Transition to the Next Generation of Assessment & Accountability Accountability Framework and A-F Rating System Expanded Measures of Student Achievement From Absolute Measures, to Progress Measures, to Attainment Measures Presentation for Instructional Leadership Network by Region One ESC Division of Instructional, School Improvement, and College Readiness Support October 27, 2016
49
Embed
Transition to the Next Generation of Assessment ......Transition to the Next Generation of Assessment & Accountability Accountability Framework and A-F Rating System Expanded Measures
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Transition to the Next Generation of Assessment & AccountabilityAccountability Framework and A-F Rating System
Expanded Measures of Student AchievementFrom Absolute Measures, to Progress Measures, to Attainment Measures
Presentation for Instructional Leadership Networkby
Region One ESC Division of Instructional, School Improvement, and College Readiness SupportOctober 27, 2016
Transition in Accountability to Align Instruction and Assessment
• Texas Assessment of Basic Skills (TABS)• The primary purpose of TABS was collection of school-level information through
assessment of basic skill competencies.
• Texas Assessment of Minimum Skills (TEAMS)• TEAMS focused on assessment of curriculum-specific minimum basic skills.
• Texas Assessment of Academic Skills (TAAS)• Emphasis of TAAS was on school accountability of student performance and included
content linked to the core curriculum Essential Elements also known as EE’s.
• Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS)• TAKS introduced a more rigorous accountability system aligned with the state-mandated
curriculum the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS).
• State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness (STAAR)• With the advent of STAAR, end-of-course assessments (SB 1031 in 2007) and grade 3-8
assessments (HB3 in 2009) were implemented in 2011-2012 having a greater emphasis onincreased rigor and stronger focus on college and career readiness.
Absolute Measure:Singular Measure for Accountability Rating
• School district/Campus ratings were dependent on a single area of weak performance instead of a more a comprehensive measurement of district performance.
• Districts and campuses must have met 25 separate assessment standards. This was informally known as “Death by Cell” as a District/Campus could have received an Academically Unacceptable rating if they failed to meet minimum expectations for one subgroup.
House Bill 2804: Implementation TimelineDate Activity
September 1, 2016 Texas Commission on Next Generation Assessments and Accountability prepares and delivers report to governor and legislature that recommends statutory changes to improve systems of student assessment and public school accountability.
December 1, 2016 Commissioner of Education must adopt a set of indicators to measure and evaluate school districts and campuses with AF ratings.
January 1, 2017 TEA must provide a report that shows the rating that each district and campus would have received for the 2015-2016 school year for each for the first four domains if the AF ratings had been in place that year.
August 15, 2018 Districts and campuses are assigned AF ratings beginning with the 2017-18 school year.
Domain I Model (Draft Discussion)(ATAC/APAC HB 2804 Requirements)
Weighted score of all grades and subject Tests at Satisfactory Standard and Final Level II Standard.
Generate weighted score.
Establish range of targets for letter grades of A-F
Assign letter grades
Compare weighted score results to weighted score outcomes for 40 campus in a comparison group. Those who are in the top quartile receive a one letter grade
bump (e.g. a B becomes an A, a C becomes a B, etc.).
Required Improvement Option for Letter Grades of D or F
• A required improvement option could exist for campuses and districts with a letter grade of C or D.
• The campus of district must have shown enough improvement to be able to meet a Level II Satisfactory Performance Standard of 90 percent in five years.
• Methodology:• Required Improvement: (2016 Level II SP – 2015 Level II SP)
• Actual Change: (Level II SP of 90 – 2015 Level II SP) / 5
1. Implement an individualized, integrated system of Texas designed state assessments using computerized-adaptive testing and instruction aligned with the state’s curriculum framework.
2. Allow the commissioner of education to approve locally developed writing assessments.
3. Support the continued streamlining of the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS).
4. Limit state testing to the readiness standards.
5. Add college-readiness assessments to the indicators of the state’s accountability system in Domain IV (Postsecondary Readiness) indicators and recommend appropriate available funding for a broader administration of college-readiness tests.
ResourcesDarling-Hammond, L. et al. (2009). Professional Learning in the Learning Profession: A Status Report on Teacher Development in the United States and Abroad. National Staff Development Council :Standard University
Dufour, R. (2016). Advocates for Professional Learning Communities Finding Common Ground in Education Reform. Solution Tree.
Dufour, R. When districts function as professional learning communities. Prakken Publications: Eddigest.com May 2012
Brown Easton, L. From Professional Development to Professional Learning. Phi Delta Kappan. Vol. 89, No 10 June 2008, pp 755-759, 761.
Hattie, J. A. C. (2009). Visual Learning A Synthesis of Over 800 Meta-Analyses Relating to Achievement. New York: Routledge:
Learning Forward (2012). Standards for Professional Learning. Oxford, OH: Author. Retrieved from: http://learningforward.org/standards/facilitator-guide#.Vw7OVJD2a1s
Little, J. W. (2006). Professional Community and Professional Development in the Learner-Centered School. Berkley: University of California.
ResourcesWaraksa, M. (2013). Measures [graphic]. With permission from the artist. For exclusive use on this slide show. www. michaelwaraksa.com
Curlyhaired Girl. Digital image. My English Corner. N.p., 02 Feb. 2012. Web. 09 Sept. 2016. <http://mycosysite.blogspot.com.es/2012_02_01_archive.html>.
M, Anatoly. Action Steps. Digital image. NancyWilson.com. N.p., 31 Jan. 2014. Web. 09 Sept. 2016. <http://nancynwilson.com/building-an-online-business-2/>.
A Question of Influence. Digital image. Wikispaces.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 17 Sept. 2016. <http://a-question-of-influence.wikispaces.com/what+makes+an+effective+leader>.
T-TESS Rubric. Digital image. Https://teachfortexas.org/. Texas Education Agency, 04 Aug. 2016. Web. 17 Sept. 2016.
Center for the Collaborative Classroom. (2016). Lesson Study Cycle. Digital image. Lesson Study Facilitators TOT Powerpoint.
Noel. Working Gears. Digital image. Lignux.com. N.p., 4 Dec. 2013. Web. 18 Sept. 2016. <https://lignux.com/aviso-por-mantenimiento-en-lignux-diciembre-2013/>.
Who Are You. Digital image. Leadership Freak. N.p., 14 May 2010. Web. 18 Sept. 2016. <https://leadershipfreak.wordpress.com/2010/05/14/who-are-you/>.
PiRK. Parachute De Secours De Type Coupole utilise en parapente. Digital image. Wikimedia.org. N.p., 30 June 2009. Web. 19 Sept. 2016. <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Parachute_coupole.svg>.