HB3 Transition Plan - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

hb3 transition plan n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
HB3 Transition Plan PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
HB3 Transition Plan

play fullscreen
1 / 26
HB3 Transition Plan
Download Presentation
Download Presentation

HB3 Transition Plan

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. HB3 Transition Plan Section II Accountability

  2. NEW! New Accountability Systems • Development in 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 • Alignment with the new provisions of House Bill (HB) 3 • Emphasis on college- and career-ready performance on STAAR NEW!

  3. STAAR & AYP Accountability “ “ The primary consideration that will guide development of the new AYP system will be alignment with the state accountability system to the greatest extent possible.

  4. Indicators: State Requirements • Performance on STAAR 3-8 Reading 3-8 Writing 4 & 7 Social Studies 8 Science 5 & 8 Math 3-8 Statute requires that indicators combine results across grades.

  5. Indicators: State Requirements • Performance on STAAR EOCs English I English II English III Algebra I Geometry Algebra II Biology Chemistry Physics World Geo. World Hist. U.S. History

  6. Indicators: State Requirements Percentage of students meeting the satisfactory performance standard or student progress standard   Percentage of students meeting the college-ready performance standard or college-ready student progress standard

  7. Indicators: State Requirements • Other Indicators Dropout Rates Completion and Graduation Rates

  8. Indicators: State Requirements • Required Improvement • Required Improvement will be a feature of the system. • Date Effective for Satisfactory Performance: 2013 • Date Effective for College Readiness Performance: 2014 • Options: • Improvement to Long-Term Goal • Improvement to Annual Accountability Standard • Reduction in Performance Gaps • Increasing Annual Standards • Improvement Across Multiple Years • Any Improvement or No Decline • Multi-Year Average Performance

  9. Indicators: State Requirements • Three Year Average Performance A new statutory provision gives districts and campuses the option to use three-year average performance to meet an accountability standard when current year performance does not meet the standard.  Performance Indicators Dropout and District Completion Rates HS Graduation Indicator Date Effective: TBD Date Effective: 2013 Commissioner Rule

  10. Indicators: Federal Requirements Reading/ELA Performance Math Performance Federal caps on alternative assessments  Reading/ELA Participation (95%) Math Participation (95%) Other Indicator

  11. Options for Resolving Differences Add Science and Social Studies Performance Add Reading/ELA and Math Participation Implement federal caps on results of alternate assessments

  12. Student Groups Required Groups State: Evaluation based on race/ethnicity and SES Federal: Evaluation based on race, SES, SPED, and LEP Groups being Considered Additional race/ethnicity groups: Asian, Multiracial, Other Not Economically Disadvantaged LEP, At Risk, Special Education

  13. Student GroupsAdditional Options: State Define student group membership longitudinally (Eco Dis and LEP) New options for student groups similar to the All Student group Expand the student groups evaluated

  14. College Readiness STANDARD TBD, Effective 2014 Reading/ELA and Math Grades 3-8 and EOC SUBJECTS STUDENTS Required for 5 student groups Required Improvement, Effective 2014 Three-Year Average, Effective TBD ANY HELP?

  15. Satisfactory performance on these assessments may be used as a factor when determining whether the student satisfies the cumulative score requirement for graduation: Pre ACT AP IB SAT PSAT The commissioner will determine whether these results will be factored in the assessment results used for state accountability.

  16. Dropout/Grad/Completion Rate • State statute requires that six groups of students be removed from the dropout definition used for state accountability: • Previous dropouts; • Students who are not in membership for purposes of average daily attendance; • Students who have been ordered by courts to attend GED programs but have not earned GED certificates; • Students who are incarcerated in state jails and federal penitentiaries as adults and as persons certified to stand trial as adults; • Students whose initial enrollment in a school in the United States in grades 7–12 was as unschooled refugees or asylees; and • Students detained in county detention facilities that are located outside the students' home districts.

  17. Dropout Rate Option 1 Use a longitudinal dropout rate for first-time ninth graders to measure how many students drop out before graduating. Option 2 Use an annual dropout rate to measure how many students drop out in one school year. • Option 2a: Use selected grades, i.e., grades 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and/or 12. • Option 2b: Use selected grade spans, i.e., grades 7–8, grades 9–12, and/or grades 7–12.

  18. Graduation Rate TEA currently uses a four-year graduation rate that measures early or on-time graduation. However, some students take longer than four years to graduate. Options for 2013 Accountability: 4-Year Rate 5-Year Rate 6-Year Rate 7-Year Rate Class of 2012 Class of 2011 Class of 2010 Class of 2009

  19. Completion Rate Some advocate counting GED recipients as completers because a GED can be used for entrance into college and to obtain employment. A system control could be used that requires graduates to comprise a certain portion of the rate. # Graduates + Continuers +GED # Graduates + Continuers + GED + Dropouts

  20. AEA Accountability Procedures NCLB requires that all campuses, including AECs, are evaluated in the federal accountability system. • The state accountability system has the option of including AEA procedures designed specifically to evaluate AECs. Options include: • Use Same Indicators and Standards as Regular Campuses. • Use Same Indicators, but Different Standards, as Regular Campuses • Develop Alternative Education Accountability Procedures

  21. Ratings 2013 “Unacceptable” “Acceptable” Option A “Unacceptable” “Acceptable” “Recognized” “Exemplary” Option B “Unacceptable” “Acceptable” with Recognized & Exemplary Distinctions 2014

  22. Ratings “ Recognized and Exemplary ratings are distinction designations for meeting higher college- and career-ready performance standards, rather than higher performance on the same indicators used for accountability ratings. “

  23. Campus Distinction Designations + A Top 25% in Annual Improvement on STAAR Top25% in Performance Gap Reduction on STAAR Satisfy Criteria in Academic Achievement 21st Fine Arts Physical Education 21st Century Workforce Development Second Language Acquisition Program

  24. Performance Reports Report to District: Comparisons for Annual Performance Assessment Report to Parents: Similar to Confidential Student Reports Teacher Report Card Campus Report Card Performance Report : Similar to AEIS Reports Comprehensive Annual Report

  25. Timeline Dec. 2012 STAAR 3-8 Standards are Set August 8, 2013 First Ratings are Reported Nov. 2011 EOC Standards are Set June 2012 EOC Results are Reported Spring 2012 STAAR Testing Grades 3-9 2010-11 Last Year for Statewide TAKS Testing Fall 2012 STAAR 3-8 Results are Reported Spring 2013 STAAR Testing Grades 3-10

  26. Thank you! Arielle Arizpe 512-919-5131 | arielle.arizpe@esc13.txed.net