warren roane mary kay gianoutsos humble isd warren roane mary kay gianoutsos humble isd best laid...

Warren RoaneMary Kay Gianoutsos

Humble ISD

Warren RoaneMary Kay Gianoutsos

Humble ISD

Best Laid Plans:EOC Projections,

Results and Consequences

Best Laid Plans:EOC Projections,

Results and Consequences

http://www.humbleisd.net/Page/38302

Brief HistoryProjections: Districts, Teachers, Students Results: Impact on Districts, Teachers,

Students Consequences: Districts, Teachers, Students

Outline

Voluntary EOC ca. 1994-1999Required EOC ca. 1999-2001

Required TAKS 2002-2011Voluntary EOC 2005-2010

Required EOC with 15% requirement 2012Suspended 15% requirement 2012, 2013Removed 15% requirement 2013Removed cumulative score 2013

Brief History of EOC Algebra

Brief History of EOC AlgebraFirst-Time Testers

27

45 4957 57

83 82

0

20

40

60

80

100

1996 2000 2005 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Raw Score

Pass rate

Legislation DecisionsSTAAR15% Moratorium on 15%

Live testsRelease of EOC resultsEOC to TAKS bridge studyEOC as part of 2013 Accountability

Timeline of EOC Events 2011-2013

Live TestsRelease of EOC resultsBridge Study Release

Spring 2012

EOC as part of 2013 AccountabilityAYP?Removal of 15%Removal of cumulative scoreSnapshot change-Summer to Spring testersRetesters count over multiple yearsReleased test items in 2012, 2013

Spring 2013

Mandatory SamplingData file (who will test)

Sending Receiving

Live testing mixed with mandatory sampling

Makeup testing

District Testing

Storing Student EOC Information:

Multiple Retakes Which Passing Standard? 4x4 Graduation Plan vs. HB 5 Students who took Algebra I out of state Field Test Results with Other Test Results

District Impact

Accelerated Instruction:

District required to provide for all students not achieving Level 2 on EOC

How to notify student in a timely manner? How can we remediate with students when we do

not yet receive detailed results? TEA: “Sufficient funding exists”

District Impact

District and State Results:Field Test 2010-2011

Campus Study: Projections from Field Test

District Curriculum Impact: Projections from the Field Test

EOC Math TAKS Math

Obj_score_math1

raw_score_math m_obj1 m_raw

EOC math

Obj_score_math1

Pearson Correlation

1 .793** .315** .503**

Sig. (2-tailed) 

.000 .000 .000

N 2035 1849 1559 1537

Obj_score_math7

N 243 243 242 240

raw_score_math

Pearson Correlation

.793** 1 .369** .582**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 

.000 .000

N 1849 1849 1374 1358

TAKS Math

m_obj1 Pearson Correlation

.315** .369** 1 .687**

m_raw Pearson Correlation

.503** .582** .687** 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 

N 1537 1358 3720 3720

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

District and State Results:EOC 2011-12 Raw Score

District and State Results:EOC 2011-12

State Humble

Students 333540 2880

Average Scale 3902 4022

Level I not min 9.8% 4.3%

Level I minimum 7.5% 4.3%

Level II 66.0% 68.6%

Level III 16.7% 22.7%

District and State Results:EOC 2012-13

17% 17% 23% 20%

82% 82%91% 86%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Texas 2012 Texas 2013 Humble 2012 Humble 2013

Level III

Level II

District Results:EOC 2012-13

9th grade 8th grade

Level II 2012 86.8% 99.4%

Level II 2013 78.4% 99.3%

Level III 2012 9.2% 46.3%

Level III 2013 5.9% 45.1%

District Results:EOC 2012-13

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

9th grade 2012 9th grade 2013 8th grade 2012 8th grade 2013

Level II

Level III

2012 District and State Results:Percent Met Standard TAKS, STAAR Bridge

Study (Raw Score 15)

9097.6 96.4 100

82.791.4 87.1

100

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

State (All) Humble (All) Humble (9th) Humble (8th)

TAKS

STAAR

State (all students) Failing TAKS 10% but 17.3 % below Level II

District (all students)Failing TAKS at 2.4% but 8.6% below Level II

District and State Results:EOC 2011-12 and TAKS 2012

District Results:EOC 2012-13

91%86%

50%45%

23% 20%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

All 2012 All 2013

Level II initial

Level II final

Level III

June 2013 © Moak, Casey and Associates 22Source: TEA, http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport/account/2013/index.html

Target = 50 Target = 5th Percentile

Target = 55 Target = 75

Index 1: All students 50% at Level IIIndex 2: Top 95% of campuses have

students that make progressIndex 3: Lowest 3 groups in 2012 are at

55% in 2013Index 4: Final Level 2+Grad>150

EOC Algebra and Accountability:In all 4 indices

EOC Algebra: part of Index 1,2,3,4MS Algebra success—eliminated HS success?

District and State Results:EOC 2013 and Accountability

Increased phase in standards New EOC teaching materials Accelerated instruction each time Accountability by class period Value-added model: teacher name to

student

Impact on Teachers

Level 2 Phase-in 2: 7 moreLevel 2 Phase-in Final: 14 more

Alg1 Level 2 Phase 1

Alg 1 Level 2 Phase 2

Alg1 2 Level 2 Final

Alg1 Level 3 0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Out of 54 Questions

Questions correct

June 2013 © Moak, Casey and Associates 27

Source: TEA - 2013 Accountability Manual

High stakes in middle school? Summer school/Accelerated instruction Additional testing Graduation type: 4x4 vs. HB 5

Impact on Students

AYP, State Accountability HS Math courses: how many, which? Money-Summer school/accelerated

instruction budget

Future Implications

Questions?

Contact information

Warren Roane, Director of Accountabilitywarren.roane@humble.k12.tx.us Mary Kay Gianoutsos, Assistant Director of Data

Qualitymarykay.gianoutsos@humble.k12.tx.us

Questions?

PowerPoint Informationhttp://www.humbleisd.net/Page/38302