1 / 72

State and Federal Accountability Update

State and Federal Accountability Update. 2011 and Beyond. 2011. State Accountability Rating System. 2011 Development Process. State accountability system is reviewed annually Educator Focus Group reviewed accountability topics for 2011

dick
Download Presentation

State and Federal Accountability Update

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. State and Federal AccountabilityUpdate 2011 and Beyond

  2. 2011 State Accountability Rating System

  3. 2011 Development Process State accountability system is reviewed annually • Educator Focus Group reviewed accountability topics for 2011 • Educator Focus Group proposal is presented to the Commissioner's Accountability Advisory Committee (CAAC) • CAAC endorses or recommends alternatives to the Educator Focus Group proposal

  4. 2011 Development Process State accountability system is reviewed annually • Recommendations from the CAAC are then forwarded to the Commissioner. • The Commissioner reviews the information from the following groups: • The CAAC • The Educator Focus Group • As well as comments received from any other interested parties And then….

  5. Commissioner of Education Final Decisions2011 Standard Procedures

  6. Significant Changes in 2011…….the TAKS Indicators

  7. Use of Texas Projection Measure • In 2011 use of the TPM in the state and federal accountability rating systems will be discontinued • TPM for TAKS and TAKS-M will not be available as an additional feature for any state accountability indicator • TAKS-Alt growth measure will not be included in the TAKS base indicator in 2011 • TPM for both TAKS and TAKS-M and the TAKS-Alt growth measure will not be included in the performance results used to calculate 2011 AYP status for districts or campuses

  8. Use of Texas Projection Measure • Rationale • July 8, 2010 letter presented several options for use of TPM in 2011….. The commissioner’s decision is to discontinue use of the TPM in state and federal accountability for 2011. • Why • TPM will be discontinued based on the lack of public support for the continued use of the measure • the unanimous vote against the use of test score projections during recent floor debate of the Texas House of Representatives on House Bill 500 • The commissioner does not want the TPM to continue to detract from the achievements of students and educators

  9. Inclusion of TAKS-M and TAKS Alternate Assessments • TAKS % Met Standard Indicator Definition • The results on TAKS, TAKS (Accommodated), TAKS-M and TAKS-Alt will be combined into a single TAKS indicator • All tested grades and subjects • Includes the 2nd administration of TAKS M • These assessments will also be included in the Commended Performance indicator as part of the TAKS base indicator • The 2011 TAKS student groups will be based on new federal race/ethnicity definitions

  10. Inclusion of TAKS-M and TAKS Alternate Assessments • RI will compare 2011 results using new race/ethnicity student groups to 2010 groups defined using the former race/ethnicity definitions. • The 2010 data will be rebuilt to include the TAKS-M and TAKS-Alt test results, as shown on the 2011 Preview Indicator on the 2010 AEIS reports

  11. Inclusion of TAKS-M and TAKS Alternate Assessments • Rationale: • The inclusion of the TAKS-M and TAKS-Alt results completes the inclusion of all special education students into the TAKS indicators used for state accountability. • This approach is similar to use of TAKS-M and TAKS-Alt results in AYP, except that in AYP the proficient results of these alternate assessments are subject to the 1% and 2% federal caps

  12. New Indicator Commended Performance Indicator • Districts and campuses will be required to meet the CP standard in order to achieve the Recognized or Exemplary ratings • Will be defined as the percent of students achieving the commended level • Will include the same test results as the TAKS % Met Standard indicator: TAKS, TAKS (Accommodated), TAKS-M and TAKS-Alt • Evaluated for Recognized and Exemplary ratings only: 15% standard for Recognized • 25% standard for Exemplary

  13. Commended Performance Indicator • Two subjects evaluated: • Reading/English Language Arts (ELA) • Mathematics • Two student groups evaluated: • All Students (regardless of size) • Economically Disadvantaged (if minimum size requirement is met • Additional Features will not be used for CP Indicator: • Required Improvement (RI)—not used • Exceptions Provision—not used

  14. Commended Performance Indicator • Rationale: • In anticipation of the more rigorous HB 3 requirements, districts and campuses will need to demonstrate performance at a higher level than Met Standard in order to achieve the Recognized or Exemplary ratings • Since Commended Performance is the best proxy available at this time for the more rigorous STAAR, evaluation of CP in 2011 will serve as an early warning for the use of college readiness standards that will be incorporated in the new accountability system in 2014.

  15. New Indicator ELL Progress Indicator • Campuses and districts must meet a 60% standard to attain a Recognized or Exemplary rating. • Requires 30 current and monitored limited English proficient (LEP) students tested to be evaluated. Individual race/ethnicity student groups and the Economically Disadvantaged student group are not evaluated. • Any LEP student who has a parent denial will be included in this calculation.

  16. ELL Progress Indicator Combines: • TAKS Reading/ELA in grades 3-11 in English (TAKS/TAKS (Accommodated)/TAKS-M) • TELPAS Reading component in grades 3-11 • If a student takes any combination of these tests, the best result is evaluated. • For more information: • Appendix H of the 2009-10 AEIS Glossary at http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport/aeis/2010/glossary.pdf • ELL FAQ at http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport/ell_faq.html

  17. ELL Progress Indicator • Additional Features: • ELL Required Improvement (RI) will be used • A district or campus can achieve a higher rating if improvement on this indicator is sufficient to meet the target in two years • No floor is required • Exceptions Provision will be used • floor of 55% (five points below the 60% standard)

  18. ELL Progress Indicator • Rationale: • Exceptions are intended to apply to new assessment measures, especially during their first year of use. • The indicator can be more challenging for some school types depending on the instructional model they offer to their LEP students. • The exception provision provides a safe harbor to schools that might otherwise feel pressure to alter their programs that are designed to demonstrate success over a longer timeframe.

  19. 2011 Standards for Assessment Indicators(TAKS % Met, Commended Performance, ELL Progress Indicator) Red numbers indicate changes from the prior year.

  20. TAKS Standards • Rationale: • Standards for 2011 will remain as previously published due to the increased rigor of the TAKS base indicator this year due to • the inclusion of TAKS-M and TAKS-Alt, • the addition of the ELL Progress indicator as a separate indicator , • and due to the inclusion of commended performance as an additional indicator

  21. Race / Ethnicity • Race/Ethnicity and Student Groups • The TAKS % Met Standard indicator, the Annual Dropout Rate indicator, and all Gold Performance Acknowledgments (GPA) indicators will use the new definitions in 2011. • The Completion Rate indicator will continue to use the former definitions. • The student groups will continue to be: • All Students • African American (new, federal definition) • Hispanic (new, federal definition) • White (new, federal definition) • Economically Disadvantaged

  22. Race / Ethnicity • Rationale: • No additional student groups beyond the five listed above are proposed to be added to the 2011 accountability system • The change in definition does not warrant either an increase or decrease in the number of hurdles possible for the last year of the rating system • Student groups will be revisited in 2012 for implementation of the new accountability system in 2013.

  23. Race / Ethnicity Provision • Students who are Two or More Races will be evaluated in “All Students” and not among any of the individual racial student groups • In prior years, at least a portion of these students would have been evaluated in either the African American or White student groups. • However, a new provision, the Federal Race/Ethnicity Provision, will be employed. The provision applies to: • TAKS Met Standard indicator only • 2011 only

  24. Race / Ethnicity Provision Not Hispanic • Selected students who are Two or More Races will be distributed into either the African American or White groups based on the information submitted on the 2009-10 TAKS answer documents for these same students under the former definitions. • Selected students are those multiracial students reporting both Black/African American and White racial categories. • If the recalculated African American and White student group performance rates allow the district or campus to achieve a higher rating, the higher rating will be assigned.

  25. Race / Ethnicity Provision • A message will appear on any campus or district accountability data table indicating the Federal Race/Ethnicity Provision was used. • Assessment results will not be changed. The official accountability data for the TAKS Met Standard indicator will be the data that does not include the multiracial students in the separate student groups. • Further details about the Federal Race/Ethnicity Provision will be outlined in the 2011 Accountability Manual.

  26. Race / Ethnicity Provision • Because districts and campuses will have the benefit of rating evaluations calculated under two student group options, no appeals related to the new race and ethnicity definitions will be considered for any indicator in 2011.

  27. Race / Ethnicity Provision • Rationale: • Race/ethnicity under the former definition will only be available for students that can be matched in the prior year • No prior-year information will be available for some students, such as grade 3 students or students who moved to the state during the 2010-11 school year • Application of the Federal Race/Ethnicity Provision aligns with similar plans for the federal AYP system.

  28. Completion Rate I • Under standard accountability procedures graduates and continuing students (students who return to school for a fifth year) count as high school completers • Beginning with the class of 2009 (2010 accountability) all years of the cohort use the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) dropout definition.

  29. Completion Rate I Accountability Standards

  30. Completion Rate I • The class of 2010 Completion Rates will continue to use race/ethnicity based on former definitions, unlike TAKS and Annual Dropout indicators • For the completion rate indicator, a student’s ethnicity is determined from the year of final status. • Continuers (students with a final status in year 5) will use race/ethnicity reported from the new collection • Students reported as Two or More Races in year 5 will be matched back to the prior year to obtain their previously reported ethnicities.

  31. Completion Rate I Changes • The change in calculation methodology for class of 2010, will create completion rates for • campuses with grade 9 and either grade 11 or 12 in both year 1 and year 5 or • campuses with grade 12 in both year 1 and year 5. • Rationale: • The change in calculation methodology will capture all campuses that would be included under the current rules for state and federal accountability plus those that meet the grade 12 criterion

  32. Completion Rate I Changes • Will not resume using district substitution values (DSV) for secondary campuses without completion data in 2011. • Change in the completion rate calculation methodology means more campuses will have their own rates, lessening the need for DSV. • Consistent with the treatment of similar situation under AYP procedures. • This issue of how to appropriately hold secondary campuses accountable for students’ completion options will be revisited during development of the 2013 accountability system

  33. Annual Dropout Rate The methodology for this indicator is the number of grade 7-8 students identified as dropouts divided by the number of grade 7-8 students who were in attendance at any time during the school year

  34. Annual Dropout Rate Standards Bold number indicates increased rigor from the prior year.

  35. Annual Dropout Rate Changes • The 2011 Annual Dropout Rate indicator (2009-10 dropouts) will be created using the federal race/ethnicity definitions. • The student groups will continue to be: • All Students • African American (new, federal definition) • Hispanic (new, federal definition) • White (new, federal definition) • Economically Disadvantaged • Students categorized as Two or More Races will not be part of any student group. Their dropout status will be evaluated as part of the All Students results only.

  36. Underreported Students • An underreported student is a student in grades 7-12 reported in enrollment or attendance in one school year that has not been accounted for through district records or TEA processing the next school year. • The rate is calculated by dividing the number of underreported students by the total number of grade 7-12 students served in the prior year.

  37. Underreported Students • Performance is evaluated for All Students only. • Districts cannot be rated Exemplary or Recognized if either the count or rate of underreported students exceeds the standard • evaluated if there are at least five underreported students and an underreported rate that is equal to or greater than 1.0%. • The Performance-Based Monitoring (PBM) Leaver Data Validation system will evaluate this indicator at a standard of 2.0% for the underreported rate in 2012

  38. Underreported Students Bold numbers indicate changes from the prior year. Performance-Based Monitoring (PBM) Leaver Data Validation system will continue to evaluate this indicator in 2011-12.

  39. Additional Features • Required Improvement (RI) • In 2011, RI will continue to be a feature of the system. • RI is available for four of the five base indicators: • TAKS % Met Standard • ELL Progress Indicator • Completion Rate I • Annual Dropout Rate (grades 7-8) • RI is not available for Commended Performance (CP).

  40. Additional Features • Exceptions Provision • In 2011, the Exceptions Provision will continue to be a feature of the system. • Use will be expanded to include the ELL Progress Indicator. • Will not be used for Commended Performance (CP), Annual Dropout Rate, and Completion Rate Indicators. • TAKS Met Standard indicator still determines the number of exceptions allowed. (ELL Progress Indicator does not add 1.) • The “look-up” table is unchanged.

  41. Additional Features • Exceptions Provision Floors • TAKS % Met Standard • Academically Acceptable floors will increase: • 55% for science • 60% for mathematics • Floors remain at 75% for Recognized and 85% for Exemplary. • ELL Progress • Floor is 55%

  42. Additional Features Safeguards • Combinations of additional features cannot be used together for one measure to elevate a rating more than one level. • Exceptions cannot be used for same measure for two consecutive years. • A campus or district using one or more exceptions must address performance on those measures in its campus or district improvement plan.

  43. Additional Features Summary of Additional Features by Indicator

  44. Gold Performance Acknowledgments (GPA) • Ten GPA indicators use TAKS performance: five TAKS Commended, two Texas Success Initiative (TSI), two Comparable Improvement (CI), & College-Ready Graduates. • These ten indicators will use the same definitional changes made to the TAKS % Met Standard with two exceptions: • The two TSI indicators will not include TAKS-M or TAKS-Alt because there is no (HERC) standard since students are not required to pass these tests to graduate. • The Comparable Improvement indicators will be based on TAKS, TAKS (Accommodated), and TAKS-M performance only. (TAKS-Alt will not be included.)

  45. Gold Performance Acknowledgments (GPA) • Standards remain stable for 14 of the 15 GPA indicators. Only the College-Ready Graduates standard will increase from 35% to 40%. • The GPA standard for each of the five commended performance subjects remains at 30%. • Unlike the CP (commended performance) base indicator, the GPA commended indicators evaluate all subjects and all student groups. • Can be acknowledged for CP yet not rated Exemplary or Recognized and vice versa.

  46. State Accountability Standards Texas Projection Measure (TPM) TAKS Acc – All grades, all subjects Vertical Scale Includes TAKS M and TAKS Alt *Com Perform R/M #ELL Progress

  47. Standard Accountability Decisions for 2011 Additional Indicators The 2011 standards are final as determined by the commissioner.

  48. Standard Accountability Decisions for 2011 and Beyond Completion Rate I, Annual Dropout Rate, and Underreported Students

  49. Commissioner of Education Final Decisions2011 Alternative Education Accountability System (AEA)

  50. Accountability Update - AEA • TAKS Progress Indicator • Texas Growth Index (TGI) - DISCONTINUED • Texas Projection Measure (TPM) – DISCONTINUED • Lack of public support and floor debate over HB 500 • Distraction from the achievements of students and teachers Page 1 of 6

More Related