State Accountability System Update Texas Assessment Conference December 7-9, 2009 Shannon Housson and Nancy Rinehart TEA, Performance Reporting Division.

State Accountability System Update

Texas Assessment ConferenceDecember 7-9, 2009

Shannon Housson and Nancy RinehartTEA, Performance Reporting Division

2

Today’s Topics

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

3

Recent and Upcoming Events

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)

4

2010 Accountability Timeline

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

6

2009 Ratings Highlights

2009 to 2008 Comparisons - Districts

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

7

2009 Ratings Highlights (cont.)

2009 to 2008 Comparisons - Campuses

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.

8


Required Improvement - Campuses

Under standard procedures, 756 campuses used RI to achieve a higher rating, compared to 521 in 2008.

607 campuses moved to Recognized (20.6% of all Recognized campuses).

149 campuses moved to Academically Acceptable (7.8% of all Academically Acceptable campuses).

9


Required Improvement - Districts

Under standard procedures, 144 districts used RI to achieve a higher rating, compared to 106 in 2008.

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).


10

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.


11

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.


12

Exceptions Provision (EP) - Campuses

Of the 319 campuses that used the Exceptions Provision:

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.

13


Exceptions Provision (EP) - Campuses

Of the 319 campuses using exceptions:

263 campuses used 1

37 campuses used 2

19 campuses used 3

0 campuses used 4

14


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.

15


Exceptions Provision (EP) - Districts

Of the 17 districts using exceptions:

16 districts used 1

1 district used 2

0 districts used 3

0 districts used 4

16

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.

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.

19

Key Changes to 2008-09 AEIS

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)

20

Key Changes to 2008-09 AEIS (cont.)

NEW SECTION III (First Page of State Report Attached)– 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.

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 3-8

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.

22


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.

23

School Report Card (SRC) Overview

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.

24

2010-11 Public Education Grant (PEG) Program Overview

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.

25

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) The school was rated Academically Unacceptable in 2007, 2008, or 2009.

* Student groups are not evaluated.

26

Calendar and Notification

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

28

Standard Accountability Decisions for 2010 and 2011

2009 2010 2011*

Exemplary ≥ 90% ≥ 90% ≥ 90%

Recognized ≥ 75% ≥ 80% ≥ 80%

Academically Acceptable

Reading/ELA ≥ 70% ≥ 70% ≥ 70%

Writing, Social Studies ≥ 70% ≥ 70% ≥ 70%

Mathematics ≥ 55% ≥ 60% ≥ 65%

Science ≥ 50% ≥ 55% ≥ 60%

* Standards for 2011 will be reviewed in 2010 and are subject to change.

Numbers in bold indicate a change from the prior year.

TAKS Indicator

29

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

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)

Report Use Use

TAKS-Modified

All Subjects and Grades, combined w/ TAKS Report Report Use

TAKS-Alternate

All Students Only, summed Subjects and Grades Report Report Use

English Language Learner Progress Measure

All Students Only Report Report Use

30


* Standards for 2011 will be reviewed in 2010 and are subject to change.

Numbers in bold indicate a change from the prior year.

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%

Underreported Students (District only)150 and ≤

4.0%150 and ≤

3.0%

31


Summary – 2010 Development Topics

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

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.

2009-10

Ethnicity and Race Data Collection and Reporting (cont.)

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.

2010-11

Preview of 2010 AEA Procedures and Indicators

35

2010 Registered AECs

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.

36

At-Risk Registration Criterion

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.

37

TAKS Progress Indicator

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.

38

TAKS Progress Indicator (cont.)

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.

39

Use of District At-Risk TAKS Data

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.

40

Completion Rate II and Annual Dropout Rate (Grades 7-12) Indicators

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.

41

Completion Rate II Indicator

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.

42

Use of District At-RiskCompletion Rate II Data

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.

43

Annual Dropout Rate Indicator

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.

44

Use of District At-RiskAnnual Dropout Rate Data

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

46

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 2011 ratings are the last ratings issued under the current accountability system.

HB 3 Implementation

47

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.

HB 3 Implementation

48

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.

Performance ratings and accreditation statuses issued in 2010-2011 and 2012-2013 school years will be considered consecutive.

HB 3 Implementation

49

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.

HB 3 Implementation

50

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

HB 3 Implementation

51

Exclusions to the NCES Dropout DefinitionHB3 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:

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

52

Exclusions to the NCES Dropout Definition

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.

53

TEASE Accountability

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

54

Accountability Resources

ESC Accountability Staff

Division of Performance ReportingPhone: (512) 463-9704Email: [email protected]

AEA http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/aea

Accountabilityhttp://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport/account/

Accountability Resources http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport/resources/index.html

State Accountability System Update Texas Assessment Conference December 7-9, 2009 Shannon Housson and Nancy Rinehart TEA, Performance Reporting Division.

Documents

used tpm

recognized campuses

recognized districts

acceptable campuses

acceptable districts

comparisons campuses

improvement campuses

accountability ratings