APAC & ATAC July Meeting July 20/July 21, 2020 Texas Education - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

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.
• 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.
• You can send a question or statement to everyone or privately to a

participant.

• Feel free to come and go as needed.
• 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

and ATAC members are

COVID Instructional Loss

concerned about

Academic Growth

instructional loss from COVID and Academic

Ratings

Growth for 2021.

School Improvement CCMR Graduation Rates EL Proficiency Other

APAC & ATAC 2021 Accountability Concerns

85% 85% 64% 48% 33% 21% 21% 15%

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

• System remains the same
• Maintain existing calculations and

performance expectations

• Use closest data proxy for growth
• Identify/exit campuses for school

improvement using existing methodology Option 3—Adapted/Temporary System

• Revise and/or replace some elements due to

missing/impacted data

• Revise weighting and/or scaling
• Return to 2019 system in 2022
• Evaluate identification/exit criteria for school

improvement System remains the same

• Option 2—Modified System
• Adjust calculations and/or performance

expectations

• Use closest data proxy for growth
• Update identification/exit criteria for

school improvement

• Use minimally available indicators

Option 4—Transitional System

• Use disruption as opportunity to phase in

indicators of the updated system

• Use 2021 data to benchmark 2022 as a

transitional year

• Fully implement the updated system in 2023

9

—Maintain Status Quo —Modified System —Adapted/Temporary System

Potential Approaches to 2021 Accountability

—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.

• Summer template release is anticipated, due in late 2020
• Changes will apply for one year
• Requires public comment
• 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.

• Michigan
• South Carolina
• 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
• utcomes, but we need additional information before making any decisions.

7/17/2020 17

Commissioner’s Questions

• What are your thoughts on using 2021 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)

• Consider data availability

7/17/2020 20

Data Requests

Data Requests

How did TELPAS participation differ from 2019 to 2020?

Domain Spring 2019 Submitted Tests Spring 2020 Submitted Tests 2020 % of 2019 Submitted Tests Holistic Rating Writing (Grades K-12) Listening & Speaking (Grades 2-12) Holistic Listening & Speaking (Grades 2-12) Reading (Grades 2-12) 967,948 770,795 380 769,588 514,809 599,449 96 650,482 53% 78% 25% 85%

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?

Without the Academic Growth in 2019, fewer schools would have In 2019, 21% of campuses would have earned a lower Closing earned B and C grades and more schools would have earned A, D, and the Gaps domain grade without growth. F ratings.

39% 2349 31% 1846 24% 1431 17% 18% 17% 17% 15% 14% 1063 1038 999 1017 899 10% 847 591

Without Growth A B C D F Total With Growth A 907 131 1,038 B 328 423 310 2 1,063 C 195 332 1,253 442 127 2,349 D 1 13 280 433 272 999 F 3 140 448 591 Total 1,431 899 1,846 1,017 847 6,040

A B C D F

With Growth Without Growth

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 and C grades, and more schools would have earned A, D, and F grades. Without Academic Growth in 2019, fewer schools would have earned B

• verall grade without Academic Growth.

37% 2220 30% 29% 27% 1831 1752 23% 1608 19% 1373 1173 12% 9% 8% 726 6% 553 502 342

A B C D F

With Growth Without Growth

Without Growth A B C D F Total With Growth A 1,059 114 1,173 B 314 1,553 311 35 7 2,220 C 164 1,229 284 75 1,752 D 68 345 140 553 F 62 280 342 Total 1,373 1,831 1,608 726 502 6,040

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?

In 2019, most campuses and districts performed the highest on Student Achievement and School Progress, Part B: Relative Performance.

Highest 2019 Domain for All Campuses and Districts

50% 3197 2788 40% 40% 35% 30% 1363 17% 20% 306 10% 156 94 4% 22 2% 1% 0% 0% Domain 1 Domain 2A Domain 2B Domain 1 & Domain 1 & Domain 2A Domain 1, Domain 2A Domain 2B & Domain Domain 2A, 2B & Domain 2B

• Campuses and districts with a low economically disadvantaged rate

performed best on Student Achievement.

• Campuses and districts with a high economically disadvantaged

rate performed best on Relative Performance.

96% 1% 0% 2% 0% 0% 0% 44% 15% 31% 2% 6% 1% 0% 4% 25% 67% 0% 1% 4% 0%

100% 75% 50% 25% 0% Domain 1 Domain 2A Domain 2B Domain 1 Domain 1 Domain 2A Domain 1, & Domain & Domain & Domain Domain 2A 2B 2B 2A, & Domain 2B Low Eco Dis Percentage Moderate Eco Dis Percentage 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 Assessment Consistency Rate Reading 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

Our Next Meeting

• Will October work for you?

7/17/2020 28 Texas Education Agency | Governance and Accountability | Performance Reporting