No TPM means lower accountability ratings for many
As was widely expected, many school districts and schools saw their accountability ratings drop this year due to the discontinuation of the use of the Texas Projection Measure in determining accountability ratings. Under the new ratings, released July 29, only 61 districts and 1,224 campuses achieved exemplary status, compared to 241 districts and 2,637 campuses last year. The number of recognized districts dropped from 607 to 422, and the number of recognized campuses from 3,160 to 2,825.
Click here for the TEA news release, which includes more details and a link to the 2011 accountability ratings.
The Texas Education Agency developed the TPM in response to legislation passed in 2006 requiring the commissioner of education to determine a method to measure annual improvement in student achievement from one school year to the next. The law states that TEA shall use a student’s previous years’ performance data on the state assessment to determine the student’s expected annual improvement and that TEA shall determine the necessary annual improvement required each year for a student to be prepared to pass state tests in 5th and 8th grade as well as end-of-course tests required for graduation. After considering several different growth models, TEA adopted the TPM, a model which uses test scores from one year to predict whether a student will pass the test in future years in a subsequent grade. So when the TPM was first used in accountability ratings in 2009, the ratings were based on the percentage of students who either met the passing standard or were projected to meet it at certain checkpoints (5th, 8th, or 11th grade). As a result, the number of exemplary campuses doubled, with almost half of them using TPM to achieve that rating; the number of exemplary school districts more than doubled, with 85% using TPM to achieve that status.
The reaction to these results from many observers was swift and highly critical, with some pointing out that the TPM did not actually measure student growth at all. Others highlighted the high inaccuracy rates the TPM had for students scoring close to (above or below) the passing score. Although the TPM stayed in effect for the following school year, criticism continued to mount, especially when ratings were again boosted by use of the TPM. The commissioner consistently defended use of the TPM, pointing out that in 2010, performance on the TAKS tests improved in every subject for every student group and an overwhelming majority of the class of 2011 passed the exit-level assessments for graduation. However, when it became clear during the 82nd legislative session that the legislature was largely supportive of eliminating the TPM, the commissioner announced in April that the use of the TPM in the state and federal accountability rating systems would be discontinued in 2011 based on the lack of public support for its continued use.
Although discontinuation of the use of TPM might have some merit, the timing of its elimination might be particularly hard on schools this year, given that, due to a two-year transition period into a new state accountability and testing system, schools will keep the same ratings for the next two years. How this drop in ratings is received by the public will largely depend on public understanding and media portrayals of these results.
