State Accountability System Update ACET Conference April 2006.

State Accountability System Update

ACET Conference

April 2006

Standard Accountability Procedures

TAKS

Student Passing Standard

The student passing standard will move to Panel Recommendation (PR) for the grade 11 test to complete the phase-in plan adopted by the SBOE in 2003.

Accountability Standards

The 2006 accountability standards were published in the 2005 Accountability Manual in June 2005 and final decisions were announced by the commissioner in September 2005.

TAKS (cont’d)


The Academically Acceptable standards will increase from 50% to 60% for reading/ELA, writing, and social studies; from 35% to 40% for mathematics; and, from 25% to 35% for science.

The standards for Recognized (for all subjects) and Exemplary (for all subjects) will remain the same, at 70% and 90%, respectively.

Under the alternative education accountability (AEA) procedures, the AEA: Academically Acceptable standard for the TAKS progress measure will remain the same as the 2005 standard (40%).

SDAA II

Student Passing Standard

The standard for meeting ARD expectations will continue to be set locally, consistent with state statute.


Standard will be unchanged from 2005.

Required Improvement

Required Improvement for SDAA II will be available for 2006 when analysis of gains made between 2005 and 2006 is possible.

Completion Rate I

GED Recipients

Beginning with the class of 2005 (students whose cohort entered 9th grade in 2001-02), only graduates and continuing students (students who return to school for a fifth year) will count as high school completers for the accountability completion rate


The standards for 2006 are held constant from 2005 while the definition of a completer is changing.

Annual Dropout Rate

The 2005 standard will be maintained for 2006 through 2008.

The minimum size criteria established in 2005 will be maintained; namely, for All Students, a minimum of 5 grade 7-8 dropouts, and at least 10 grade 7-8 students. For student groups a minimum of 5 grade 7-8 dropouts is required and the 30/10%/50 rule applies to the total number of grade 7-8 students.

Additional Features

The percent of underreported students that can prevent a district from being rated Exemplary or Recognized will decrease from 5.0% to 2.0%.

Gold Performance Acknowledgments

Texas Success Initiative

The Texas Success Initiative (TSI) will be used for the GPA in 2006 for the first time and will replace the TAAS/TASP equivalency indicator.

RHSP/DAP

The standards will increase for the RHSP/DAP indicator, from 60.0% in 2005 to 70.0% in 2006.

Other Topics for 2006 Accountability

Required Improvement (RI) remains as defined in the 2005 system for TAKS in 2006 and 2007. Maintain a floor for Recognized that is five points below the current year standard. There is no floor for gating up to Academically Acceptable.

The Exceptions Provision remains the same as for 2005.

Campuses rated AEA: Academically Unacceptable will not prevent a district from receiving a rating of Exemplary or Recognized.

Other Topics for 2006 Accountability (cont’d)

October 2005 and February 2006

Exit-level Testing

Currently, only the spring testing results for 11th grade exit-level testers are included in state accountability. Expand the inclusion of exit-level results to include the October exit level TAKS administrations of grade 11 first time testers, provided the students passed all tests during that administration and they are not represented in the April administration


TAKS-I

The TAKS-I results will be reported but not included in the state accountability base indicators used for district and campus ratings in 2006 and 2007.


Hurricanes Katrina and Rita

As announced in October, performance of students displaced by Hurricane Katrina and/or Hurricane Rita who are enrolled in Texas school districts in 2005-06 will not be included in the indicators used for district and campus 2006 state accountability ratings.


Hurricanes Katrina and Rita (cont’d)

Ratings will be evaluated differently for districts that were directly impacted by Hurricane Rita and were unable to open for extended periods of time. Districts directly impacted by Hurricane Rita are defined to be:

Districts that are located in a county designated by FEMA as a disaster area that qualifies for public assistance due to Hurricane Rita; and,

Districts that were closed for ten or more instructional days between September 21, 2005 and November 3, 2005.


Hurricanes Katrina and Rita (cont’d)

For identified districts and campuses, the accountability system will generate ratings using available data. If the 2006 ratings are not Academically Unacceptable and are equivalent to or better than the rating received in 2005, TEA will issue the new system-generated rating on August 1. For all others (meaning the 2006 rating is either Academically Unacceptable or lower than the rating received in 2005), TEA will issue a rating of Not Rated: Other on August 1.

Overview of 2006 Accountability Timelines

January- February Development of 2006 Accountability System

February 27-28Educator Focus Group Meeting

March 22 Commissioner’s Accountability Advisory Committee Meeting

April 4 Final Decisions Announced by Commissioner

End of May 2006 Accountability Manual posted online

August 1 Release of 2006 Accountability Ratings

Alternative Education Accountability (AEA) Procedures

Overview

AEA Campus Type

AEA: AcademicallyAcceptable

AEA: AcademicallyUnacceptable

AEA: Not Rated – Other

Total

AEC Of Choice 323 25 0 348

Residential Facility

69 6 1 76

Total 392 31 1 424

A total of 424 alternative education campuses (AECs) and 89 charter operators were evaluated under AEA procedures in 2005. The AEA ratings distributions are below.

Overview (cont’d)

2005 AEA Ratings – Charter Operators Total

AEA: Academically Acceptable 74

AEA: Academically Unacceptable 15

Total 89

A total of 466 AECs are registered for evaluation under 2006 AEA procedures. A list of these campuses is on the AEA website at http://www.tea.state.tx.us/aea/.

2006 AEA Standards

TAKS Progress Indicator will remain 40%.

SDAA II Indicator will remain 40%.

Completion Rate II (includes GED recipients) Indicator remains 75.0%.

Annual Dropout Rate (Gr 7-12) Indicator remains 10.0%.

Attribution of Data to Registered AECs

For 2006 accountability: Campus accountability subset determines attribution of AEC

test data.

2004-05 leaver data are attributed according to the 85-day rule for AECs that were registered for evaluation under AEA procedures in 2005.

2004-05 leaver data are attributed to the last campus of attendance for AECs that were not registered for evaluation under AEA procedures in 2005, but are registered in 2006.

As required in statute, DAEP and JJAEP data are attributed to the students’ home campus.

At-Risk Registration Criterion

An at-risk registration criterion will be phased in beginning in 2006.

Each registered AEC must have a minimum percentage of at-risk students enrolled on the AEC verified through current year PEIMS fall enrollment data in order to be evaluated under AEA procedures.

The at-risk criterion will begin at 65% in 2006 and increase by five percentage points each year until it reaches 75% in 2008 where it is expected to remain as described on the following page.

At-Risk Registration Criterion (cont’d)

2006 – 65% or higher at-risk student enrollment at the AEC



A safeguard will be incorporated for those AECs that are below the at-risk requirement (such as averaging the rate over multiple years).

Preview of 2007 Accountability

TAKS

For 2007, the Academically Acceptable standards increase by 5 percentage points for all subjects—to 65% for Reading/ELA, Writing, and Social Studies; to 45% for Mathematics; and to 40% for Science. That same year, the standards for Recognized increase to 75% for all subjects.

Preview of 2007 Accountability (cont’d)

Commended Performance on TAKS

Beginning with ratings released in 2007, a label of “commended” will be appended to campus and district ratings if the campus or district also earns a GPA for at least 50% of the commended indicators on which the campus or district is evaluated.

A minimum of three of the five commended indicators must be evaluated; or if only two are evaluated, both must be acknowledged (2 out of 2).


Commended Performance on TAKS (cont’d)

Only campuses and districts rated Academically Acceptable or higher are eligible to receive this additional label. Campuses and districts evaluated under AEA procedures are not eligible to receive this additional label.


SDAA II

SDAA II indicators will remain the same in 2007 as will their performance standards.

TAKS-I

TAKS-I results will be used in the state accountability system for the first time in 2008. This follows the ‘report, report, use’ mechanism for phasing in new assessment results into the accountability system. This phase-in schedule means that only a portion of the TAKS-I results will be used for accountability in 2008. All TAKS-I grades and subjects will be used beginning in 2010.


Incorporating TAKS Alternative (TAKS-Alt)

TAKS-Alt results will be reported but not used in the accountability system for two years beginning in 2008.

Incorporating the 2% Assessment

The 2% test results will be reported but not used in the accountability system for two years beginning in 2008.


Annual Dropout Rate

For 2007 only, add a Hold Harmless Provision to the system, such that if the grade 7-8 annual dropout rate is the only indicator causing a district or campus to be Academically Unacceptable, then the campus or district is rated Academically Acceptable instead.


Completion Rate (Grade 9 - 12) Indicator

The 2007 accountability year (class of 2006) is the first year the NCES dropout definition is used in the denominator of the completion rate calculation. Also, because of the definitional change to the denominator, RI cannot be used. Both these factors (the definitional change and the lack of an RI feature) increase the rigor of the completion rate in 2007.


Underreported Students

Increase the rigor of the underreported students standard each year through the 2008 accountability ratings. For example, for 2007 any district that had more than 100 underreported students or greater than 1.5% underreported students could not be rated Exemplary or Recognized.


ELL Progress Measure Definition

The ELL Progress measure will report the percentage of current and monitored LEP students who meet any of the following three criteria:

1) the student meets the passing standard on the TAKS English Reading/ELA test,

2) the student meets the proficiency level on the RPTE based on years in U.S. schools for first-time RPTE

testers, or

3) the student shows progress on the RPTE from the prior year.


ELL Progress Measure Definition (cont’d)

The ELL measure will be reported for two years (2005-06 and 2006-07) before being used for the first time in the 2008 accountability year.

Standards will be set during the 2007 accountability cycle (using 2006 results).

GPA Standards for 2007 and beyond

Keep the 2006 standards steady from 2007 to 2010 for the following indicators: Advanced Placement/International Baccalaureate results, attendance rate, and comparable improvement on Reading and Mathematics.

For advanced/dual enrollment course completion, the acknowledgment standard will increase to 30.0% in 2009.

For commended performance, increase the standard for each subject by 5 percentage points every other year beginning in 2007, resulting in an increase to 30% for 2009 and 2010.

GPA Standards for 2007 and beyond

For RHSP/DAP, increase the standard to 80.0% in 2007 and 2008, and to 85.0% in 2009 and 2010.

Keep the SAT/ACT indicator in the GPA system and maintain the current standard through 2008 and use only the Mathematics and Critical Reading scores on the new SAT.

The standard for the Texas Success Initiative in English Language Arts and Mathematics will remain at 50% in 2007 and increase by 5 percentage points each year thereafter until 2010.

Accountability Resources

Email the Division of Performance Reporting at [email protected].

Phone the Division of Performance Reporting at (512) 463-9704.

ESC Accountability Contacts.

State Accountability System Update ACET Conference April 2006.

Documents

Transcript of State Accountability System Update ACET Conference April 2006.