1
Approaches to Implementing the 2% Cap for Adequate Yearly Progress
NCES Summer Data ConferenceWashington, DCJuly 2008
2
Nancy Stevens [email protected] of Assessment, Accountability, and Data QualityTexas Education Agency
Li-Chin Wu [email protected] of Performance ReportingTexas Education Agency
http://www.tea.state.tx.us/ayp/2008
3
Texas Before NCLBState Developed Alternative Assessment instructional level rather than enrolled grade level ARD committee set level and student performance standard about 7-8% of students
Locally Determined Alternate Assessments locally developed or selected tests fewer than 1% of students
4
Texas After NCLB All students included in state assessment program
Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS) Performance of all students evaluated against grade-
level achievement standards Federal cap limit on use of proficient results based
on alternate or modified achievement standards in AYP performance measures: 1% alternate achievement standards (TAKS-Alt) 2% modified achievement standards (TAKS-M)
5
Texas After NCLB (cont.) Student performance will be a greater factor
than the caps The caps will apply to a very small number of
all students tested 1% and 2% caps represent very high
standards
6
Goals for 2% Cap Students: promote appropriate assessment decisions for
students with disabilities
Statute: meet statutory requirements and intent
Validity: minimize unintended consequences
Equity: distribute “exceeders” and “keepers” across campuses fairly
Simplicity: understandable easy to replicate by school districts
Resources: staff and time
7
Incorporating School District Input During Policy Development Process
State solicits feedback on options State selects approach that more closely reflects local
decisions Before AYP Determinations
Districts set campus caps or prioritize campuses During AYP Determinations
Districts identify individual students whose proficient test scores are retained if cap 2% cap exceeded
8
Overall Design 1% cap
Did not have to be same approach as 2% cap Fewer options considered
By random assignment By disability category
9
Overall Design for 2% Cap One district-wide pool
Rules for selecting students from district pool Separate pools for each campus
Rules for assigning campus caps or ranking campuses
Rules for selecting students from campus pools
10
Campus Pools Option 1: Campus Cap Determine cap for each campus based on current
and/or historical proportion of district students: receiving special education services tested on alternate assessments proficient on alternate assessments
Rules for selecting “keepers/exceeders” if campus exceeds cap
Rules for allocating extra “spaces” if campus does not use all allowed under campus cap
11
Campus Pools Option 1:Campus Cap (cont.)
Pros Reflects local policy decisions Potentially rewards campuses that historically
and appropriately serve high number of students with disabilities
12
Campus Pools Option 1:Campus Cap (cont.)
Cons Potentially rewards campuses that over-
identify students for alternate assessment May encourage concentrating programs on
specific campuses or discourage mainstreaming in order to maintain campus cap
13
Campus Pools Option 1:Campus Cap (cont.)
Cons Slight variations in testing from year to year
may result in changes to campus cap
May be difficult to implement
Could result in the district missing AYP
14
Campus Pools Option 2: Campus Ranking Rank campuses Select proficient scores from highest ranked
campus first, going down the list until district cap limit is reached
Rules for selecting students from campus pool
15
Campus Pools Option 2:Campus Ranking (cont.)
Example: Strategic Campus Ranking Rank campuses strategically:
Highest stage identification for SIP Title I missed AYP in prior year Title I campus
16
Campus Pools Option 2:Campus Ranking (cont.)
Example: Strategic Campus Ranking (cont.)
Pros Balance perceived inequities in AYP
interventions (Title I vs. non-Title I campuses)
Simple to understand
17
Campus Pools Option 2:Campus Ranking (cont.)
Example: Strategic Campus Ranking (cont.)
Cons Reward campuses with performance problems Not consistent with intent of NCLB May not help top-ranked campuses Could result in the district missing AYP
18
Selection of Students for 2% Cap By Random Assignment By Test Score By Grade Level By Maximum Benefit
19
Selection of Students (cont.) District pool or separate campus pools
Significantly different outcomes Single or combined selection criteria
First or primary sort is greater factor in determining outcomes
Final unique sort as a tie-breaker
20
Selection of StudentsBy Random Assignment Students randomly selected up to the cap limit District or campus pools Does not need tie-breaker Can be used as final tie-breaker with other
methods
21
Selection of StudentsBy Random Assignment (cont.)
Pros Simple to understand Simple to implement for most districts Impartial over time No unintended policy consequences (cannot
be manipulated)
22
Selection of StudentsBy Random Assignment (cont.)
Cons Cannot be replicated by districts May not appear to be fair in any one year Does not provide any incentive – disconnect
between campus behavior and outcomes
23
Selection of Students By Test Performance Students sorted from lowest to highest test
score and “keepers” selected up to the cap limit
District or campus pools Can be used in conjunction with other criteria Needs a final tie-breaker
24
Selection of Students By Test Performance (cont.)Pros Encourages testing higher performing
students on the regular test Simple to understand Can be replicated by districts Simple to implement Most similar to method used in Texas with
SDAA/LDAA
25
Selection of Students By Test Performance (cont.)
Cons If implemented at the district level:
may be perceived as punitive toward campuses with strong instructional programs
may not result in fair distribution of “keepers” and “exceeders” across campuses
26
Selection of StudentsBy Grade Level Students sorted from highest to lowest grade
and “keepers” selected up to the cap limit District-level approach Needs to be used with at least one more
criteria
27
Selection of StudentsBy Grade Level (cont.)Pros Provides strong incentive for elementary schools to
focus instruction on maintaining grade-level proficiency and testing on regular grade-level assessment
Rewards high schools that have successfully accelerated instruction so that students previously instructed and tested below grade level are meeting grade-level modified academic achievement standards
28
Selection of StudentsBy Grade Level (cont.)Pros High schools, which are overrepresented among
campuses not meeting AYP, are least adversely affected by the cap
Simple to understand Can be replicated by districts Simple to implement
29
Selection of StudentsBy Grade Level (cont.)Cons Has appearance of being unfair to elementary
schools AYP results for elementary schools may be
adversely affected disproportionately Positive instructional incentives may be short-term May have unintended consequences long-term
30
Selection of StudentsBy Maximum Benefit Select proficient results from each campus
that will result in the maximum benefit for the campus Select number and type of students (student
groups) needed for the campus to meet AYP Campus-level approach Criteria for each campus based on need
31
Selection of StudentsBy Maximum Benefit (cont.)
Pros Potentially minimizes the number of
campuses that miss AYP solely due to selection criteria for the 2% cap
Uses state data processing capacity to select students that districts and campuses would likely select if 2% cap implemented locally
32
Selection of StudentsBy Maximum Benefit (cont.)
Cons Students included in the 2% cap will be
selected from student groups that do not meet the AYP standards
Selection based on campus need could result in the district missing AYP
33
Texas AYPCombination Method Campus Ranking
By campus type High School Combined Elementary/Secondary School Middle/Junior High School Elementary School
By grade (high to low) By percent special education (high to low)
34
Texas AYPCombination Method (cont.) Campus Ranking
Based on fall enrollment data District opportunity to modify campus ranking
35
Texas AYPCombination Method (cont.) Student Selection in 3 Stages
First by maximum benefit for campus (campus pool) From highest to lowest ranked campus Select students needed for campus to meet AYP Skip campuses that already meet AYP or will not
meet AYP for subject
36
Texas AYPCombination Method (cont.) Student Selection in 3 Stages (cont.)
Second by maximum benefit for district(district pool)
Third by random selection (district pool)
37
Texas AYPCombination Method (cont.) Pros
Campus ranking by grade level has many of the advantages of selecting students by grade level Provides incentive for elementary schools to focus
instruction on maintaining grade-level proficiency Rewards high schools that have successfully
accelerated instruction
38
Texas AYPCombination Method (cont.) Pros
District input before AYP determinations does not interfere with processing timelines Supports local policy decisions on selection of
appropriate tests for students with disabilities
39
Texas AYPCombination Method (cont.) Pros
Student selection uses state data processing capacity to provide maximum benefit to campuses in implementing 2% cap
Second selection for maximum benefit to district removes potential disadvantages of processes that focus on campuses
40
Texas AYPCombination Method (cont.) Cons
Benefits of ranking campuses by grade level may be short-term
District input into campus ranking resource intensive for little gain and potentially negates benefits of ranking by grade level
Disadvantages of selection by maximum benefit – students disproportionately selected from student groups that do not meet AYP
41
Example District - 2% Cap Scenario F: Campus 1 meets AYP *** Campus 2 missed AYP *** *** Campus 3 missed AYP *** Campus 4 meets AYP *** District missed AYP ***
Seven Student Groups: A - All B - African American H - Hispanic W - White E - Economically Disadvantaged S - Special Education L - LEP
Top Related