1 / 60

State Accountability System Update

State Accountability System Update. Texas Assessment Conference December 12, 2006. Shannon Housson & Nancy Rinehart TEA, Performance Reporting Division. Today’s Discussion will cover…. Accountability Calendars – 2006 and 2007 2006 Accountability Overview 2006 Ratings

kalia-fulton
Télécharger la présentation

State Accountability System 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 Accountability System Update Texas Assessment Conference December 12, 2006 Shannon Housson & Nancy Rinehart TEA, Performance Reporting Division

  2. Today’s Discussion will cover… • Accountability Calendars – 2006 and 2007 • 2006 Accountability Overview • 2006 Ratings • Gold Performance Acknowledgment Summary • Key Changes to 2005-06 AEIS Reports • 2005-06 Student Report Card Summary • 2007-08 Public Education Grant Program Summary • Preview of 2007 Standard Accountability Procedures • Reminders on Assessment Document Coding for 2007 • Preview of 2007 AEA Procedures and Indicators • TEASE Accountability • Accountability Resources

  3. Recent and Upcoming Events August 1 2006 Ratings release on TEA public website September 2007 AEA campus registration October 24 Final 2006 Ratings and GPA release on TEASE October 25 Final 2006 Ratings and GPA release on TEA public website November 9 2005-06 AEIS release on TEASE November 16 2005-06 AEIS release on TEA public website December 7 2005-06 School Report Cards (SRCs) released December 8 2005-06 Pocket Edition published (web and print) December 12 2007-08 Public Education Grant (PEG) list released on TEASE

  4. 2007 Accountability Timeline January and Development of 2007 Accountability February 2007 System February 26-27 Educator Focus Group Meeting March 21 Commissioner’s Accountability Advisory Committee Meeting Early April Final Decisions Announced by Commissioner May/June2007 Accountability Manual posted online August 1 Release of 2007 Accountability Ratings September 2008 AEA campus registration

  5. 2006 Accountability Overview

  6. 2006 District Ratings by Category (Including Charter Operators)

  7. 2006 Campus Ratings by Category (Including Charter Campuses)

  8. Gold Performance Acknowledgment Overview • Gold Performance Acknowledgment (GPA) was created to publicly recognize districts and campuses for high performance on indicators that are in addition to those used to determine state accountability ratings. • Districts are eligible for a maximum of 12 possible GPAs. Campuses are eligible for a maximum of 14 possible GPAs.

  9. GPA Snapshot • Approximately 82% of the 1,136 districts and 82% of the 6,846 campuses evaluated for GPA earned one or more acknowledgments compared to 74% and 67%, respectively, in 2005. • A total of 1,198 campuses (18%) earned one acknowledgement, a total of 1,251 campuses (18%) earned two acknowledgements and a total of 1,159 campuses (17%) earned three acknowledgements.

  10. GPA Snapshot (cont.) • At the campus level the most frequent acknowledgments earned were commended on reading/ELA (36.4%), commended on mathematics (32.4%), and commended on writing (31.8%). • At the district level the most frequent acknowledgments earned were commended on writing (47.3%), commended on social studies (31.9%), recommended high school program (31.7%), and commended on reading/ELA (31.3%).

  11. Key Changes to the 2005-06 AEIS Reports • PBM Special Education Monitoring Results Status • Grade 8 Science • Multi-Year products on the Web • TAKS-I Results • Participation • ELL Progress Measure • TAAS/TASP Equivalency • College Readiness Indicators

  12. Key Changes to the 2005-06 AEIS Reports (cont.) PBM Special Education Monitoring Results Status • This new item replaces the former Special Education Compliance Status last reported on the 2002-03 AEIS reports. • Districts are assigned one of sixteen possible statuses, which are printed on the covers of the PDF versions of the AEIS district reports only. • No status is shown for districts not selected for intervention.

  13. Key Changes to the 2005-06 AEIS Reports (cont.) Grade 8 Science • Performance on the grade 8 science test will not be incorporated into the state accountability system until 2008, but is reported on the 2005-06 AEIS reports with the other grade 8 assessments. • Among the “summed across grades” TAKS results, grade 8 science is either included or excluded depending on the indicator.

  14. Key Changes to the 2005-06 AEIS Reports (cont.) Multi-Year Product on the Web • The multi-year product is a report of selected AEIS indicators (primarily indicators that are accountability base indicators) for multiple years.  • Reports are available for schools, districts, and the state (no region reports) in either HTML or PDF format.  • Multi-year reports exist for 1994-2002.  No multi-year product was posted in 2002-03, 2003-04, or 2004-05; but beginning this year, multi-year information for 2003 forward is added. 

  15. Key Changes to the 2005-06 AEIS Reports (cont.) TAKS-Inclusive (TAKS-I) Results • Results of TAKS-I summed across grades are shown by subject (i.e., ELA, mathematics, science, social studies). • In 2006 TAKS-I was assessed for these subjects and grades: • Science (grades 5, 8, 10, 11) • Science (grade 5 Spanish) • Social Studies (grades 8, 10, 11) • ELA (grade 11) • Mathematics (grade 11)

  16. Key Changes to the 2005-06 AEIS Reports (cont.) English Language Learner (ELL) Progress Measure • The RPTE measures are replaced with a new ELL Progress Measure. • Based on the commissioner's April 2006 final decisions. • Will be reported for two years before first possible use in the 2008 accountability ratings.

  17. Key Changes to the 2005-06 AEIS Reports (cont.) ELL Progress Measure (cont.) • The ELL Progress measure reports the percentage of current and monitored LEP students who met any of the following three criteria: • met the passing standard on the TAKS English reading/ELA test, • met the proficiency level on the RPTE based on years in U.S. schools for first-time RPTE testers, or • showed progress on the RPTE from the prior year.

  18. Key Changes to the 2005-06 AEIS Reports (cont.) TAAS/TASP Equivalency • This indicator no longer exists and has been replaced with the Texas Success Initiative measures for ELA and mathematics.

  19. Key Changes to the 2005-06 AEIS Reports (cont.) College Readiness Indicators • Existing AEIS indicators related to college readiness have been grouped together on the 2005-06 AEIS reports under a new heading “College Readiness Indicators” • These indicators are: • Advanced Course/Dual Enrollment Completion • Recommended High School Program/Distinguished Achievement Program Graduates • AP/IB Results • Texas Success Initiative Higher Education Readiness Component • SAT/ACT Results

  20. 2005-06 School Report Card (SRC) Overview • A subset of the AEIS • Governed by its own statute (TEC 39.052) and Commissioner’s Rule (TAC 61.1021) • Intent is for this report to get to the homes of each child

  21. SRC District Responsibilities • Districts must provide SRCs to their campuses. • Must be disseminated to parents within six weeks after districts are notified by TEA. • The district winter break doesn’t count toward the six week period. • There are various ways to achieve the distribution requirements (see TAC 61.1021). • Supplemental materials are provided by TEA • Sample cover letters to parents (English and Spanish) • Definitions (English and, as soon as available, Spanish)

  22. 2007-08 Public Education Grant (PEG) Program Overview • A statutorily-mandated program of school choice (TEC Ch. 29, Subchapter G, 29.201-29.205). • Statute addresses campus identification, funding issues, and student eligibility issues. • PEG lists have been issued since September of 1995.

  23. PEG Criteria • Partially tied to accountability ratings, but not aligned with either the state system or AYP. • PEG criteria are tougher on the evaluation of TAKS results than the state standards currently are. • There is a 3 year moving time period, so even improved schools stay on the list if they were AU in any of the previous three years. • The number of campuses anticipated this year is expected to be greater than last year. Last year there were 821 schools identified.

  24. PEG District Responsibilities • Statute requires that districts notify parents of the 2007-08 list by February 1 of 2007. • List is based on ’04, ’05, and ’06 performance, but is in effect for the 2007-08 school year.

  25. Preview of 2007 Standard Accountability Procedures

  26. Preview of 2007 Standard Accountability TAKS • For 2007, the Academically Acceptable standards increase by 5 percentage points for all subjects—to 65% for Reading/ELA, Writing, and Social Studies; to 45% for Mathematics; and to 40% for Science. That same year, the standards for Recognized increase to 75% for all subjects.

  27. Preview of 2007 Standard Accountability (cont.) Commended Performance on TAKS • Beginning with ratings released in 2007, a label of “commended” will be appended to campus and district ratings if the campus or district also earns a GPA for at least 50% of the commended indicators on which the campus or district is evaluated. • A minimum of three of the five commended indicators must be evaluated; or if only two are evaluated, both must be acknowledged (2 out of 2).

  28. Preview of 2007 Standard Accountability (cont.) Commended Performance on TAKS (cont’d) • Only campuses and districts rated Academically Acceptable or higher are eligible to receive this additional label. Campuses and districts evaluated under AEA procedures are not eligible to receive this additional label.

  29. Preview of 2007 Standard Accountability (cont.) SDAA II • The standard for meeting ARD expectations will continue to be set locally, consistent with state statute. • SDAA II indicators will remain the same in 2007 as will their performance standards.

  30. Preview of 2007 Standard Accountability (cont.) TAKS-I • TAKS-I results will be used in the state accountability system for the first time in 2008. This follows the ‘report, report, use’ mechanism for phasing in new assessment results into the accountability system. This phase-in schedule means that only a portion of the TAKS-I results will be used for accountability in 2008. All TAKS-I grades and subjects will be used beginning in 2010.

  31. Preview of 2007 Standard Accountability (cont.) Incorporating TAKS Alternative (TAKS-Alt) • TAKS-Alt results will be reported but not used in the accountability system for two years beginning in 2008. Incorporating the 2% Assessment • The 2% test results will be reported but not used in the accountability system for two years beginning in 2008.

  32. Preview of 2007 Standard Accountability (cont.) Annual Dropout Rate • For 2007 only, a ‘hold harmless provision’ is added to the system, such that if the grade 7-8 annual dropout rate is the only indicator causing a district or campus to be Academically Unacceptable, then the campus or district is rated Academically Acceptable instead.

  33. Preview of 2007 Standard Accountability (cont.) Completion Rate (Grade 9 - 12) Indicator • The 2007 accountability year (class of 2006) is the first year the NCES dropout definition is used in the denominator of the completion rate calculation. Also, because of the definitional change to the denominator, Required Improvement cannot be used. Both these factors (the definitional change and the lack of an Required Improvement feature) increase the rigor of the completion rate in 2007.

  34. Preview of 2007 Standard Accountability (cont.) Underreported Students • Increase the rigor of the underreported students standard each year through the 2008 accountability ratings. For example, for 2007 any district that had more than 100 underreported students or greater than 1.5% underreported students could not be rated Exemplary or Recognized.

  35. Reminders on Assessment Document Coding for 2007

  36. SDAA II Answer Document Coding • Most SDAA II appeals in 2006 were due to problems with answer document coding. • Most of these appeals were cases where the campus or district left the achievement levels blank, which caused them to default to level three. • In 2006, these appeals were recommended to be granted if: • The district provided documentation showing that the intended achievement levels for the students in question were set well before testing; and, when compared to the actual achievement levels, the student (s) performance met or exceeded expectations. • A reasonable explanation for why the documents were improperly coded at the time of testing.

  37. 2006 SDAA II Appeal Decisions • SDAA II appeals recommended to be granted resulted in the campus/district receiving the next higher rating. • In some cases, the coding changes resulted in the district/campus receiving an accountability rating that is higher than the next higher rating. In these cases, the recommendation was to elevate the rating by only one level. • PBMAS indicators are evaluated for appeals related to SDAA II.

  38. Preview of 2007 AEA Procedures

  39. Charters Evaluated under AEA • Charter ratings are based on aggregate performance of the campuses operated by the charter. • Performance results of all students in the charter are included in the charter’s performance and used in determining the charter’s rating. • Charters rated under AEA procedures are evaluated on the same indicators as registered AECs.

  40. Charters Evaluated under AEA (cont.) • Charters that operate only registered AECs are evaluated under AEA procedures. • Charters that operate both standard campuses and registered AECs have the option to be evaluated under AEA procedures if at least 50% of the charter’s students are enrolled at registered AECs. TEA contacts the charter to obtain its preference. If a preference cannot be obtained, then the charter is evaluated under standard accountability procedures. If fewer than 50% of the charter’s students are enrolled at registered AECs, then the charter is evaluated under standard accountability procedures.

  41. AEA Campus Types • Two types of campuses have the option to register for evaluation under AEA procedures: • AECs of Choice – at-risk students enroll at AECs of Choice to expedite progress toward performing at grade level and high school completion. • Residential Facilities – education services are provided to students in residential programs and facilities operated under contract with the TYC, students in detention centers and correctional facilities registered with the TJPC, and students in private residential treatment centers. • AECs that choose not to register under AEA are evaluated under the standard accountability procedures.

  42. 2007 Registered AECs • A total of 472 AECs are registered for evaluation under 2007 AEA procedures. • A list of these campuses is on the AEA website at http://www.tea.state.tx.us/aea/. • Each registered AEC must meet the 70% at-risk registration criterion in order to receive an AEA rating on August 1, 2007.

  43. At-Risk Registration Criterion • Each registered AEC must have a minimum percentage of at-risk students enrolled on the AEC verified through current year PEIMS fall enrollment data in order to be evaluated under AEA procedures. • The at-risk criterion is 70% in 2007 and 75% in 2008 where it is expected to remain.

  44. At-Risk Registration Criterion (cont.) • Two safeguards have been incorporated for those AECs that are below the at-risk requirement. • Prior-Year PEIMS At-Risk Data Safeguard: If a registered AEC does not meet the at-risk criterion in the current year, then it remains under AEA if the AEC meets the at-risk criterion in the prior year.For example, an AEC with an at-risk enrollment of 65% in 2007 and 70% in 2006 remains registered in 2007.

  45. At-Risk Registration Criterion (cont.) • New Campus Safeguard: If a newcampus is registered for evaluation under AEA procedures, then the AEC is not required to meet the at-risk criterion in its first year of operation.  This safeguard provides an accommodation for new campuses with no prior-year data.

  46. At-Risk Registration Criterion (cont.) • In April 2007, letters will be mailed to the AECs that did not meet the 2007 at-risk registration criterion informing them that the AEC will shift from AEA to standard accountability and that the AEC will be evaluated under 2007 standard accountability procedures. • The Final 2007 Registered AEC list will be posted on the AEA website in May 2007. This list will contain the AECs that will receive a 2007 AEA rating. • A list of the charter operators that will be rated under 2007 AEA procedures will also be posted on the AEA website in May 2007.

  47. At-Risk Registration Criterion (cont.) • A State Compensatory Education Questions and Answers (Q and A) document is on the TEA website at: http://www.tea.state.tx.us/school.finance/audit/sce_presentation.html • This Q and A addresses proper coding of at-risk students.  Also, ESC Compensatory Education contacts can assist with at-risk questions.

  48. 2008 AEA Registration • The 2008 AEA campus registration process will be conducted electronically. Details will be included in the 2007Accountability Manual. • The 2008 AEA campus registration process will occur in September 2007.

  49. Attribution of Data to Registered AECs For 2007 accountability: • Campus accountability subset determines attribution of AEC test data. Only test results for students enrolled on the same campus on the PEIMS enrollment snapshot date (the last Friday in October) and on the testing data are included in the campus performance measure. Accountability subset does not apply to exit-level retests. • 2005-06 leaver data are attributed to the last campus of attendance. • The 85-day rule is phased out completely.

  50. 2007 AEA Standards • TAKS Progress indicator increases to 45%. • SDAA II indicator increases to 45%. • Completion Rate II (includes GED recipients) indicator remains 75.0%. • Annual Dropout Rate (Grades 7-12) indicator remains 10.0%.

More Related