TETN Accountability Update Session

1. TETN Accountability Update Session August 18, 2011 Shannon Housson, Cathy Long, Nancy Rinehart TEA, Division of Performance Reporting

2. State Accountability Update

3. 2011 Ratings Highlights District Ratings by Rating Category (including Charter Operators)

4. 2011 Ratings Highlights Campus Ratings by Rating Category (including Charter Campuses)

5. Commended Performance The “Only” Reason for:

6. ELL Progress Indicator • Limited six campuses to AA that would have otherwise been RE or EX. • No districts were limited to AA due to this indicator.

7. Additional Features • Required Improvement (RI) - Districts • Under standard procedures, 82 districts used RI to achieve a higher rating. • 65 (79.3%) districts used RI to move to Recognized • 17 (20.7%) districts used RI to move to Academically Acceptable • A portion of these districts may have used other features for other measures.

8. Additional Features • Required Improvement (RI) - Campuses • Under standard procedures, 390 campuses used RI to achieve a higher rating. • 260 (66.7%) campuses moved to Recognized • 130(33.3%) campuses moved to Academically Acceptable • A portion of these campuses may have used other features for other measures.

9. Additional Features • Exceptions Provision (EP) - Districts • 222 districts applied the Exceptions Provision: • 64 moved to Academically Acceptable • 147 moved to Recognized • 11 moved to Exemplary • A portion of these districts may have used other features for other measures.

10. Additional Features • Exceptions Provision (EP) - Campuses • 1,361 campuses used the Exceptions Provision: • 371 applied one or more exceptions to move to Academically Acceptable • 765 applied one or more exceptions to move to Recognized • 225 applied one exception to move to Exemplary • A portion of these campuses may have used other features for other measures.

11. Additional Features Summary

12. AU Rating Reasons • Of the 76 Academically Unacceptable districts: • 61 due to TAKS only; • 7 due to Completion Rate I only; • 0 due to Annual Dropout Rate only; and • 8 due to a combination of base indicators. • Of the 518 Academically Unacceptable campuses: • 495 due to TAKS only; • 2 due to Completion Rate I only; • 5 due to Annual Dropout Rate only; and • 16 due to a combination of base indicators.

13. Race / Ethnicity • Federal Race/Ethnicity Provision • Students who are Two or More Races were evaluated in “All Students” and not among any of the individual racial student groups. • The Federal Race/Ethnicity Provision was applied to the following indicators in 2011 only: • State Accountability (Standard): TAKS Met Standard indicator • State Accountability (AEA): TAKS Progress indicator • AYP: Reading and Mathematics performance and participation indicators

14. Race / Ethnicity Federal Race/Ethnicity Provision Results

15. Appeals Process and Dates • Appeals deadline for both standard and alternative education accountability (AEA) procedures (postmarked) – August 12, 2011 • Appeals Panel meets – early October • Appeal decisions mailed to districts and posted on secure web – mid-October • Ratings change due to granted appeals will be published concurrent with Gold Performance Acknowledgment (GPA) release – late October.

16. Appeals Statistics (Preliminary) • About 200 registered appeals as of the deadline. • Represents about 130 different districts. • Almost 90% are for TAKS or Commended Performance. • Almost 60% are from AU or AEA: AU rated campuses/districts.

17. Alternative Education Accountability (AEA) Update

18. 2011 AEA Ratings Highlights Charter Operator AEA Ratings

19. 2011 AEA Ratings Highlights Campus AEA Ratings by Campus Type (including Charter Campuses)

20. AEA: AU Rating Reasons • Of the 12 AEA: Academically Unacceptable charter operators: • 4 due to TAKS Progress Indicator only; • 4 due to Completion Rate II only; • 2 due to Annual Dropout Rate only; and • 2 due to a combination of base indicators. • Of the 51 AEA: Academically Unacceptable campuses: • 41 due to TAKS Progress Indicator only; • 4 due to Completion Rate II only; • 3 due to Annual Dropout Rate only; and • 3 due to a combination of base indicators.

21. AEA Campus Registration • A new accountability system will be developed during the 2011–2012 school year and implemented in 2013. As a result, no state accountability ratings will be issued in 2012. • Decisions regarding evaluation of AECs under the new accountability system have yet to be determined.

22. House Bill (HB) 3 Update

23. HB 3 Implementation Advisory Groups under Department of Assessment and Accountability • “Policy” Advisory Committee • “Technical” Advisory Committee • Academic Distinction Designation Committee Other Distinction Designation Committees will be convened under the Division of Curriculum.

24. HB 3 Implementation “Policy” Advisory Committee • Advise the commissioner on major policy and design issues. • Provide input to the development process and feedback on the recommendations of the “Technical” Advisory Committee.

25. HB 3 Implementation “Technical” Advisory Committee • Advise on development of the system, including • assessment indicators and progress measures, • completion/graduation/dropout indicators, • student groups and minimum size criteria, • alternative education accountability, and • distinction designations. • This committee will consist of small working groups formed around specific topics that will meet with TEA staff between full committee meetings.

26. HB 3 Implementation Distinction Designation Committees • HB 3 requires campus Distinction Designations beginning in 2013. • Academic Distinction Designations (ELA, math, science or social studies) is 1 of 5 required areas. • The other four are: • Fine Arts • Physical Education • 21st Century Workforce Development; and, • Second Language acquisition.

27. HB 3 Implementation Academic Distinction Designation Committee • The commissioner will appoint approximately twelve members based on nominations each from the governor, lieutenant governor, and speaker of the house. • There are to be three professionals, three experts, three educators, and three community leaders. • Committee will advise and provide guidance on criteria and standards based on subject area expertise.

28. HB 3 Implementation Calendar Original calendar published in HB 3 Transition Plan has been delayed. The first advisory committee meetings are now scheduled for February, 2012 instead of the fall of 2011. • February 2012 - Joint meeting of “Policy” and “Technical” advisory committees • Additional meetings to be scheduled through 2012 and spring 2013.

29. HB 3 Implementation 2011 Legislation Regarding New Accountability System • HB 2135 states that performance on EOC assessments taken below grade 9 must be included in the middle or elementary school accountability indicator but does not prohibit use in the high school indicator. • How assessment results are used in accountability indicators will be determined by the commissioner during the 2011-2012 school year when the new accountability system for 2013 and beyond is developed.

30. TETN Accountability Update and Tentative Topics November 17 Accountability Ratings Update Gold Performance Acknowledgments (GPA) Academic Excellence Indicator System (AEIS) Public Education Grant (PEG) List 2010-11 NCLB Report Card The above session is from 1 p.m. to 3 p.m.

31. Accountability Resources • Email the Division of Performance Reporting at performance.reporting@tea.state.tx.us or call (512) 463-9704. • ESC Accountability Contacts • Online: • ACCT: http://www.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport/account/ • AEA: http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/aea/ • AYP: http://www.tea.state.tx.us/ayp/