The long-awaited revamp of the state public school accountability system has finally been adopted after more than a year of public hearings and negotiations. Implementation of the new accountability system will begin with the 2011-12 school year. House Bill 3 was a compromise effort between Sen. Florence Shapiro, chair of the Senate Education Committee, and Rep. Rob Eissler, chair of the House Public Education Committee.  Shapiro and Eissler have created their own highlights of HB 3 in this document. As a predicate to the legislative session and the filing of accountability bills by both legislative chambers, a Select Committee on Public School Accountability held hearings throughout the state in 2008 and took testimony from stakeholders, ranging from parents to school personnel. TCTA President Susan Lewis served as a member of the Select Committee and participated in all committee hearings.  

High-stakes testing

A primary goal for TCTA throughout the discussions of a new accountability system was to reduce the overemphasis on high-stakes testing. While the final bill somewhat reduces the pressure of high-stakes testing for students, and in some ways, for schools, there is still disappointingly little change in the prominence that high-stakes testing holds in the new system.  For example, although the new system lessens reliance on one-time snapshot student test results by basing the accreditation status of districts/campuses, in part, on three-year rolling averages of student test performance and on student growth on tests, the accreditation status of a district/campus is still heavily reliant on student performance on high-stakes tests. 

TCTA has consistently advocated for lessening the emphasis on student performance on state assessments by expanding the focus to include a broader and more complete picture of student learning such as basing accreditation partly on a learning environment indicator. This indicator would be structured as an index of data already collected through the Public Education Information Management System (PEIMS) including out-of-field teaching assignments, teacher turnover rates, class-size waivers, organizational health surveys and discipline support. However, a learning environment indicator was not included in the final bill, leaving the accountability ratings of schools still largely based on student performance on state tests. 

Additionally, although the new system is designed more like a pass/fail system for schools in which schools either achieve accredited status or not, it still retains some semblance of the current accountability ratings system by including “recognized” and “exemplary” status within an “extra-credit” designation that schools can earn, called a “distinction” designation. Campus accreditation status is based on student performance on state tests, along with dropout and high school completion rates, which are the same criteria upon which campus accountability ratings are based under our current system; district accreditation is based on these same student achievement indicators along with financial accountability (including an examination of resource allocations by the districts and use of a financial solvency early warning system).

Although earlier versions of the bill contained significant changes designed to reduce high-stakes test pressure on students by eliminating the requirement for students to pass certain TAKS tests in 3rd, 5th and 8th grades to be promoted to the next grade level, the final version of the bill only eliminates that requirement for 3rd graders.  Instead, for all grades other than 5 and 8, the new system requires each school district to adopt a policy regarding student advancement, which must include consideration of the student's score on the state assessment; the recommendation of the student's teacher; the student's grade in each subject/course; and any other necessary information determined by the school district.

TCTA was pleased that the final bill includes a provision advocated by TCTA, which requires a 10-student limit per class in all grade levels for the accelerated instruction classes that must be taken by all students failing the TAKS test.

 

New college readiness standard

One of the key changes in the new system is the incorporation of a new, higher, and as yet undefined accountability performance standard of college readiness. The bill incorporates a college readiness standard in the context of graduation requirements for students and accountability for schools.

 

Graduation testing requirements

A major point of contention between the version of the bill passed by the House and the one passed by the Senate was which tests students would have to pass in order to graduate. The House version would have allowed students in the minimum high school program to pass Algebra I and English Language Arts (ELA) III end-of-course (EOC) exams, and students in the recommended/advanced high school programs to pass Algebra II and ELA III EOC exams. The Senate version would have required students in the recommended high school program to pass two out of three EOC exams in each of the four core subject areas or pass the Algebra II and ELA III EOC exams at a higher college readiness performance standard. 

The new accountability system requires students to achieve a cumulative score determined by the commissioner of education on all EOC exams administered to the student in a subject area.  Additionally, students in the recommended high school program must pass the Algebra II and ELA III EOC exams, and students in the  advanced high school program must achieve the college readiness performance standard on the Algebra II and ELA III EOC exams.  This will apply to 9th graders starting in the 2011-12 school year. Additionally, EOC exams will count for 15 percent of the course grade. (Current law provides that beginning with 9th graders in the 2011-12 school year, students must earn a cumulative score on the EOC exams within each of the four core subject areas equal to earning a grade of 70 on each exam.)

 

Accreditation

Indicators of student achievement upon which accreditation is based include the percentage of students who perform satisfactorily on state assessments; the percentage of students who did not perform satisfactorily but who met the standard for annual improvement; the percentage of students who performed satisfactorily on the college readiness standard; and for students who did not perform satisfactorily on the college readiness standard, the percentage of students who met the standard for annual improvement toward college readiness.

Further, the bill provides that the commissioner shall periodically raise the minimum percentage of students required to meet the college readiness standard to ensure that within 10 years, Texas ranks in the top 10 states in the nation for college readiness, with no significant gaps in student performance or the percentage of students graduating under the recommended or advanced high school program.

 

Graduation program requirements

In response to complaints that the current recommended high school program (the default graduation program) is too restrictive, the final bill eliminates certain required elective courses in the recommended and advanced high school programs, freeing up more electives in each program. 

The bill requires that students in the recommended high school program must complete the current 4X4 requirements (four courses in each of the four core subject areas), including at least one-half credit in government and at least one-half credit in economics for social studies, plus two credits in the same foreign language, leaving six electives; students in  the advanced high school program must continue to complete the current 4X4 requirements, plus the current requirement of three foreign language credits, leaving five elective credits. Additionally, students in all three high school programs (minimum, recommended and advanced) must complete one fine arts and one physical education (PE) credit. The bill allows students to satisfy the required credits for fine arts and PE via programs outside of school district programs in certain circumstances.

Furthering the expansion of fine arts education, the bill requires the State Board of Education to adopt rules requiring students in grades 6 through8 to complete one fine arts course during those grade levels.

Another major point of contention between the House and Senate versions of the bill was how large a role career and technology would play in the high school graduation programs.  In response to the dual call for more flexibility in the recommended high school program, as well as from employers for including more applied coursework in the form of rigorous career and technology courses, the House version of the bill provided for certain rigorous career and technology courses to be used to meet any of the math and science requirements in the high school programs.  However, the Senate took a more narrow approach, allowing such courses to be used only after completion of Algebra II and physics to comply with the recommended high school program requirements.

The final bill adhered to the Senate version, additionally requiring that any such courses cover the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills for math or science, and be endorsed by an institution of higher education as a course for which the institution would award credit or as a prerequisite for a course for which the institution would offer credit. The bill further provides for development of advanced math and science courses to prepare high school students for employment in high-demand occupations through a grant program in which an award is made to an institution of higher education to work with at least one school district and business entity to develop the courses. The courses must then be offered as dual credit and used to satisfy math/science requirements under the recommended or advanced high school program.

The bill also strengthens the requirements for career and technology courses by specifying that the State Career and Technology Plan must provide an option for student learning consisting of a rigorous course of study as part of a career and technology program that leads to an industry-recognized license, credential, or certification or an associate or bachelor's degree, and that includes opportunities for students to earn college credit.

While emphasizing college readiness and more rigorous career and technology courses, the bill also includes stronger disincentives for students to enroll in the minimum high school graduation program, providing that a student can enroll in the minimum high school program only if the student:

(1) is at least 16 years of age;

(2) has completed the credits necessary for the 10th grade under the recommended or advanced high school program; or

(3) has failed to be promoted to the 10th grade one or more times.

 

“Distinction” designation

As previously mentioned, the new accountability system will be more of a pass/fail system with opportunities for campuses and districts to earn “distinction” designations. In order to be eligible for “distinction,” campuses must have earned an acceptable performance rating and have a minimum percentage of students (to be set by the commissioner of education) meeting college readiness performance standards on state tests or meeting the standard for annual improvement. 

If eligible, a campus can then receive a “distinction” designation if it:

(1) ranked in the top 25 percent of campuses based on annual improvement in student achievement or in significantly diminishing or closing performance gaps between student subpopulations; or

(2) satisfied “distinction” criteria for academic achievement in the four core subject areas, fine arts, PE, 21st century workforce development and second language acquisition.

Additionally, either a campus or a district can earn an academic excellence “distinction,” and a “recognized” or “exemplary” rating within this area of “distinction,” depending upon the extent to which the campus/district exceeds the minimum percentage of students meeting college readiness performance standards or the standard for required improvement set by the commissioner in order to eligible for a “distinction” designation.

 

Student performance data reporting

The final bill includes a Teacher Report Card to be given to teachers at the beginning of the school year for incoming students (a TCTA suggestion) that provides teachers with performance data on these students.

 

Sanctions

A major criticism of the intervention and sanction scheme in the current accountability system is its indifference to the sometimes-unique circumstances contributing to any given campus that struggles to meet performance standards. The new system includes several changes designed to provide a more targeted intervention approach for struggling campuses. It requires that campus improvement teams must develop targeted improvement plans first, rather than comprehensive plans. It adds one additional year to the current timeline for when a school must be closed by adding one year between reconstitution and closure. 

If a campus is considered to have an unacceptable performance rating for three (instead of two, in current law) consecutive school years after the campus is reconstituted, the bill allows for the option of repurposing to be ordered by the commissioner in addition to alternative management or closure.  It also allows the commissioner to waive the requirement for any of these actions for not more than one school year if the commissioner determines, on the basis of significant student improvement over the preceding two school years, that the campus is likely to be assigned an acceptable rating the following school year.

The bill also provides more leniency regarding retention of staff at schools subject to repurposing. For example, a principal can be retained at the campus if the commissioner determines that students at the campus have demonstrated significant academic improvement.  Additionally, teachers can be retained at the campus if the commissioner grants a request from the district to retain teachers who provide instruction in subjects not tested by the state assessments and who demonstrate satisfactory performance; or, for teachers who do provide instruction in a subject tested by the state assessments and who demonstrate satisfactory performance or improved academic growth on the state assessment.

It also prohibits the commissioner from requiring a school to change its name.

Although earlier versions of the bill allowed for-profits to serve as alternative management entities, due to concerns of TCTA and others about the questionable track records of for-profit entities managing public schools, the final bill only allows for-profits to be considered if qualified non-profits do not respond to the commissioner’s request for proposals.

 

Test administration

The new system provides for a few notable changes regarding testing.  One of the more significant changes is the requirement that, on or before Sept. 1 of each year, the commissioner must make available on the Texas Education Agency website the number of questions on the assessment instrument, the number of questions that must be answered correctly to achieve satisfactory performance, the number of questions that must be answered correctly to achieve satisfactory performance under the college readiness performance standard, and the corresponding scale scores for each of the state assessments.

Additional restrictions on local testing were enacted, prohibiting districts from administering any locally required test designed to prepare students for state-administered tests on more than 10 percent of instructional days, and allowing campus site-based decision-making committees to approve an even lesser number of days of testing.

In recognition of the enormous amount of field testing that will be necessary to implement all the new EOC exams required for graduation that were approved in the 2007 legislative session, the bill provides that field tests can be administered to samples of students rather than entire grades/schools.

The bill also prohibits the commissioner from requiring a district or charter to administer an assessment by computer.

Finally, the bill allows for exit-level test retakes to count for accreditation (a TCTA suggestion).

 

Transition

As with any major change to a whole new system, adequate time must be allowed to make a successful transition.  Accordingly, TCTA advocated for a suspension of accountability ratings while transitioning to a new accountability system, and the final bill provides that the commissioner may suspend ratings for the 2011-12 school year, and issue ratings for the first time in the 2012-13 school year.  However, ratings based on college readiness won’t be issued until the 2013-14 school year to give adequate time for studies to determine valid college readiness performance standards.

Updated: 08/20/09