History of
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
Sponsored Links
1 / 27

History of State Accountability 1994-2011 PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 100 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

History of State Accountability 1994-2011. Accountability Policy Advisory Committee (APAC) and Accountability Technical Advisory Committee (ATAC) | March 5, 2012. Texas Education Agency | Office of Assessment and Accountability Division of Performance Reporting.

Download Presentation

History of State Accountability 1994-2011

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


History of

State Accountability

1994-2011

Accountability Policy Advisory Committee (APAC) and

Accountability Technical Advisory Committee (ATAC)| March 5, 2012

Texas Education Agency | Office of Assessment and Accountability

Division of Performance Reporting


State Accountability Overview


State Accountability Overview

  • 1993 Texas legislature enacted statutes that mandated the creation of the Texas public school accountability system to rate districts and campuses.

  • 1994-2002

  • Based largely on Texas Assessment of Academic Skills (TAAS) results and Annual Dropout Rate indicators.

  • 2004-2011

  • spring performance on the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS) assessment,

  • Completion Rate I (graduates and continuers), and

  • Annual Dropout Rate for grades 7–8.


State Accountability Overview

  • District ratings in 2002 were carried to 2003, since ratings based on the TAKS program could not be created until 2004.

  • Coincidentally, 2003 was the first year of implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB). This statute required that Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) status was assigned to all districts and campuses for the first time in the summer of 2003.

  • Although state and federal accountability systems share many features and use similar data, there are significant differences.


State Accountability Overview

  • Campus and district rating criteria were the same. (Some additional requirements apply only to districts.)

  • Ratings were earned by meeting absolute standards or by demonstrating sufficient improvement toward the standard.

  • State statute required annual district and campus performance ratings with these labels:

  • Exemplary,

  • Recognized,

  • Academically Acceptable, and

  • Academically Unacceptable.


State Accountability Overview

  • Student groups were also evaluated. All evaluated groups must meet the criteria for a given rating category. Student groups were defined as:

  • All Students,

  • African American,

  • Hispanic,

  • White, and

  • Economically Disadvantaged


State Accountability Overview

  • Mobility Subset

  • Only the performance of students enrolled on the PEIMS fall “as-of” date were considered. This was referred to as the accountability subset. This adjustment was only applied to the assessment base indicator.


State Accountability Overview

  • Whenever possible, indicators were phased in by reporting for two years before applying in the third year.

  • During the three year “report, report, use” period, accountability standards were set. In the third year, the indicator became part of the rating or acknowledgment system.


State Accountability Overview

  • Additional Acknowledgments

  • Since 1994, acknowledgments were awarded for high performance on other indicators that did not affect accountability ratings, such as completion of advanced academic courses or participation and performance on college admissions tests.

  • GPA

  • In 2001, the Gold Performance Acknowledgments (GPA) system replaced the system of Additional Acknowledgments.


Additional Features

  • Three additional features were available to achieve ratings when absolute targets were not met:

  • Required Improvement (RI),

  • Texas Projection Measure (TPM), and

  • Exceptions Provision (EP).


Required Improvement (RI)

  • Required Improvement (RI) was a feature in the state accountability system from 1994 to 2011.

  • RI could elevate a rating to Academically Acceptable or Recognized, but could not elevate a rating to Exemplary.

  • To use RI to move a campus or district rating up a level, the campus or district must have shown, within two years, enough improvement on the deficient measure from the prior year to meet the current year accountability standard.

  • Unlike the following additional features, RI was applied to all three base indicators, not the TAKS indicator only.


Texas Projection Measure (TPM)

  • In 2009 and 2010, TPM was a means of elevating ratings in cases where neither the TAKS base indicator nor RI were sufficient to allow a campus or district to earn the next higher rating.

  • The TPM was an estimate of whether a student is likely to pass the TAKS assessment in the next high stakes grades of 5, 7 (writing only), 8, or 11.

  • With the addition of TPM, the state accountability rating system gave districts and campuses credit not only for students who passed but also for students who were on track to pass at a future grade.


Exceptions Provision (EP)

  • The Exceptions Provision had been a feature since 2004 and provided a mechanism to achieve the Academically Acceptable rating for new indicators or indicators that were phased in. This mechanism provided greater relief for larger campuses and districts serving more diverse student populations evaluated on more measures.

  • In 2008, the Exceptions Provision was expanded to achieve a Recognized or Exemplary rating.

  • Safeguards were applied to prevent overuse and misuse.

  • With the use of TPM, the use of exceptions decreased. With the discontinuation of TPM, use of exceptions increased.


2004-2010 System Evolution

  • The system gradually increased in rigor over time by:

  • changing indicator definitions,

  • increasing indicator targets, and

  • adding indicators.


2004-2010 System Evolution

  • Student passing standards on TAKS were phased in during 2004 and 2005 until the panel recommended student passing standards were fully achieved in 2006.

  • Grade 8 science results were included at the panel recommended standard beginning in 2008.

  • Performance of students served in special education were evaluated through the State-Developed Alternative Assessment (SDAA) indicator from 2004–2007.

  • In 2008, TAKS (Accommodated) tests for specific grades and subjects were evaluated. By 2010, TAKS (Accommodated) results for all grades and subjects were fully incorporated.


2004-2010 System Evolution

  • Academically Acceptable standards began increasing in 2006.

  • Mathematics and science standards increased five points every year between 2006 and 2011 reaching 65% and 60%, respectively, in 2011.

  • All other subjects achieved a 70% standard for Academically Acceptable by 2009.


2004-2010 System Evolution

  • Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS)

  • Student passing standards on TAKS increased in 2010 for certain grades and subjects due to the transition to the vertical scale for TAKS English grades 3–8 in reading and mathematics and for TAKS Spanish grades 3–5 in reading and mathematics.

  • Inclusion of more students occurred in the accountability system due to more students being tested over time (95.4% in 2004 and 98.5% in 2010).


2004-2010 System Evolution

  • Completion Rate

  • Completion Rate II (with GED recipients) was used as a base indicator for districts and campuses evaluated under the standard accountability procedures in 2004 and 2005.

  • Completion Rate I (without GED recipients) was used as the base indicator for the standard accountability procedures since 2006.

  • Completion rate standards remained constant during the phase-in of the NCES dropout definition:

  • 75.0% for Academically Acceptable,

  • 85.0% for Recognized, and

  • 95.0% for Exemplary.


2004-2010 System Evolution

  • Annual Dropout Rate

  • Phase-in of the NCES definition of a dropout for the Completion Rate indicator was complete in 2010 with all four years of the 2009 cohort based on the new dropout definition.

  • Annual dropout rate indicator standards for Academically Acceptable:

  • 2.0% to 1.0 % in 2005,

  • 2.0% in 2008 with the new NCES definition,

  • 1.8% in 2010, and

  • 1.6% in 2011.


2004-2010 System Evolution

  • School Leaver Provision (SLP)

  • For 2007 and 2008 ratings, the School Leaver Provision (SLP) was added to aid in the transition to the more rigorous National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) dropout definition.

  • Under SLP, the annual dropout rate, completion rate, and underreported students indicators could not be the sole cause for a lowered campus or district rating.

  • In 2009, the SLP was no longer applied to the completion, dropout, and underreported indicators.


2011 Significant Changes


2011 Significant Changes

  • TAKS–Modified (TAKS–M) and TAKS–Alternate (TAKS–Alt), alternate assessments, were combined with TAKS and TAKS (Accommodated) results in the TAKS base indicator.

  • The evaluation of performance at the Commended level was added for the two highest rating categories.

  • English Language Learners (ELL) Progress measure was added for the two highest rating categories.

  • Use of the Texas Projection Measure (TPM) was discontinued.


Alternative Education Accountability (AEA)


Overall Design of AEA Procedures

  • 2005-2011 AEA

  • Several characteristics of AEA campuses and districts affected many components of the accountability system.

  • AECs are smaller on average than standard campuses and have high mobility rates.

  • High mobility affects attribution of data and complicates evaluation of AEC data.

  • Education services are provided to students in residential programs and facilities operated under contract with the Texas Youth Commission (TYC), students in detention centers and correctional facilities that were registered with the Texas Juvenile Probation Commission (TJPC), and students in private residential treatment centers.


Overall Design of AEA Procedures

  • 2005-2011 AEA

  • During the development phase of AEA procedures, the degree of alignment with standard procedures was considered.

  • AEA Procedures were based on the following:

  • Procedures apply to AECs, not programs.

  • Procedures apply to AECs and charters dedicated to serving students at risk of dropping out of school.

  • Procedures apply only to AECs that qualified and registered for evaluation under AEA procedures.

  • Procedures do not apply to DAEPs or JJAEPs. Statutory intent requires that DAEP and JJAEP data be attributed to students’ home campuses.

  • Procedures do not apply to standard campuses, even if the campus primarily serves at-risk students.


Overall Design of AEA Procedures

  • As of 2011, the AEA procedures included these major components:

  • Rating labels – AEA: Academically Acceptable, AEA: Academically Unacceptable, AEA: Not Rated – Other, and AEA: Not Rated – Data Integrity Issues;

  • AEC registration criteria and requirements including an at-risk registration criterion;

  • Base Indicators – TAKS Progress, ELL Progress, Completion Rate II, and Annual Dropout Rate (grades 7-12);


Overall Design of AEA Procedures

  • Major components (continued):

  • Additional Features – Required Improvement and use of district at-risk data; and

  • AEA GPA recognized high performance on indicators other than those used to determine AEA ratings and were reported for AECs and charters rated AEA: Academically Acceptable.


  • Login