but Acceptable district
Q: All the campuses
in our district are Exemplary or Recognized, but
the district is rated Acceptable. How can that be?
A: It is often the
case that individual schools have higher ratings than their district
because there are fewer students at the school level. That is, while
schools and districts are held accountable for the performance of
all students, the individual student groups must have at least 30
students to be considered in the ratings system. For that reason
an elementary school might only be judged on 7 or 8 indicators because
it only had a handful of students taking (for example) 5th grade
TAKS science, but at the district level, where science is tested
in grades 5, 10, and 11, there are enough students in each group,
so the district is held accountable for the performance of every
student group in science.
Also, elementary and middle schools are not accountable for the
Completion Rate indicator. As a result, districts are more likely
to be held accountable for all 36 indicators, while many schools
are held accountable to fewer than 10 indicators.
Q: I carefully checked
the performance of my district on every indicator, and it appears
they should be rated Recognized, but the state rated them
Acceptable. How can this be?
A: Districts whose
performance is at the Recognized or Exemplary
level can be held to a rating of Academically Acceptable
for several reasons:
- Any district that has one or more campuses rated Academically
Unacceptable cannot receive a rating of Exemplary
- Districts are required to report the "leaver" status
of all grade 7-12 students who were enrolled at any time in the
prior year (2004-05) but who did not continue in the current year
(2005-06). These students may have left the district because they
graduated, transferred to another district, dropped out, or some
other reason. When districts fail to provide a leaver record for
a student who is no longer in enrollment, TEA counts him or her
as underreported. In order to maintain a rating of Exemplary
or Recognized, districts must not exceed the accountability
standards for underreporting students.
- Districts are held responsible for the performance of all their
students, including those who attend campuses that do not receive
a regular rating, such as a Juvenile Justice Alternative Education
Please see the 2006 Accountability
Manual for more information on student groups and minimum
size requirements (Chapter 2), underreported leavers (Chapter 3),
and additional students in district ratings (Chapter 3).
Comparing TAKS performance from 2005
to TAKS performance from 2006
Q: I checked the
2005 TAKS performance shown on the 2006 Data Tables with that shown
on the 2004-05 AEIS reports, and the numbers don't match. Why is
A: In order to allow
for "apples to apples" comparison, the 2005 TAKS results
were recomputed to match the 2006 student passing standards. For
this reason, the results shown on the 2006 data tables may differ
in a number of ways from the AEIS reports:
- Different Passing Standard. In order to allow for
Required Improvement to be applied fairly, and to allow for comparison
across years, TAKS performance is also provided for 2005. It will
not match last year's reports exactly, due to the different student
passing standards used for the exit-level TAKS in 2005 and 2006.
To determine whether a student counts as a passer, the student
must meet the passing standard adopted by the State Board of Education
(SBOE) for the current year. For 2005 the student passing standard
was 1 standard error of measurement (SEM) below panel recommendation
for students in grade 11. For 2006, the passing standard for grade
11 is panel recommendation. The 2005 performance for grade 11
was recalculated to show how many would have passed at the 2006
standard. This provides an accurate comparison of performance
across the two years.
- Summed Across Grades. Only performance "summed
across all grades" is used for accountability purposes. The
AEIS reports provide grade-level performance as well as performance
summed across grades. The closest comparison to the 2005 performance
used for 2006 accountability is that shown in the section in the
AEIS reports titled:
TAKS Met Standard
(Sum of All Grades Tested)
Comparing Completion Rates from the
class of 2004 to the class of 2005
Q: I checked the
Class of 2004 Completion Rate shown on the 2006 Data Tables with
that shown on the 2004-05 AEIS reports, and the numbers don't match.
Why is this?
A: In order to allow
for "apples to apples" comparison, prior year Completion
Rate II results were replaced with Completion Rate I results. The
definition of a "completer" has changed for the 2006 accountability
year. Beginning this year, "Completion Rate I" is used
for accountability purposes. Under this definition, students who
attain a GED certificate are no longer considered completers. Only
those students who received a high school diploma with their class
(or earlier) and students who re-enrolled in the fall of 2005 will
count as completers. Note that Completion Rate II remains in use
under the Alternative Education Accountability (AEA) procedures.
Q: What happens when
a student comes to my school just a week before the TAKS test? We
try hard to get them ready for the tests, but it's difficult with
so little time. Will their performance affect our rating?
A: No, students who
change schools after the PEIMS snapshot date (end of October) and
before the date of testing are taken out of the accountability subset.
Please see Chapter 2, Table 3 in the 2006
Accountability Manual for a complete explanation.
Q: Why does the
data table for my school show >99% under Percent Met Standard?
I know that 100% of the students passed that test!
A: The accountability
data tables now employ more masking of assessment data than has
been used in the past, in order to comply with the federal Family
Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA). For more detailed information,
please see the Explanation of Masking.
| Performance Reporting