Confronting the Complexities of School Accountability January 22, 2008
Background Information • Measures used in the state and federal accountability systems often overlap, but are not defined in precisely the same way leading to different and often confusing results. • Current system grades schools and districts on the lowest of as many as 36 different academic accountability measures.
Background Information • Current system does not distinguish well among large schools and districts (most of which are clustered at the acceptable level). • Overall performance on TAKS has improved, but state accountability ratings do not reflect this improvement.
Background Information • Current accountability system draws on assessments in nine grade levels and five subject areas. • Twenty-four indicators are related to district financial systems. • Texas has five years of experience with federal accountability system (AYP standards) • State stands ready to implement a fifth assessment system – HS EOC
Clarity in the Accountability System • Shift from TAAS to TAKS necessitated moving standards as schools and students adapted to a more challenging assessment. • Since first administered, both percentage of items students must answer correctly and number of students who must pass the test have increased. • One consequence of moving standards is the overall ratings do not demonstrate improved performance. • Since 2004, vast majority of districts have been acceptable in contrast to 2002 when 40 percent were either exemplary or recognized.
Accuracy in the Accountability System • In 2006-2007, no district with more than 8,000 students received an exemplary rating. • The largest 500 schools had less than 1 percent chance of receiving an exemplary rating and an 86 percent chance of receiving an acceptable rating. • The smallest 500 schools had a 9 percent chance of receiving an exemplary rating and a 50 percent chance of receiving an acceptable rating.
Accuracy in the Accountability System • Three quarters of low income students attend school in a district with more than 8,000 students, getting accountability right in larger districts is crucial. • The number of measures meeting the state’s minimum size criterion appears to be a strong predictor of the district rating. • In 2006-2007, all but one exemplary district were rated on fewer then 17 measures.
Accountability Standards 2008 and Beyond Implications for HEB
State Accountability Indicators • TAKS • Reading, grades 3-9; ELA, grades 10 (combined and evaluated as a single subject) • Writing, grades 4 and 7 • Mathematics, grades 3-10 • Science, grades 5,8,10 and 11
State Accountability Indicators • TAKS-A Combined with TAKS in the Following Grades and Subjects • ELA Grade 11 • Math Grade 11 • Science Grades 5, 8, 10 and 11 • Social Studies Grades 8, 10, and 11 • Completion Rate (grades 9-12) • Annual Dropout Rate (grades 7-8)
Accountability Special Education Students • State-Developed Alternative Assessment I (SDAA II) and locally determined alternative assessments (LDAAs) are no longer options under NCLB. • Program formerly known as TAKS-I has been expanded to all grades and subjects in which TAKS is administered and is now called TAKS (Accommodated) • TAKS-M is being implemented to fulfill the requirement of an alternate assessment based on modified academic achievement standards for certain students served by special education who meet the participation requirements.
Accountability Special Education Students • TAKS-Alternate (TAKS-Alt) • Online observation/documentation instrument • 3 state-selected essence statements • 3 teacher-selected essence statements • State-required rubric • Subject to 1% requirement
Alternative Assessments for Special Education Students • TAKS-A used in state accountability in 2008. • TAKS-Modified • Will be administered for the first time spring 2008, with the first possible use in the state accountability system in 2010. • TAKS-Alternate (TAKS-Alt) • Results will be reported for two years beginning with 2008, with the first possible use in the state accountability system in 2010.
State Accountability Interventions • Technical Assistance Team • Assigned if Academically Acceptable but campus would be rated Academically Unacceptable using accountability standards for subsequent years. • TAT serves as an early warning system, and TAT teams provide interventions that may prevent the campus from being rated Academically Unacceptable in subsequent years.
State Accountability Interventions • Campus Intervention Teams • Reconstitution • Campus Closure • Alternative Management • Oversight Appointments
AYP Accountability • Indicators for 2008 • TAKS (Reading/ELA/Mathematics) • SSI for Grade 3 Reading and Grade 5 Reading and Math • TAKS-Alternate • Reading Proficiency in English (TELPAS Reading) • LAT for Reading/ELA/Mathematics
AYP Accountability • Indicators • Reading/ELA,Math, and Graduation or Completion • Components • Performance, Participation • Measures • All students and Student Groups Meeting Minimum Size • Grades Evaluated • 3-8 and 10
AYP Accountability • Student Groups Evaluated for AYP Accountability • All Students • African American • Hispanic • White • Economically Disadvantaged • Special Education • Limited English Proficient
AYP Interventions • Campus, district, or state that is receiving Title I, Part A funds who fail to meet AYP for two consecutive years are subject to the following requirements: • Supplemental education services • School Choice • Corrective Actions
Implications for HEB • Demographic changes and increasing state and federal accountability standards will prove to be challenging for HEB in future years. • HEB will be assessed on more accountability measures in the future. • Performance of special education students will significantly impact future AEIS and AYP accountability ratings. • Current finance plan will prevent HEB from generating additional revenue needed to address instructional needs of at-risk students.
Responding to Accountability Challenges • Focus on five organizational practices: • Curriculum and Academic Goals • Staff Selection, Leadership, and Capacity Building • Instructional Programs, Practices, and Arrangements • Monitoring, Compilation, Analysis, and Use of Data • Recognition, Intervention, and Adjustment
Responding to Accountability Challenges • Curriculum and Academic Goals • Absolute clarity about what is to be taught and learned by grade level – pre-K – 12. • What is it that we expect all students to know and be able to do by grade and subject? • Principals and teachers understand the learning goals and understand that these goals are for ALLstudents and are non-negotiable.
Responding to Accountability Challenges • Staff Selection, Leadership and Capacity Building • Leaders and teachers are carefully selected and given professional development opportunities to make academic goals a reality for every learner in the system. • “Grow-Your-Own” program. • Majority of district’s recruiting efforts are focused internally.
Responding to Accountability Challenges • Strong Instructional Leaders: Selection • Selection practices ensure that new leaders are well matched to school needs and highly committed to school goals. • Candidates are carefully screened and required to demonstrate leadership skills. • Selection process involves both school- and district-level committees.
Responding to Accountability Challenges • Strong Instructional Leaders: Evaluation • Additional district processes enrich the state-mandated principal evaluation process. • Principals receive both formative and summative evaluations. • Local evaluation processes use student performance and growth as part of process. • Struggling principals receive every opportunity to “recover their footing and to grow as instructional leaders. • Principals who fail to improve are removed.
Responding to Accountability Challenges • Instructional Programs, Practices, and Arrangements • Instructional programs and resources used district-wide are selected based on scientifically based research. • Teachers are provided support to implement selected programs and resources. • Flexibility in the selection of instructional programs and resources may be granted to higher performing schools as long as student performance is sustained.
Responding to Accountability Challenges • Monitoring, Compilation, Analysis, and Use of Data • District benchmark assessments, aligned with the district curriculum and state standards, supplement state and standardized tests. • District benchmark assessments provide consistent, reliable, and pertinent data to staff about student performance early and often. • Assessment data are disaggregated by school, teacher, and ethnicity.
Responding to Accountability Challenges • Monitoring, Compilation, Analysis, and Use of Data • District staff ensure principals and teachers have necessary skills to use assessment data. • Superintendents and/or district leaders regularly discuss the results of all student performance data with principals.
Responding to Accountability Challenges • Recognition, Intervention, and Adjustment • Superintendent’s, principals’, and teachers’, evaluations are linked to student performance outcomes. • Schools that reach set academic goals are recognized and/or rewarded. • Schools needing extra assistance in reaching academic goals are identified quickly. • Intense intervention plans are in place for students in the district who are below grade level.