Transcript TAAE Powerpoint slides Feb 2

State Accountability
System Update
Texas Assessment
Conference
December 7-9, 2009
Shannon Housson and Nancy Rinehart
TEA, Performance Reporting Division
Today’s Topics



2




Accountability Calendars – 2009 and 2010
2009 Accountability Overview
Preview of 2010 and 2011 Standard Accountability
Procedures
Preview of 2010 AEA Procedures and Indicators
Update on HB 3 Implementation
TEASE Accountability
Accountability Resources
Recent and Upcoming Events
3
November 17
TAT list release (TEASE)
November 17
AEIS release (TEASE)
November 20
TAT list release (TEA correspondence site)
December 3
AEIS release (TEA public website)
December 8
PEG list release (TEASE)
December 10
School Report Cards release (TEA public website)
December 10
Pocket Edition (TEA public website)
December 15
PEG list release (TEA public website)
2010 Accountability Timeline
4
Jan - Feb
Accountability System Development –
2009 Review / 2010 and beyond Development
March 4 - 5
Educator Focus Group Meeting
March 29
Commissioner’s Accountability Advisory
Committee (CAAC) Meeting
April
Final decisions for 2010 and beyond
announced by Commissioner
Late May
2010 Accountability Manual posted online
July 30
2010 Accountability Ratings release
Mid-September
2011 AEA Campus Registration
2009
Accountability
Overview
2009 Ratings Highlights
2009 to 2008 Comparisons - Districts



6
The percent of students enrolled in districts rated either Exemplary
or Recognized increased substantially.
33.8% of total student enrollment in either Exemplary or
Recognized districts in 2009, compared to 20.5% in 2008.
State summary results are posted online at:
http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport/account/2009/index.html
2009 Ratings Highlights (cont.)
2009 to 2008 Comparisons - Campuses



7
The percent of students enrolled in campuses rated either
Exemplary or Recognized also increased substantially.
In 2009, campuses rated Exemplary comprised 25.0% of the
total student enrollment and campuses rated Recognized
comprised 39.2% of total students enrolled.
64.2% of total student enrollment in either Exemplary or
Recognized campuses in 2009, compared to 45.5%
in 2008.
2009 Ratings Highlights (cont.)
Required Improvement - Campuses

Under standard procedures, 756 campuses used RI to
achieve a higher rating, compared to 521 in 2008.


8
607 campuses moved to Recognized
(20.6% of all Recognized campuses).
149 campuses moved to Academically Acceptable
(7.8% of all Academically Acceptable campuses).
2009 Ratings Highlights (cont.)
Required Improvement - Districts

Under standard procedures, 144 districts used RI to achieve
a higher rating, compared to 106 in 2008.


9
128 districts used RI to move to Recognized
(27.6% of all Recognized districts).
16 districts used RI to move to Academically Acceptable
(3.1% of all Academically Acceptable districts).
2009 Ratings Highlights (cont.)
Texas Projection Measure (TPM) - Campuses

Under standard procedures only, 2,560 campuses used TPM to
achieve a higher rating.

358 used TPM to achieve Academically Acceptable

1,088 used TPM to achieve Recognized

1,114 used TPM to achieve Exemplary
A portion of these campuses may have used other features for other measures.
10
2009 Ratings Highlights (cont.)
Texas Projection Measure (TPM) - Districts

Under standard procedures, 331 districts used TPM to achieve a
higher rating.

79 used it to achieve Academically Acceptable

179 used it to achieve Recognized

73 used it to achieve Exemplary
A portion of these districts may have used other features for other measures.
11
2009 Ratings Highlights (cont.)
Exceptions Provision (EP) - Campuses

Of the 319 campuses that used the Exceptions Provision:



12
72 used one or more exceptions to achieve a rating of
Academically Acceptable
96 used one or more exceptions to achieve a rating of
Recognized
151 used one exception to achieve a rating of Exemplary
A portion of these campuses may have used other features for other measures.
2009 Ratings Highlights (cont.)
Exceptions Provision (EP) - Campuses

13
Of the 319 campuses using exceptions:

263 campuses used 1

37 campuses used 2

19 campuses used 3

0 campuses used 4
2009 Ratings Highlights (cont.)
Exceptions Provision (EP) - Districts

Of the 17 districts that used the Exceptions Provision:



1 used one or more exceptions to achieve a rating of
Academically Acceptable
8 used one or more exceptions to achieve a rating of
Recognized
8 used one exception to achieve a rating of Exemplary
A portion of these districts may have used other features for other measures.
14
2009 Ratings Highlights (cont.)
Exceptions Provision (EP) - Districts

15
Of the 17 districts using exceptions:

16 districts used 1

1 district used 2

0 districts used 3

0 districts used 4
Gold Performance Acknowledgments
(GPA) Overview




16
GPA was created to recognize districts and campuses for
high performance on indicators that are in addition to those used
to determine state accountability indicators.
Districts are eligible for a maximum of 13 possible GPAs.
Campuses are eligible for a maximum of 15 possible GPAs.
Since 2008, AEA GPA indicators recognize charters and AECs
evaluated under AEA procedures for high performance.
Lists of districts or schools by GPA categories or by any combination
of acknowledgments are located at
http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport/account/2009/gpa.srch.html
GPA Acknowledgments




17
Of the 1,224 districts evaluated for GPA, approximately 78%
earned one or more, compared to 80% in 2008.
Two districts earned all 13 district acknowledgments.
Of the 7,650 campuses evaluated for GPA, approximately 79%
earned one or more, compared to 81% in 2008.
0 campuses earned 15 or 14 acknowledgments. Five
campuses earned 13.
AEA GPA Acknowledgments





18
2009 is the second year for evaluating AEA campuses and charters
on GPA indicators. Only the All Students group is evaluated;
student groups are not evaluated separately.
There are 13 AEA GPA indicators. The two Comparable
Improvement indicators are not evaluated for AEA GPA.
An Attendance Rate standard of 95.0% is applied to all AECs and
charters under AEA GPA.
Among the 72 charter operators, 25 earned one or more
acknowledgments.
Among the 448 AECs, 196 earned one or more acknowledgments.
Key Changes to 2008-09 AEIS

19
NEW INDICATORS
–
TAKS Met Standard with TPM
–
TAKS-M Met Standard
–
TAKS-Alt Met Standard (2011 Preview)
–
ELL Progress Measure (2011 Preview)
–
Previews of the TAKS Base Indicator (2010 & 2011)
Key Changes to 2008-09 AEIS (cont.)

NEW SECTION III (First Page of State Report Attached)
–
–
–
–
20
Changes to TEC 39.051 (passed in 2007) require that
selected AEIS indicators be disaggregated by bilingual and
ESL instructional models.
The new Section III, “Bilingual Education/English as a
Second Language Report” provides this information.
District only – not campus. Must be published.
Section III displays nine new columns for three required
indicators:
 the accountability base indicator,
 the SSI indicators, and
 the Progress of Prior Year Failers.
Key Changes to 2008-09 AEIS (cont.)

21
ABOUT THE TAKS PREVIEW INDICATORS
– 2010 TAKS Preview
2009 and 2008 performance built to reflect the changes
for 2010. These are:
a) the inclusion of all TAKS (Accommodated) results;
b) use of the new vertical scale cut points for grades 38 reading and mathematics;
c) use of only the first administration results for grade
3; and,
d) the use of TAKS (Accommodated) results for the
second administration of grades 5 and 8.
Key Changes to 2008-09 AEIS (cont.)

ABOUT THE TAKS PREVIEW INDICATORS (cont.)
–
2011 TAKS Preview
Same as the 2010 preview except that it also includes
TAKS-M results (including 2nd administration TAKS-M results
for grades 5 and 8). The included TAKS-M results are for all
tested grades and subjects.
22
School Report Card (SRC) Overview




23
The School Report Card (SRC) contains a subset of the
performance, staff, and financial data in the AEIS reports.
SRCs are accessible through the AEIS public website. There is
no separate TEASE release of the SRCs.
http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport/aeis/index.html
Target release date is December 10, 2009.
Superintendents and principals will be notified of availability
via email.
2010-11 Public Education Grant
(PEG) Program Overview




24
A statutorily-mandated program of school choice
(TEC Ch. 29, Subchapter G, 29.201-29.205)
Partially aligned with accountability ratings, but not fully aligned
with the state system, AYP, or the TAT list.
Statute requires districts to notify parents of the 2010-11 list by
February 1, 2010.
The PEG list is based on 2007, 2008, and 2009 performance,
but is effective for the 2010-2011 school year.
PEG Criteria

Schools are included on the list if:
(1)
50 percent or fewer of students* passed:
(a) Any TAKS reading/English language arts, writing,
mathematics, science, or social studies test, summed
across the grades tested at the school;
(b) In any two of the three years: 2007, 2008, or 2009
OR
(2)
25
The school was rated Academically Unacceptable in 2007,
2008, or 2009.
* Student groups are not evaluated.
Calendar and Notification



26
Planned release date is December 10, 2009, via TEASE to all
districts with one or more campuses on the list.
List will be posted to agency correspondence website on
December 15, 2009.
An online FAQ is available through the Division of Performance
Reporting Resources link
http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport/resources/index.html
Preview of
2010 and 2011
Standard
Accountability
Procedures
Standard Accountability Decisions for
2010 and 2011
TAKS Indicator
2009
2010
2011*
Exemplary
≥ 90%
≥ 90%
≥ 90%
Recognized
≥ 75%
≥ 80%
≥ 80%
Reading/ELA
≥ 70%
≥ 70%
≥ 70%
Writing, Social Studies
≥ 70%
≥ 70%
≥ 70%
Mathematics
≥ 55%
≥ 60%
≥ 65%
Science
≥ 50%
≥ 55%
≥ 60%
Academically Acceptable
* Standards for 2011 will be reviewed in 2010 and are subject to change.
28
Numbers in bold indicate a change from the prior year.
Standard Accountability Decisions for
2010 and 2011 (cont.)
TAKS (Accommodated)
2009
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
Use
Report
Use
Use
Report
Report
Use
Report
Report
Use
Report
Report
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)
TAKS-Modified
All Subjects and Grades, combined w/ TAKS
TAKS-Alternate
All Students Only, summed Subjects and Grades
English Language Learner Progress Measure
29
All Students Only
Standard Accountability Decisions for
2010 and 2011 (cont.)
Completion Rate I, Annual Dropout Rate,
and Underreported Students
2010
2011*
Completion Rate I
Exemplary
Recognized
Academically Acceptable
≥ 95.0%
≥ 85.0%
≥ 75.0%
≥ 95.0%
≥ 85.0%
≥ 75.0%
Gr. 7-8 Annual Dropout Rate (All categories)
≤ 1.8%
≤ 1.6%
150 and ≤
4.0%
150 and ≤
3.0%
Underreported Students (District only)
30
* Standards for 2011 will be reviewed in 2010 and are subject to change.
Numbers in bold indicate a change from the prior year.
Standard Accountability Decisions for
2010 and 2011 (cont.)
Summary – 2010 Development Topics






31
Annual review of RI, TPM, and Exceptions Provision
Annual review of Gold Performance Acknowledgments
standards, including Comparable Improvement (CI)
2010 and 2011 Standards for TAKS Indicators
Completion/Dropout Indicators and Standards
Transition Timeline from TAKS to EOC Assessments
Transition to Restructured System for 2011 and Beyond
Ethnicity and Race Data Collection
and Reporting
2009-10



32
PEIMS collects ethnicity and race using both old and new
definitions.
TAKS answer documents collect both old and new
definitions (pre-coded from PEIMS).
Reporting and Use – State accountability, federal
accountability, AEIS (and related reports) use old
definitions.
Ethnicity and Race Data Collection
and Reporting (cont.)
2010-11



33
PEIMS collects ethnicity and race using new definitions only.
TAKS answer documents collect new definitions only
(pre-coded from PEIMS).
Reporting and Use – State accountability, federal accountability,
AEIS (and related reports) based on new definitions.
Preview of 2010
AEA Procedures
and Indicators
2010 Registered AECs


35
The list of 2010 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 30, 2010.
At-Risk Registration Criterion



36
In April 2010, 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 2010 standard
accountability procedures.
The Final 2010 Registered AEC list will be posted on the
AEA website in May 2010. This list will contain the AECs
that will receive an AEA rating on July 30, 2010.
A list of the charter operators that will be rated under
2010 AEA procedures will be posted on the AEA website
in May 2010.
TAKS Progress Indicator
37

The TAKS Progress indicator includes all TAKS
(Accommodated) results as described on slide 29.

The TAKS Progress indicator standard remains 50%
for 2010.

The TAKS Progress indicator standard for 2011 will be
reviewed with accountability advisory groups in spring 2010.
TAKS Progress Indicator (cont.)


38
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.
Use of District At-Risk TAKS Data



39
Applies to AECs only – performance results of all students in
the charter are included in the charter’s performance and used
in determining the charter’s rating.
If the AEC does not meet the TAKS Progress standard or
demonstrate Required Improvement based on results for fewer
than 10 TAKS tests, or if there are no TAKS results for the
AEC, then the AEC is evaluated on the district performance
of at-risk students.
In 2009, district at-risk TAKS data were used to evaluate
45 AECs.
Completion Rate II and Annual Dropout
Rate (Grades 7-12) Indicators
40

The Completion Rate II indicator standard remains 60.0% for 2010.

The Annual Dropout Rate indicator standard remains 20.0% for
2010.

In spring 2010, the accountability advisory groups will review
various options and make recommendations to the commissioner
about the leaver indicators evaluated under AEA procedures
for 2011.
Completion Rate II Indicator




41
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.
Since 2008, only All Students are evaluated; student groups are not
evaluated separately.
Use of District At-Risk
Completion Rate II Data



42
Applies to AECs of Choice only – performance results of all
students in the charter are included in the charter’s performance
and used in determining the charter’s rating.
If the AEC of Choice does not meet the accountability standard
or demonstrate Required Improvement, or if the AEC of Choice
has students in grades 9, 10, 11, and/or 12 but does not have
a Completion Rate II, then the AEC of Choice is evaluated on
Completion Rate II (including GED recipients) of at-risk students
in the district.
In 2009, district at-risk Completion Rate II data were used
to evaluate 137 AECs of Choice.
Annual Dropout Rate Indicator


43
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.
Since 2008, only All Students are evaluated; student groups are
not evaluated separately.
Use of District At-Risk
Annual Dropout Rate Data




44
District at-risk dropout data were used for the first time in 2008
AEA ratings.
Applies to AECs only – performance results of all students in the
charter are included in the charter’s performance and used in
determining the charter’s rating.
If the AEC does not meet the accountability standard or
demonstrate Required Improvement, then the AEC is evaluated
on Annual Dropout Rate of at-risk students in the district.
In 2009, district at-risk Annual Dropout Rate data were
used to evaluate 37 AECs.
Update on HB 3
Implementation
HB 3 Implementation
Transition Plans through 2012
July 30, 2010
2010 ratings are issued under current
accountability system.
By 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
46
2011 ratings are the last ratings issued under
the current accountability system.
HB 3 Implementation
Transition Plans through 2012
2011-2012
Assignment of accreditation statuses and
performance ratings are suspended for this
school year.
New accreditation and academic accountability
system is developed with input from the
educator advisory groups on the timelines
specified in the transition plan.
47
HB 3 Implementation
Transition Plans for 2013
August 8, 2013
District accreditation statuses and 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.
48
Performance ratings and accreditation statuses
issued in 2010-2011 and 2012-2013 school years
will be considered consecutive.
HB 3 Implementation
Transition Plans for 2014
August 8, 2014
District accreditation statuses and 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.
49
HB 3 Implementation
Detailed analysis of HB3 and other education-related legislation that
passed during the 2009 legislative session can be found in the TEA
publication, “81st Texas Legislative Session: Briefing Book on Public
Education Legislation.”
Go to the URL shown below and select,
“Briefing Book – 81st Texas Legislature”
http://www.tea.state.tx.us/index4.aspx?id=5142
50
HB 3 Implementation
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:





51
Previous dropouts;
ADA ineligible dropouts;
Court-ordered GEDs, not earned;
Incarcerated in facilities not served by Texas public
schools; and
Refugees and asylees.
HB 3 Implementation
Exclusions to the NCES Dropout Definition
52

HB3 explicitly requires use of the current NCES dropout
definition until 2011-12. TEA is interpreting the 2011-12
effective date to mean the 2010-11 dropouts collected in the
2011-12 year.

The 2008-09 dropouts collected in the 2009-10 year (2010
ratings) will be processed using current definitions with no
new exclusions applied.

The 2009-10 dropouts collected in the 2010-11 year (2011
ratings) will be processed using current definitions with no
new exclusions applied.
TEASE Accountability
53

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
Accountability Resources
54

ESC Accountability Staff

Division of Performance Reporting
Phone: (512) 463-9704
Email: [email protected]

AEA
http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/aea

Accountability
http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport/account/

Accountability Resources
http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport/resources/index.html