Transcript TAAE Powerpoint slides Feb 2

State Accountability
System Update
Texas Assessment
Conference
December 9, 2008
Shannon Housson and Nancy Rinehart
TEA, Performance Reporting Division
Today’s Topics







2
Accountability Calendars – 2008 and 2009
2008 Accountability Overview
Technical Assistance Teams (TAT)
Preview of Standard Accountability Procedures
Preview of AEA Procedures and Indicators
TEASE Accountability
Accountability Resources
Recent and Upcoming Events
3
August 1
2008 Ratings release (TEA website)
Sept 10 – Oct 31
2009 AEA Campus Registration (TEASE)
October 23
Final 2008 Ratings and GPA release (TEA website)
November 6
2007-08 AEIS release (TEASE)
November 20
2007-08 AEIS release (TEA website)
December 5
2009-10 PEG list release (TEASE)
December 11
2007-08 School Report Cards release (TEA website)
December 11
2009-10 PEG list posted online (TEA website)
2009 Accountability Timeline
4
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
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://www.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport/account/2008/index.html
6
2008 Ratings Highlights (cont.)
2008 to 2007 Comparisons - Campuses
7

The percent of students enrolled in campuses rated either
Exemplary or Recognized also increased substantially.

In 2008, campuses rated Exemplary comprised 12.0% of
the total student enrollment and campuses rated
Recognized comprised 33.5% of total students enrolled.

45.5% of total student enrollment in either Exemplary or
Recognized campuses in 2008, compared to 35.6% in
2007.
2008 Ratings Highlights (cont.)
Required Improvement - Campuses

8
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

9
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

increased minimum performance floors from five
points to ten points below standard for mathematics
and science.

10
2008 Ratings Highlights (cont.)
Exceptions Provision – Overview

Rationale for modifications to Exceptions Provision:
Originally intended to provide a mechanism for avoiding
the Academically Unacceptable rating due to new
indicators or indicators that were being phased-in to the
system.

Changes were designed to provide relief for larger
campuses and districts serving more diverse student
populations that are evaluated on more measures.

11
2008 Ratings Highlights (cont.)
Exceptions Provision – Overview

Rationale for modifications to Exceptions Provision:
In 2008, students receiving special education
services taking TAKS (Accommodated) at selected
grades and subjects were included in the TAKS results.

Grade 8 science results were included at the Panel
Recommended standard

12
2008 Ratings Highlights (cont.)
Exceptions Provision – Campuses

13
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

14
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

15
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

16
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
17

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)
18

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)
19

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.
2008 Ratings Highlights (cont.)
School Leaver Provision – Charter District Impact
(AEA Procedures)
20

9 charters used the SLP for Annual Dropout Rate only.

6 charters used the SLP for Completion Rate II only.

15 charters used the SLP for both Dropout and Completion
Rates.
2008 Ratings Highlights (cont.)
School Leaver Provision – Campus Impact
(AEA Procedures)
21

19 AECs used the SLP for Annual Dropout Rate only.

26 AECs used the SLP for Completion Rate II only.

20 AECs used the SLP for both Dropout and Completion
Rates.
Gold Performance
Acknowledgments (GPA) Overview
22

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 12 possible GPAs.
Campuses are eligible for a maximum of 14 possible GPAs.

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://www.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport/account/2008/gpa.srch.html.
Key Changes to 2007-08 AEIS
23

TAKS (Accommodated)
The 2008 accountability system included performance on the following
subjects and grades:
 Science (grades 5, 8, 10, & 11)
 Science (grade 5 Spanish)
 Social Studies (grades 8, 10, & 11)
 English Language Arts and Mathematics (grade 11)

This affects the following indicators on the AEIS report:
 TAKS Met 2008 Standard, shown by grade
 TAKS Met 2008 Standard, shown summed across grades
 TAKS Commended Performance
 Texas Success Initiative (both ELA and mathematics)
 Comparable Improvement (grade 11 only)
Key Changes to 2007-08 AEIS (cont.)
24

TAKS 2010 Preview
Includes performance on all TAKS (Accommodated) tests,
in all subjects, all grades. Only 2008 is available for preview,
because TAKS (Accommodated) tests were first administered
to all grades and subjects in 2008.

Grade 8 Science
TAKS Grade 8 science results are based on the 2008
student passing standard—Panel Recommendation (PR).
Grade 8 science results are shown by grade, and are
included in the summed across grade accountability
indicators and the Commended Performance results.
Key Changes to 2007-08 AEIS (cont.)
25

Participation
“TAKS-M Only” has been added to the Tested subsection,
and SDAA II has been deleted. “ARD Exempt” has been
deleted from the Not Tested subsection.

Student Success Initiative – Grade 8
2008 is the first year for the student success initiative for
grade 8. TAKS grade 8 reading and mathematics
performance is included in this indicator. Only one year is
available, for the first two measures: (1) Students
Requiring Accelerated Instruction, and (2) TAKS
Cumulative Met Standard.
Key Changes to 2007-08 AEIS (cont.)

English Language Learners Progress Measure
 For 2008, the RPTE has been replaced by the
Texas English Language Proficiency Assessment
System (TELPAS). Because two years of comparable
assessment data are not yet available, the ELL
progress measure cannot be computed in 2008.
 A progress measure based on two years of TELPAS
results will be reported for the first time on the 2008-09
AEIS reports.
26
Key Changes to 2007-08 AEIS (cont.)

TAKS-M
TAKS-M results are reported at the state level only in 2008.
 Since TAKS-M was only given in reading, mathematics,
and science at grades 3-8 and 10, all grades and subjects
are not available to be reported at the district and campus
levels until 2009.
27
 TAKS-M state results can be accessed online via an
embedded hyperlink on the HTML version of the state
AEIS report, similar to the existing link to Performance
of Mobile Students.
Key Changes to 2007-08 AEIS (cont.)
TAKS-Alt
28

TAKS-Alt performance results will not be incorporated in
the 2008 AEIS reports.

TAKS-Alt will continue to be included in the participation
data reported on the AEIS reports.

TAKS-Alt performance will be reported at the district
and campus levels in 2009 in coordination with the
TAKS-M results.
2007-08 School Report Card (SRC)
Overview
29

The SRC contains a subset of the performance, staff, and
financial data that is reported in the AEIS reports.

As required by statute, these report cards must be
disseminated to the “parent, guardian, conservator, or
other person having lawful control of each student at
the campus.”

The intent is for the SRC to be distributed to the homes
of each student.
2009-10 Public Education Grant
(PEG) Program Overview
30

A statutorily-mandated program of school choice
(TEC Ch. 29, Subchapter G, §§29.201-29.205).

Statute addresses campus identification, funding issues,
and student eligibility issues.

PEG lists have been issued since September 1995.
PEG Criteria
31

Partially aligned with accountability ratings, but is not aligned
with the state system, AYP, or the TAT list.

PEG criteria are more rigorous on the evaluation of science
results than the state standards.

There is a three year moving time frame, so even improved
schools stay on the list if they were AU in any of the prior
three years.

The number of campuses this year is anticipated to be lower
than last year. Last year there were 831 schools identified.
PEG District Responsibilities
32

Statute requires that districts notify parents of the
2008-09 PEG list by February 1, 2009.

PEG list is based on 2006, 2007, and 2008 performance,
but is effective for the 2009-10 school year.

The PEG Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) web page
provides useful information on various PEG-related
issues and is located at
http://www.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport/peg_faq.html.
Technical Assistance
Teams (TAT)
Technical Assistance Teams (TAT)
34

For 2008-09, there are 292 unique districts with one or more
campuses on the TAT list compared to the 395 unique districts
for the prior year.

Secondary is the most common campus type on the list
representing 54% of all campuses listed (among the Both,
Elementary, Middle School, and Secondary categories).

The 2008-09 TAT list has 510 campuses with no waivers.
This is a reduction of 367 campuses from the prior year.
TAT Campus Identification

A campus is included on the 2008-09 TAT list if the
following conditions occur:
o
o
o
35
The campus was rated Academically Acceptable
(under standard procedures) or AEA: Academically
Acceptable (under AEA procedures);
and
The 2007-08 performance does not meet the 2009
for AA or AEA: AA accountability standards;
or
The campus avoided being rated AU or AEA: AU
in 2008 due to the School Leaver Provision.
2009 TAT Methodology
36

TAKS will include the same TAKS (Accommodated) results
as were used in 2008: science (English) for grades 5,8,10, & 11;
science (Spanish) for grade 5; social studies for grades 8,10, &
11; English language arts (ELA) for grade 11; and mathematics
for grade 11.

The 2008-09 TAT list utilizes 2007-08 and 2006-07 TAKS
results. The 2006-07 TAKS performance indicators have been
recalculated to include grade 8 science and the TAKS
(Accommodated) results.

Campuses that meet the 2009 accountability standards using
the Exception Provision or Required Improvement are not
included on the TAT list.
Preview of
2009 Standard
Accountability
Procedures
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.
38
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)
39
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
40

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.)
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%
The School Leaver Provision (SLP) will no longer apply
in 2009 accountability and beyond.

41

Required Improvement - Continued use
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)
42
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.)
43

School Leaver Provision will no longer be applicable
in 2009 accountability and beyond.

Required Improvement - Continued use
Standard Accountability Decisions
for 2009 and Beyond (cont.)
Underreported Students
44

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.)
Summary – 2009 Development Topics
45

Annual review of RI and Exceptions Provision

Annual review of Gold Performance Acknowledgments
standards, including Comparable Improvement (CI)

2010 Standards for TAKS Indicators

Options for Districts Impacted by Hurricane Ike

Completion/Dropout Indicators and Standards

Transition Timeline from TAKS to EOC Assessments

Transition to Restructured System for 2011 and Beyond
Select Committee on Accountability
46

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 and is available online
at http://www.senate.state.tx.us/75r/Senate/commit/c835/c835.htm.
Preview of 2009
AEA Procedures
2009 Registered AECs
48

The list of 2009 Registered AECs is available on the AEA
website at http://www.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
49

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
50

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%.
TAKS Progress Indicator
51

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.
TAKS Progress Indicator (cont.)
52

The TAKS Progress numerator is calculated as the
number of tests meeting the student passing standard or
having a Texas Growth Index (TGI) score that meets the
student growth standard of 0 (zero) or higher and TAKS
exit-level retests meeting the student passing standard at
the March and April/May administrations or in the
previous October or July.

The denominator is the number of TAKS tests taken and
the number of TAKS exit-level retests meeting the student
passing standard at the March and April/May
administrations or in the previous October or July.
Use of District At-Risk TAKS Data
53

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 2008, district at-risk TAKS data were used to evaluate
50 AECs.
Completion Rate II Indicator




54
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.
Beginning in 2008, only All Students are evaluated; student
groups are not evaluated separately.
Use of District At-Risk
Completion Rate II Data
55

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 2008, district at-risk Completion Rate II data were used
to evaluate 168 AECs of Choice.
Annual Dropout Rate Indicator
56

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.

Beginning in 2008, only All Students are evaluated; student
groups are not evaluated separately.

Use of the School Leaver Provision (SLP) in 2009 and
beyond will be reviewed with advisory groups in spring 2009.
Use of District At-Risk
Annual Dropout Rate Data
57

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 2008, district at-risk Annual Dropout Rate data were
used to evaluate 110 AECs.
TEASE Accountability
58

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://www.tea.state.tx.us/webappaccess/AppRef.htm
Accountability Resources
59

ESC Accountability Staff

Division of Performance Reporting
Phone: (512) 463-9704
Email: [email protected]

AEA
http://www.tea.state.tx.us/aea

Accountability
http://www.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport/account/

Accountability Resources
http://www.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport/resources/index.html