31
Warren Roane Mary Kay Gianoutsos Humble ISD Best Laid Plans: EOC Projections, Results and Consequences http://www.humbleisd.net/ Page/38302
| Date post: | 03-Jan-2016 |
| Category: |
Documents |
| Upload: | myra-little |
| View: | 219 times |
| Download: | 0 times |
Warren RoaneMary Kay Gianoutsos
Humble ISD
Warren RoaneMary Kay Gianoutsos
Humble ISD
Best Laid Plans:EOC Projections,
Results and Consequences
Best Laid Plans:EOC Projections,
Results and Consequences
http://www.humbleisd.net/Page/38302
Brief HistoryProjections: Districts, Teachers, Students Results: Impact on Districts, Teachers,
Students Consequences: Districts, Teachers, Students
Outline
Voluntary EOC ca. 1994-1999Required EOC ca. 1999-2001
Required TAKS 2002-2011Voluntary EOC 2005-2010
Required EOC with 15% requirement 2012Suspended 15% requirement 2012, 2013Removed 15% requirement 2013Removed cumulative score 2013
Brief History of EOC Algebra
Brief History of EOC AlgebraFirst-Time Testers
27
45 4957 57
83 82
0
20
40
60
80
100
1996 2000 2005 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Raw Score
Pass rate
Legislation DecisionsSTAAR15% Moratorium on 15%
Live testsRelease of EOC resultsEOC to TAKS bridge studyEOC as part of 2013 Accountability
Timeline of EOC Events 2011-2013
Live TestsRelease of EOC resultsBridge Study Release
Spring 2012
EOC as part of 2013 AccountabilityAYP?Removal of 15%Removal of cumulative scoreSnapshot change-Summer to Spring testersRetesters count over multiple yearsReleased test items in 2012, 2013
Spring 2013
Mandatory SamplingData file (who will test)
Sending Receiving
Live testing mixed with mandatory sampling
Makeup testing
District Testing
Storing Student EOC Information:
Multiple Retakes Which Passing Standard? 4x4 Graduation Plan vs. HB 5 Students who took Algebra I out of state Field Test Results with Other Test Results
District Impact
Accelerated Instruction:
District required to provide for all students not achieving Level 2 on EOC
How to notify student in a timely manner? How can we remediate with students when we do
not yet receive detailed results? TEA: “Sufficient funding exists”
District Impact
District and State Results:Field Test 2010-2011
Campus Study: Projections from Field Test
District Curriculum Impact: Projections from the Field Test
EOC Math TAKS Math
Obj_score_math1
raw_score_math m_obj1 m_raw
EOC math
Obj_score_math1
Pearson Correlation
1 .793** .315** .503**
Sig. (2-tailed)
.000 .000 .000
N 2035 1849 1559 1537
Obj_score_math7
N 243 243 242 240
raw_score_math
Pearson Correlation
.793** 1 .369** .582**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000
.000 .000
N 1849 1849 1374 1358
TAKS Math
m_obj1 Pearson Correlation
.315** .369** 1 .687**
m_raw Pearson Correlation
.503** .582** .687** 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000
N 1537 1358 3720 3720
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
District and State Results:EOC 2011-12 Raw Score
District and State Results:EOC 2011-12
State Humble
Students 333540 2880
Average Scale 3902 4022
Level I not min 9.8% 4.3%
Level I minimum 7.5% 4.3%
Level II 66.0% 68.6%
Level III 16.7% 22.7%
District and State Results:EOC 2012-13
17% 17% 23% 20%
82% 82%91% 86%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Texas 2012 Texas 2013 Humble 2012 Humble 2013
Level III
Level II
District Results:EOC 2012-13
9th grade 8th grade
Level II 2012 86.8% 99.4%
Level II 2013 78.4% 99.3%
Level III 2012 9.2% 46.3%
Level III 2013 5.9% 45.1%
District Results:EOC 2012-13
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
9th grade 2012 9th grade 2013 8th grade 2012 8th grade 2013
Level II
Level III
2012 District and State Results:Percent Met Standard TAKS, STAAR Bridge
Study (Raw Score 15)
9097.6 96.4 100
82.791.4 87.1
100
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
State (All) Humble (All) Humble (9th) Humble (8th)
TAKS
STAAR
State (all students) Failing TAKS 10% but 17.3 % below Level II
District (all students)Failing TAKS at 2.4% but 8.6% below Level II
District and State Results:EOC 2011-12 and TAKS 2012
District Results:EOC 2012-13
91%86%
50%45%
23% 20%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
100%
All 2012 All 2013
Level II initial
Level II final
Level III
June 2013 © Moak, Casey and Associates 22Source: TEA, http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport/account/2013/index.html
Target = 50 Target = 5th Percentile
Target = 55 Target = 75
Index 1: All students 50% at Level IIIndex 2: Top 95% of campuses have
students that make progressIndex 3: Lowest 3 groups in 2012 are at
55% in 2013Index 4: Final Level 2+Grad>150
EOC Algebra and Accountability:In all 4 indices
EOC Algebra: part of Index 1,2,3,4MS Algebra success—eliminated HS success?
District and State Results:EOC 2013 and Accountability
Increased phase in standards New EOC teaching materials Accelerated instruction each time Accountability by class period Value-added model: teacher name to
student
Impact on Teachers
Level 2 Phase-in 2: 7 moreLevel 2 Phase-in Final: 14 more
Alg1 Level 2 Phase 1
Alg 1 Level 2 Phase 2
Alg1 2 Level 2 Final
Alg1 Level 3 0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Out of 54 Questions
Questions correct
June 2013 © Moak, Casey and Associates 27
Source: TEA - 2013 Accountability Manual
High stakes in middle school? Summer school/Accelerated instruction Additional testing Graduation type: 4x4 vs. HB 5
Impact on Students
AYP, State Accountability HS Math courses: how many, which? Money-Summer school/accelerated
instruction budget
Future Implications
Questions?
Contact information
Warren Roane, Director of [email protected] Mary Kay Gianoutsos, Assistant Director of Data
Questions?
PowerPoint Informationhttp://www.humbleisd.net/Page/38302
