State Accountability System Update TASA Midwinter Conference January 27, 2009 Cathy Long, Shannon Housson, and Nancy Rinehart TEA, Performance Reporting Division

2 Todays Topics 2008 Accountability Overview Preview of 2009 Standard Accountability Procedures Preview of 2009 AEA Procedures and Indicators TEASE Accountability Accountability Resources

2008 Accountability Overview

Ratings Highlights 2008 to 2007 Comparisons - Districts The percent of students enrolled in districts rated either Exemplary or Recognized increased substantially. 20.5% of total student enrollment in either Exemplary or Recognized districts in 2008, compared to 6.1% in State summary results are posted online at:

Ratings Highlights (cont.) 2008 to 2007 Comparisons - Campuses The percent of students enrolled in campuses rated either Exemplary or Recognized also increased substantially. 45.5% of total student enrollment in either Exemplary or Recognized campuses in 2008, compared to 35.6% in The 45.5% is split between Exemplary (12.0%) and Recognized (33.5%).

Ratings Highlights (cont.) Required Improvement - Campuses Under standard procedures, 521 campuses used RI to achieve a higher rating, compared to 360 in campuses moved to Recognized (13.3% of all Recognized campuses). 147 campuses moved to Academically Acceptable (4.7% of all Academically Acceptable campuses).

Ratings Highlights (cont.) Required Improvement - Districts Under standard procedures, 106 districts used RI to achieve a higher rating, compared to 37 in districts used RI to move to Recognized (26.2% of all Recognized districts). 20 districts used RI to move to Academically Acceptable (2.7% of all Academically Acceptable districts).

Ratings Highlights (cont.) Exceptions Provision – Overview Exceptions Provision was significantly modified in 2008 compared to prior years: available for Recognized and Exemplary ratings expanded from three to four for Academically Acceptable and Recognized ratings relaxed the minimum performance floors from five points to ten points below standard for mathematics and science.

Ratings Highlights (cont.) Exceptions Provision – Campuses 832 campuses increased their rating due to the Exceptions Provision, compared to 210 in campuses used campuses used 2 69 campuses used 3 8 campuses used 4

Ratings Highlights (cont.) Exceptions Provision – Campuses Of the 832 campuses that used the Exceptions Provision: 313 used one or more exceptions to achieve a rating of Academically Acceptable (10.1% of all Academically Acceptable campuses) ; 342 used one or more exceptions to achieve a rating of Recognized (12.1% of all Recognized campuses) ; 177 used one exception to achieve a rating of Exemplary (17.7% of all Exemplary campuses).

Ratings Highlights (cont.) Exceptions Provision - Districts 90 districts increased their rating due to the Exceptions Provision, compared to 31 in districts used 1 11 district used 2 2 districts used 3 1 district used 4

Ratings Highlights (cont.) Exceptions Provision - Districts Of the 90 districts that used the Exceptions Provision: 37 used one or more exceptions to achieve a rating of Academically Acceptable (4.9% of all Academically Acceptable districts) ; 45 used one or more exceptions to achieve a rating of Recognized (13.7% of all Recognized districts) ; 8 used one exception to achieve a rating of Exemplary (18.6% of all Exemplary districts).

Ratings Highlights (cont.) Exceptions Provision - Districts In 2008, 19 of the Recognized districts are large (10,000 or more enrolled) compared to only 2 districts of this size earning Recognized in Only 1 of the 19 large Recognized districts used an exception to achieve the Recognized rating. The Exceptions Provision will be examined by the accountability advisory groups in spring 2009 to determine whether modifications are needed.

Ratings Highlights (cont.) School Leaver Provision - District Impact (Standard Procedures) 3 districts and charters used the School Leaver Provision (SLP) due to the Annual Dropout Rate only. 80 districts and charters used the SLP due to the Completion Rate I only. 6 districts and charters used the SLP due to both Annual Dropout and Completion I Rates. 6 districts used the SLP due to excessive underreported students.

Ratings Highlights (cont.) School Leaver Provision - Campus Impact (Standard Procedures) 27 campuses used the SLP due to the Annual Dropout Rate only. 115 campuses used the SLP due to the Completion Rate I only. 0 campuses used the SLP due to both Annual Dropout and Completion Rate I.

16 Gold Performance Acknowledgments (GPA) Overview GPA was created to acknowledge districts and campuses for high performance on indicators that are in addition to those used to determine state accountability ratings. Districts are eligible for a maximum of 12 possible GPAs. Campuses are eligible for a maximum of 14 possible GPAs. Beginning in 2008, AEA GPA indicators acknowledge charters and AECs evaluated under AEA procedures for high performance. Lists of districts or schools by GPA categories or by any combination of acknowledgments are located at

Preview of 2009 Standard Accountability Procedures

Accountability Timeline Jan - Feb Accountability System Development – 2008 Review / 2009 and beyond Development February 26-27Educator Focus Group Meeting March 24Commissioners Accountability Advisory Committee ( CAAC ) Meeting AprilFinal decisions for 2009 and beyond announced by Commissioner Late May2009 Accountability Manual posted online July Accountability Ratings release Mid-September2010 AEA Campus Registration

19 Standard Accountability Decisions for 2009 and Beyond 2009 Final Decision 2010 * Recommended Exemplary 90% Recognized 75% 80% Academically Acceptable Reading/ELA 70% Writing, Social Studies 70% Mathematics 55% 60% Science 50% 55% * Standards for 2010 will be reviewed in 2009 and are subject to change. Numbers in bold indicate a change from the prior year. TAKS Indicator - Standards

20 Standard Accountability Decisions for 2009 and Beyond (cont.) TAKS (Accommodated) Science (grades 5, 8, 10, & 11) Science (grade 5 Spanish) Social Studies (grades 8, 10, & 11) English Language Arts (grade 11) Mathematics (grade 11) Use Reading/ELA (grades 3 – 10) Reading (grades 3 – 6 Spanish) Mathematics (grades 3 – 10) Mathematics (grades 3 – 6 Spanish) Writing (grades 4 & 7) Writing (grade 4 Spanish) Report in AEIS Only Use

21 Standard Accountability Decisions for 2009 and Beyond (cont.) Texas Projection Measure The 2009 accountability development process will review the possible use of the new student projection measure in the 2009 accountability system. Final decisions will be announced by the Commissioner in April 2009.

22 Standard Accountability Decisions for 2009 and Beyond (cont.) Texas Projection Measure TPM provides an estimate for how individual students are likely to perform in the next high-stakes grade (grades 5, 8, and 11) after receiving instruction in grade-level content. For example, students in grades 3 and 4 who take reading and mathematics TAKS, TAKS (Accommodated), or LAT TAKS will be projected to meet the passing standard in grade 5.

23 Standard Accountability Decisions for 2009 and Beyond (cont.) Texas Projection Measure Students 2009 Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS), TAKS (Accommodated), and LAT scores in both reading/English language arts and mathematics, along with the campus-level mean scores in the projection subject will be used to predict their performance in next high-stakes testing grade. For example, a students 2009 reading and mathematics TAKS scale score and the mean campus scale score in reading will be used to project the reading scale score for the student in the next high stakes grade level.

24 Standard Accountability Decisions for 2009 and Beyond (cont.) * Standards for 2010 are recommended and subject to change after the spring 2009 development cycle is completed. The School Leaver Provision (SLP) will no longer apply in 2009 accountability and beyond. Required Improvement - Continued use * Academically Acceptable 2.0% 1.8% Recognized 2.0% 1.8% Exemplary 2.0% 1.8% Annual Dropout Rate (Grades 7-8)

25 Standard Accountability Decisions for 2009 and Beyond (cont.) 2008 (Class of 2007) 2009* (Class of 2008) 2010* (Class of 2009) Academically Acceptable 75.0% Recognized 85.0% Exemplary 95.0% Completion Rate I Definition of a Completer Graduates + Continued HS Dropout Definition (used in denominator) Phase-in NCES Definition NCES Definition * Standards for 2009 and beyond are recommended and subject to change after the spring 2009 development cycle is completed. Completion Rate I (Grade 9-12) Indicator

26 Standard Accountability Decisions for 2009 and Beyond (cont.) School Leaver Provision will no longer be applicable in 2009 accountability and beyond. Required Improvement – Continued use Other options will be explored with advisory groups. Completion Rate I (Grade 9-12) Indicator (cont.)

27 Standard Accountability Decisions for 2009 and Beyond (cont.) Underreported Students The School Leaver Provision will no longer apply to underreported students. In 2009, the number and percent of underreported students that can prevent a district from being rated Exemplary or Recognized becomes more rigorous with greater than 5.0% or greater than 150 students (down from 200 students). Districts with fewer than 5 underreported students will not be evaluated on this indicator.

28 Standard Accountability Decisions for 2009 and Beyond (cont.) Hurricane Ike Provision Consider options for districts that were directly affected by Hurricane Ike similar to the Hurricane Rita provision during the school year. Consider options for districts serving students displaced by Hurricane Ike similar to the Hurricane Katrina/Rita provision, based on the PEIMS Crisis Code data collected in fall 2008.

29 Standard Accountability Decisions for 2009 and Beyond (cont.) Gold Performance Acknowledgments Planned increased standards in following GPA indicators: Advanced Course/Dual Enrollment Completion Commended Performance – Five Subject Areas Recommended High School Program/DAP Texas Success Initiative – Higher Education Readiness Component – English Language Arts and Mathematics Proposed Standards are outlined in Chapter 18 – Preview of 2009 and Beyond of the 2008 Accountability Manual.

30 Standard Accountability Decisions for 2009 and Beyond (cont.) Gold Performance Acknowledgments Comparable Improvement: Consider option to base CI calculations on the new vertical scale that will be reported beginning in spring New GPA Indicator: College-Ready Graduates Indicator Consider option to add a new GPA indicator that will acknowledge preparation for post-secondary success.

31 Standard Accountability Decisions for 2009 and Beyond (cont.) Development Topics for 2010 and Beyond Annual review of RI and Exceptions Provision TAKS Indicators and Standards Annual review of GPA Standards Completion/Dropout Indicators and Standards Schedule for Inclusion of ELL Progress Measure Schedule for Inclusion of TAKS-M/TAKS-Alt Transition Timeline from TAKS to EOC Assessments Transition to New Race/Ethnicity Codes

32 Select Committee on Accountability The 15-member Select Committee held public hearings across the state in 2008 to review the accountability system and make recommendations regarding how the system should be restructured. The Select Committee submitted their final report to the Legislature on December 1, It is available online at

Preview of 2009 AEA Procedures

AEA Overview Accountability Rating AEC of Choice Residential FacilityTotal AEA Enrollment AEA: Academically Acceptable ,880 AEA: Academically Unacceptable105152,374 AEA: Not Rated – Other110111,607 Total ,861 A total of 423 alternative education campuses (AECs) and 71 charter operators were evaluated under AEA procedures in Below is the AEA ratings distributions.

35 School Leaver Provision A School Leaver Provision (SLP) was included in the 2008 state accountability system, such that the leaver indicators (either alone or in combination) did not cause a lowered campus or district rating. For 2008 AEA ratings, if the Completion Rate II and/or Annual Dropout Rate indicator(s) were the only cause for an AEA: Academically Unacceptable rating, then the AEC or charter was assigned the AEA: Academically Acceptable label. Use of the SLP in 2009 and beyond will be reviewed with advisory groups in spring The SLP is scheduled to apply only to the AEA Annual Dropout Rate indicator in 2009.

36 School Leaver Provision (cont.) As a result of the SLP, a total of 65 AECs achieved the AEA: Academically Acceptable rating in o 19 AECs used the SLP for Annual Dropout Rate o 26 AECs used the SLP for the Completion Rate II o 20 AECs used the SLP for both the Annual Dropout Rate and Completion Rate II indicators A total of 30 charter operators used the SLP to achieve the AEA: Academically Acceptable rating in o 9 charters used the SLP for Annual Dropout Rate o 6 charters used the SLP for the Completion Rate II o 15 charters used the SLP for both the Annual Dropout Rate and Completion Rate II indicators

37 AEA Gold Performance Acknowledgments (GPA) Overview GPA was created to recognize districts and campuses for high performance on indicators that are in addition to those used to determine state accountability indicators. Beginning in 2008, AEA GPA indicators recognize charters and AECs evaluated under AEA procedures for high performance. Lists of districts or schools by GPA categories or by any combination of acknowledgments are located at

38 AEA GPA Overview (cont.) AEA campuses and charters were first evaluated on GPA indicators in Only the All Students group is evaluated; student groups are not evaluated separately. There are 12 AEA GPA indicators. The two Comparable Improvement indicators are not evaluated for AEA GPA. An Attendance Rate standard of 95.0% is applied to all AECs and charters under AEA GPA. The percentages of AECs and charters earning GPAs are smaller than their counterparts evaluated under standard procedures. Among AEA charters, the GPA earned most often is the RHSP/DAP (21.1%). The GPA earned most often by AECs is Attendance Rate (20.5%).

Registered AEC s The list of 2009 Registered AECs is available on the AEA website at Each registered AEC must meet the 75% at-risk registration criterion in order to receive an AEA rating on July 31, 2009.

40 At-Risk Registration Criterion In April 2009, letters will be mailed to the registered AECs that do not meet the 75% at-risk registration criterion informing them the AEC will shift from AEA to standard accountability and that the AEC will be evaluated under 2009 standard accountability procedures. The Final 2009 Registered AEC list will be posted on the AEA website in May This list will contain the AECs that will receive an AEA rating on July 31, A list of the charter operators that will be rated under 2009 AEA procedures will be posted on the AEA website in May 2009.

AEA Standards TAKS Progress indicator standard increases to 50%. Completion Rate II (including GED recipients) indicator standard remains 70.0%. Annual Dropout Rate (Grades 7-12) indicator standard is scheduled to remain 10.0%.

42 TEASE Accountability The TEASE Accountability secure website provides school districts and charters with performance-based monitoring analysis system (PBMAS) reports and state and federal accountability products, such as confidential unmasked data tables, summary tables, confidential student listings, data files, and other helpful accountability information. Each superintendent and charter school executive director should apply for access and may designate others in their district (and at the ESC) to also have access.

43 Accountability Resources ESC Accountability Staff Division of Performance Reporting Phone: (512) AEA Accountability Accountability Resources