What_Is_to_Be_Done_with_Texas_Projection_Measure_

Running head: WHAT IS TO BE DONE WITH TEXAS PROJECTION MEASURE' 1 What is to be done with Texas Projection Measure' Polly D. Finnessey Texas A&M University-Kingsville WHAT IS TO BE DONE WITH TEXAS PROJECTION MEASURE' What is to be done with Texas Projection Measure' Texas Education Agency (TEA) described the Texas Projection Measure (TPM) as, “a growth measure that will be used by Texas to determine whether students are meeting annual performance goals” (TEA, 2009.) This announcement defined, “Growth measures track individual student achievement on state tests from one year to the next, giving schools credit for student improvement over time.” Texas Commissioner of Education, Robert Scott stated, “Our ability to use a growth measure for accountability purposes will help recognize the hard work 2 being done in schools where students are making significant educational progress,” (TEA, 2009.) Growth models like TPM were developed by the states to answer the charge for “measuring the academic growth students achieve from year to year in NCLB,” placed by vocal segments of the education policy and advocacy communities (Commission On No Child Left Behind: The Aspen Institute, 2006.) Some advantages to utilizing growth models for accountability were set forth: “…educators feel that the achievement status of a school is not a sufficient indicator of success. …public input…has favored measuring growth either as an element in an accountability system or as the sole factor. This was often cited as more fair than current systems….local staff would be more willing to be held accountable for the growth a student makes as a result of instruction provided…rather than…rated on the prior instruction the student received. Growth models also…may compel states to provide greater and better technical assistance and support…These models also enable educators to better…ensure that low-performing students receive the programmatic help necessary to improve… (Commission On No Child Left Behind: The Aspen Institute.) WHAT IS TO BE DONE WITH TEXAS PROJECTION MEASURE' States’ growth measures necessitated assessment structures robust enough to meet close to ten criteria that included: unique student identifiers to enable performance tracking over 3 years; a capable state data management system; information available on students not tested; and, vertically-scaled assessments (Commission On No Child Left Behind: The Aspen Institute.) State growth models had to also project proficiency for all students by 2014, and had to set annual growth goals in line with that goal. One state’s proposed growth measure was thrown out because it would have required only 75 percent of students to meet the proficient level by 2014, rather than the 100 percent target required by federal law (Viadero, 2006.) Each state’s proposed growth model was designed to work with that particular state’s assessment structure, and thus each state handled the 2014 deadline for proficiency of all students, and the requirement to close achievement gaps differently. The Aspen Institute’s report in 2006 summarized: Despite the possibility of being complex and resource heavy to implement, the additional information that states, districts, and schools will be able to collect from growth models could be an extremely powerful tool for school improvement. The data created through a growth model approach could not only be used to hold schools accountable, but also to inform teaching, improve management practices and policy and most importantly, construct targeted interventions to increase student achievement (Commission On No Child Left Behind: The Aspen Institute.) The U.S. Department of Education announced, in January of 2009, that it approved the Texas growth model, TPM (TEA, 2009.) The state of Texas had developed vertically scaled and aligned assessments in preparation to utilize the model: “In 2007, Section 39.026 of Senate Bill 1031 was signed into law, requiring the implementation of a vertical scale to compare the performance of individual students from one grade level to the next beginning with the 2008- WHAT IS TO BE DONE WITH TEXAS PROJECTION MEASURE' 2009 school year” (Houston Independent School District Department Of Research And Accountability, 2009.) The TPM was not actually developed to measure growth that had occurred, but to project the likelihood that a student will pass in the future. The TPM Vertical Scale Brief, put out by Houston ISD’s Department of Research and Accountability in February or 2009 explained this: 4 The TPM is multi-level regression-based projection model that will be used as a method for projecting future student scores in the next high-stakes grade (grades 5, 8, and 11) using both current student scale scores in reading/English language arts and mathematics and the average campus scale score in the projection subject. Projections will be made separately for reading/ELA and math (Houston Independent School District Department Of Research And Accountability, 2009.) The confidential student reports were to have an indicator (yes/no) to indicate whether students were projected to meet standard in the next high stakes grade—whether the student met or did not meet standards in the current year. If the student was projected to meet standards in the next benchmark year then the student could be counted for the school or district as meeting standards for that year. Therein lay the two-fold conflict for the Texas public: 1) TPM gave credit to districts based on projections, not demonstrated growth that already occurred; 2) TPM gave credit to districts, but not individual students. A recent Fort Worth Star-Telegram editorial complained, “The Texas Projection Measure, designed to give schools credit for having moved student performance forward even if that doesn’t mean they can yet pass statewide tests, has been overly generous with its rewards” (Star- WHAT IS TO BE DONE WITH TEXAS PROJECTION MEASURE' telegram, 2010.) Austin’s Texas Tribune hammered commissioner Scott and TPM with criticism about the questionable statistics: 5 Up until last week, Scott and the TEA claimed a 92 percent accuracy rate for the formula. But that’s based on its projections for all Texas students—not the small subset of failingturned-passing projections that are used to bump literally hundreds of schools into the state’s “recognized” and “exemplary” categories and take hundreds more out of the failing category. So why use projections for all students to study “accuracy” and never study the accuracy of the projections that actually matter' I’m no statistician, but that makes no sense to me. It’s like studying every Major League Baseball game to find out how likely it is the Houston Astros will win,… …any method of doling out credit for failure is, first, difficult to craft and, second, subject to criticism. Failing, after all, isn’t passing (Thevenot, 2010.) Responding to the backlash of public opinion, and severe criticism by some out-spoken lawmakers, Education Commissioner Scott recently forwarded correspondence to Texas school districts. Scott decried the criticism leveled at the state for the use of TPM in state accountability, and stated that this criticism is overshadowing the hard work done by students and educators across the state (Scott, 2010.) Scott responded to the criticism by announcing changes to TPM application that could include suspension of the use of TPM for state accountability ratings (Scott.) He suggested in the same letter that perhaps each student who fails but is projected to pass may in the future count as a fraction of a passer, punctuating the conversation about TPM—NCLB didn’t mean to suggest that schools are doing their jobs if parts or fractions of students are meeting standards. WHAT IS TO BE DONE WITH TEXAS PROJECTION MEASURE' The Texas Projection Measure, Scott admitted, will likely have to be scrapped. 6 Unfortunately, TPM’s capacity to inform interventions, instruction, programs and systems about the needs of individual students and how to meet them will also have been scrapped, if that were to happen. WHAT IS TO BE DONE WITH TEXAS PROJECTION MEASURE' References Commission On No Child Left Behind: The Aspen Institute (2006, June 27). Growth models: An examination within the context of NCLB. Retrieved July 17, 2010, from http://www.cgp.upenn.edu/pdf/NCLB%20Growth%20models.pdf Houston Independent School District Department Of Research And Accountability (2009, February 27). 2009 Texas Education Agency vertical scale & Texas projection measure (TPM) implementation. Retrieved July 17, 2010, from 7 http://www.houstonisd.org/ResearchAccountability/Home/Perform_Acount/StudPerf/Tex as%20Projection%20Measure/TPM%20%20VERTICAL%20SCALE%20BRIEF.pdf NEA Education Policy And Practice Department (2009). Growth Models–An Update on the Effectiveness of Determining Student Progress and School Accountability. Retrieved July 17, 2010, from National Education Agency, Center for Great Public Schools website: http://www.nea.org/assets/docs/PB10a_GrowthModels.pdf Scott, R. (2010, July 8). TEA correspondence: update on the implementation of new assessment and accountability provisions. Retrieved July 15, 2010, from http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/taa/comm070810.html Star-telegram (2010, July 12). TEA's projection measures aren't measuring up [Supplemental material]. Star-Telegram. Retrieved from http://www.startelegram.com/2010/07/12/2330185/teas-projection-measures-arent.html Texas Education Agency (TEA) (2009, January 8). Texas accountability growth measure approved by U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved July 17, 2010, from http://www.tea.state.tx.us/index4.aspx'id=3518 Thevenot, B. (2010, July 12). Scott takes questions on formula to credit failure [Supplemental WHAT IS TO BE DONE WITH TEXAS PROJECTION MEASURE' material]. The Texas Tribune. Retrieved from http://www.texastribune.org/texaseducation/robert-scott/scott-takes-questions-on-formula-to-credit-failure/ Viadero, D. (2006). U. S. pilot of AYP 'growth' models advances. Education Week, 25(31), 30- 8 32. Retrieved July 15, 2010 from Academic Search Complete (02774232). Retrieved July 15, 2010, from http://0search.ebscohost.com.oasis.lib.tamuk.edu/login.aspx'direct=true&db=a9h&AN=220389 73&site=ehost-live