State and Federal Accountability Systems Update

1. State and Federal Accountability Systems Update Special Education Assessments TETNJanuary 5, 2011 Shannon Housson Ester Regalado TEA Performance Reporting Division

2. Session Topics • Preview of 2011 State Accountability Procedures • Preview of 2011 AEA Accountability Procedures • Update of 2011 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) • Update on HB 3 Implementation • Accountability Resources

3. Preview of 2011 Standard Accountability Procedures and Indicators

4. 2011 State Accountability Calendar Jan - Feb Accountability System Development – 2010 Review / 2011 Development March 3 - 4 Educator Focus Group Meeting Late March Commissioner’s Accountability Advisory Committee Early April Final decisions for 2011 announced by Commissioner Late May2011 Accountability Manual posted online July 29 2011 Accountability Ratings release

5. Standard Accountability Decisions for 2011 TAKS Indicator Numbers in bold indicate a change from the prior year.

6. Standard Accountability Decisions for 2011 (cont.)

7. Standard Accountability Decisions for 2011 (cont.) Completion Rate I, Annual Dropout Rate, and Underreported Students 7

8. Standard Accountability Decisions for 2011 • Commended Performance Indicator Requirements • In 2011, Commended Performance on TAKS reading/ELA and mathematics will be an additional indicator. • Recognized Standard. 15% commended on reading/ELA, and • 15% commended on mathematics • Exemplary Standard. 25% commended on reading/ELA, and • 25% commended on mathematics

9. Standard Accountability Decisions for 2011 • Commended Performance Indicator Requirements (cont.) • Student Groups. All Students (regardless of size) • Economically Disadvantaged (if minimum size criteria met) • RI and Exceptions. Neither RI nor Exceptions can be used with Commended Performance to attain a higher rating.

10. Standard Accountability Decisions for 2011 • Use of Texas Projection Measure (TPM) in 2011 • As stated in the July 8, 2010 letter from the commissioner to all district superintendents, proposals to be considered regarding the use of TPM in 2011 accountability include: • Suspension of the use of TPM for accountability ratings. • Continued use of TPM in state accountability, but only for districts that • elect to use it.

11. Standard Accountability Decisions for 2011 • Use of Texas Projection Measure (TPM) in 2011 • Modifications to the calculation of TPM and/or its use to include additional safeguards, such as: • applying performance floors, • counting each student who fails but is projected to pass as a fraction of a passer, • prohibiting TPM to be used for the same measure in a subsequent year, • limiting the number of measures for which TPM can be used in a given year, • and limiting which rating categories can use it.

12. English Language Learners (ELL) Progress Indicator • Standard Procedures for 2011 • The ELL Progress indicator standard is 60%. • It is evaluated only for Recognized and Exemplary ratings. • Only All Students are evaluated if meets minimum size • of 30 students. • Required Improvement (RI) and the Exception Provision will be applied

13. English Language Learners (ELL) Progress Indicator • AEA Procedures for 2011 • The ELL Progress indicator standard is 55%. • Required Improvement (RI) is calculated. • The All Students group is evaluated if the minimum size requirement is met. • The ELL Progress indicator cannot be the sole reason for an AEA: Academically Unacceptable rating.

14. English Language Learners (ELL) Progress Indicator • 2011 Preview of ELL Progress Indicator shown on 2009-10 AEIS Reports. • Campus column correlates to ‘All Students’ data to be evaluated if minimum size criteria are met (30 students). • For further information, the ELL Progress Indicator FAQ and Appendix H • of the 2009-10 AEIS Glossary are available online at the Resource link on the Performance Reporting website. • http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport/resources/index.html

15. Preview of 2011 AEA Procedures and Indicators

16. TAKS Progress Indicator • The TAKS Progress indicator standard increases from 50% to 55%. • TAKS-Modified and TAKS-Alternate results are combined with TAKS and TAKS (Accommodated) results to determine AEA ratings. • 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.

17. Completion Rate II and Annual Dropout Rate (Grades 7-12) Standards • The Annual Dropout Rate indicator standard remains 20.0%. • The Completion Rate II indicator standard remains 60.0%.

18. Update on 2011 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)

19. 2011 Preview • 2011 AYP performance standards increase to: • 80% in Reading/English language arts • 75% in Mathematics • Graduate Rate annual targets may not change;Participation/Attendance Rate Indicator standards remain unchanged. • Texas Projection Measure (TPM) will continue to be used; TPM for TAKS-Modified (TAKS-M) grades 3 and 6 will be phased in. • The 2% Federal Cap on TAKS-Modified (TAKS-M) will continue to include TAKS-M TPM values projected to meet the passing standard. 19

20. 2011 AYP Preview: Assessments * Students in their First Year in U. S. Schools are counted as participants, but excluded from the performance calculation. 20

21. 2011 AYP Preview: Assessments (cont.) * Students in their First Year in U.S. Schools are counted as participants, but excluded from the performance calculation. 21

22. Texas AYP Workbook • On January 15, 2010, TEA submitted a Graduation Rate information template for peer review containing proposed changes in the AYP graduation rate calculations, as required by the U.S. Department of Education. • On October 29, 2010, the U.S. Department of Education (USDE) provided final decisions in response to Texas workbook amendments http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/ayp/usde102910.pdf. • On November 15, 2010, the Title I Committee of Practitioners (COP) reviewed the recommended changes to the 2011 AYP Workbook. • TEA submitted 2011 amendment requests on December 21, 2010. 22

23. 2011 Texas AYP Workbook Requested Amendments to 2011 AYP Phase-in for the TAKS–M projection equations (TPM) • TPM projections are expected to be reported for TAKS–M reading and mathematics tests in school year 2010-2011 for grades 3 and 6. • The 2011 Federal Cap process will remain the same as 2010 AYP, with the addition of the TAKS-M TPM for grades 3 and 6. • Graduation Rate Annual Target • Request to hold the 2010 graduation rate targets constant for 2011 and 2012 AYP, since student group evaluations are required beginning in 2012. 23

24. 2012 Texas AYP Workbook Requested Amendments for 2012 AYP and Beyond • Carry forward 2011 AYP status for all campuses and districts and maintain School Improvement Program (SIP) intervention stages. • TEA will submit a larger proposal for AYP determinations for 2013 and beyond under the new STAAR assessment program. 24

25. Update on HB 3 Implementation

26. HB 3 Implementation House Bill 3 Transition Plan Posted online on Wednesday, December 1 at the following URL: http://www.tea.state.tx.us/student.assessment/hb3plan/

27. HB 3 Implementation Transition Plan Timelines through 2013 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).  By August 1, 2011 2011 ratings are the last ratings issued under the current accountability system. 2011-2012 Assignment of performance ratings are suspended for this school year. New academic accountability system is developed with input from advisory groups on the timelines specified in the transition plan.

28. HB 3 Transition Plan August 8, 2013 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 issued in 2010-2011 and 2012-2013 school years will be considered consecutive. 

29. HB 3 Implementation Transition Plans for 2014 August 8, 2014 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.

30. Features of the New Accountability System • Based on STAAR EOC and grades 3 – 8 assessments • Evaluation of college-ready performance as well as student proficiency • 2020 accountability goals: • Top 10 states in terms of college readiness • No significant achievement gaps among student groups

31. Features of the New Accountability System • Graduation/completion/dropout rates with new exclusions • Two rating levels – acceptable and unacceptable performance • Distinction designations • Higher ratings of Recognized and Exemplary for postsecondary/college readiness • Campus growth • Campus closing performance gaps • Five additional campus distinctions determined by committees

32. Features of the New Accountability System • The following additional features can be used to elevate the performance rating: • Required Improvement over the prior year; • Average performance of the last 3 years; or, • Performance on 85% of the measures meets the standard.

33. Campus Distinction Designations • Campus distinction on criteria developed by five committees for: • Academic achievement in ELA, mathematics, science, or social studies • Fine arts • Physical education • 21st century workforce development program • Second language acquisition program

34. Campus Distinction Designations Timelines • January 2011- Selection of distinction committee members finalized • 2011- 2012 - Four separate meetings of each distinction committee will occur. Internal and external reviews of distinction designation committee recommendations will also occur.  • May 2012 - Release of Commissioner’s Final Decisions on Distinction Designations • 2012-2013 - Collection of data • June 2013 - Determination of list of campuses that earned distinction designations. • August 2013 - Release of distinction designations.

35. State Accountability Resources • ESC Accountability Staff • Division of Performance ReportingPhone: (512) 463-9704Email:performance.reporting@tea.state.tx.us • 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

36. AYP Resources • SIP History WebsiteDistricts and campuses can view their Title I School Improvement Program (SIP) status history reports from 2003 through the present. See the AYP Guide for the appropriate year for descriptions of any of the AYP or SIP status labels shown. The SIP history reports are accessible at http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/ayp/index_multi.html. • TEA Security Environment (TEASE) Accountability Website access forms are available at: http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/webappaccess/AppRef.htm 36

37. AYP Resources (cont.) • For more information on AYP, see the 2010 AYP Guide, accessible at http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/ayp. • 2010 Texas AYP Workbook is accessible at http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/ayp/txworkbook10.pdf. • Frequently Asked Questions about AYP are available at http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/ayp/faq/faq.html. • U.S. Department of Education information is available at www.ed.gov/nclb/. • Contact the Division of Performance Reporting by email at performance.reporting@tea.state.tx.us, or phone at (512) 463-9704. 37