Progress Update: Advisory Group on the Future of Texas State Accountability

1. Progress Update: Advisory Group on the Future of Texas State Accountability ESC-20 Members Dr. David Splitek, Superintendent, Lackland ISD Dr. Nabor F. Cortez, Jr., Superintendent, South San Antonio ISD Dr. Iris Amon, Assistant Superintendent, San Antonio ISD

2. Timeline • Educator Focus Group Meetings: Nov. 13-14, Dec. 11-12, Feb. 2-3 • Draft Recommendations to be reviewed by group: Jan. 19-23 • Commissioner’s preliminary decisions posted on TEA website for comment: Feb. 9-13 • Final accountability plan decisions announced: March 29-30 • Accountability manual published: May 2004 Education Service Center, Region 20

3. Guiding Principles of the Texas Accountability System • STUDENT PERFORMANCEThe system is first and foremost designed to improve student performance. • RECOGNITION OF DIVERSITYThe system is fair and recognizes diversity among schools and students. • SYSTEM STABILITY The system is stable and provides a realistic, practical timeline for measurement, data collection, planning, staff development, and reporting. • STATUTORY COMPLIANCEThe system is designed to comply with statutory requirements. Education Service Center, Region 20

4. Guiding Principles of the Texas Accountability System • APPROPRIATE CONSEQUENCESThe system sets reasonable standards for adequacy, identifies and publicly recognizes high levels of performance and performance improvement, and identifies schools with inadequate performance and provides assistance. • LOCAL PROGRAM FLEXIBILITYThe system allows for flexibility in the design of programs to meet the individual needs of students. • LOCAL RESPONSIBILITYThe system relies on local school districts to develop and implement local accountability systems that complement the state system. • PUBLIC'S RIGHT TO KNOWThe system supports the public's right to know levels of student performance in each school district and on each campus. Education Service Center, Region 20

5. Design Issues • Framework of a system • Interface with No Child Left Behind and Adequate Yearly Progress • Interface with school finance, data quality, and performance based monitoring Education Service Center, Region 20

6. Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills – Importance of “Hurdles” • Each time data is disaggregated to a new level, the number of campuses/districts that fail to meet standards increases. • With the Texas Assessment of Academic Skills (TAAS), schools had three subjects and four groups, or 12 indicators, for accountability (with the exception of the recent introduction of social studies). • Adding special education and limited English proficient students as groups and new subjects and grades tested increases the number of measures to 30. Education Service Center, Region 20

7. Methods of Addressing this Issue Favored by Committee • Examination of current group performance to determine needed improvement – TEA is running impact models. • Consideration of a “safe harbor” methodology and/or a proportional model • Consideration of a “proportional” model in which most, but not all, hurdles have to be met during a phase-in period. • Other models were outlined, but complexity was of concern to the committee. Education Service Center, Region 20

8. “Current thinking” of the committee in relationship to design • Combine English language arts and reading scores in the accountability system, reducing the number of measures to 25 • Count Grade 3 students who pass reading on the second administration as well as those in the first administration • Create a “phase-in” system for Grades 3 – 11, including all subjects • Consider the “Commended” level of student success under Gold Performance Acknowledgement Education Service Center, Region 20

9. Issues of Inclusion in the Testing System • Exclude students from accountability who move into the district and were not present on the PEIMS snapshot date, just as those who come from outside the district • Use the State Developed Alternative Assessment in tandem with TAKS to achieve a participation rate and possibly a performance rate Education Service Center, Region 20

10. Dropout, Leavers, and Completion Rate: Current Thinking • 2005–2006 PEIMS Data Standards will be released in March with new leaver reporting rules in compliance with federal standards. • Changes would occur prior to the release of data standards by reassigning GED recipients and Exit-Level TAAS failers from leavers to dropouts for 2005-2006 leavers, providing a consistent standard for the future. • The prior dropout definition could be reported by TEA to indicate the differences in the new system. Education Service Center, Region 20

11. Dropout, Leavers and Completion Rate: Current Thinking • For completion rate measure: create a one year phase in period • Recognition of issues in the standard setting process • Consider options regarding the alternative school definition and students in special education in this plan • Measure completion rate at both the campus and district level • High schools without a 9–12 configuration would be accountability for completion rate through the use of the district data Education Service Center, Region 20

12. Interface with No Child Left Behind and Adequate Yearly Progress Primary charge of the committee: • Improve the achievement of all students in the core subjects of the state curriculum • Increase the number of students who earn a high school diploma • Reduce the performance and high school completion gaps among student groups Adherence to federal legislation in forming a state system will be considered, but only as it serves these goals. Education Service Center, Region 20

13. Changes in AYP • Revised small numbers rule for participation • Extended testing window • Labeled the reason a school “Needs Improvement” – Performance or Participation or Both • Because of federal legislation, we will have to add a listening/comprehension/writing element to LEP testing. RPTE will probably be extended to grade 2. Grades K–1 (or higher) will receive an Observation Protocol to be completed for LEP students between March and May. This will be a classroom-based observation type of assessment. Education Service Center, Region 20

14. What is the most recent response of the federal government in regard to AYP? • “When measuring AYP, states and school districts have the flexibility to count the “proficient” and “advanced” scores of students with the most significant cognitive disabilities who take alternate assessments based on alternate achievement standards as long as the number of those proficient and advanced scores does not exceed one percent of all students in the grades tested (about nine percent of students with disabilities).” • 1% of SDAA and, perhaps, LDAA passers can be called “proficient” or “passers” for AYP – others would not be counted. Education Service Center, Region 20

15. Interface with School Finance, Data Quality, and Performance Based Monitoring • The Legislature is interested in a link between financial accountability and student performance–probably in terms of a growth indicator of some sort. • Conversations regarding linkage with performance based monitoring are scheduled for later sessions. • Data quality is of great importance in a new accountability system. Education Service Center, Region 20

16. Interface with Data Quality Options discussed: • When data quality is poor, the actual numerical rating could be reduced. • Poor data quality prevents the award of Recognized or Exemplary ratings. • Ratings could only be appealed if data quality standards are met. • Underreported leavers would be primary in this count. PID errors would be reported. Education Service Center, Region 20

17. Accountability and Attendance • From 1994–2000, attendance was a “base indicator” (it counted for rating). • For 2000–2001, attendance was an “extra acknowledgement”. • Since we are using attendance for a second measure for elementary and middle schools, it could be added to the “base indicator” calculation again. • As previously used, if attendance was the only indicator preventing a rating, it was “waived.” • Attendance could continue to be a Gold Performance Acknowledgement. Education Service Center, Region 20

18. Alternative Education Campuses • The previous state accountability system called for alternative campuses to use their own data and self-report. This method was too time-consuming and was subject to error. • Under NCLB, alternative campuses are held to the same standard as other campuses. • Our state accountability system could define passing standards differently for alternative campuses. For example, students who continue in school or receive a GED might be considered with “on time” graduates. Education Service Center, Region 20

19. Alternative Education Campuses (cont.) • The primary concern is for a student performance measure on these campuses that is not “self-report.” • Due to the rapid entrance and exit of students, most performance data has little meaning. • There is a desire to find a way to make alternative campuses accountable in a way that is truly represents tested students. Ideas are requested. Education Service Center, Region 20