Transcript TAAE Powerpoint slides Feb 2

State Accountability
System Update
TASA Midwinter
Conference
January 27, 2009
Cathy Long, Shannon Housson, and
Nancy Rinehart
TEA, Performance Reporting Division
Today’s Topics
2

2008 Accountability Overview

Preview of 2009 Standard Accountability Procedures

Preview of 2009 AEA Procedures and Indicators

TEASE Accountability

Accountability Resources
2008
Accountability
Overview
2008 Ratings Highlights
2008 to 2007 Comparisons - Districts

The percent of students enrolled in districts rated either
Exemplary or Recognized increased substantially.

20.5% of total student enrollment in either Exemplary or
Recognized districts in 2008, compared to 6.1% in 2007.

State summary results are posted online at:
http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport/account/2008/index.html
4
2008 Ratings Highlights (cont.)
2008 to 2007 Comparisons - Campuses
5

The percent of students enrolled in campuses rated either
Exemplary or Recognized also increased substantially.

45.5% of total student enrollment in either Exemplary or
Recognized campuses in 2008, compared to 35.6% in
2007.

The 45.5% is split between Exemplary (12.0%) and
Recognized (33.5%).
2008 Ratings Highlights (cont.)
Required Improvement - Campuses

6
Under standard procedures, 521 campuses used RI to
achieve a higher rating, compared to 360 in 2007.

374 campuses moved to Recognized
(13.3% of all Recognized campuses).

147 campuses moved to Academically Acceptable
(4.7% of all Academically Acceptable campuses).
2008 Ratings Highlights (cont.)
Required Improvement - Districts

7
Under standard procedures, 106 districts used RI to achieve
a higher rating, compared to 37 in 2007.

86 districts used RI to move to Recognized
(26.2% of all Recognized districts).

20 districts used RI to move to Academically
Acceptable
(2.7% of all Academically Acceptable districts).
2008 Ratings Highlights (cont.)
Exceptions Provision – Overview

Exceptions Provision was significantly modified in 2008
compared to prior years:
 available for Recognized and Exemplary ratings
expanded from three to four for Academically
Acceptable and Recognized ratings

relaxed the minimum performance floors from five
points to ten points below standard for mathematics
and science.

8
2008 Ratings Highlights (cont.)
Exceptions Provision – Campuses

9
832 campuses increased their rating due to the Exceptions
Provision, compared to 210 in 2007.
 638 campuses used 1

117 campuses used 2

69 campuses used 3

8 campuses used 4
2008 Ratings Highlights (cont.)
Exceptions Provision – Campuses

10
Of the 832 campuses that used the Exceptions Provision:

313 used one or more exceptions to achieve a rating
of Academically Acceptable (10.1% of all Academically
Acceptable campuses);

342 used one or more exceptions to achieve a rating
of Recognized (12.1% of all Recognized campuses);

177 used one exception to achieve a rating of
Exemplary (17.7% of all Exemplary campuses).
2008 Ratings Highlights (cont.)
Exceptions Provision - Districts

11
90 districts increased their rating due to the Exceptions
Provision, compared to 31 in 2007.
 76 districts used 1

11 district used 2

2 districts used 3

1 district used 4
2008 Ratings Highlights (cont.)
Exceptions Provision - Districts

12
Of the 90 districts that used the Exceptions Provision:

37 used one or more exceptions to achieve a rating
of Academically Acceptable (4.9% of all Academically
Acceptable districts);

45 used one or more exceptions to achieve a rating
of Recognized (13.7% of all Recognized districts);

8 used one exception to achieve a rating of
Exemplary (18.6% of all Exemplary districts).
2008 Ratings Highlights (cont.)
Exceptions Provision - Districts
13

In 2008, 19 of the Recognized districts are large (10,000 or
more enrolled) compared to only 2 districts of this size
earning Recognized in 2007.

Only 1 of the 19 large Recognized districts used an
exception to achieve the Recognized rating.

The Exceptions Provision will be examined by the
accountability advisory groups in spring 2009 to determine
whether modifications are needed.
2008 Ratings Highlights (cont.)
School Leaver Provision - District Impact
(Standard Procedures)
14

3 districts and charters used the School Leaver Provision (SLP)
due to the Annual Dropout Rate only.

80 districts and charters used the SLP due to the Completion Rate
I only.

6 districts and charters used the SLP due to both Annual Dropout
and Completion I Rates.

6 districts used the SLP due to excessive underreported students.
2008 Ratings Highlights (cont.)
School Leaver Provision - Campus Impact
(Standard Procedures)
15

27 campuses used the SLP due to the Annual Dropout Rate only.

115 campuses used the SLP due to the Completion Rate I only.

0 campuses used the SLP due to both Annual Dropout and
Completion Rate I.
Gold Performance
Acknowledgments (GPA) Overview
16

GPA was created to acknowledge districts and campuses for
high performance on indicators that are in addition to those used
to determine state accountability ratings.

Districts are eligible for a maximum of 12 possible GPAs.
Campuses are eligible for a maximum of 14 possible GPAs.

Beginning in 2008, AEA GPA indicators acknowledge 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/2008/gpa.srch.html.
Preview of
2009 Standard
Accountability
Procedures
2009 Accountability Timeline
18
Jan - Feb
Accountability System Development –
2008 Review / 2009 and beyond Development
February 26-27
Educator Focus Group Meeting
March 24
Commissioner’s Accountability Advisory
Committee (CAAC) Meeting
April
Final decisions for 2009 and beyond
announced by Commissioner
Late May
2009 Accountability Manual posted online
July 31
2009 Accountability Ratings release
Mid-September
2010 AEA Campus Registration
Standard Accountability Decisions
for 2009 and Beyond
TAKS Indicator - Standards
2009
Final Decision
2010*
Recommended
Exemplary
≥ 90%
≥ 90%
Recognized
≥ 75%
≥ 80%
Reading/ELA
≥ 70%
≥ 70%
Writing, Social Studies
≥ 70%
≥ 70%
Mathematics
≥ 55%
≥ 60%
Science
≥ 50%
≥ 55%
Academically Acceptable
* Standards for 2010 will be reviewed in 2009 and are subject to change.
Numbers in bold indicate a change from the prior year.
19
Standard Accountability Decisions
for 2009 and Beyond (cont.)
TAKS (Accommodated)
Science (grades 5, 8, 10, & 11)
Science (grade 5 Spanish)
Social Studies (grades 8, 10, & 11)
English Language Arts (grade 11)
Mathematics (grade 11)
20
Reading/ELA (grades 3 – 10)
Reading (grades 3 – 6 Spanish)
Mathematics (grades 3 – 10)
Mathematics (grades 3 – 6 Spanish)
Writing (grades 4 & 7)
Writing (grade 4 Spanish)
2008
2009
2010
Use
Use
Use
Report in
AEIS
Only
Report in
AEIS
Only
Use
Standard Accountability Decisions
for 2009 and Beyond (cont.)
Texas Projection Measure
21

The 2009 accountability development process will review
the possible use of the new student projection measure in
the 2009 accountability system.

Final decisions will be announced by the Commissioner in
April 2009.
Standard Accountability Decisions
for 2009 and Beyond (cont.)
Texas Projection Measure
 TPM provides an estimate for how individual students are
likely to perform in the next high-stakes grade (grades 5,
8, and 11) after receiving instruction in grade-level
content.
 For example, students in grades 3 and 4 who take
reading and mathematics TAKS, TAKS (Accommodated),
or LAT TAKS will be projected to meet the passing
standard in grade 5.
22
Standard Accountability Decisions
for 2009 and Beyond (cont.)
Texas Projection Measure
 Students’ 2009 Texas Assessment of Knowledge and
Skills (TAKS), TAKS (Accommodated), and LAT scores in
both reading/English language arts and mathematics,
along with the campus-level mean scores in the projection
subject will be used to predict their performance in next
high-stakes testing grade.
 For example, a student’s 2009 reading and mathematics
23
TAKS scale score and the mean campus scale score in
reading will be used to project the reading scale score
for the student in the next high stakes grade level.
Standard Accountability Decisions
for 2009 and Beyond (cont.)
Annual Dropout Rate (Grades 7-8)
2008
2009
2010*
Academically Acceptable
≤ 2.0%
≤ 2.0%
≤ 1.8%
Recognized
≤ 2.0%
≤ 2.0%
≤ 1.8%
Exemplary
≤ 2.0%
≤ 2.0%
≤ 1.8%
* Standards for 2010 are recommended and subject to change after the spring 2009
development cycle is completed.
The School Leaver Provision (SLP) will no longer apply
in 2009 accountability and beyond.
 Required Improvement - Continued use

24
Standard Accountability Decisions
for 2009 and Beyond (cont.)
Completion Rate I (Grade 9-12) Indicator
2008
2009*
2010*
(Class of 2007)
(Class of 2008)
(Class of 2009)
Academically Acceptable
≥ 75.0%
≥ 75.0%
≥ 75.0%
Recognized
≥ 85.0%
≥ 85.0%
≥ 85.0%
Exemplary
≥ 95.0%
≥ 95.0%
≥ 95.0%
Completion Rate I
Definition of a ‘Completer’
Dropout Definition
(used in denominator)
25
Graduates + Continued HS
Phase-in NCES Definition
NCES
Definition
* Standards for 2009 and beyond are recommended and subject to change after the spring 2009
development cycle is completed.
Standard Accountability Decisions
for 2009 and Beyond (cont.)
Completion Rate I (Grade 9-12) Indicator (cont.)
26

School Leaver Provision will no longer be applicable
in 2009 accountability and beyond.

Required Improvement – Continued use

Other options will be explored with advisory groups.
Standard Accountability Decisions
for 2009 and Beyond (cont.)
Underreported Students
27

The School Leaver Provision will no longer apply to
underreported students.

In 2009, the number and percent of underreported
students that can prevent a district from being rated
Exemplary or Recognized becomes more rigorous with
greater than 5.0% or greater than 150 students (down from
200 students).

Districts with fewer than 5 underreported students will not
be evaluated on this indicator.
Standard Accountability Decisions
for 2009 and Beyond (cont.)
Hurricane Ike Provision
28

Consider options for districts that were directly
affected by Hurricane Ike similar to the Hurricane
Rita provision during the 2005-06 school year.

Consider options for districts serving students
displaced by Hurricane Ike similar to the
Hurricane Katrina/Rita provision, based on the
PEIMS Crisis Code data collected in fall 2008.
Standard Accountability Decisions
for 2009 and Beyond (cont.)
Gold Performance Acknowledgments

Planned increased standards in following GPA indicators:




Advanced Course/Dual Enrollment Completion
Commended Performance – Five Subject Areas
Recommended High School Program/DAP
Texas Success Initiative – Higher Education Readiness Component
–

29
English Language Arts and Mathematics
Proposed Standards are outlined in Chapter 18 – Preview of
2009 and Beyond of the 2008 Accountability Manual.
Standard Accountability Decisions
for 2009 and Beyond (cont.)
Gold Performance Acknowledgments

Comparable Improvement: Consider option to base CI
calculations on the new vertical scale that will be
reported beginning in spring 2009.

New GPA Indicator: College-Ready Graduates
Indicator

30
Consider option to add a new GPA indicator that will
acknowledge preparation for post-secondary success.
Standard Accountability Decisions
for 2009 and Beyond (cont.)
Development Topics for 2010 and Beyond
31

Annual review of RI and Exceptions Provision

TAKS Indicators and Standards

Annual review of GPA Standards

Completion/Dropout Indicators and Standards

Schedule for Inclusion of ELL Progress Measure

Schedule for Inclusion of TAKS-M/TAKS-Alt

Transition Timeline from TAKS to EOC Assessments

Transition to New Race/Ethnicity Codes
Select Committee on Accountability

The 15-member Select Committee held public hearings
across the state in 2008 to review the accountability
system and make recommendations regarding how the
system should be restructured.

The Select Committee submitted their final report to the
Legislature on December 1, 2008. It is available online at
http://www.senate.state.tx.us/75r/Senate/commit/c835/c835.htm.
32
Preview of 2009
AEA Procedures
2008 AEA Overview
A total of 423 alternative education campuses (AECs) and
71 charter operators were evaluated under AEA procedures
in 2008. Below is the AEA ratings distributions.
AEC of
Choice
Residential
Facility
Total
AEA
Enrollment
AEA: Academically Acceptable
330
67
397
43,880
AEA: Academically Unacceptable
10
5
15
2,374
AEA: Not Rated – Other
1
10
11
1,607
341
82
423
47,861
Accountability Rating
Total
34
School Leaver Provision
35

A School Leaver Provision (SLP) was included in the 2008
state accountability system, such that the leaver indicators
(either alone or in combination) did not cause a lowered
campus or district rating.

For 2008 AEA ratings, if the Completion Rate II and/or
Annual Dropout Rate indicator(s) were the only cause for an
AEA: Academically Unacceptable rating, then the AEC or
charter was assigned the AEA: Academically Acceptable
label.

Use of the SLP in 2009 and beyond will be reviewed with
advisory groups in spring 2009. The SLP is scheduled to
apply only to the AEA Annual Dropout Rate indicator in 2009.
School Leaver Provision (cont.)

As a result of the SLP, a total of 65 AECs achieved the
AEA: Academically Acceptable rating in 2008.
o
o
o

A total of 30 charter operators used the SLP to achieve the
AEA: Academically Acceptable rating in 2008.
o
o
o
36
19 AECs used the SLP for Annual Dropout Rate
26 AECs used the SLP for the Completion Rate II
20 AECs used the SLP for both the Annual Dropout Rate and
Completion Rate II indicators
9 charters used the SLP for Annual Dropout Rate
6 charters used the SLP for the Completion Rate II
15 charters used the SLP for both the Annual Dropout Rate
and Completion Rate II indicators
AEA Gold Performance
Acknowledgments (GPA) Overview

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.

Beginning in 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/2008/gpa.srch.html.
37
AEA GPA Overview (cont.)
38

AEA campuses and charters were first evaluated on GPA
indicators in 2008. Only the All Students group is evaluated;
student groups are not evaluated separately.

There are 12 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.

The percentages of AECs and charters earning GPAs are
smaller than their counterparts evaluated under standard
procedures. Among AEA charters, the GPA earned most often
is the RHSP/DAP (21.1%). The GPA earned most often by
AECs is Attendance Rate (20.5%).
2009 Registered AECs
39

The list of 2009 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 31, 2009.
At-Risk Registration Criterion
40

In April 2009, 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
2009 standard accountability procedures.

The Final 2009 Registered AEC list will be posted on the
AEA website in May 2009. This list will contain the AECs
that will receive an AEA rating on July 31, 2009.

A list of the charter operators that will be rated under 2009
AEA procedures will be posted on the AEA website in May
2009.
2009 AEA Standards
41

TAKS Progress indicator standard increases to 50%.

Completion Rate II (including GED recipients) indicator
standard remains 70.0%.

Annual Dropout Rate (Grades 7-12) indicator standard
is scheduled to remain 10.0%.
TEASE Accountability
42

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
43

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