Texas Association of School Administrators and Texas School Alliance. HB 3: Issues and Solutions

Transcription

1 HB 3: Issues and Solutions HB 3, as enacted by the 81 st Legislature, calls for monumental changes in Texas accountability and assessment systems. HB 3 significantly increased the amount of high stakes testing required for students, made the content of state assessments more rigorous, and added components that assess the college and career readiness of graduating high school students. In December 2010 the Texas Education Agency published a voluminous transition plan that outlines the complexity of implementing HB 3. There are many intricate details intertwined throughout the nascent systems that need to be untangled and addressed to ensure that students are fully supported in meeting the higher standards. Due to the complexity of the new system and the current state budget crisis our first recommendation is to: Delay full implementation of STAAR, inclusive of End of Course (EOC) assessments, and maintain use of the current TAKS assessment program until the school year. The state should allow the first two cohorts of entering 9 th graders to take the EOCs as report only measures and maintain exit level TAKS as the students graduation requirements and as the accountability indicator for high schools. If the Legislature chooses not to delay implementation, the state also needs to then consider the following recommendations that will ensure the new systems are equitable and efficient for all students, and allow districts time to adequately prepare students as schools adjust to diminishing budgets and reductions in staff. Issue 1 The requirement that students must achieve a cumulative score, that is at least equal to the product of the passing standard times the number of EOC assessments in each foundation area, is excessive as students already have 12 hurdles to jump in meeting a minimum score on 12 EOC exams in order to graduate from high school. The provision also creates a bureaucratic monitoring system subject to human error (e.g., when monitoring each student s cumulative performance in addition to annual performance towards satisfying graduation requirements). Solution 1 Remove the cumulative score as a requirement for graduation. Provide flexibility by allowing the cumulative score component to be an optional means of satisfying graduation requirements. Issue 2 Current testing requirements create a disincentive for students to take high school courses in 8 th grade, and create duplicative assessment requirements. Beginning in the school year, 8 th grade students taking courses for high school graduation credit will be required to take more high stakes tests than their peers. These 8 th grade students must take, and meet the passing standard on, the 8 th grade STAAR in both reading and mathematics to advance to 9 th grade. In addition, these students must take an EOC for courses they are taking for high school credit. This amounts to five or more high stakes tests (8 th grade STAAR in reading, math, science, and social studies plus the relevant EOCs) for advanced students. Solution 2 Students working above grade level should not need to take additional tests to satisfy SSI requirements at 8 th grade, the latter of which are anchored to grade level material. The state should authorize TEA and districts to accept award of high school credit in middle school grades as satisfying any grade level promotion requirements relative to entry into 9 th grade. To avoid unintended consequences associated with state compliance with the federal No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act, TEA should be directed to work with the USDE to permit relevant EOC data to stand in lieu of grade level STAAR tests for accountability purposes. It is understood that such changes are contingent upon USDE approval of the substitution of EOC scores for grade level test results. In no case are students being excused from or excluded from assessments; the only change TEA needs to seek is allowance for participation on more than one assessment to satisfy federal requirements. 1

2 Issue 3 There are several issues with the requirement that an EOC score must be averaged in as 15 percent of the course grade. The EOC 15 percent weight requirement is an unnecessary motivator that poses huge logisticalcommunications challenges for schools and families. Three examples of these unintended challenges are listed below. Example A Not knowing whether a student has passed or failed an EOC impacts summer school and family schedules. In addition, the requirement creates a situation where a student may fail a course solely due to one standardized test score. If a student fails an EOC exam, does the student have to repeat the entire course? Retake the EOC? Implementing the 15 percent requirement consistently and equitably for all students becomes a logistical challenge that does nothing to enhance the assessment system for any stakeholder. Example B In high school, it is common practice to schedule courses in such a manner that half credits are issued. This practice conflicts with the HB 3 requirement that the EOC score must be averaged in as 15 percent of the course grade. For example, if a student takes English I for a half credit in the fall semester and earns an A, and then takes English I for the second half credit in the spring semester and earns a C, into which semester course is the EOC score to be averaged? In addition, school information systems aren t configured to allow changing a grade that has already been earned, e.g., changing a course grade/credit earned in the fall semester during the spring semester. Example C Currently if a student in the MHSP takes an EOC course for elective credit, the student s score on the EOC must be used to calculate 15% of the final course grade. The score on the EOC exam, that was taken solely for elective purposes, could prevent the student from graduating, thus discouraging a student from taking the more rigorous course. Solution 3 Remove the 15 percent requirement for the final course grade. Issue 4 The Texas Education Code currently contains a large number of public notice requirements that are costly and can become time consuming. At the same time access to information by parents and the general public is a key feature of any meaningful accountability system. Solution 4 Make the notification system more efficient by allowing all required public notice in the accountability and accreditation code to be provided in the same manner, electronically (e.g., website posting, electronic media release). Issue 5 According to information in TEA s House Bill 3 Transition Plan (p. I 72), as a cost saving measure, the STAAR L (linguistically accommodated test) will be administered solely in a computer based format. Current Texas Education Code provisions prohibit TEA from requiring on line administration of tests required under Texas Education Code , in part because of well documented limitations in districts capacities to provide sufficient, secure test administrations by computer. While a linguistically accommodated test may be considered 2

3 an exception to this section of the code, TEA s Transition Plan information indicates that TEA does plan to use these data in determining school and district accountability ratings. When such high stakes are attached to the data, the system used to the gather data must work seamlessly and with utmost accuracy. The current Texas Assessment Management System (TAMS) is known to have bugs and the TestNav software application has, in the past, crashed while students were testing with a resulting loss of data. District testing coordinators are concerned about how well the new systems will work in spring 2011 and beyond (TELPAS window opens March 7), given past experiences and current glitches in TAMS. Solution 5 Amend Texas Education Code to prohibit TEA from exclusively using a computer based testing format for STAAR L. Issue 6 HB 3 tripled the number of tests students must pass to graduate under the RHSP and DAP (from 4 TAKS to 12 EOCs). According to the TEA Transition Plan (p. II 58), the Texas requirement that students must pass 12 EOCs for graduation purposes is double (and sometimes triple) the number of required EOC tests in any of the 25 states whose profiles were included in the document. Having our students pass more EOCs than do those in other states is not necessarily an indicator that our system is better. The 12 EOC exams required by HB 3 still provide a rear view mirror look at teaching and learning; there are more efficient and instructionally valuable ways to monitor curriculum than testing every student in every subject area. Solution 6 Reduce the number of EOC exams that students must pass for RHSP and DAP graduation purposes. This would allow rigorous student expectations to remain in place, while reducing the excessive number of hurdles students must successfully jump to graduate under the RHSP or DAP, and improve the efficiency of the entire EOC testing process. Issue 7 HB 3 requires that districts provide accelerated instruction to every student in grades 3 8, who fails a state assessment, and every student who fails an EOC. Prior to HB 3 districts were only required to provide accelerated instruction to students in grades 3, 5, and 8 who failed a state reading or mathematics assessment. Funding to provide accelerated instruction to students at any grade level was eliminated through Rider 42, 81 st Texas Legislature. In addition, neither the current House or Senate budget proposals for the 82 nd Legislature include appropriations that are specifically designated for district use in providing this accelerated instruction to assist their struggling students. Solution 7 Eliminate the 10:1 ratio mandate by removing the last sentence in Texas Education Code (c): An accelerated instruction group administered by a school district under this section may not have a ratio of more than 10 students for each teacher. The removal of this ratio requirement would provide districts with flexibility in scheduling the intensive instruction, and allow districts to assign the most appropriate staff members to provide the accelerated instruction. 3

4 Issue 8 Texas Education Code, Section (a 2) requires students in grades 5 and 8 to complete accelerated instruction (AI) before placement in the next grade level. A student who fails to complete required AI may not be promoted. Although the intent of the statute was good (to ensure 8 th grade students participated in the prescribed AI) there are unintended consequences in fulfilling the requirement for students who fail the third test administration. Because the third administration occurs in the summer, teachers are unavailable to provide the AI, district facilities are often closed, school buses are unavailable for transportation purposes, etc. To address the logistical challenges involved, and to prevent students who take the third test from being penalized, TEA allowed districts to apply for a waiver for this requirement during the school year. Solution 8 Amend Texas Education Code, Section (a 2) to permit the AI to be administered at the beginning of the next school year (e.g., during the first six weeks) for those students who take the third administration, and are promoted by the Grade Placement Committee. This allows the student to move forward to the next grade level as the Grade Placement Committee has recommended, and allows the district to provide the instruction with the necessary efficiency, when teachers and school facilities are available. Issue 9 According to the TEA Highlights document (p. 5) that accompanies the HB 3 Transition Plan, districts and campuses will not receive advanced notice of performance under the new accountability system beginning with the release of the 2013 ratings. It is unclear if this is a one time only phenomenon in 2013, or if a precedent will be established that alters accountability rating releases in years beyond Solution 9 Amend statute to ensure that districts and campuses are provided with confidential advanced notice of initial performance after the first release in This would ensure that a district or campus has an opportunity to review and, if needed, appeal the rating before the ratings are publicly released. Issue 10 According to information in TEA s House Bill 3 Transition Plan Highlights document (p. 5), modified forms of EOCs will be developed for only nine of the 12 courses where the tests currently are required. However, the state also has interpreted graduation requirements in a way that would create disparate treatment of students on the Minimum High School Plan. For example: If an MHSP student elects to take Integrated Physics and Chemistry, then that student is only required to take Biology as the second science course and with that, only the Biology EOC. However, if the student chooses to attempt a more rigorous program of study, then he or she must take Biology and either Chemistry or Physics, with the remaining science course serving as an academic elective. According to TEA s Transition Plan materials, as soon as a student elects to take these courses, then the student must also take and pass all three EOCs to satisfy graduation requirements, including the cumulative score requirement. However, modified versions of these tests will not be available, bringing into question whether these students are being given appropriate assessment opportunities relative to their educational programs. Solution 10 Either establish uniform EOC requirements for all MHSP students or require TEA to prepare appropriate modifications of all EOCs and provide for all allowable, instructionally appropriate accommodations. 4

5 Issue 11 The proposed EOC administration schedule (fall, winter, and spring) is limited and doesn t accommodate students involved in virtual school learning or any other form of flexible, paced instruction. The main purpose of virtual school learning is to provide students and districts with flexibility in how and when instruction is provided, and to support new 21 st Century education paradigms, yet students may be penalized for opting for this online route to complete courses needed for graduation purposes. The same dilemma is posed for students in credit recovery programs that also often involve online or computer based learning. Solution 11 The ideal, and instructionally appropriate, solution would be for TEA to offer additional EOC administration opportunities on line periodically throughout the year, but it is understood that this would significantly drive up state and local costs associated with the assessment program. If the overall number of EOCs required for graduation were reduced to four (one per content area), then TEA might have sufficient funds to develop more flexible on line administration windows for just these four assessments and be spared costs associated with retesting on 8 of the 12 tests. This solution provides the state with efficiencies and students with appropriate assessment opportunities. As a last resort, if only four EOCs were required for graduation, then instructional program delivery might be restructured to ensure better timing relative to the testing windows for just these courses. Issue 12 In Texas Education Code regarding accreditation interventions and sanctions, specifically Sections and , districts are required to hire external professional services, e.g., conservator, and to pay the associated costs. This can become quite costly with an average fee of $480 per day, per each outside consultant. Solution 12 In the interest of efficiency, amend statute to allow districts to procure professional services in the capacity of monitor, conservator, etc., internally. As an alternative that also is more efficient than current law, the state should provide these services at no cost to districts and campuses through existing regional education service centers. Issue 13 The Advanced Placement (AP) and EOC exam schedules overlap, causing negative consequences for AP students. TEA is aware of the scheduling conflicts and, is working with the College Board to prevent future overlap. Students should not be placed in a situation where they have to forgo an opportunity to earn college credit so they can demonstrate college readiness for state purposes. Even when there are not conflicts for students, the demands on campus facilities for testing space, and for a sufficient number of trained personnel to ensure security for test administrations, will be significant challenges. STARR EOC May 7, 2012 Algebra I May 8, 2012 U.S. History May 9, 2012 Biology May 10, 2012 Geometry May 11, 2012 World Geography AP Exams Environmental Science, Chemistry, Psychology Computer Science, Spanish Calculus English Literature and Composition U.S. History 5

6 Solution 13 It is understood that to truly represent the knowledge a student has mastered by the end of a course, EOCs should be administered after instruction has been delivered and students have had opportunity to learn the content. Thus the solution of moving EOC testing windows earlier in the school year is convenient but instructionally not in students best interests. Safeguards should be established to prevent EOC exams, beyond the school year, from being scheduled on exactly the same days as are AP exams and/or International Baccaluareate (IB) exams. Issue 14 Not all EOCs are created equal. Specifically, student performance on two tests Algebra II and English Language Arts (ELA) III determines whether or not a student can graduate on the Distinguished Achievement Plan (DAP). This is true regardless of students accomplishments over the course of their academic careers, including whether or not they have satisfied the additional criteria that were previously established to determine eligibility to graduate on the DAP. Similarly, performance on these two tests also determines whether or not a student can graduate on the Recommended High School Plan (RHSP), again regardless of the student s cumulative academic accomplishments. Solution 14 A. Performance on these two tests can be added to the list of additional measures as options that students can use to satisfy DAP requirements. The current requirements include four instances of completion of a) original research, b) test performance (AP, IB, etc.) at a certain level, and c) completion of college academic credit. Why not embed performance on these two assessments as being among the menu of options? B. Students should be allowed to demonstrate proficiency either through a cumulative score total in ELA and mathematics, or by passing the Algebra II and ELA III tests for purposes of determining eligibility to graduate on RHSP. Another option might be to establish a composite value across the two tests as yet another way to satisfy RHSP requirements, so that students weaker performance in one area may be compensated for by stronger performance in the other area. Issue 15 Test requirements are being interpreted in ways that may tempt students to lower their expectations if they wish to protect their opportunities to graduate. For example, if a student is on the Minimum High School Plan (MHSP) and takes Integrated Physics and Chemistry (IPC) followed by Biology, then the student is only required to take and pass the Biology EOC. However, if the student wants to pursue challenging courses and chooses to take Biology, then Chemistry, and then (per SBOE requirements) Physics as their required academic elective, the student is obligated to take and pass (at least at the minimum level to satisfy cumulative score total requirements) all three EOCs essentially the same as the RHSP requirements, even though the student is only on the MHSP. The disincentives created here are formidable. The same phenomenon appears to occur in other subject areas besides science. Solution 15 Hold MHSP students harmless for attempting RHSP required courses and EOCs. If the minimum graduation requirement in science, for example, is the Biology I EOC, then that should be the uniform requirement for ALL students on the MHSP. Students should not be denied the ability to graduate on MHSP for having attempting to complete a more rigorous program of study than was required. 6