Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
2012 TASA Midwinter Conference
State and Federal Accountability Update
January 31, 2012
Criss Cloudt, Associate Commissioner, Assessment and AccountabilityShannon Housson, Director, Division of Performance Reporting
1
General Overview
2
House Bill (HB) 3 Accountability Provisions
Focus of district and campus performance is postsecondary readiness standards
Rigorous standards ensure that Texas performs among top ten states by 2020
Higher ratings are distinctions based on higher levels of student performance
3
House Bill (HB) 3 Accountability Provisions
Campuses earn distinctions for student growth and closing achievement gaps
Campuses earn distinctions for excellence in areas other than state assessment results
Reports are relevant, meaningful, and easily accessible
State and federal accountability requirements are aligned to the extent possible
4
Accountability System for 2013 and Beyond
Legislation provides new flexibility as well as constraints
Every aspect of accountability system will be reevaluated
New system may look very different from current system, not just variation on former systems used in Texas
Seamless system of ratings – reporting – monitoring – interventions
5
New Accountability Indicators Considered
End-of-Course (EOC) cumulative scores for cohorts of graduates
Four-, five-, and six-year graduation rates
Three-year average performance
6
New Frameworks Considered
Performance Index
Allows more indicators without more hurdles
Rating based on overall performance rather than lowest performing area
Interventions focus on specific problem areas
7
New Frameworks Considered
Alignment of State/Federal Systems
Broad goals in common postsecondary readiness, student progress, closing performance gaps
Range of options Develop state system that meets federal
requirements – replace Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) with new state system
Separate AYP as component of state system
8
New Rating Labels
Statutory labels removed
Separate district ratings from elementary, middle, and high schools are possible
Multiple degrees of acceptable/unacceptable statuses possible
Higher ratings based on postsecondary ready
Separate ratings for status and growth possible
9
New Progress Measures Developed
Multiple measures developed for reporting
Accountability indicators that do not count failing students as passing
Required Improvement based on student growth measure possible
Campus distinction designations for growth to postsecondary ready
Closing performance gaps can be measured across achievement spectrum (scale scores or percentiles)
10
New Student Groups
New race/ethnicity student group definitions produce seven groups
Economically disadvantaged and non-economically disadvantaged in statute
Limited English proficient (LEP) and special education in AYP blueprint
Gap measures to evaluate student group performance
11
New Accountability Standards – New Issues
Phase-in of State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness (STAAR) assessments
Phase-in of student passing standard
Phase-in of graduation requirements
Percentiles or rankings versus accountability standards
12
Trade-offs That Must Be Balanced
Separate state/federal systems versus integrated accountability system
Rating overall performance versus specific problem areas
Absolute performance versus progress
Improve student performance versus closing gaps
Satisfactory versus advanced performance
Understandability versus measurement precision
14
Trade-offs That Must Be Balanced
State mandates versus local program flexibility
Where you are versus where you want to be
Same expectations for all versus diversity of student populations
Student test results versus other measures of success
Negative versus positive consequences
Student & parent versus state & school responsibility
15
2012 Accountability and Reporting
16
2011 Accountability
2011 AEIS Reports (released publicly November 17)
Final 2011 AYP Appeal Decisions (posted on TEASE on Dec.
5)
2012-13 Public Education Grant (PEG) list (posted on TEASE
on Dec. 1, released via TEA Correspondence on Dec. 8)
Final 2011 AYP Results (released publicly Dec. 9)
2011 School Report Card (available online Dec. 9)
2011 NCLB Report Card (released publicly Jan. 31, 2012)
17
2012 Accountability
No State Ratings
AYP Plan TAKS to STAAR Bridge Study was submitted to
the U.S. Department of Education (USDE) inDecember 2011.
AYP Texas Workbook for 2012 AYP will be submitted by February, 15, 2012.
18
2012 AYP
2012 AYP Performance Standards increase:
87% in Reading/English language arts
83% in Mathematics
Federal regulations require 2012 AYP graduation rate evaluations of All Students and every student group.
Participation Rate and Attendance Rate Indicator standards remain unchanged.
19
2012 AYP
Summary of Texas Amendment Requests
2012 references to Graduation Rate Goals and Targets (Sections 1.2 and 7.1)
Graduation Rate Goals and Targets will show constant targets for 2011 and 2012 AYP.
20
2012 AYP
Summary of Texas Amendment Requests
Evaluate 2012 AYP and School Improvement Program (SIP) statuses based on:
2011-12 TAKS results for grade 10, and
2011-12 STAAR results for grade 3-8 at the TAKS proficiency standard.
21
2012 AYP
Summary of the Texas Amendment Requests
In order to provide 2012 AYP results on a timely basis, Texas will use bridge studies that identify the existing TAKS performance standards on the new STAAR assessments for tests of grade 3–8 on which STAAR performance standards will not yet be available.
See Summary of Possible 2012 AYP Componentsfor detailed listing of TAKS and STAAR assessment results that will be evaluated for 2012 AYP at http://www.tea.state.tx.us/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=2147503684
22
2012 Reporting
Availability of data Leaver data
Class of 2011 graduation/completion/dropout rates and 2010-2011 annual dropout rates released June 2012
First year for rates with and without statutory exclusions
23
2012 Reporting
Availability of data
Assessment data – Student Assessment plans:
2012 EOC results with performance standards applied in June 2012
STAAR gr. 3-8 raw scores and distribution data in late spring 2012
STAAR gr. 3-8 with performance standards applied in late fall 2012
STAAR gr. 3-8 bridge study results on data file available late spring 2012
STAAR Modified and Alternate assessment results on same timeline
24
2012 Reporting
Snapshot and Pocket Edition will not be published beginning in 2011.
School Report Card (SRC) will not be published beginning in 2012.
Academic Excellence Indicator System (AEIS) reports will be modified to incorporate available TAKS and STAAR results.
25
2013 Accountability
26
Ratings
Based on:
STAAR Level II: Satisfactory Academic Performance (not Level III: Advanced Academic Performance) student passing standard
TAKS grade 11 Met Standard
27
Ratings
Rating labels will be acceptable/satisfactory and unacceptable/unsatisfactory only
Recognized and Exemplary ratings will not be awarded in 2013
28
Data
Growth measures not available for 2013 ratings
Multiple growth measures being developed for reporting
Accountability indicators that incorporate growth will be developed after 2013 results
29
Graduation/Dropout Rate Indicators
Class of 2012 graduation/completion/dropout rates and 2011-2012 annual dropout rates released June 2013
The first cohort to graduate under EOC are the grade 10 students in the 2012-13 school year (most have not taken English III, Algebra II, Physics, U.S. History)
30
Distinction Designations
Campus academic distinctions
Developed via committees Reading/ELA and mathematics awarded in 2013 likely
based on: Grade 3 - 8 STAAR advanced performance High school measures of college-readiness other
than EOC Science and Social Studies will be phased in
31
Distinction Designations
New areas for recognition
Developed via committees
21st Century Workforce Development Program scheduled to be awarded in 2013
Additional areas that will be phased in:
fine arts,
physical education, and
second language acquisition program
32
Distinction Designations
Additional distinctions for campuses based on top 25% in growth and closing performance gaps will not be awarded in 2013
These distinctions will likely be based on growth measures and the Level III: Advanced Academic Performance student passing standard that will not be evaluated until 2014.
33
2013 and 2014 Accountability – Summary
* Labels to be determined.
34
2013 and 2014 Accountability – Summary35
Accountability Development Issues
36
Grade-Level Assessments Versus EOC
Middle Schools – Avoid unintended consequences for students in EOC courses
Do not promote unnecessary duplicate testing
Do not penalize high schools for students who complete Algebra I (or other EOC assessments) in middle school
37
Grade-Level Assessments Versus EOC
High Schools – New issues
Students complete courses and assessments at different paces
Every student not tested every year
Some students take multiple tests in same subject
Cumulative score requirement lends itself to longitudinal indicators
Students can retake tests for any reason
First administration not always in spring
38
Use of Additional Features
Required Improvement over the prior year (required)
Average performance of the last three years (required)
Performance on 85 percent of the measures (optional)
Appropriate order of use of additional features to be determined
39
Number of Assessment Measures
5 subjects X 12 student groups
=
60 measures
Plus performance and growth
40
Performance Index
Combine performance across student groups by subject
Combine performance across subjects by student group
41
All-or-Nothing or Proportional
Need other approaches to reduce number of measures
Limit subjects for which student groups evaluated
Limit number of student groups evaluated for any one subject
Limit student groups evaluated
42
Combination Approach
Evaluate each subject, but not for every student group
Evaluate each student group, but aggregate across subjects
43
Alternative Education Accountability (AEA) Options
No separate system
Same system for all in 2013, separate AEA procedures in 2014
Same system, different standards and/or growth measures
44
Accountability Development Process
45
Development Calendar
Beginning of 18-month accountability system development process
First advisory committee meeting March 5 - 6, 2012
Advisory committees meet about every three months through February/March 2013
Final decision in March/April 2013 provides little advance notice before first ratings
46
Development Calendar
Parallel Calendars
AYP 2012 designations and accountability development
PBMAS 2012 analyses and accountability development for 2013 and beyond
Academic distinction designations
21st Century Workforce Development Program distinction designations
47
Website for Accountability Development
Post status reports, issue documents, and presentations
Opportunity for structured input from broad constituency
New web pages and FAQ to be added to Division of Performance Reporting website at:
http://www.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport/
48
Advisory Groups
Accountability Technical Advisory Committee (ATAC)
Accountability Policy Advisory Committee (APAC)
49
Advisory Groups – ATAC
Duties Consider complex, technical issues Work with TEA staff and national experts to develop
recommendations including: overall framework, integration of state and federal systems, assessment indicators, progress measures, completion indicators, student groups, minimum size criteria, alternative education accountability (AEA), and distinction designations.
50
Advisory Groups – ATAC
Expectations
Attend up to five meetings at TEA offices in Austin between March 2012 and spring 2013;
Actively and constructively participate during meetings;
Solicit input from peers within their geographic region;
Participate in at least one small work group that will meet between the ATAC meetings via video-conference with TEA staff.
51
Advisory Groups – ATAC
Process
The smaller work groups will present their proposals at the main ATAC meetings.
The ATAC committee’s final proposals will be reviewed by the Accountability Policy Advisory Committee (APAC).
The APAC will provide feedback on the ATAC proposals to the commissioner of education. The commissioner will make final accountability decisions in spring 2013.
52
Advisory Groups – APAC
Nominations for the APAC were requested from over twenty professional business and education associations.
Members of APAC include teachers, principals, program specialists, or superintendents in Texas public schools and education service centers; representatives of Texas colleges and universities; and business and community leaders.
Nominees were requested to represent the membership of each organization and also be knowledgeable about Texas’ public school accountability system.
53
Advisory Groups – ATAC and APAC
Timeline
March 5-6, 2012 – Initial advisory committee meeting will be joint meeting of APAC and ATAC.
March – May 2012 – ATAC work groups and second ATAC meeting.
June – August 2012 – ATAC work groups and third ATAC meeting.
September – November 2012 – ATAC work groups and fourth ATAC meeting. Fourth advisory committee meeting will be joint meeting of APAC and ATAC.
54
Advisory Groups – ATAC and APAC
Timeline
December 2012 – February 2013 – ATAC work groups and final ATAC meeting.
March 2013 – Final APAC meeting.
55
Accountability Resources
Division of Performance Reporting email [email protected]
Division of Performance Reporting telephone number (512) 463-9704
ESC Accountability Contacts
Online at http://www.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport/
56
