TETN Accountability Update Session

August 18, 2011

Shannon Housson, Cathy Long, Nancy Rinehart

TEA, Division of Performance Reporting

State Accountability Update

3

2011 Ratings Highlights

District Ratings by Rating Category(including Charter Operators)

ACCOUNTABILITY RATING2011

Count Percent

Exemplary 61 5.0%

Recognized 422 34.4%

Academically Acceptable 655 53.3%

Standard Procedures 609 49.6%

AEA Procedures 46 3.7%

Academically Unacceptable 88 7.2%

Standard Procedures 76 6.2%

AEA Procedures 12 1.0%

Not Rated: Other 2 0.2%

Total 1,228 100%

4

2011 Ratings Highlights

ACCOUNTABILITY RATING2011

Count Percent

Exemplary 1,224 14.4%

Recognized 2,825 33.1%

Academically Acceptable 3,285 38.5%

Standard Procedures 2,892 33.9%

AEA Procedures 393 4.6%

Academically Unacceptable 569 6.7%

Standard Procedures 518 6.1%

AEA Procedures 51 0.6%

Not Rated: Other 623 7.3%

Not Rated: Data Integrity Issues 0 0.0%

Total 8,526 100%

Campus Ratings by Rating Category(including Charter Campuses)

Commended Performance

5

Limited to AA

Limited to RE

Total

Campuses 183 64 247

Districts 25 5 30

The “Only” Reason for:

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.

6

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.

Additional Features Summary

Districts Campuses

2008 2009 2010 2011 2008 2009 2010 2011

Any RI 106 141 378 82 521 747 1,514 390

Any EP 90 17 6 222 832 319 218 1,361

Any TPM

n/a 329 631 n/a n/a 2,543 3,841 n/a

11

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; and8 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; and16 due to a combination of base indicators.

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

13

Race / Ethnicity

Federal Race/Ethnicity ProvisionResults

14

AU to AA AA to RE RE to EX Total

Campuses 11 21 4 36

Districts 3 8 0 11

15

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.

Appeals Process and Dates

16

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.

Appeals Statistics (Preliminary)

Alternative Education Accountability (AEA) Update

18

2011 AEA Ratings Highlights

Accountability Rating Count

AEA: Academically Acceptable 46

AEA: Academically Unacceptable 12

AEA: Not Rated - Other 1

Total 59

Charter Operator AEA Ratings

19

2011 AEA Ratings Highlights

Accountability RatingAECs of Choice

ResidentialFacilities

Total AEA Campuses

AEA: Academically Acceptable 329 64 393

AEA: Academically Unacceptable 28 23 51

AEA: Not Rated - Other 2 5 7

Total 359 92 451

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; and2 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; and3 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.

House Bill (HB) 3 Update

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.

 

  23

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.

 

  

24

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.

 

  

25

HB 3 Implementation

Distinction Designation CommitteesHB 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.

 

  

26

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.

 

  27

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.

 

  

28

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.

 

  29

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) List2010-11 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/