2012 TASA Midwinter Conference State and Federal Accountability Update January 31, 2012 Criss Cloudt, Associate Commissioner, Assessment and Accountability.

2012 TASA Midwinter Conference

State and Federal Accountability Update

January 31, 2012

Criss Cloudt, Associate Commissioner, Assessment and AccountabilityShannon Housson, Director, Division of Performance Reporting

1

General Overview

2

House Bill (HB) 3 Accountability Provisions

Focus of district and campus performance is postsecondary readiness standards

Rigorous standards ensure that Texas performs among top ten states by 2020

Higher ratings are distinctions based on higher levels of student performance

3

House Bill (HB) 3 Accountability Provisions

Campuses earn distinctions for student growth and closing achievement gaps

Campuses earn distinctions for excellence in areas other than state assessment results

Reports are relevant, meaningful, and easily accessible

State and federal accountability requirements are aligned to the extent possible

4

Accountability System for 2013 and Beyond

Legislation provides new flexibility as well as constraints

Every aspect of accountability system will be reevaluated

New system may look very different from current system, not just variation on former systems used in Texas

Seamless system of ratings – reporting – monitoring – interventions

5

New Accountability Indicators Considered

End-of-Course (EOC) cumulative scores for cohorts of graduates

Four-, five-, and six-year graduation rates

Three-year average performance

6

New Frameworks Considered

Performance Index

Allows more indicators without more hurdles

Rating based on overall performance rather than lowest performing area

Interventions focus on specific problem areas

7

New Frameworks Considered

Alignment of State/Federal Systems

Broad goals in common postsecondary readiness, student progress, closing performance gaps

Range of options Develop state system that meets federal

requirements – replace Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) with new state system

Separate AYP as component of state system

8

New Rating Labels

Statutory labels removed

Separate district ratings from elementary, middle, and high schools are possible

Multiple degrees of acceptable/unacceptable statuses possible

Higher ratings based on postsecondary ready

Separate ratings for status and growth possible

9

New Progress Measures Developed

Multiple measures developed for reporting

Accountability indicators that do not count failing students as passing

Required Improvement based on student growth measure possible

Campus distinction designations for growth to postsecondary ready

Closing performance gaps can be measured across achievement spectrum (scale scores or percentiles)

10

New Student Groups

New race/ethnicity student group definitions produce seven groups

Economically disadvantaged and non-economically disadvantaged in statute

Limited English proficient (LEP) and special education in AYP blueprint

Gap measures to evaluate student group performance

11

New Accountability Standards – New Issues

Phase-in of State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness (STAAR) assessments

Phase-in of student passing standard

Phase-in of graduation requirements

Percentiles or rankings versus accountability standards

12

Trade-offs That Must Be Balanced

Separate state/federal systems versus integrated accountability system

Rating overall performance versus specific problem areas

Absolute performance versus progress

Improve student performance versus closing gaps

Satisfactory versus advanced performance

Understandability versus measurement precision

14

Trade-offs That Must Be Balanced

State mandates versus local program flexibility

Where you are versus where you want to be

Same expectations for all versus diversity of student populations

Student test results versus other measures of success

Negative versus positive consequences

Student & parent versus state & school responsibility

15

2012 Accountability and Reporting

16

2011 Accountability

2011 AEIS Reports (released publicly November 17)

Final 2011 AYP Appeal Decisions (posted on TEASE on Dec.

5)

2012-13 Public Education Grant (PEG) list (posted on TEASE

on Dec. 1, released via TEA Correspondence on Dec. 8)

Final 2011 AYP Results (released publicly Dec. 9)

2011 School Report Card (available online Dec. 9)

2011 NCLB Report Card (released publicly Jan. 31, 2012)

17

2012 Accountability

No State Ratings

AYP Plan TAKS to STAAR Bridge Study was submitted to

the U.S. Department of Education (USDE) inDecember 2011.

AYP Texas Workbook for 2012 AYP will be submitted by February, 15, 2012.

18

2012 AYP

2012 AYP Performance Standards increase:

87% in Reading/English language arts

83% in Mathematics

Federal regulations require 2012 AYP graduation rate evaluations of All Students and every student group.

Participation Rate and Attendance Rate Indicator standards remain unchanged.

19

2012 AYP

Summary of Texas Amendment Requests

2012 references to Graduation Rate Goals and Targets (Sections 1.2 and 7.1)

Graduation Rate Goals and Targets will show constant targets for 2011 and 2012 AYP.

20

2012 AYP

Summary of Texas Amendment Requests

Evaluate 2012 AYP and School Improvement Program (SIP) statuses based on:

2011-12 TAKS results for grade 10, and

2011-12 STAAR results for grade 3-8 at the TAKS proficiency standard.

21

2012 AYP

Summary of the Texas Amendment Requests

In order to provide 2012 AYP results on a timely basis, Texas will use bridge studies that identify the existing TAKS performance standards on the new STAAR assessments for tests of grade 3–8 on which STAAR performance standards will not yet be available.

See Summary of Possible 2012 AYP Componentsfor detailed listing of TAKS and STAAR assessment results that will be evaluated for 2012 AYP at http://www.tea.state.tx.us/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=2147503684

22

2012 Reporting

Availability of data Leaver data

Class of 2011 graduation/completion/dropout rates and 2010-2011 annual dropout rates released June 2012

First year for rates with and without statutory exclusions

23

2012 Reporting

Availability of data

Assessment data – Student Assessment plans:

2012 EOC results with performance standards applied in June 2012

STAAR gr. 3-8 raw scores and distribution data in late spring 2012

STAAR gr. 3-8 with performance standards applied in late fall 2012

STAAR gr. 3-8 bridge study results on data file available late spring 2012

STAAR Modified and Alternate assessment results on same timeline

24

2012 Reporting

Snapshot and Pocket Edition will not be published beginning in 2011.

School Report Card (SRC) will not be published beginning in 2012.

Academic Excellence Indicator System (AEIS) reports will be modified to incorporate available TAKS and STAAR results.

25

2013 Accountability

26

Ratings

Based on:

STAAR Level II: Satisfactory Academic Performance (not Level III: Advanced Academic Performance) student passing standard

TAKS grade 11 Met Standard

27

Ratings

Rating labels will be acceptable/satisfactory and unacceptable/unsatisfactory only

Recognized and Exemplary ratings will not be awarded in 2013

28

Data

Growth measures not available for 2013 ratings

Multiple growth measures being developed for reporting

Accountability indicators that incorporate growth will be developed after 2013 results

29

Graduation/Dropout Rate Indicators

Class of 2012 graduation/completion/dropout rates and 2011-2012 annual dropout rates released June 2013

The first cohort to graduate under EOC are the grade 10 students in the 2012-13 school year (most have not taken English III, Algebra II, Physics, U.S. History)

30

Distinction Designations

Campus academic distinctions

Developed via committees Reading/ELA and mathematics awarded in 2013 likely

based on: Grade 3 - 8 STAAR advanced performance High school measures of college-readiness other

than EOC Science and Social Studies will be phased in

31

Distinction Designations

New areas for recognition

Developed via committees

21st Century Workforce Development Program scheduled to be awarded in 2013

Additional areas that will be phased in:

fine arts,

physical education, and

second language acquisition program

32

Distinction Designations

Additional distinctions for campuses based on top 25% in growth and closing performance gaps will not be awarded in 2013

These distinctions will likely be based on growth measures and the Level III: Advanced Academic Performance student passing standard that will not be evaluated until 2014.

33

2013 and 2014 Accountability – Summary

* Labels to be determined.

34

2013 and 2014 Accountability – Summary35

Accountability Development Issues

36

Grade-Level Assessments Versus EOC

Middle Schools – Avoid unintended consequences for students in EOC courses

Do not promote unnecessary duplicate testing

Do not penalize high schools for students who complete Algebra I (or other EOC assessments) in middle school

37

Grade-Level Assessments Versus EOC

High Schools – New issues

Students complete courses and assessments at different paces

Every student not tested every year

Some students take multiple tests in same subject

Cumulative score requirement lends itself to longitudinal indicators

Students can retake tests for any reason

First administration not always in spring

38

Use of Additional Features

Required Improvement over the prior year (required)

Average performance of the last three years (required)

Performance on 85 percent of the measures (optional)

Appropriate order of use of additional features to be determined

39

Number of Assessment Measures

5 subjects X 12 student groups

=

60 measures

Plus performance and growth

40

Performance Index

Combine performance across student groups by subject

Combine performance across subjects by student group

41

All-or-Nothing or Proportional

Need other approaches to reduce number of measures

Limit subjects for which student groups evaluated

Limit number of student groups evaluated for any one subject

Limit student groups evaluated

42

Combination Approach

Evaluate each subject, but not for every student group

Evaluate each student group, but aggregate across subjects

43

Alternative Education Accountability (AEA) Options

No separate system

Same system for all in 2013, separate AEA procedures in 2014

Same system, different standards and/or growth measures

44

Accountability Development Process

45

Development Calendar

Beginning of 18-month accountability system development process

First advisory committee meeting March 5 - 6, 2012

Advisory committees meet about every three months through February/March 2013

Final decision in March/April 2013 provides little advance notice before first ratings

46

Development Calendar

Parallel Calendars

AYP 2012 designations and accountability development

PBMAS 2012 analyses and accountability development for 2013 and beyond

Academic distinction designations

21st Century Workforce Development Program distinction designations

47

Website for Accountability Development

Post status reports, issue documents, and presentations

Opportunity for structured input from broad constituency

New web pages and FAQ to be added to Division of Performance Reporting website at:

http://www.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport/

48

Advisory Groups

Accountability Technical Advisory Committee (ATAC)

Accountability Policy Advisory Committee (APAC)

49

Advisory Groups – ATAC

Duties Consider complex, technical issues Work with TEA staff and national experts to develop

recommendations including: overall framework, integration of state and federal systems, assessment indicators, progress measures, completion indicators, student groups, minimum size criteria, alternative education accountability (AEA), and distinction designations.

50

Advisory Groups – ATAC

Expectations

Attend up to five meetings at TEA offices in Austin between March 2012 and spring 2013;

Actively and constructively participate during meetings;

Solicit input from peers within their geographic region;

Participate in at least one small work group that will meet between the ATAC meetings via video-conference with TEA staff.

51

Advisory Groups – ATAC

Process

The smaller work groups will present their proposals at the main ATAC meetings.

The ATAC committee’s final proposals will be reviewed by the Accountability Policy Advisory Committee (APAC).

The APAC will provide feedback on the ATAC proposals to the commissioner of education. The commissioner will make final accountability decisions in spring 2013.

52

Advisory Groups – APAC

Nominations for the APAC were requested from over twenty professional business and education associations.

Members of APAC include teachers, principals, program specialists, or superintendents in Texas public schools and education service centers; representatives of Texas colleges and universities; and business and community leaders.

Nominees were requested to represent the membership of each organization and also be knowledgeable about Texas’ public school accountability system.

53

Advisory Groups – ATAC and APAC

Timeline

March 5-6, 2012 – Initial advisory committee meeting will be joint meeting of APAC and ATAC.

March – May 2012 – ATAC work groups and second ATAC meeting.

June – August 2012 – ATAC work groups and third ATAC meeting.

September – November 2012 – ATAC work groups and fourth ATAC meeting. Fourth advisory committee meeting will be joint meeting of APAC and ATAC.

54

Advisory Groups – ATAC and APAC

Timeline

December 2012 – February 2013 – ATAC work groups and final ATAC meeting.

March 2013 – Final APAC meeting.

55

Accountability Resources

Division of Performance Reporting email [email protected]

Division of Performance Reporting telephone number (512) 463-9704

ESC Accountability Contacts

Online at http://www.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport/

56