September 2009

Copyright
© 2009
Queue, Inc.

<< Texas Education News Back Issues

Queue Resource Collection   Access and Print Materials from an Entire Library of Workbooks for ONE LOW ANNUAL FEE!

Texas Charters Evaluated

A new report issued by the Center for Research on Education Outcomes (CREDO) at Stanford University found that there is a wide variance in the quality of the nation’s several thousand charter schools with, in the aggregate, students in charter schools not faring as well as students in traditional public schools.

The analysis looks at student achievement growth on state achievement tests in both reading and math with controls for student demographics and eligibility for program support such as free or reduced-price lunch and special education. The analysis includes the most current student achievement data from 15 states and the District of Columbia and gauges whether students who attend charter schools fare better than if they would have attended a traditional public school.

Overall State Results

The report found that achievement results varied by states that reported individual data. States with reading and math gains that were significantly higher for charter school students than would have occurred in traditional schools included: Arkansas, Colorado (Denver), Illinois (Chicago), Louisiana and Missouri.

States with reading and math gains that were either mixed or were not different than their peers in the traditional public school system included: California, the District of Columbia, Georgia and North Carolina.

States with reading and math gains that were significantly below their peers in the traditional public school system included: Arizona, Florida, Minnesota, New Mexico, Ohio and Texas.

To download a copy of the full Texas report visit:

http://credo.stanford.edu/reports/TX_CHARTER%20SCHOOL%20REPORT_CREDO_2009.pdf

REPORT IDENTIFIES OVERACHIEVING DISTRICTS

Despite recent downturns, Diplomas Count 2009 finds widespread long-term gains at the district level. From 1996 to 2006, the majority of the nation’s local school systems posted improvements in their levels of high school completion. In fact, graduation rates rose by 15 percentage points or more for about 1,500 districts across the country.

The EPE Research Center also conducted a special analysis to identify school systems that exceed expectations for current graduation rates or improvements over the past decade. The report finds stellar performance in some of the nation’s most at-risk communities, recognizing 50 “overachieving” big-city school systems from across the country.

Among these top-ranking urban districts, especially strong showings were posted by: Merced Union High School District (Calif.); Sharyland Independent School District (Mission, Texas); Stockton Unified School District (Calif.); Texarkana Independent School District (Texas); and Metropolitan School District of Warren Township (Indianapolis). In each of these districts, both graduation rates for 2006 and graduation-rate improvements from 1996 to 2006 surpassed expected levels by at least 15 percentage points.

New Study Finds Little Evidence That Federal Emphasis on “Proficient” Performance Has Shortchanged Advanced or Low-Achieving Students

Many States Show Gains Since 2002 at All Achievement Levels

Texas Report:
http://www.cep-dc.org/_data/n_0001/resources/live/StateProfiles2009/TexasGeneralTrendsProfile_FINAL.doc

Student performance on state reading and math tests has generally risen at three achievement levels, according to a 50-state study by the Center on Education Policy (CEP). The study found more states with gains than declines in the percentages of students reaching or exceeding the basic, proficient, and advanced levels of achievement, and relatively few instances of sizeable declines in the percentage scoring below the basic level.

Achievement also improved in most states at the elementary, middle, and high school levels.

The CEP study analyzed test score trends, where available, from 2002, the year the federal No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) took effect, through 2008. (Some states did not have trends going back to 2002 because they had adopted new tests or made other major changes in their testing systems.) The study expands on CEP’s previous two reports on achievement by examining, for the first time, test results at the “advanced” level and at the “basic” level-and-above—as well as at the “proficient” level and above, which is the benchmark that matters most for federal accountability under NCLB.

ASSESSING PERFORMANCE AT LEVELS ABOVE AND BELOW PROFICIENT

CEP found that, even though NCLB creates incentives for schools to focus on ensuring students reach the proficient level, states posted gains at the advanced and basic-and-above levels as well. At the basic-and-above level, 73 percent of the trend lines analyzed across various subjects and grades showed gains. At the advanced level, 71 percent of the trend lines analyzed showed improvement.

“If accountability policies were indeed shortchanging high- and low-achieving students, we would expect to see stagnation or decline at the basic and advanced levels,” said Jack Jennings, CEP’s president and CEO. “Instead, the percentages of students scoring at the basic-and-above and advanced levels have increased much more often than they have decreased, especially in the lower grades.”

Gains were somewhat more prevalent at the proficient-and-above level than at the other two achievement levels. Of the trend lines analyzed at the proficient-and-above level, 83 percent displayed gains, while 15 percent showed declines. The size of the gains was also larger, on average, at the proficient-and-above level. However, this may be partly due to a test-related statistical issue: When average test scores go up, the percentage of students at the proficient level tends to grow faster than at the basic and advanced levels because more students’ scores tend to be clustered near the proficient level.

At the advanced level, the size of the gains in elementary and middle school math were close or equal to those at the proficient level and there were more upward trends than downward. These findings generally point to a significant movement of students from proficient to advanced. At the basic level, too, there were more gains than declines. Although some states posted declines at the basic level, most were slight.

“There are several possible explanations for the upward trends. The most hopeful explanation is that students are learning more and consequently are performing better on state tests,” Jennings said. “There is probably also a cumulative effect of test-focused instruction at work.”

More gains have been made in math than in reading, according to the report. The size of the percentage gains across all states was greater in math than in reading, data which is confirmed by the results from the National Assessment of Educational Progress.

HIGH SCHOOL ACHIEVEMENT CONTINUES TO LAG

The report notes that achievement at the high school level has improved but still lags behind elementary and middle school achievement. The average annual percentage point gains for high school students tended to be lower than at the elementary or middle school levels. There may be several reasons for the divergence in performance between students at the lower and higher grades, among them that it is more difficult to engage and motive high school students or that high schools receive fewer federal resources.

Although CEP collected test data from all 50 states, achievement trends were included in the report only for states with at least three years of comparable test data for a particular subject, grade, and achievement level. A change in test results was considered to be a “trend” only if it was based on at least three years of data in order to account for yearly fluctuations in test scores that are unrelated to students’ learning.

The report, titled State Test Score Trends Through 2007-08, Part I: Is the Emphasis on “Proficiency” Shortchanging Higher- and Lower-Achieving Students?, is available at
http://www.cep-dc.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=document_ext.showDocumentByID&nodeID=1&DocumentID=280

Individual state profiles are available at:
http://www.cep-dc.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=Page.viewPage&pageId=572

More Than $2 Billion in Recovery Funds Now Available for Texas to Save Jobs and Drive Education Reform

More than $2 billion is now available for Texas under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009. This funding will lay the foundation for a generation of education reform and help save hundreds of thousands of teaching jobs at risk of state and local budget cuts. Texas will be eligible to apply for another $1 billion this fall. Today's funding is being made available per Texas's successful completion of Part 1 of the State Stabilization Application, which was made available on April 1st.

To date, Texas has received $1.7 billion in education stimulus funds–representing a combination of funding for Title I, IDEA, Vocational Rehabilitation Grants, Independent Living Grants, Impact Aid and Government Services funds. On April 1st, Texas received more than $474 million in Title I funding and nearly $505 million in IDEA funding. This represents 50 percent of the Title I and IDEA funding Texas is eligible for in total. On April 1, Texas also received more than $22 million in Vocational Rehab funds and more than $3 million in Independent Living funds. On April 10, Texas received nearly $7 million in Impact Aid funding.
In order to receive today's funds, Texas provided assurances that it will collect, publish, analyze and act on basic information regarding the quality of classroom teachers, annual student improvements, college readiness, the effectiveness of state standards and assessments, progress on removing charter caps and interventions in turning around underperforming schools.

Texas is also required by the Department of Education to report the number of jobs saved through Recovery Act funding, the amount of state and local tax increases averted and how funds are used.

See Texas application for initial funding under the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund Program at http://www.ed.gov/programs/statestabilization/resources.html.

ACT scores hit all-time high level in Texas
    
The Texas ACT composite score reached an all-time high in 2009 as did the number of students tested.

Texas public and private school students in the Class of 2009 earned a score of 20.8 out of a possible 36. The composite score has increased every year since 2005 when Texans earned a composite score of 20.2.

    Scores on three ACT subtests – English, mathematics and science – also reached record highs for Texas students.

Although the Texas composite score trails the national score, which is 21.1, the Texas score increased while the national score remained unchanged.

A total of 82,640 members of the Class of 2009 in Texas took the ACT. That’s about a 10,000 student increase over the number of students in the Class of 2005 who took the college admissions exam. When underclassmen are included, 159,899 Texas students took the ACT in 2009.

Normally as the number of test takers go up, the average score declines but that didn’t happen this year.

 Texas students have increased their scores on the English, math, science and the overall composite score every year since 2005. Reading scores increased between 2005 and 2008 and remain unchanged at 20.9 in 2009.

Among student groups, African-American, American Indian, white, and Asian-American students in Texas outperformed their national counterparts this year. Additionally, overall composite scores for white and Asian American students in Texas have increased every year since 2005. Scores for African-American students in this state have increased each year since 2007. Scores for Texas Hispanic students increased between 2005 and 2008 and stayed the same in 2009.

Texas Hispanic students represent 17 percent of all the Hispanic students who take the ACT nationally.

ACT officials use results on their tests to determine whether students have a 50 percent chance or better of earning a grade of at least a B in core classes as a college freshman. The percent of Texas students meeting all four college readiness benchmarks has increased from 17 percent to 22 percent since 2005.

ACT projects that 63 percent of the Texas Class of 2009 are ready for freshman college English Composition, while 49 percent are ready for college social studies classes. Confirming what Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills results show, our students are less prepared for math and science classes. Forty-four percent of the students in the Class of 2009 are ready for college algebra and 26 percent are ready for college biology.

Texas ACT Report:
http://www.act.org/news/data/09/pdf/states/Texas.pdf

SAT scores show mixed results

    SAT results show increased scores on the mathematics exam for public and private school students in Texas, while the mean math score nationally remained unchanged.
    Tracking a national trend, the critical reading and writing scores declined for Texas public and private students.
    The 2009 mean math score for all Texas students was 506, an increase of one point. The mean score on the critical reading test was 486, a decline of two points. The mean writing score was 475, a decline of five points.
    The national scores for all students were 501 for critical reading, a one-point drop; 515 for math, which represented no change; and 493 for writing, a one-point decline.
    Among public school students nationally, the scores were 496 and 487 for reading and writing, respectively, which represented a one-point decline on both tests. The mean math score held steady at 510.
    Among Texas public school students, scores increased for Asian-American students this year, while other student groups had mixed results. For the state overall, the number of 2009 graduating seniors who took the SAT rose to 141,733, up from 137,024 the previous year. The number of Texas public school seniors tested was 112,485, a decline from 116,875 tested the previous year.
    Officials with the College Board, which administers the SAT, said a smaller number of students in Texas are taking the exam more than once, which could be contributing to the decline in scores.
    Students who take standardized exams multiple times often earn higher scores the subsequent times they take the exams. Because the state’s Top 10 percent rule guarantees admission to a public university to any student who ranks in the top 10 percent of their graduating class, students may feel less compelled to take the exam multiple times in an effort to raise their score.
    College Board officials also noted that the major spring testing period occurred during the H1N1 flu outbreak when thousands of Texas students were ill. About 40 SAT testing sites in Texas were shut down because of the outbreak.
    More students are also electing to take the ACT test, which is likely a factor in the declining number of public school students who take the SAT. Some students take both exams. ACT, Inc. reported last week that there was an increase of 3,590 test takers among the 2009 graduating class and a 14,879 student increase among all Texas high school students who took the exam last year. Many juniors and some sophomores take the ACT and SAT.
    While the decline on the writing score is significant, it’s worth noting that the writing score has declined both nationally and in Texas since the test’s introduction in 2006. Some testing experts question whether the writing prompts, the topic about which students are asked to write, may be impacting the scores.
 Texas SAT Report:
http://professionals.collegeboard.com/profdownload/TX_09_03_03_01.pdf

Eighty percent of Texas schools and districts meet AYP
    
Eighty percent of Texas schools and districts met Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) standards required by the annual federal evaluation system,.
    This year, 992 school districts earned the Meets AYP label, up from 824 or 67 percent of the districts in 2008.
    The percentage of schools that achieved this designation rose from 75 percent in 2008 to 80 percent today. This year, 6,696 campuses earned the Meets AYP designation, compared to 6,170 last year.
    The evaluations for districts and campuses are available at: http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/ayp/index_multi.html.
    The federal evaluations are based on:
• Participation and passing rates on state math and English language arts/reading tests for grades 3-8 and 10;
• Graduation rates for high schools and districts; and
• Attendance rates for elementary and middle schools.
    Significant changes were made in the evaluation system this year. The performance standards rose substantially and a growth model called the Texas Projection Measure was introduced into the AYP calculations.
    The AYP performance standards required to achieve Meets AYP for English language arts/reading rose from 60 percent in 2008 to 67 percent this year. The mathematics passing standards rose from 50 percent to 58 percent today. Schools and districts must also meet a participation standard in reading and math, testing at least 95 percent of their students in each subject.
    The testing information for the federal evaluations is based on results from the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS), TAKS (Accommodated), TAKS-Modified (TAKS–M) and TAKS-Alternate (TAKS–Alt) assessments. Three tests – TAKS (Accommodated), TAKS-M and TAKS-Alternate are tests available to students with disabilities who need some type of accommodation that is not available on the standard TAKS. Texas is one of the first states to use a modified test in its AYP calculations.
    Along with acceptable test performance, districts and high schools must also meet a 70 percent graduation rate or show improvement over the previous year. Elementary and middle schools must have an attendance rate of 90 percent or higher to meet AYP requirements.
    While the passing standards rose this year, districts and schools got credit for improving academic performance through the Texas Projection Measure (TPM). This is an estimate of whether a student is likely to pass the TAKS at a future grade. The measure is based on a student’s performance on TAKS and the TAKS scores from all students on the campus that the student attends.

    Texas is one of 15 states that has received approval from the U.S. Department of Education to use a growth model in its AYP system. Texas is using the same growth model in its state accountability system. In 2006 and 2007, the Texas Legislature passed laws that required Texas to measure student progress over time, which resulted in the development of the TPM.
    The combined effect of these changes in combination with increases in performance across the state, resulted in Texas seeing more schools and districts achieving AYP and fewer receiving a Missed AYP label.

    This year, 18 percent of the districts or 218 Missed AYP, compared to 32 percent or 391 that fell short in 2008.

    At the campus level, 5 percent or 391 schools Missed AYP in 2009, compared to 14 percent or 1,109 last year.

    Two percent of the districts and 15 percent of the campuses were not rated for a variety of reasons, such as extended closure due to Hurricane Ike or they did not serve students in grades 3-8 and 10.

    The most common reasons that a campus received a Missed AYP designation were mathematics performance and graduation rates.

    School Improvement Status

    Schools or districts that receive a Missed AYP designation and receive Title I funds, which are federal funds targeted to help serve low-income students, face sanctions in this federal evaluation system.

    Of the schools that Missed AYP, 285 are Title I campuses receiving associated federal funding and 106 are not receiving Title I funds. Of the districts that received a Missed AYP designation, 216 are Title I districts and two are not.

    If a Title I school misses AYP for two or more years for the same indicator (reading, mathematics, attendance or graduation rate), it moves into the School Improvement Program. The school improvement categories range from Stage 1 to Stage 5, with required intervention intensifying at each additional stage.

    At Stage 1, school officials must approve a campus improvement plan and give students the option of transferring to another school. By Stage 5, which means the schools has Missed AYP for the same indicator for six or more years, the school must implement a major restructuring.

Details of the possible sanctions are available at: http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/nclb/titleia/sip/2009-2010/sipD.html.