were 74,366 students meeting this definition.

•29,770 were Black/African American AND White•14,980 were White AND Asian•14,810 were American Indian/Alaska Native AND White•Remainder were dispersed among 23 other combinations

How to incorporate Two or More Races into the 2011 accountability system will be determined with advisory groups in March 2011 and published as commissioner decisions in April 2011.

Update on HB 3 Implementation

HB 3 Implementation

45

House Bill 3 Transition Plan

Posted online on Wednesday, December 1 at the following URL:

http://www.tea.state.tx.us/student.assessment/hb3plan/

HB 3 Implementation

46

Transition Plan Timelines through 2013

December 1, 2010 Transition 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, 2011 2011 ratings are the last ratings issued under the current accountability system.

HB 3 Transition Plan

Timelines

2011-2012 Assignment of performance ratings are suspended for this school year.

New academic accountability system is developed with input from advisory groups on the timelines specified in the transition plan.

47

HB 3 Transition Plan

TimelinesAugust 8, 2013 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 issued in 2010-2011 and 2012-2013 school years will be considered consecutive.

48

HB 3 Implementation

49

Transition Plans for 2014

August 8, 2014 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.

Features of the New Accountability System

50

Based on STAAR EOC and grades 3 – 8 assessments

Evaluation of college-ready performance as well as student proficiency

2020 accountability goals:

Top 10 states in terms of college readiness

No significant achievement gaps among student groups


51

Graduation/completion/dropout rates with new exclusions

Two rating levels – acceptable and unacceptable performance

Distinction designations Higher ratings of Recognized and Exemplary for postsecondary/college

readiness Campus growth Campus closing performance gaps Five additional campus distinctions determined by committees


52

The following additional features can be used to elevate the performance rating:

Required Improvement over the prior year;

Average performance of the last 3 years; or,

Performance on 85% of the measures meets the standard.

Overview of Performance Ratings and Distinctions

53

Performance Ratings

Assigned by August 8 each year to districts and

campuses. [39.054]

Distinction Designations

Awarded by August 8 each year to districts and campuses with Acceptable performance. [39.201]

Acceptable

District Campus

39.202 – Academic Excellence Distinction Designation for Districts and Campuses

COE shall establish Recognized and Exemplary ratings for awarding districts and campuses an academic distinction designation. The Recognized and Exemplary ratings criteria include:

(1) percentages of students who meet the college-ready standard or annual improvement standard and

(2) other factors for determining sufficient student attainment of college readiness.

Not applicable for districts.

39.203 – Campus Distinction Designations (a) COE shall award campus distinction designations if the campus is in the top

25% in annual improvement.

(b) COE shall award a campus distinction designation if the campus is in the top 25% of those demonstrating an ability to close performance gaps.

(c) COE shall award a campus distinction designation to campuses that meet the committee-established criteria for the following programs:

(1) academic performance in ELA, math, science, or social studies (2) fine arts (3) physical education (4) 21st century Workforce Development program (5) second language acquisition program

39.204 – Campus Distinction Designation Criteria; Committees (a) COE shall establish standards and methods for awarding distinction

designations to campuses.

(b) COE shall establish a separate committee to develop criteria for each distinction designation under 39.203(c).

Unacceptable None for Unacceptable districts and campuses.


54

At least two options may be considered in the assignment of accountability ratings under current statute:

A) four rating categories, or

B) two ratings —”Acceptable” and “Unacceptable” with additional distinction ratings, e.g. “Acceptable with Recognized Distinction” for college/career readiness.

55


A) Four Rating Categories:

2011 2012 2013 2014 and Beyond

Academically Unacceptable

No

Ratings

Assigned

Did

No

t M

eet

Sta

nd

ard

s

“Unacceptable”

Did

No

t M

eet

Sta

nd

ard

s

“Unacceptable”

Academically Acceptable M

et

Pro

ficie

ncy/A

.I.

Sta

nda

rds o

n S

TA

AR

an

d M

et D

ropo

ut,

Com

ple

tion

,

Gra

dua

tio

n S

tand

ard

s*

“Acceptable”

Met

Pro

ficie

ncy/A

.I.

Sta

nda

rds o

n S

TA

AR

an

d

Met

Dro

pou

t, C

om

ple

tion

, G

rad

ua

tion

Sta

nd

ard

s *

Met

Co

lle

ge

Read

iness/A

.I.

Sta

nd

ard

on

ST

AA

R*

“Acceptable”

Recognized N/A

Met

Hig

her

Co

lle

ge

Read

iness/A

.I.

Sta

nda

rd o

n

ST

AA

R

Recognized

Exemplary N/A

Met

Hig

hest

Co

llege

Rea

din

ess/A

.I.

Sta

nda

rd o

n

ST

AA

R

Exemplary

A.I. = Annual Improvement

* To attain “Acceptable” rating, campuses and districts also use Additional Features (i.e. required improvement, three-year averaging, and 85% provision).

B) Two Rating Categories:

2011 2012 2013 2014 and beyond

Academically Unacceptable

No

Ratings

Assigned D

id N

ot M

ee

t S

tan

da

rds

“Unacceptable”

Did

No

t M

ee

t

Sta

nd

ard

s

“Unacceptable”


Me

t P

roficie

ncy

/A.I

. S

tan

da

rds o

n S

TA

AR

, a

nd

Me

t D

rop

ou

t, C

om

ple

tio

n, G

rad

ua

tio

n

Sta

nd

ard

s*

“Acceptable”

Me

t P

roficie

ncy

/A.I

. an

d M

et

Co

lleg

e R

ead

ine

ss

/A.I

. S

tan

da

rds o

n S

TA

AR

, a

nd

Me

t D

rop

ou

t, C

om

ple

tio

n, G

rad

ua

tio

n

Sta

nd

ard

s*

“Acceptable”** Recognized

Exemplary

A.I. = Annual Improvement

* To attain “Acceptable” rating, campuses and districts also use Additional Features (i.e. required improvement, three-year averaging, and 85% provision).

** Beginning in 2014, districts and campuses that achieved an “Acceptable” rating would be eligible for an additional distinction rating based on meeting a higher college readiness standard, e.g. “Acceptable with Recognized Distinction” or the highest college readiness standard, e.g. “Acceptable with Exemplary Distinction.”


56

Campus Distinction Designations

Campus distinction on criteria developed by five committees for: Academic achievement in ELA, mathematics, science,

or social studies Fine arts Physical education 21st century workforce development program Second language acquisition program

57


Timelines

January 2011- Selection of distinction committee members finalized

2011- 2012 - Four separate meetings of each distinction committee will occur. Internal and external reviews of distinction designation committee recommendations will also occur.

58


Timelines

May 2012 - Release of Commissioner’s Final Decisions on Distinction Designations

2012-2013 - Collection of data

June 2013 - Determination of list of campuses that earned distinction designations.

August 2013 - Release of distinction designations. 59

HB 3 Implementation

60

Exclusions to the NCES Dropout DefinitionHB3 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.


Exclusions to the NCES Dropout Definition

HB3 requires use of the current NCES dropout definition until 2011-12. TEA is interpreting the 2011-12 effective date to mean the 2010-11 dropout data collected in the 2011-12 school year.

61

62

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.

http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/webappaccess/AppRef.htm

63

Accountability Resources

ESC Accountability Staff

Division of Performance ReportingPhone: (512) 463-9704Email: [email protected]

AEA http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/aea

Accountabilityhttp://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport/account/

Accountability Resources http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport/resources/index.html

Date post:	27-Mar-2015
Category:	Documents
Upload:	arianna-mcelroy
View:	219 times
Download:	2 times

State Accountability System Update Texas Assessment Conference December 1-3, 2010 Shannon Housson...

Documents