State &AYP Accountability

2009 Ratings Highlights District Ratings by Rating Category (including Charter Operators)

ACCOUNTABILITY RATING2009

Count Percent

Exemplary 117 9.5%

Recognized 459 37.2%

Academically Acceptable 561 45.4%

Standard Procedures 510 41.3%

AEA Procedures 51 4.1%

Academically Unacceptable 87 7.0%

Standard Procedures 70 5.7%

AEA Procedures 17 1.4%

Not Rated: Other 11 0.9%

Total 1,235 100%

2009 Ratings Highlights

ACCOUNTABILITY RATING2009

Count Percent

Exemplary 2,151 25.8%

Recognized 2,930 35.2%

Academically Acceptable 2,298 27.6%

Standard Procedures 1,895 22.8%

AEA Procedures 403 4.8%

Academically Unacceptable 270 3.2%

Standard Procedures 229 2.8%

AEA Procedures 41 0.5%

Not Rated: Other 672 8.1%

Not Rated: Data Integrity Issues 1 0.0%

Total 8,322 100%

Campus Ratings by Rating Category (including Charter Campuses)

2009 Ratings Highlights• Compared to the 2008 TAKS results, the 2009 statewide

performance on the TAKS was equal to or improved for all students and each student group in each subject area tested.

• Compared to the class of 2007, Completion Rate I for the class of 2008 improved for all students and for each student group. (first gains demonstrated since the class of 2003.)

• The state average grade 7-8 annual dropout rate improved from 0.4% to 0.3%.

4

All Students

African American

Hispanic White Economically Disadvantaged

Reading/ELA x x x x x

Mathematics x x x x x

Writing x x x x x

Science x x x x x

Social Studies x x x x x

Completion Rate x x x x x

Dropout Rate x x x x x

State Potential Measures - 35

All Students

African American

Hispanic White Eco Dis. Special Ed

LEP

Reading/ELA Performance

x x x x x x x

Reading/ELA Participation

x x x x x x x

Mathematics Performance

x x x x x x x

Mathematics Participation

x x x x x x x

Graduation/Attendance

x ! ! ! ! ! !

AYP Potential Measures - 29

! = Used for other measure

Additional Featuresfor TAKS Measures

*Only one feature can be used per measure; however, different features can be used for different measures.**Without TPM

State* AYP• Required Improvement (RI)**• Texas Projection Measure (TPM)• Exceptions Provision (EP)

• Performance Improvement/ Safe Harbor **

• Texas Projection Measure (TPM)

8

The TPM Impact on State RatingsTexas Projection Measure (TPM) - Campuses

Under standard procedures only, 2,543 campuses used TPM to achieve a higher rating.

355 used it to achieve Academically Acceptable

1,077 used it to achieve Recognized

1,111 used it to achieve Exemplary

A portion of these campuses may have used other features for other measures.

Vertical Scale Scores

VSS - TPM

• What do Vertical Scale Scores look like from 2008 to 2009?

• How do we emphasize the need to look at assessment results without TPM?

3rd Grade SSI• HB3 – Eliminates 3rd grade SSI requirements• What does that mean?

• http://www.tea.state.tx.us/index3.aspx?id=3230&menu_id3=793

TPM and SSIWhen a student takes a retest, the student’s best score from the primary administration or retest administrations will be used in the TPM.

Since scores from more than one subject area are used in the projection equations, whenever a student takes a retest, projections are made again in all subjects.

This means the evaluation of TPM values in the SSI grades cannot be made until after the last retest administration, if needed. Accountability processing will use the best TPM value, though any TPM used must be tied to a score code from a test version that is part of the accountability system.

Exceptions … or Not!

Exceptions Provision (EP) - Campuses

Of the 319 campuses that used the Exceptions Provision:

72 used one or more exceptions to achieve a rating of Academically Acceptable

96 used one or more exceptions to achieve a rating of Recognized

151 used one exception to achieve a rating of Exemplary

A portion of these campuses may have used other features for other measures.

Performance Standards Documents

• http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/student.assessment/scoring/pstandards/perfst09.pdf

Standard Accountability Decisions for 2009 through 2011

2009 2010 2011*

Exemplary ≥ 90% ≥ 90% ≥ 90%

Recognized ≥ 75% ≥ 80% ≥ 80%

Academically Acceptable

Reading/ELA ≥ 70% ≥ 70% ≥ 70%

Writing, Social Studies ≥ 70% ≥ 70% ≥ 70%

Mathematics ≥ 55% ≥ 60% ≥ 65%

Science ≥ 50% ≥ 55% ≥ 60%

* Standards for 2011 will be reviewed in 2010 and are subject to change.

Numbers in bold indicate a change from the prior year.

Besides changes in standards, ….

TAKS (Accommodated) 2010 2011

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 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)

Use Use

TAKS-Modified 2010 2011

All Subjects and Grades Report Use

Standard Accountability Decisions for 2009 through 2011

State AYP

Audience Poll• 1980-1981• 1985-1986• 1990-1991• 2002-2003

Where Have We Been? State Assessment Year Introduced Years in Operation

TABS 1980-1981 5Essential Elements– 1984-1985

TEAMS 1985-1986 5TAAS 1990-1991 12

TEKS – 1998-1999

TAKS 2002-2003 9

‘Replacement TAKS’ & EOC

2011-2012 ***********

HB3 - “Replacement TAKS” – 2011-2012• The agency shall develop assessment instruments

required under Subsection (a) in a manner that allows, to the extent practicable:(1) The score a student receives to provide reliable

information relating to a student ’s satisfactory performance for each performance standard under Section 39.0241; and

(2)An appropriate range of performances to serve as a valid indication of growth in student achievement.

• 9-12 - End-of-Course Exams• 3-8 - ‘Replacement TAKS’ which will align with

End-of-Course exams and the expectation for post-graduation preparation.

HB3 - “Replacement TAKS” – 2011-2012

TAKS-MState AYP

2010-2011 – Then what?

TAKS-AltState AYP

2010-2011 – Then what?

2009-2010 State Changes

2009-10 and Beyond — Student passing standards on reading and mathematics in grades 3-8 will be based on the new vertical scale. This conversion will increase the passing standard for some subjects and grades.

2008-09 AEIS Reports issued (TEASE) – early November

2009-10 list of Technical Assistance Team (TAT) campuses – early November (concurrent with AEIS TEASE release)

AEIS and TAT public releases – late November

2010-11 Public Education Grant (PEG) list (not applicable to charters or registered AECs) – mid-December

2008-09 School Report Cards – early December

2009 Remaining Calendar Items

2009 AYP State Summary Results

• Of those missing AYP, 52% (113) of districts and 6% (22) of campuses missed AYP solely due to the 1% and/or 2% federal caps in 2009. compared to 18% of districts and 1% of campuses in 2008.

• A total of 154 campuses missed the Mathematics Performance indicator, the largest category that failed to Meet AYP standards.

• The Texas Projection Measure (TPM) was used for 2009 AYP evaluations, and allowed 10% (126) of districts to Meet AYP that would have otherwise missed AYP; and 6% (528) of campuses.

2009 AYP Final Release Schedule

September 4thAppeals and Federal Cap Exceptions Deadline.

Early December

Final 2009 AYP Status released.

Preview of NCLB School Report Card (SRC) data, Part I only.

January, 2010 Public release of NCLB SRC.

2010 Preview: Assessments

* Students in their First Year in U. S. Schools are counted as participants, but excluded from the performance calculation.

2010 Reading/ELA Assessments

Participation95% Standard

Performance ( Accountability Subset)73% Standard

Total Students

Number Participating

Number Tested

Met Standard or TPM

TAKS Yes If participant If in the

Accountability subset

If standard is met or if projected to meet standard by TPM

TAKS(Accommodated)

Yes If participant If in the

Accountability subset

If standard is met or if projected to meet standard by TPM

TAKS-M /LAT TAKS-M *

Yes If participant If in the

Accountability subset

If standard is met(subject to 2% cap)

T B D

TAKS-Alt Yes If participant If in the

Accountability subset

If standard is met(subject to 1% cap)

No TPMavailable

TELPAS Reading*

YesNon-

ParticipantN/A Not Included Not included N/A

LAT version of TAKS*

Yes If participant If in the

Accountability subset

If standard is met or if projected to meet standard by TPM

2010 Preview: Assessments

* Students in their First Year in U. S. Schools are counted as participants, but excluded from the performance calculation.

2010 Mathematics AssessmentsParticipation95% Standard

Performance (Accountability Subset)67% Standard

Total Students

Number Participating

Number Tested

Met Standard or TPM

TAKS Yes If participant If in the

Accountability subset

If standard is met or if projected to meet standard by TPM

TAKS(Accommodated)

Yes If participant If in the

Accountability subset

If standard is met or if projected to meet standard by TPM

TAKS-M /LAT TAKS-M *

Yes If participant If in the

Accountability subset

If standard is met(subject to 2% cap)

TBD

TAKS-Alt Yes If participant If in the

Accountability subset

If standard is met(subject to 1% cap)

No TPMavailable

LAT version of TAKS*

Yes If participant If in the

Accountability subset

If standard is met or if projected to meet standard by TPM

2010 Preview: Use of TPM in AYPReview of AYP Performance Calculation

• Three steps for AYP Performance calculation:

1. AYP Proficiency Rate (without Growth)

2. Performance Improvement/Safe Harbor (without Growth)

3. AYP Performance Rate with Growth.

• AYP Performance Rate with Growth:

(Students who Met the Passing Standard +

Students predicted to meet the Standard)

Total Number of Students Tested

2010 Preview: Use of TPM in AYP

Phase-in for the TAKS–M projection equations (TPM)

• TPM projections are expected to be reported for TAKS–M tests in school year 2009-2010 for

Grade 4, 7, and 10

• The Federal Cap process will be reviewed to determine the application of 2% Federal Cap on student results that are projected to meet the passing standard based on the TPM.

• English Language Learners (ELL) Progress Measure -– Performance on this indicator will be reported again on the

2009-10 AEIS reports. It will incorporate progress made by students tested on the TELPAS reading test between the 2009 and 2010 administrations.

– Will be incorporated into the rating system as a separate indicator at the “All Students” level only, beginning with the 2011 ratings. Standards will be determined during the 2010 accountability cycle.

• TAKS-M and TAKS-Alt. Performance on these assessments for students with disabilities will be reported again on the 2009-10 AEIS reports.

2010 Preview: Report Only Measures

AYP Preview: Final Title I Regulations

Regulations directly related to AYP:

A Uniform, Comparable Graduation Rate

• Graduation Rate Goal, Targets, and AYP– Set a state graduation rate goal and requirement for

continuous improvement from the prior year toward meeting that goal, i.e. annual targets.

– Use for AYP decisions in 2010 AYP.

AYP Preview: Final Title I Regulations

Regulations directly related to AYP:

A Uniform, Comparable Graduation Rate

• Disaggregating Graduation Rate Data– Report the four-year adjusted cohort graduation rate or a

transitional graduation rate reported for school, district, and state levels by student groups prior to school year 2010–11;

– States report the four-year adjusted cohort graduation rate by the 2010–11 school year; and

– Use the cohort graduation rate by student group in 2012 AYP.

AYP Preview: 2010 Texas AYP Workbook

As required by federal regulation, Texas will develop a graduation rate goal and requirements for continuous improvement, i.e. annual targets, for the 2010 AYP Workbook.

Texas does not plan to request any further changes to the AYP calculation.

The Federal Cap process will be reviewed to determine the application of 2% Federal Cap on student results that are projected to meet the passing standard based on the TPM.

Any additional changes related to the Federal Cap process will be detailed in the 2010 AYP Guide.