APAC & ATAC July Meeting July 20/July 21, 2020 Texas Education Agency | Governance & Accountability | Performance Reporting Please mute your mic. Thank you!
Zoom Meeting Norms Mute your microphone when necessary. o Zoom has a “Mute Microphone” option that cuts down on ambient feedback for the audience. When there is a lot of back-and-forth discussion you will turn this off, but you should mute yourself when listening to a presenter. Use Zoom’s chat function. o You can send a question or statement to everyone or privately to a participant. Feel free to come and go as needed. o Feel free to hop on and off as you need. 7/17/2020 2
Meeting Agenda July 20/July 21, 2020 Welcome and Meeting Norms Survey Results Potential Approaches to 2021 Accountability USDE Guidance What Other States Are Doing Commissioner’s Thoughts/Questions Data Review & Discussion 3
Meeting Materials Meeting materials are posted at https://tea.texas.gov/texas- schools/accountability/academic-accountability/performance-reporting/2021- accountability-development-materials. 7/17/2020 4
APAC & ATAC Survey Results
ATAC/APAC Survey Results Eighty-five percent of APAC APAC & ATAC 2021 Accountability Concerns and ATAC members are COVID Instructional Loss 85% concerned about instructional loss from Academic Growth 85% COVID and Academic 64% Ratings Growth for 2021. 48% School Improvement 33% CCMR Graduation Rates 21% EL Proficiency 21% 15% Other 6
ATAC/APAC Survey Results Other 2021 accountability concerns: Deemphasizing high stakes testing Focusing on diagnostic testing and intervention Resetting targets Punishing schools for lack of performance 7
Potential Approaches to 2021 Accountability
Potential Approaches to 2021 Accountability Option 1—Maintain Status Quo Option 2—Modified System System remains the same System remains the same Maintain existing calculations and Adjust calculations and/or performance performance expectations expectations Use closest data proxy for growth Use closest data proxy for growth Identify/exit campuses for school Update identification/exit criteria for improvement using existing methodology school improvement Option 3—Adapted/Temporary System Option 4—Transitional System Revise and/or replace some elements due to Use minimally available indicators missing/impacted data Use disruption as opportunity to phase in Revise weighting and/or scaling indicators of the updated system Return to 2019 system in 2022 Use 2021 data to benchmark 2022 as a transitional year Evaluate identification/exit criteria for school Fully implement the updated system in 2023 improvement 9
Potential Approaches to 2021 Accountability —Maintain Status Quo —Modified System —Adapted/Temporary System —Transitional System 10
USDE Guidance
USDE Guidance It is too early to speculate on allowable waivers for 2021. At this point, federal accountability appears to be required. The Department is developing an addendum template for states to use outside of state plan that lists what all was impacted (e.g., weights, targets, and other one- year changes). This would be appropriate for modified or temporary systems. o Summer template release is anticipated, due in late 2020 o Changes will apply for one year o Requires public comment o Includes a streamlined review process 12
What Other States Are Doing
What are other states doing? Some states plan to pursue a waiver or legally leverage the waiver from 2020 to refrain from issuing accountability ratings. o Michigan o South Carolina o Georgia Most states are modeling with available data to determine which metrics are feasible for inclusion. (Modified and temporary systems seem to be the most popular option at this point.) A few states are surveying stakeholders about potential implications of issuing/not issuing ratings. 7/17/2020 14
What are other states doing? One state is layering the CDC Social Vulnerability Index data with federal designations to try to determine impact of COVID-19. Some states are taking this time to rework their systems. All states plan to turn to the USDE for additional guidance as the school year unfolds. 7/17/2020 15
Commissioner’s Thoughts
Commissioner’s Thoughts We should continue to monitor the situation, and in the meantime, analyze as much data as we can to determine the best path forward. Decisions will not be made until the end of the calendar year. Targets may need to be flexible due to the unpredictable impact of COVID-19 on outcomes, but we need additional information before making any decisions. 7/17/2020 17
Commissioner’s Questions What are your thoughts on using 202 1 data to set targets? In this scenario, targets would be established relative to state performance after the data has been collected. 7/17/2020 18
Commissioner’s Questions What are your thoughts on increased mobility and the potential impact on accountability measures? 7/17/2020 19
Commissioner’s Questions What are factors outside of a district’s control that we could potentially account for? (e.g. connectivity, economic impact) o Consider data availability 7/17/2020 20
Data Requests
Data Requests How did TELPAS participation differ from 2019 to 2020? Spring 2019 Spring 2020 2020 % of 2019 Domain Submitted Tests Submitted Tests Submitted Tests Holistic Rating Writing 967,948 514,809 53% (Grades K-12) Listening & Speaking 770,795 599,449 78% (Grades 2-12) Holistic Listening & Speaking 380 96 25% (Grades 2-12) Reading 769,588 650,482 85% (Grades 2-12) More TELPAS Alternate tests were submitted in 2020 (7,679) than in 2019 (6,619). 7/17/2020 22
Data Requests How are Closing the Gaps grades impacted when growth is removed? In 2019, 21% of campuses would have earned a lower Closing Without the Academic Growth in 2019, fewer schools would have the Gaps domain grade without growth. earned B and C grades and more schools would have earned A, D, and F ratings. Without Growth 39% 2349 31% A B C D F Total 1846 24% A 907 131 0 0 0 1,038 1431 18% 17% 17% 17% 15% 14% With Growth 1063 1038 B 999 1017 328 423 310 2 0 1,063 899 10% 847 591 C 195 332 1,253 442 127 2,349 D 1 13 280 433 272 999 A B C D F F 0 0 3 140 448 591 With Growth Without Growth Total 1,431 899 1,846 1,017 847 6,040 7/17/2020 23
Data Requests How are overall grades impacted when growth is removed from School Progress and Closing the Gaps? In 2019, 16% of campuses would have received a lower Without Academic Growth in 2019, fewer schools would have earned B overall grade without Academic Growth. and C grades, and more schools would have earned A, D, and F grades. Without Growth A B C D F Total 37% 2220 30% 29% 27% A 1,059 114 0 0 0 1,173 1831 1752 23% 1608 19% 1373 With Growth B 314 1,553 311 35 7 2,220 1173 12% 9% 8% 726 6% C 0 164 1,229 284 75 1,752 553 502 342 D 0 0 68 345 140 553 F 0 0 0 62 280 342 A B C D F Total 1,373 1,831 1,608 726 502 6,040 With Growth Without Growth 7/17/2020 24
Data Requests Are high poverty campuses and districts more dependent on School Progress, Part A: Academic Growth than those with lower rates of economically disadvantaged students? • Campuses and districts with a low economically disadvantaged rate In 2019, most campuses and districts performed the performed best on Student Achievement. highest on Student Achievement and School Progress, • Campuses and districts with a high economically disadvantaged Part B: Relative Performance. rate performed best on Relative Performance. Highest 2019 Domain for All Campuses and 96% 100% Districts 75% 67% 50% 3197 40% 2788 40% 44% 50% 35% 31% 25% 30% 25% 15% 1363 6% 17% 4% 4% 20% 2% 1% 2% 1% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 306 10% 156 Domain 1 Domain 2A Domain 2B Domain 1 Domain 1 Domain 2A Domain 1, 94 22 4% 2% 1% 0% & Domain & Domain & Domain Domain 0% 2A 2B 2B 2A, & Domain 1 Domain 2A Domain 2B Domain 1 & Domain 1 & Domain 2A Domain 1, Domain 2B Domain 2A Domain 2B & Domain Domain 2A, 2B & Domain Low Eco Dis Percentage Moderate Eco Dis Percentage 2B High Eco Dis Percentage 7/17/2020 25
Data Requests What is the consistency rate between a one-year STAAR progress measure and a two-year STAAR progress measure? The consistency rate is defined as the percentage of students who achieved the same progress category (limited, expected, accelerated) when the progress measure was calculated with one-year and two-year gaps. For math, the overall consistency rate between For reading, the overall consistency rate a one-year PM and a two-year PM is between between a one-year PM and a two-year PM is 62% and 66% for grade 5 to grade 8. between 56% and 67% for grade 5 (English & Spanish) to grade 8. Math Reading Assessment Consistency Rate Assessment Consistency Rate Grade 5 63.19% Grade 5 (English) 60.15% Grade 6 61.89% Grade 5 (Spanish) 56.31% Grade 7 65.24% Grade 6 67.42% Grade 8 66.29% Grade 7 57.80% Grade 8 56.59% 7/17/2020 26
Our Next Meeting
Recommend
More recommend
