Home ::
The Select Committee on Public School Accountability turned a corner at its June 16 Dallas hearing, focusing on reviewing 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. After months of hearings in which witnesses detailed numerous complaints about the current system, including an overemphasis on the TAKS test, lack of a nuanced rating system, lack of a level playing field between large diverse districts and small homogeneous districts, and failure to give credit for student growth, the committee is starting to narrow its focus to begin to design a new system that hopefully addresses many of these complaints.
The range of proposals presented at the Dallas meeting was broad. At the one end of the spectrum, RYHT made a somewhat moderate proposal for a new “approach” to accountability decisions, but offered no recommendations about performance indicators for the system. On the other end, the TIER proposal focused on major changes to performance indicators as well as sanctions and interventions for failing schools. Falling somewhere in between were the final two proposals. The ERG proposal uses a regression formula that includes both financial and academic accountability under one system, but doesn’t recommend particular performance indicators; and the index system of accountability, a system of metrics used to determine progress/success, offered by the Hudson ISD superintendent.
As was noted by committee co-chair Florence Shapiro, the proposals discussed by the committee did not reflect disagreement so much as they addressed different aspects of the accountability system. The RYHT, TIER, and ERG plans have been “in play” since the beginning of the process and accordingly are the focus of this article.
Details of proposed plans follow:
Raise Your Hand Texas
RYHT categorizes its proposal as more rigorous than the current system because it includes test results on currently tested subjects by grade level, rather than aggregating across grades as the current system does, but as more fair and less punitive in that it levels the playing field between large diverse districts and small homogeneous districts and gives credit for student growth. In illustrating their proposal, RYHT used current performance indicators, including TAKS, completion rates and attendance, but emphasized that their proposal was about an “approach” to accountability rather than specific recommendations about what the performance indicators should be, and that any indicators could be used in their system.
The plan consists of a 3-tiered approach, with indicators in Tier 1 receiving the highest priority. In their illustration, RYHT used Tier 1 indicators consisting of reading and math TAKS scores for grades 3-11, attendance rates and completion rates; Tier 2 was composed of the remaining TAKS tested subjects and grades; and Tier 3 included the indicators in the Gold Performance Accountability system, such as AP/IB participation, dual enrollment, SAT/ACT, etc.
Scoring
Tier 1 indicators are reviewed to see if the number of students meeting the set standard for each of the indicators in each of the student subgroups in each subject and grade level falls within a specified range (range to be set by Commissioner of Education but the example given was 80-100%). For example, if 91% of Hispanic 3rd graders in a school passed the Reading TAKS test, the school gets a check mark translating into a point credit for that indicator. For indicators that exist at every grade, if a sufficient number of students in a subgroup fails to meet the standard within the specified range, the school can count student growth toward the standard (thus getting credit for that indicator) for that subgroup by meeting a specified percentage of growth (again determined by the Commissioner) over the previous 3 years. For indicators that exist for contiguous grades, individual student growth could be counted if meeting a certain percentage of growth (specified by the Commissioner) once such a growth measure is developed by TEA. So the credits for achievement or growth are given equal weight (one point each). However, if the number of students per subgroup, subject, and grade level, meets the standard on an indicator within the expected range, the school/district cannot also count student growth toward the standard.
Some committee members responded that rather than specify a set percentage of required growth, the expected growth for a student subgroup or individual subgroup should be based on maintaining a trajectory toward reaching the standard and should be accelerated for students or subgroups falling further behind. Additionally, committee members made the point that under the RYHT proposal, allowing schools to count absolute performance and growth could potentially result in one subgroup of students consistently failing to pass the test while the school still received high marks.
To account for diverse populations, the RYHT plan uses a proportional model in which the number of areas evaluated for each school/district will vary depending on the demographics and measures applicable to the school/district. For each indicator falling within an expected range of performance, credit will be earned. A proportion of credit earned to measures evaluated will be calculated, such that areas of low performance will be identified, but no one measure will cause a school/district to be low-performing. So, for example, if there were 46 indicators applicable to that school and the school earned points on 42 of those, the school's Tier I proportion would be 42 out of 46, or 91.3%.
Rating system
The RYHT rating system consists of a six-star system on the positive side and a 3-level system on the negative side (Academic Watch, Academic Warning, and Academic Crisis). A school/district can only get the top rating (6 stars) if 100% of its Tier 1 indicators are in the expected range of achievement and its total proportional rating on all 3 tiers is 90% or higher. So a school/district can’t count student growth (as opposed to an absolute standard of achievement) on any of the Tier 1 indicators and still get the top rating. For all the ratings below the top rating, schools/districts can count growth, and the Tier 1 proportional score and the total proportional score have to be within a certain range, with the lower of the proportional scores determining the ranking.
Rewards and interventions
The RYHT plan provides for monetary rewards to schools that for three consecutive years: 1) have significant growth in Tier 1 indicators, or significant growth in Tier 2 indicators if all Tier 1 indicators remain in the expected range of performance, and 2) for performance in the top quartile in Comparable Improvement (“comparable improvement” is a feature of our current accountability system in which a school is given credit for improving student performance when compared to schools with similar demographics).
Finally, the RYHT plan proposes a series of interventions for failing schools, including an Early Intervention proposal that calls for a review by an external evaluator to determine the capacity of the district to improve student performance. That measurement of capacity would include a determination of whether the school has adequate resources, such as certified teachers, textbooks, library books, lab materials and computers with internet access; a targeted Campus Improvement Plan (CIP); staff development plans aligned with the CIP; active monitoring of student progress; tutorials; after-school and Saturday classes; and a comparison of the availability of resources in other, higher-performing schools in the district.
Texas Institute for Education Reform
The TIER plan proposes some very specific recommendations about performance indicators, with the end goal being “postsecondary readiness,” which they define as the “successful transition from high school to skilled employment, advanced military training, associate’s degree, bachelor’s degree or technical certification, without need for remediation.” Additionally, TIER recommends one accountability system for all schools (currently we have an alternative accountability system for schools with large at-risk student populations), annual assessments to measure progress toward postsecondary readiness, use of both growth and status models in the system, ratings of A-F, and setting benchmarks in the growth model so that students would have to make up ground for each year they’re behind in order to stay on track to meet the postsecondary readiness standard by 12th grade. Once students’ benchmark scores are established, they are grouped for accountability purposes into the lowest and highest 25%.
The performance standards recommended by TIER for high school are: 90% of students achieve the postsecondary readiness benchmark score and graduate within 4 years; 80% of graduates demonstrate postsecondary readiness by achieving satisfactory scores on the ACT, Texas Higher Education Assessment (THEA) or SAT; 80% of graduates immediately transition into post-secondary education (including career and technology training or advanced military training); and 80% of graduates do not require remedial education in the state system of public universities and colleges. For middle schools, TIER recommends: 90% of students achieve the appropriate benchmark score (either under the status model or growth model) and complete middle school on time; 80% of 8th grade students successfully complete Algebra I; and 80% of students have 5 or fewer absences during the school year. For elementary schools, TIER recommends: 90% of students achieve the appropriate benchmark score (either under the status or growth model) and complete elementary school on time; 80% of students demonstrate proficiency on 5th grade reading and math tests; and 80% of students have 5 or fewer absences during the school year.
TIER additionally recommends that out-of-field teaching assignments be reported on school district report cards.
Regarding sanctions and interventions, TIER recommends releasing districts from all state laws/regulations (with the exception of safety requirements) when all schools in the district meet state standards. This would include laws regarding teacher certification, benefits, and legal protections. Additionally, they recommend that the accountability system flag early signs of faltering school performance such as declining student attendance, slowing trajectories of academic growth, increasing disciplinary actions, higher teacher turnover, and declining morale of teachers and students. Once flagged, schools and districts would receive an unacceptable rating, and the second phase of state intervention would begin, including evaluating school performance and soliciting ideas for improvement via surveys of students, parents, teachers, business leaders, etc. An improvement plan would be based on this survey and a strategic compensation plan that links all salary increases to achievement of required state standards would be implemented. The third phase begins after the second year of corrective action without earning an acceptable rating. In this phase, the Commissioner of Education must implement at least one of the following: engage new school leadership with full authority to set aside employment contracts and other state laws regarding school employment practices, engage new school leadership from outside the education community with full authority to hire or fire personnel as necessary, provide public or private school choice to all students and cover transportation costs, convert a school into a virtual academy, or turn over management of the school to a charter school or education management organization approved by the Commissioner and given full exemption from state laws regarding school employment practices. Finally, TIER recommends that schools and districts lose accreditation and state funding if the third phase of corrective action doesn’t result in an acceptable rating after two years (completing five years total of unacceptable performance).
Education Resource Group
The ERG plan combines student performance with accountability into one system in which schools and districts with similar student populations are compared. This analysis, particularly the feature in which financial accountability is incorporated, is designed to help districts assess whether their systems are producing the “bang for the buck” that should be expected, and review their practices accordingly. By taking into consideration the characteristics of student populations and comparing like districts, the resulting system is intended to be fairer. The comparison of student performance among districts with similar populations is reminiscent of the data compiled by the National Center for Educational Achievement, which is available online. The ERG proposal currently weights financial efficiency and student performance equally, though when the plan was presented committee members were assured that the plan could easily be modified to provide more significant weighting to student achievement, for example, as desired by policymakers.
The committee also heard compelling testimony during the public testimony portion of the meeting. Among the most notable was that given by soon-to-be retiring Highland Park ISD superintendent Dr. Cathy Bryce, who noted that even districts known for exemplary performance, such as her own, recognize the need for a new accountability system. Dr. Bryce indicated she had worked to persuade her board and community that the district should move away from chasing an annual exemplary rating, because the emphasis required to achieve that rating was often unwarranted and detracted from other aspects of education that are more important to students.
The committee will continue holding meetings around the state, with the next one scheduled July 14 in Brownsville, followed by August 4 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, 2008.
Web posted: 06/19/08
