State and Federal Accountability Update

2012 Association for Compensatory Educators of Texas (ACET) Conference

April 11, 2012

Shannon HoussonEster Regalado

Division of Performance ReportingTexas Education Agency

1

2012 Accountability

2

2012 Accountability

No State Accountability Ratings

2012 AYP evaluations and 2012-13 SIP statuses will be released in early August 2012.

3

4

2012 AYP

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

5

2012 AYP

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.

6

2012 AYP

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

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.

7

2012 AYP

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.

8

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.

9

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.

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

10

2012 AYP

Summary of the Texas Amendment Requests

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

11

Overview of Accountability System for 2013 and Beyond

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

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)

20

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

21

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

22

2013 Accountability

23

Ratings

Based on:

STAAR Level II: Satisfactory Academic Performance (not Level III: Advanced Academic Performance) student passing standard

TAKS grade 11 Met Standard

24

Ratings

Rating labels will be acceptable/satisfactory and unacceptable/unsatisfactory only

Recognized and Exemplary ratings will not be awarded in 2013

25

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

26

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)

27

Distinction Designations

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

28

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

29

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.

30

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

31

2013 and 2014 Accountability – Summary

2013 2014

Acceptable/Unacceptable*

(Campuses & Districts)

STAAR Level II Performance

STAAR Level III Performance TBD

STAAR Growth Measures TBD

Improvement Feature TBD

Release Date Deadline 8/8 8/8

Distinction Designations for Recognized & Exemplary(Campuses & Districts)

STAAR Level III Performance

Not A

warded

STAAR Growth Measures TBD

Release Date Deadline 8/8

* Labels to be determined.

32

2013 and 2014 Accountability – Summary

2013 2014

Distinction Designations for Top 25% in:• Student Growth• Closing Gaps(Campuses Only)

STAAR Level III Performance

Not A

warded

STAAR Growth Measures TBD

Release Date Deadline 8/8

Distinction Designations for Academic Achievement (1 of 5 committees)(Campuses Only)

STAAR Level III Performance (Gr. 3-8)Reading/ELA & Mathematics Only

STAAR Growth Measures TBD

Other College-Readiness HS IndicatorsReading/ELA & Mathematics Only

Release Date Deadline 8/8 8/8

33

Accountability Development Process

34

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 decisions will be released by the commissioner in March/April 2013

35

Website for Accountability Development

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

36

Advisory Groups

Accountability Technical Advisory Committee (ATAC)

Accountability Policy Advisory Committee (APAC)

37

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.

38

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 with TEA staff.

39

Advisory Groups – ATAC and APAC

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.

40

AYP Resources

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 athttp://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 performance.reporting@tea.state.tx.us or phone at (512) 463-9704.

41

Accountability Resources

Division of Performance Reporting email performance.reporting@tea.state.tx.us

Division of Performance Reporting telephone number (512) 463-9704

ESC Accountability Contacts

Online at http://www.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport/

42