PowerPoint

Report
1
State and Federal Accountability Update
2012 Association for Compensatory Educators of Texas
(ACET) Conference
April 11, 2012
Shannon Housson
Ester Regalado
Division of Performance Reporting
Texas Education Agency
2
2012 Accountability
2012 Accountability
3

No State Accountability Ratings

2012 AYP evaluations and 2012-13 SIP statuses will
be released in early August 2012.
2012 AYP
4
2012 AYP Timeline
May/June
Expected USDE approval of requested
amendments to the 2012 Texas AYP
Workbook.
Thursday,
May 24, 2012
TETN Session on Federal AYP Cap
(Event #4851) for ESCs and Districts
May 22 –
June 22, 2012
Campus Priority List for the 2% Federal
Cap available online
2012 AYP
5
2012 AYP Timeline
June
2012 AYP Guide released
Last Week of
July
TEASE release of Preliminary 2012 AYP
Data Tables without AYP/SIP labels for all
districts and campuses.
First Week of
August
Public release of Preliminary 2012
AYP/SIP statuses for all districts and
campuses.
2012 AYP
6
2012 AYP Timeline
First Week of
September
Appeals and Federal Cap Exceptions
Deadline.
November/
December
Final 2012 AYP Status released.
Preview of NCLB Report Card (Part I
only)
January
Public release of the
2011-12 NCLB Report Card.
2012 AYP
7

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.
2012 AYP
8
Summary of Texas Amendment Requests

AYP Texas Workbook for 2012 AYP was submitted on
February, 15, 2012.

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.
2012 AYP
9
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.
2012 AYP
10
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.
 The STAAR Bridge Study for AYP was approved by
the USDE on February 17, 2012. The complete study
is posted online at
http://www.tea.state.tx.us/student.assessment/reports
2012 AYP
11
Summary of the Texas Amendment Requests

See Summary of Possible 2012 AYP Components
for 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
12
Overview of Accountability System
for 2013 and Beyond
House Bill (HB) 3 Accountability Provisions
13

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
House Bill (HB) 3 Accountability Provisions
14

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
Accountability System for 2013 and Beyond
15

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
New Accountability Indicators Considered
16

End-of-Course (EOC) cumulative scores for cohorts
of graduates

Four-, five-, and six-year graduation rates

Three-year average performance
New Frameworks Considered
17
Performance Index

Allows more indicators without more hurdles

Rating based on overall performance rather than
lowest performing area

Interventions focus on specific problem areas
New Frameworks Considered
18
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
New Rating Labels
19

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
New Progress Measures Developed
20

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)
New Student Groups
21

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
New Accountability Standards –
New Issues
22

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
23
2013 Accountability
Ratings
24
Based on:

STAAR Level II: Satisfactory Academic Performance
(not Level III: Advanced Academic Performance)
student passing standard

TAKS grade 11 Met Standard
Ratings
25

Rating labels will be acceptable/satisfactory and
unacceptable/unsatisfactory only

Recognized and Exemplary ratings will not be
awarded in 2013
Data
26

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
Graduation/Dropout Rate Indicators
27

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)
Distinction Designations
28
Campus Academic Distinctions



Developed via committees
Reading/ELA and mathematics awarded in 2013
likely based on:
 Grades 3-8 STAAR advanced performance
 High school measures of college-readiness
other than EOC
Science and Social Studies will be phased in
Distinction Designations
29
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
Distinction Designations
30

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.
Alternative Education Accountability
(AEA) Options
31

No separate system

Same system for all in 2013, separate AEA
procedures in 2014

Same system, different standards and/or
growth measures
2013 and 2014 Accountability – Summary
32
(Campuses & Districts)
2014
STAAR Level II Performance


STAAR Level III Performance

TBD
STAAR Growth Measures

TBD
TBD

8/8
8/8
Not Awarded
Acceptable/
Unacceptable*
2013

Improvement Feature
Release Date Deadline
Distinction Designations
for Recognized &
Exemplary
(Campuses & Districts)
*
Labels to be determined.
STAAR Level III Performance
STAAR Growth Measures
Release Date Deadline
TBD
8/8
2013 and 2014 Accountability – Summary
33
Distinction Designations
for Academic
Achievement
(1 of 5 committees)
(Campuses Only)
2014

Not Awarded
Distinction Designations
for Top 25% in:
• Student Growth
• Closing Gaps
(Campuses Only)
2013
TBD
STAAR Level III Performance
(Gr. 3-8)
Reading/ELA & Mathematics Only


STAAR Growth Measures

TBD
Other College-Readiness HS
Indicators
Reading/ELA & Mathematics Only


Release Date Deadline
8/8
8/8
STAAR Level III Performance
STAAR Growth Measures
Release Date Deadline
8/8
34
Accountability Development Process
Development Calendar
35

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 decisions will be released by the commissioner in
March/April 2013
Website for Accountability Development
36

Post status reports, issue documents, presentations,
and advisory group recommendations.

Opportunity for structured input from broad
constituency

New web pages and FAQ added to Division of
Performance Reporting website at:
http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport/account/2013/index.html
Advisory Groups
37

Accountability Technical Advisory Committee (ATAC)

Accountability Policy Advisory Committee (APAC)
Advisory Groups – ATAC
38
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.
Advisory Groups – ATAC
39
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 with TEA staff.
Advisory Groups – ATAC and APAC
40
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.
AYP Resources
41





For more information on AYP, see the 2011 AYP Guide,
accessible at http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/ayp
Texas AYP Workbook, as of October 12, 2011, is located at
http://www.tea.state.tx.us/index4.aspx?id=2147497077
FAQs about AYP are located at
http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/ayp/faq/faq.html
USDE information is available at www.ed.gov/nclb/
Contact the Division of Performance Reporting by email
at [email protected] or phone at
(512) 463-9704.
Accountability Resources
42

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/

similar documents