Transcript Slide 1

History of
State Accountability
Accountability Policy Advisory Committee (APAC) and
Accountability Technical Advisory Committee (ATAC)| March 5, 2012
Texas Education Agency | Office of Assessment and Accountability
Division of Performance Reporting
State Accountability Overview
State Accountability Overview
1993 Texas legislature enacted statutes that mandated the
creation of the Texas public school accountability system
to rate districts and campuses.
Based largely on Texas Assessment of Academic Skills (TAAS)
results and Annual Dropout Rate indicators.
spring performance on the Texas Assessment of Knowledge
and Skills (TAKS) assessment,
Completion Rate I (graduates and continuers), and
Annual Dropout Rate for grades 7–8.
State Accountability Overview
District ratings in 2002 were carried to 2003, since ratings
based on the TAKS program could not be created until 2004.
Coincidentally, 2003 was the first year of implementation
of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB). This statute
required that Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) status was
assigned to all districts and campuses for the first time in
the summer of 2003.
Although state and federal accountability systems share
many features and use similar data, there are significant
State Accountability Overview
 Campus and district rating criteria were the same. (Some
additional requirements apply only to districts.)
 Ratings were earned by meeting absolute standards or by
demonstrating sufficient improvement toward the standard.
 State statute required annual district and campus
performance ratings with these labels:
Academically Acceptable, and
Academically Unacceptable.
State Accountability Overview
 Student groups were also evaluated. All evaluated groups
must meet the criteria for a given rating category. Student
groups were defined as:
All Students,
African American,
White, and
Economically Disadvantaged
State Accountability Overview
Mobility Subset
 Only the performance of students enrolled on the PEIMS
fall “as-of” date were considered. This was referred to as
the accountability subset. This adjustment was only applied
to the assessment base indicator.
State Accountability Overview
Whenever possible, indicators were phased in by
reporting for two years before applying in the
third year.
During the three year “report, report, use” period,
accountability standards were set. In the third year,
the indicator became part of the rating or
acknowledgment system.
State Accountability Overview
Additional Acknowledgments
 Since 1994, acknowledgments were awarded for high
performance on other indicators that did not affect
accountability ratings, such as completion of advanced
academic courses or participation and performance on
college admissions tests.
 In 2001, the Gold Performance Acknowledgments (GPA)
system replaced the system of Additional Acknowledgments.
Additional Features
Three additional features were available to achieve
ratings when absolute targets were not met:
Improvement (RI),
Texas Projection Measure (TPM), and
Exceptions Provision (EP).
Required Improvement (RI)
 Required Improvement (RI) was a feature in the state
accountability system from 1994 to 2011.
 RI could elevate a rating to Academically Acceptable or
Recognized, but could not elevate a rating to Exemplary.
 To use RI to move a campus or district rating up a level,
the campus or district must have shown, within two years,
enough improvement on the deficient measure from the
prior year to meet the current year accountability standard.
 Unlike the following additional features, RI was applied to all
three base indicators, not the TAKS indicator only.
Texas Projection Measure (TPM)
 In 2009 and 2010, TPM was a means of elevating ratings in
cases where neither the TAKS base indicator nor RI were
sufficient to allow a campus or district to earn the next
higher rating.
 The TPM was an estimate of whether a student is likely
to pass the TAKS assessment in the next high stakes grades
of 5, 7 (writing only), 8, or 11.
 With the addition of TPM, the state accountability rating
system gave districts and campuses credit not only for
students who passed but also for students who were on track
to pass at a future grade.
Exceptions Provision (EP)
The Exceptions Provision had been a feature since 2004
and provided a mechanism to achieve the Academically
Acceptable rating for new indicators or indicators that
were phased in. This mechanism provided greater relief
for larger campuses and districts serving more diverse
student populations evaluated on more measures.
In 2008, the Exceptions Provision was expanded to achieve
a Recognized or Exemplary rating.
Safeguards were applied to prevent overuse and misuse.
With the use of TPM, the use of exceptions decreased. With
the discontinuation of TPM, use of exceptions increased.
2004-2010 System Evolution
The system gradually increased in rigor over time by:
changing indicator definitions,
increasing indicator targets, and
adding indicators.
2004-2010 System Evolution
Student passing standards on TAKS were phased in during
2004 and 2005 until the panel recommended student passing
standards were fully achieved in 2006.
Grade 8 science results were included at the panel
recommended standard beginning in 2008.
Performance of students served in special education
were evaluated through the State-Developed Alternative
Assessment (SDAA) indicator from 2004–2007.
In 2008, TAKS (Accommodated) tests for specific grades
and subjects were evaluated. By 2010, TAKS (Accommodated)
results for all grades and subjects were fully incorporated.
2004-2010 System Evolution
Academically Acceptable standards began increasing
in 2006.
Mathematics and science standards increased five points
every year between 2006 and 2011 reaching 65% and 60%,
respectively, in 2011.
All other subjects achieved a 70% standard for Academically
Acceptable by 2009.
2004-2010 System Evolution
Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS)
Student passing standards on TAKS increased in 2010 for
certain grades and subjects due to the transition to the
vertical scale for TAKS English grades 3–8 in reading and
mathematics and for TAKS Spanish grades 3–5 in reading
and mathematics.
Inclusion of more students occurred in the accountability
system due to more students being tested over time
(95.4% in 2004 and 98.5% in 2010).
2004-2010 System Evolution
Completion Rate
Completion Rate II (with GED recipients) was used as a base
indicator for districts and campuses evaluated under the
standard accountability procedures in 2004 and 2005.
Completion Rate I (without GED recipients) was used as the
base indicator for the standard accountability procedures
since 2006.
Completion rate standards remained constant during the
phase-in of the NCES dropout definition:
75.0% for Academically Acceptable,
85.0% for Recognized, and
95.0% for Exemplary.
2004-2010 System Evolution
Annual Dropout Rate
Phase-in of the NCES definition of a dropout for the
Completion Rate indicator was complete in 2010 with
all four years of the 2009 cohort based on the new
dropout definition.
Annual dropout rate indicator standards for Academically
2.0% to 1.0 % in 2005,
2.0% in 2008 with the new NCES definition,
1.8% in 2010, and
1.6% in 2011.
2004-2010 System Evolution
School Leaver Provision (SLP)
For 2007 and 2008 ratings, the School Leaver Provision
(SLP) was added to aid in the transition to the more
rigorous National Center for Education Statistics (NCES)
dropout definition.
Under SLP, the annual dropout rate, completion rate, and
underreported students indicators could not be the sole
cause for a lowered campus or district rating.
In 2009, the SLP was no longer applied to the completion,
dropout, and underreported indicators.
2011 Significant Changes
2011 Significant Changes
TAKS–Modified (TAKS–M) and TAKS–Alternate (TAKS–Alt),
alternate assessments, were combined with TAKS and TAKS
(Accommodated) results in the TAKS base indicator.
The evaluation of performance at the Commended level
was added for the two highest rating categories.
English Language Learners (ELL) Progress measure was
added for the two highest rating categories.
Use of the Texas Projection Measure (TPM) was discontinued.
Alternative Education Accountability (AEA)
Overall Design of AEA Procedures
2005-2011 AEA
Several characteristics of AEA campuses and districts affected many
components of the accountability system.
are smaller on average than standard campuses
and have high mobility rates.
High mobility affects attribution of data and complicates evaluation
of AEC data.
Education services are provided to students in residential
programs and facilities operated under contract with
the Texas Youth Commission (TYC), students in detention centers and
correctional facilities that were registered
with the Texas Juvenile Probation Commission (TJPC),
and students in private residential treatment centers.
Overall Design of AEA Procedures
2005-2011 AEA
During the development phase of AEA procedures, the degree of alignment
with standard procedures was considered.
AEA Procedures were based on the following:
apply to AECs, not programs.
Procedures apply to AECs and charters dedicated to serving students at risk of
dropping out of school.
Procedures apply only to AECs that qualified and registered for evaluation
under AEA procedures.
Procedures do not apply to DAEPs or JJAEPs. Statutory intent requires that
DAEP and JJAEP data be attributed to students’ home campuses.
Procedures do not apply to standard campuses, even if the campus primarily
serves at-risk students.
Overall Design of AEA Procedures
As of 2011, the AEA procedures included these major
Rating labels – AEA: Academically Acceptable,
AEA: Academically Unacceptable, AEA: Not Rated – Other, and
AEA: Not Rated – Data Integrity Issues;
AEC registration criteria and requirements including
an at-risk registration criterion;
Base Indicators – TAKS Progress, ELL Progress,
Completion Rate II, and Annual Dropout Rate (grades 7-12);
Overall Design of AEA Procedures
Major components (continued):
Additional Features – Required Improvement and
use of district at-risk data; and
AEA GPA recognized high performance on indicators
other than those used to determine AEA ratings and
were reported for AECs and charters rated AEA: Academically