Home ::

Following are recaps of the Select Committee on Public School Accountability meetings in El Paso (August), Dallas (August), Lubbock (August), Brownsville (July), Dallas (June), Houston (May), San Antonio (April), and Austin.

Select Committee on Public School Accountability meets in Dallas

The Select Committee on Public School Accountability met in Dallas on August 19 to hear invited testimony about growth models. The testimony included representatives from various school districts already using growth models, including large urban districts such as Dallas and Houston and smaller, rural districts, such as Kerrville and Tornillo.

The urban districts pointed out that:

  • they use the TAKS as the floor not the ceiling;
  • they use the growth model for pay as districts cannot always fund an across-the-board pay raise, so they only give to the teachers that “make a difference;
  • they use growth as an indicator for contract renewal and as a hiring basis;
  • districts want credit for all types of students;
  • growth models allow districts to look at which principals are making the biggest impact;
  • parents love the transparency growth models offer;
  • schools using growth models have responded well in competing against each other;
  • there is a strong need to get input from faculty and administration.

The rural schools stated that:

  • they use growth models more for student interventions;
  • they also use growth as an indicator of the stronger teachers and have them mentor those in need of assistance;
  • they did not want to utilize growth for performance pay because they had great concerns about the implications;
  • they do not publish performance data to allow teacher comparisons;
  • their greatest concern was for buy-in and collaboration;
  • if they used the growth model for rating a teacher it would work against best practices because of the competition aspect.

Susan Lewis, TCTA President-Elect and member of the Select Committee on Public School Accountability, made a solid, strong statement to the committee on behalf of teachers. She wants to ensure that teachers are not always used as the scapegoats for student issues. She also urged the committee to be very careful when contemplating growth models because “Teachers working together is what matters the most.”

Select Committee on Public School Accountability meets in Lubbock

The Select Committee on Public School Accountability met in Lubbock on August 20 to discuss rewards, incentives and removal of statutory restrictions and financial accountability.

During the discussions Senator Florence Shapiro brought up home-rule school districts, specifically asking why no one had taken the initiative to open this type of school that is free from many statutory requirements, including teacher protections such as teacher contracts, duty-free lunch, and planning and preparation time. Commissioner Robert Scott said that he felt no one had utilized the provision because of an onerous provision requiring a public vote. He also stated that home-rule schools were a main point in his testimony because of the “freedom” they offer to districts. Commissioner Scott felt that he could waive the voting requirement administratively via his general waiver authority. Shapiro said that she did not think that a vote was necessary and that when districts meet a certain level of student achievement they should have more freedom.

Some of the other points made during the invited testimony were requests for:

  • Change to a growth model system;
  • Rewards rather than sanctions and assurance that rewards are automatic, financially based and can be done at the campus level;
  • More flexibility, such as waiving the 65% rule;
  • Comparisons of like districts;
  • A system that recognizes different populations, especially special education students.

During Commissioner Scott’s testimony he stated “if he were king” he would put the current incentive teacher pay money into the current funding formulas to ensure that the districts could count on the money being there every year. He also wanted school districts to be relieved of the well-intentioned though heavy load of bus evacuation recommendations, which are currently costing one school district $140,000 a year, and are required even of school districts that do not currently have buses.

During the last phase of public testimony educators reiterated what committee members have heard throughout hearings in Texas, that TAKS puts a psychological toll on both teachers and students. The committee announced plans for two future work sessions in September and October, although dates have not been finalized.

El Paso Accountability Update


The Select Committee on Public School Accountability met in El Paso last week and listened to additional testimony for overhauling the state’s public school accountability system. The committee heard from Ross Wiener of The Education Trust and Dianne M. Piché of the Citizens’ Commission on Civil Rights, and much of the testimony mirrored what’s been gathered in other meetings around the state. The next committee meeting will be held in Lubbock on August 20.

Brownsville Accountability Update

The Select Committee on Public School Accountability held the fourth in a series of out-of-town hearings to gather expert and public input regarding how to change our state accountability system. The committee heard expert testimony from Richard Rothstein of the Economic Policy Institute who noted that our current accountability system was adopted without first clearly identifying the goals of the system. He noted research identifying various important goals of education and cautioned that an accountability system must hold schools accountable for all of these goals, not just some (referring to our current system that focuses narrowly on holding schools accountable for standardized test scores as opposed to all identified and agreed-upon goals of education).

The committee next heard testimony about different types of growth models from Chrys Dougherty of the National Center for Educational Achievement. Dr. Dougherty identified two basic models: a growth-to-standard model and a value-added model. He stated that value-added models compare a given student’s growth to typical student growth, which is a normative type of comparison. But this model is limited in that a student could grow more than is typical but still not enough to be on track to reach the standard. A growth-to-standard model fills in this gap by setting a target for each student who is below the standard and then setting a benchmark each year that the student must meet in order to reach the standard within the required number of years. Another version of this model (a projection model) uses statistical predictions to see if a student is going to reach proficiency in X number of years. Dr. Dougherty noted that if a student is not on track to postsecondary readiness by 8th grade, his/her chances of being on track in high school are greatly diminished. However, he also cautioned that tying accountability sanctions to whether a school prepares students for postsecondary readiness will inevitably cause pressure to lower the standard, so sanctions shouldn’t be tied to this standard.

The committee also heard from Dr. Michael Hinojosa, superintendent of Dallas ISD, who cautioned the committee not to adopt growth measures that conflict with growth measures already being used in districts like DISD. As a result, much of the discussion of the committee centered around how the state could adopt growth models without interfering with what some districts are already doing. Dr. Dougherty said that the state could set standards that all growth models must meet and that if using growth models for purposes of accountability ratings, the state should use both growth-to-standard models and value-added models. Dr. Dougherty also noted that different growth models could be used for different purposes. He gave the example of Houston ISD, which he said uses the NCEA growth model for diagnostic/formative purposes and a value-added model for purposes of educator performance pay. Senator Shapiro, co-chair of the Select Committee, noted that the school districts currently using growth models need to get together to identify common elements of all their models that the state could then use when adopting standards all growth models must meet.

The committee heard again from the three main groups who presented accountability proposals to the committee at its last meeting in Dallas. One of those, the Texas Institute for Education Reform (TIER), a splinter group of the Governor’s Business Council, presented testimony that the accountability system should use both a growth-to-standard model and a value-added model since each yields different types of information. TIER noted that a value-added model could serve as an early warning system and point out potential problems before they occur. TIER also noted that in cases in which it would be nearly impossible to achieve postsecondary readiness for certain students (for example, late-enrolling immigrant students) schools should not be sanctioned under the accountability system. TIER recommends postsecondary readiness as the standard upon which schools should be held accountable, but maintains that if the state does raise the standard in this way, the accountability system should not sanction schools under this standard during the 4- to 5-year transition period it will take to fully implement the new standard. However, during that time, schools should still face sanctions for failing to meet minimum standards.

The other two groups that had previously presented their accountability proposals, Raise Your Hand Texas, and Education Resource Group (ERG), essentially repeated their testimony from the previous meeting. However, a bit of new information surfaced during the testimony from ERG, which is proposing an accountability system based on a regression analysis combining both academic performance and financial efficiency. When Co-Chair Rob Eissler asked whether ERG had identified any correlations between financial efficiency and academic performance in the application of the regression analysis, ERG responded that only one had been found: the more involvement in extracurricular activities, the better financial efficiency.

The committee also discussed the limitations of our current data system, with one of the committee members calling for a web-based data system and monthly snapshots of data in order to better identify trends.

The bulk of public testimony came from Interfaith, a group that has consistently testified at many of the committee hearings about the inordinate pressure that our high-stakes testing system puts on children and educators. In response to this testimony, Higher Education Commissioner Raymond Paredes noted that “high-stakes testing is a way of life” and that students need to be ready for life. Later witnesses disputed this, saying high-stakes is a way of life for adults, but not students. Additionally, one of the witnesses with the group noted that there is only one teacher on the Select Accountability Committee and questioned why public testimony was subject to time limits.

After the public testimony, the committee engaged in discussion about a series of questions that the co-chairs of the committee circulated to the members. One of the issues had to do with whether to maintain our current student subgroups, and whether to merely report on these subgroups or continue to hold schools accountable for their performance. The committee discussed possibly eliminating racial student subgroups for purposes of holding schools accountable and instead use an economically disadvantaged subgroup, but continuing to report on student racial subgroups. The committee discussed how this would mesh with the federal No Child Left Behind Act, which holds schools accountable for racial subgroups of students.

The committee then discussed the use of growth models. Co-Chair Shapiro noted that we might need a bifurcated system in which one growth model holds schools accountable for group student performance and another growth model give information on individual student growth. Co-Chair Eissler noted the need to do something about TAKS in lower grades and mentioned the Iowa Test of Basic Skills as a potential replacement. Co-Chair Shapiro noted that the committee would continue to dialogue about these and other issues at the end of the next scheduled committee meetings.

Accountability plans presented to committee - June 16 Dallas

The Select Committee on Public School Accountability turned a corner at its June 16 Dallas hearing, focusing on specific proposals for a revised accountability system from invited groups, including Raise Your Hand Texas (RYHT), Texas Institute for Education Reform (TIER), Education Resource Group (ERG), and a Hudson ISD superintendent who developed a proposed index system for accountability. The committee will continue holding meetings around the state, with the next one scheduled for July 14 in Brownsville, followed by an August 4 meeting in El Paso. The committee is expected to begin drafting a final report containing its recommendations, which is due to the legislature by December 1. Read more…

 

Update on Select Committee on School Accountability

Public testimony to the Select Committee on Public School Accountability (Houston, May 12) reinforced what committee members have been hearing throughout the committee’s meetings this year – that parents, educators and students are demanding significant change in the state’s testing and accountability system.

The stated subject of the Houston meeting was the alternative education accountability (AEA) system available to alternative education campuses with an at-risk student population of over 75%, but witnesses speaking during the public testimony portion of the hearing hammered home several points regarding the regular statewide system. The high-stakes nature of the test is stressing students and driving the curriculum, and parents and educators want to see a system that does not rely on a single test to rate students or schools, and that is used as a diagnostic tool rather than a punitive one.

An invited panel of Texas Education Agency staff and school administrators presented the scheduled topic. “Alternative education” refers not to disciplinary alternative education programs, but to residential facilities and alternative education programs of choice (including charter schools) serving at-risk students.

Agency staff discussed the background and history of the AEA system, noting that approximately 1% of students are under the alternative system in 399 campuses across the state (145 of which are charter schools). These schools are under what is essentially a pass/fail system, with campuses rated either acceptable, unacceptable, or unrated. An increasing number of charter schools are rated under the AEA; 44% of charters are rated under the AEA compared to 3% of traditional public schools.

Administrators of schools rated under the AEA pointed out the unique circumstances of their schools, such as having a 100% at-risk student population. They also noted discrepancies in the eligibility criteria for different state and federal programs; for example, funding for new dropout grants approved in the 2007 legislative session requires a student population of 75% economically disadvantaged. But the definition of “at-risk” does not rely on economic status, so a campus can be 100% at-risk and qualify for the AEA system, yet have only 50% economically disadvantaged and thus not be eligible for the dropout grants.

Chairwoman Florence Shapiro asked that interested parties bring ideas and recommendations for a revised assessment system to the June 16 meeting in Dallas. The committee will begin considering suggestions and developing proposals for the 2009 legislative session.

Accountability hearing illuminates conflicts in testing/rating system - April 14 San Antonio

The Select Committee on Public School Accountability held its third hearing on April 14, with invited testimony from stakeholders (a variety of representatives from education, business, and other interested parties). However, an unspoken theme of “Mixed Messages” was apparent throughout the day’s testimony as committee members, invited panel members and public witnesses remarked on the conflicting messages and lack of agreement among policymakers and the education community regarding our state’s testing and rating systems.

During the course of the 6-hour meeting, many of the problems inherent in the current system and in any contemplation of a revised system were brought to light, as speakers disagreed on some fundamental issues and acknowledged the complexities of others. Read more...

 

TCTA testifies on public school accountability - February 18 Austin

TCTA provided testimony at the first meeting held by the state’s Select Committee on Public School Accountability, which is charged with conducting a comprehensive review of the public school accountability system and making recommendations on how the system should be restructured. Susan Lewis, Chair of the TCTA Curriculum & Instruction Committee, is serving on the select committee following appointment by Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst and Speaker of the House Tom Craddick.

TCTA urged the committee to adhere to some suggested guiding principles in designing a new accountability system, which include reducing the emphasis on testing, developing a more nuanced system to make accountability ratings more meaningful, incorporating a supportive infrastructure to enable educators and schools to meet the standards, and focusing more on interventions and less on sanctions. As a member of the committee, TCTA officer Susan Lewis asked the committee to provide a mechanism for teachers and the public to give input online because of the difficulty teachers have in being able to attend meetings during the school day. The committee has scheduled future hearings for the following dates: March 27, April 14, May 12, June 16, July 14, and August 4. The locations for the hearings have not yet been determined, but the committee intends to conduct hearings around the state. The Legislature will be required to adopt a new public accountability system aligned with the new assessments by Sept. 1, 2011.

Updated: 08/27/08