Commissioner of Education’s Final Recommendations
for Accountability 2001 – 2002
and
Blueprint for 2003 – 2005
Final decisions of the commissioner of education for the public school accountability system for 2001 and 2002 are presented in this document. Largely due to the development of a new state assessment system to be in place by 2003, there are still many unknowns about future years. However, to the extent possible, this document also attempts to provide a blueprint for 2003 and beyond. Performance expectations will become more rigorous, both in terms of the percent of students included in the system, the rigor of the indicators themselves, and the standards applied to those indicators. The agency does plan to expand the information available to educators to assist in planning for the 2003 changes. A chart follows the text showing year-by-year decisions.
Basis for Decisions: In making these decisions, the commissioner considered advice from survey responses to his preliminary recommendations issued in June, from a focus group of educators, and from an advisory group of legislative staff, educators, and representatives from professional educator associations, business, and community associations. The survey results are summarized below; as of July 10, 225 responses had been received, either via the web, fax, or mail.
¨
Most respondents
disagreed with at least part of the proposed changes to the rigor of the
dropout rate standards. Some surveys
provided alternative options for consideration.
¨
Most respondents agreed
with changing attendance from a rating indicator to an additional
acknowledgment indicator.
¨ Most respondents agreed with reducing the minimum
size criteria for evaluation of student groups.
¨
There was not consensus
on how TAAS social studies results should be included in the system, beginning
in 2002.
¨
Most respondents
supported no ratings in 2003.
¨
Most respondents
supported adding science as a rating indicator in 2004 and phasing in the
grades evaluated for ratings.
¨
Most respondents supported
using a completion rate for ratings, beginning in 2004.
Goals for the Accountability System: These decisions were made with the following goals in mind:
¨
Preparing
students for the more rigorous exit-level examination requirements: Legislation
passed by the 76th Texas Legislature requires the development of a
new system of assessments based on the required curriculum and anchored to new
exit-level examinations administered at grade 11. The assessments will be based wholly on the Texas Essential Knowledge
and Skills (TEKS). This new system,
first administered in 2003, will modify the grades at which subjects are
tested, for more than just exit-level.
Tests for grades 3 through 10 will be developed in:
q mathematics at grades 3 through 7 without the aid of
technology, and at grades 8 through 10 with the aid of technology;
q reading at grades 3 through 9;
q writing, including spelling and grammar, at grades 4
and 7;
q English language arts, including writing, at grade
10;
q social studies at grades 8 and 10; and
q science at grades 5 and 10.
These new
examinations at all grades are expected to be more rigorous than the TAAS
tests, due to both the increased requirements for exit-level and the assessment
of the TEKS curriculum. The change will
be particularly felt at exit-level.
Unlike the current exit tests administered in 10th grade in
reading, writing, and mathematics, the new grade 11 tests will test English
language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies, and require knowledge
of Algebra I and Geometry, Biology I and integrated chemistry and physics,
English III, and United States History.
The class of 2005 (students
who were 7th graders in 1999-2000) will be the first class required to meet the graduation testing
requirement in 2004 based on the new assessments.
¨
Increasing
the rigor of the Dropout Rate Standards:
Dropout rate standards have remained unchanged since the accountability system
was first implemented in 1994. The 1999 Accountability Manual alerted
districts and schools a year ago that these standards would be made more
rigorous beginning in 2001 to further encourage schools to retain their
students. These final decisions adjust standards at the Recognized and Academically Acceptable / Acceptable rating levels
in both 2001 and 2002.
¨
Implementing
Current Statute: In addition to assessment, other sections of
the Texas Education Code were modified during the 76th
legislative session which affect the accountability system. Further, some statutory requirements enacted
prior to 1999, such as the alternative assessment for special education
students, have implementation dates within the next five years. These decisions are designed to keep the
accountability system in compliance with statute.
¨
Addressing
Special Issues: These decisions also address special topic
issues such as minimum size criteria for student groups to be evaluated and
alternatives for dropout-related measures.
Planning for 2003: The new
assessment system beginning in 2003 will be more difficult than TAAS. School districts and campuses must make
certain that they inform and adequately prepare students for this increased
rigor. As described below, the
TEA will prepare both new and pre-existing reports to assist districts in
planning for the higher performance expectations for the state assessment to be
implemented in 2003.
¨
AEIS
RePORTS: Annual AEIS reports currently present information which should
prove helpful in planning for the new assessments. These are described below:
q End-of-course examinations are now given to students
in the year they complete the following courses: Algebra I, Biology, U. S.
History, and English II. Results from
these tests can be used as a partial preview of passing rates on the new
exit-level assessment to be first administered in 2003. Analysis of 1999 end-of-course examination
results shows that, as a state, Texas is not ready for these new, more rigorous
tests, particularly in mathematics.
AEIS reports will continue to include the most recent two years of
passing rate results until the tests are eliminated after the 2002
administration.
q Students in grade 8 are tested in reading,
mathematics, writing, science, and social studies. The “all tests taken” passing rate for grade 8 can serve as
another preview of passing rates on the new exit-level assessment to be first
administered in 2003. These data also
show that there is much work to be done; in 1999, over 63 percent of all 8th
graders passed all tests they took, however, at the student group level,
passing rates for three of the four student groups were less than 50 percent.
¨
PLANNING REPORT: Beginning in 2000, the commissioner will
issue a planning report to superintendents each year until 2003 which will
provide a variety of analyses to assist in preparing for the new tests. Likely information to be included is
described below:
q passing rates on each of the four end-of-course
examinations, in an accountability data table format;
q the percent of 12th grade students who
passed all four end-of-course tests (an estimate of the percentage of students
who would meet the testing requirement for graduation over four tests, if such
a requirement had been in place);
q the percent of 8th graders who have passed
all five TAAS subject tests (another estimate of the percentage of students who
would meet the testing requirement for graduation on the new tests); and
q beginning in 2001, the percent of students performing
at or above specified levels of performance which are higher than the current
passing standard (an estimate of passing rates on more rigorous assessments). TEA will
create points of reference on the 2001 and 2002 assessments that can serve as
estimates of proficient performance levels on the 2003 assessments and
beyond. These estimates will not be
used for accountability purposes in 2001.
However, the commissioner reserves the right to use the estimates in
some manner in the 2002 system after reviewing the 2001 results.
TAAS:
¨
Subjects: Reading,
Writing, Mathematics, grades 3-8, and 10, all students and all student groups.
¨
EOC
Credit:
Credit for 10th graders meeting the testing requirement for
graduation via end-of-course tests is applied as in 1999 and 2000.
¨
Standards: Exemplary: 90%; Recognized: 80%; Academically
Acceptable / Acceptable: 50%.
¨
Minimum
Size Requirements: New!!! A student group must have at least 30 test takers
who comprise at least 10% of all test takers.
However, if the group has at least 50 test takers, then the group will
be evaluated, regardless of the percent of the total the group represents.
¨
LEP EXEMPTIONS: New!!!
The SBOE rule regarding LEP exemptions will be fully implemented in 2001. Beginning
that year, all LEP students in grades 3 - 8, regardless of primary language,
will be required to take either the English or Spanish version of TAAS. Only
recent unschooled immigrants get exemptions — they are not required to take an
assessment in the 12 months following their enrollment in US schools.
Dropout Rate:
¨
Measure: 1999-2000
annual dropout rate, based on grades 7-12.
¨
Standards: New!!! Exemplary:
1.0%; Recognized: 3.0%; Academically Acceptable / Acceptable:
5.5%.
NOTE: These standards
are revised over those presented in the commissioner’s preliminary
recommendations at the Exemplary and Academically Acceptable / Acceptable
rating levels. Survey results indicated
that most respondents thought the reductions initially proposed were “too much
too fast.” That input, in addition to
agency development activities related to leaver reporting, encouraged the commissioner
to implement changes to the standards more slowly. Agency efforts related to clarification of leaver codes, the
definition of a dropout, and documentation standards are expected to be
implemented over two years, beginning with the 2001-2002 PEIMS Data Standards, and will likely result in stricter
interpretation of who is and who is not a dropout.
¨
Minimum
Size Requirements: New!!!
Ten dropouts must be reported and a student group must have at least 30
students in grades 7-12 membership who comprise at least 10% of the total. However, if the group has at least 50
students in membership, then the group will be evaluated, regardless of the
percent of the total that the group represents.
Attendance Rate: New!!! Beginning in 2001, the attendance rate will no longer be used for ratings; however, it will be used for additional acknowledgment. Many educators have argued that the attendance rate is not a true performance indicator, but rather a process indicator. Districts already have strong incentives to maximize attendance rates since those are the primary driver of state aid. Standards for additional acknowledgment for the attendance rate will be set this fall.
Special Education Compliance Status: As required by statute, a district’s special education compliance status can affect a district rating.
Other: This year, 2001, is the first year that ARD exemption rates will be analyzed against targets set in statute.
TAAS:
¨
Subjects
and Standards: New!!! Beginning in
2002, schools and districts will be held responsible for student performance on
the TAAS grade 8 social studies test in addition to reading, writing, and
mathematics performance. Recall that,
beginning in 2004, the graduation testing requirement for 11th
graders includes social studies. Both
the current grade 8 TAAS test and the new exit-level test will focus on United
States history. Under the new testing
system, social studies will remain tested at grade 8.
Analysis of past
performance shows that the overall passing rate on the TAAS social studies
examination, as well as the gap in performance among student groups, has
changed very little since the test was first administered in 1995. This is in stark contrast to significant
improvements in reading, writing, and mathematics.
Science will
become a graduation requirement with the new tests administered in 2004
and the grades at which that subject is tested will also change with the
implementation of the new assessment system.
Therefore, schools and districts will not be held accountable in the
rating system for science until 2004, after there is some experience with the
new tests.
In 2002, higher performance standards
of 55 percent passing will be required at the Acceptable level for TAAS reading, writing, and mathematics, but
social studies will be evaluated at the 50 percent standard and only at the
‘all students’ level. [Student group
performance on social studies will be evaluated beginning in 2004.] The 2002 TAAS standards are illustrated
below:
|
Subject |
Grades Tested |
Groups |
Exemplary Standard |
Recognized Standard |
Academically
Acceptable / Acceptable
Standard |
|
Reading |
3-8, 10 |
all students and all student groups |
90% |
80% |
55% |
|
Writing |
4, 8, 10 |
||||
|
Mathematics |
3-8, 10 |
||||
|
Social
Studies |
8 |
all students |
50% |
¨
EOC
Credit:
Credit for 10th graders meeting the testing requirement for
graduation via end-of-course tests is applied.
¨
Minimum
Size Requirements: New!!! Recommendations from a special topic focus
group meeting in the fall of 2000 will be considered by the commissioner. This group will consider whether further
changes in the minimum size requirements should be implemented in 2002.
Dropout Rate:
¨
Measure: 2000-2001
annual dropout rate, based on grades 7-12.
PEIMS instructions for reporting dropouts will be further refined and
clarified as a result of research conducted during 2000. (See the note following.)
¨
Standards: New!!! Exemplary:
1.0%; Recognized: 2.5%; Academically Acceptable / Acceptable : 5.0%
NOTE: These standards
are revised over those presented in the commissioner’s preliminary
recommendations at the Exemplary and Academically Acceptable / Acceptable rating levels. Survey results indicated that most
respondents thought the reductions initially proposed were “too much too
fast.” That input, in addition to
agency development activities related to leaver reporting, encouraged the
commissioner to implement changes in the standards more slowly. Agency efforts related to clarification of
leaver codes, the definition of a dropout, and documentation standards are
expected to be implemented over two years, beginning with the 2001-2002 PEIMS Data Standards, and will
likely result in stricter interpretation of who is and who is not a dropout.
¨
Minimum
Size Requirements: New!!! Recommendations from a special topic focus
group meeting in fall 2000 will be considered by the commissioner. This group
will consider whether further changes in the minimum size requirements should
be implemented in 2002.
Attendance Rate: Not used for ratings, but evaluated for additional acknowledgment.
Special Education Compliance Status: As required by statute, a district’s special education compliance status can affect a district rating.
Background
Information
¨ New State assessments
administered: The new state assessments
will be administered in the following grades, beginning in 2003:
|
Reading |
Writing |
English Language Arts |
Mathematics |
Science |
Social Studies |
|
3 – 9 |
4, 7 |
10, 11(exit) |
3 – 11 (exit) |
5, 10, 11 (exit) |
8, 10, 11 (exit) |
q End-of-course tests are no longer administered.
q Growth on the TLI cannot be calculated in 2003. For accountability purposes, this means that
Comparable Improvement cannot be calculated that year.
¨
STUDENT
PASSING STANDARD: The State Board of
Education (SBOE) is responsible for setting the passing standard for students
on each new assessment. According to
current plans, the new tests will be field-tested in 2002, and administered in
2003.
If the board follows past practice, it will set student passing standards for the new assessments using data from the benchmark administration in 2003. A passing standard for grade 3 reading may need to be set earlier, perhaps based on field test results from 2002, in order to implement the Student Success Initiative in 2003. If the board waits until after the spring administration in 2003 to set passing standards, then the following schedule will apply: Tests will be administered in the spring, statewide results will be analyzed for decision-making, the board will set standards, then individual performance will be evaluated against the standard to determine whether a student passed or failed. A focus group will be convened to examine the results and recommend accountability rating standards to the commissioner. Because this process will extend past mid-summer, accountability ratings cannot be issued on the schedule used in the past.
¨
USE
OF ASSESSMENT RESULTS: Although the new tests must be administered
by 2003, statute does not require their use in the accountability system until
2005. Therefore, the grades tested that
are evaluated for ratings purposes may be phased in until 2005.
¨
Alternative
Assessment for Special Education:
Statute requires that growth results on the alternative assessment for special education
students in grades 3 – 8 must be used for accountability as of 2003, and it
prohibits disaggregations by subject matter and grade. Since by law this is a growth measure, 2002
will be the first year that results for those grades can be analyzed and plans
developed for the measure’s future use.
Legislation passed in the 1999 session requires the development of an
alternative assessment for grades 9 and 10 (baseline administration) by 2005,
with use in accountability by 2007.
¨
the
student success initiative (grade 3
only). Beginning in 2003, 3rd
graders must pass the reading section of the state assessment system in order
to avoid having their promotion status determined by a grade promotion
decision-making committee. Statute
defines an indicator with multiple reporting components based on this
initiative. How this indicator should
be used in the accountability system will be determined when data are available
in 2003 and 2004. The initiative will
also affect 5th graders and 8th graders in 2005, and
2008, respectively.
Issuing
Ratings: Converting to the new assessment system will initiate
a series of changes in the accountability system. The first of these is that there will be no ratings issued in
2003, the first year of the new assessment. There are a number of reasons why the commissioner has made this
decision:
¨
Student Passing Standards. It is
possible and even likely that the student passing standard for the tests will
not be set until mid-summer, therefore, campus- and district-level passing
rates could not be determined until early fall.
¨
Setting Accountability Rating Standards. Since 2003
is the first year the new tests will be administered, predicting performance on
these tests will be difficult. If standards
were to be set prior to the first administration, many districts and schools
would likely feel that they had little ability to address these
expectations. When the accountability
system was first implemented in 1994, there were three years of trend data with
TAAS with which to analyze performance.
Delaying ratings until 2004 will give educators one year to adjust to
the new requirements.
¨
Analyses of Other Indicators. Although
ratings could be issued in mid-August on non-assessment indicators only, this
would have meant that they would be based on 1) growth on the alternative
assessment for special education students in grades 3-8, and 2) dropout
rates. Ratings based on these two
indicators would not adequately represent performance for the majority of
students in a school or district.
Additionally, it is likely that many schools and districts would not
meet minimum size requirements for one or both of these indicators.
¨
Consequences. If ratings using assessment
results were to be issued, that could happen in late fall at the earliest
because of the delay in determining both passing rates and standards. Therefore, the agency and districts would
have little time to design meaningful consequences and interventions to address
performance deficiencies.
What
the Agency Will do in 2003: Although ratings will not be issued, the
agency will be undertaking a number of accountability-related projects designed
to fully implement statute by 2005.
These include:
¨
AEIS Reports. The agency will issue the 2002-03
AEIS reports as soon as possible after passing rates can be calculated. The reports will include aggregations of
2003 results that will preview the 2004 and 2005 accountability subset
aggregations so that districts and campuses can begin planning for the future
as soon as possible.
¨
Focus Group. After the 2003 results are available to
analyze, the agency will convene an educator focus group to recommend passing
rate standards to be implemented for 2004 and beyond.
2004 will be the first year that ratings are issued based on the new
assessments. This would also be the
first year that a completion rate based solely on the PEIMS Leaver collection
will be evaluated as a rating indicator.
Note that the grades tested that are evaluated for ratings purposes will
be phased in until 2005. Districts and
schools will be held accountable for science performance for the first time in
this year.
New State Assessment:
¨
Subjects: Reading,
Writing, English Language Arts, Mathematics, Science, and Social Studies,
grades 3-10, all students and all student groups.
¨
Standards: Exemplary:
90%; Recognized: 80%; Academically Acceptable / Acceptable: To Be
Determined.
Alternative Assessment for
Special Education Students:
¨
Subjects: Growth on
Reading and Mathematics, grades 3-8, all students and subjects combined. How results for growth on Writing will be
incorporated has yet to be determined.
¨
Standards: To be determined.
Dropout / Completion Rate:
¨
Measure: 2000-2003 completion rate (4-year), based on grades
9-12.
¨
Completion
Rate Standards: To be
determined. Standards will be set at an
equivalent or higher standard than the dropout rate standards used in 2002.
Other: This is the first year that all components of the Student Success Initiative indicator at grade 3 reading will be available. These data will be analyzed and decisions considered about how to use this indicator in the accountability system beginning in 2005.
Statute requires that results of the new assessment be used for
accountability by this date; therefore, all grades and subjects will be
evaluated beginning in 2005.
New State Assessment:
¨
Subjects: Reading,
Writing, English Language Arts, Mathematics, Science, and Social Studies, grades
3-11, all students and all student groups.
¨
Standards: Exemplary:
90%; Recognized: 80%; Academically Acceptable / Acceptable: To Be
Determined.
Alternative Assessment for
Special Education Students:
¨ Subjects: Growth on
Reading and Mathematics, grades 3-8, all students and subjects combined. How results for growth on Writing will be
incorporated has yet to be determined.
¨
Standards: To be determined.
Dropout / Completion Rate:
¨
Measure: 2001-2004 completion rate (4 year), based on grades
9-12.
¨
Completion
Rate Standards: To be
determined. Standards will be set at an
equivalent or higher standard than the dropout rate standards used in 2004.
Other: This is the first year that the Student Success Initiative indicator at grade 3 reading can be used in the accountability system.
|
|
2000 |
2001 |
2002 |
2003 |
2004 |
2005 |
State
Assessments Evaluated for Ratings
|
||||||
|
TAAS |
Gr.
3-8, 10: |
Gr.
3-8, 10: |
Gr.
3-8, 10: |
— |
— |
— |
|
New
State Assessment |
— |
— |
— |
none |
Gr. 3-10: |
Gr. 3-11: |
|
Alternative Assessment for Special
Education Students |
— |
— |
— |
none |
Gr. 3-8 |
Gr.
3-8 |
|
End-of-Course
Assessments |
Credit given for 10th
graders who have met graduation requirements via EOC tests, and did not take
TAAS exit |
Credit given for 10th
graders who have met graduation requirements via EOC tests, and did not take
TAAS exit |
Credit given for 10th
graders who have met graduation requirements via EOC tests, and did not take
TAAS exit |
— |
— |
— |
TAAS / New
State Assessment Passing Rate Standards
|
||||||
|
Exemplary |
>=90.0% |
>=90.0% |
>=90.0% |
N / A |
>=90.0% |
>=90.0% |
|
Recognized |
>=80.0% |
>=80.0% |
>=80.0% |
>=80.0% |
>=80.0% |
|
|
Academically Acceptable / Acceptable |
>= 50.0% |
>= 50.0% |
55%: R, W, M; 50%: SS |
TBD |
TBD |
|
|
Academically Unacceptable / Low-performing |
<50.0% |
<50.0% |
< Acceptable |
< Acceptable |
< Acceptable |
|
|
Alternative
Assessment for Special Education Standards |
— |
— |
— |
N / A |
TBD |
TBD |
|
Minimum Size
Requirements for Evaluation of Student Groups |
30 – 10% - 200 |
30
– 10% - 50 |
TBD |
N / A |
TBD |
TBD |
|
Student Success
Initiative |
— |
— |
— |
— |
data
for grade 3; use: report |
data for grade 3; use: TBD |
Legend: TBD = To Be Determined; N / A = Not Applicable; R = Reading; W = Writing; M = Mathematics; SS = Social Studies; Sc = Science
Bold text indicates change from prior year.
|
2000 |
2001 |
2002 |
2003 |
2004 |
2005 |
|
Dropout
Measures Available
|
||||||
|
Annual
Dropout Rate, Grades 7-12 [district
and campus] |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
|
Completion Rate, Grades 9-12, four year
rates based solely on the Leaver Collection |
— |
— |
— |
3 |
3 |
3 |
|
Dropout Rate
Standards (Gr. 7–12) [for all students and each individual
student group] |
||||||
|
Exemplary |
<=1.0% |
<=1.0% |
<=1.0% |
N / A |
TBD, if necessary |
TBD, if necessary |
|
Recognized |
<=3.5% |
<=3.0% |
<=2.5% |
TBD, if necessary |
TBD, if necessary |
|
|
Academically Acceptable / Acceptable |
< = 6.0% |
<
= 5.5% |
<
= 5.0% |
TBD, if necessary |
TBD, if necessary |
|
|
Academically Unacceptable / Low-performing |
>6.0% |
>5.5% |
>5.0% |
TBD, if necessary |
TBD, if necessary |
|
|
Completion Rate
Standards (Gr. 9–12) [for all students and each individual
student group] |
||||||
|
Exemplary |
— |
— |
— |
N / A |
TBD |
TBD |
|
Recognized |
— |
— |
— |
TBD |
TBD |
|
|
Academically Acceptable / Acceptable |
— |
— |
— |
TBD |
TBD |
|
|
Academically Unacceptable / Low-performing |
— |
— |
— |
TBD |
TBD |
|
|
Attendance Rate
Standard (Gr. 1-12) |
>=94.0% |
N / A |
N / A |
N / A |
N / A |
N / A |
|
District Special Education Compliance Status |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
Legend: TBD = To Be Determined; N / A = Not Applicable
Bold text indicates change from
prior year.