The Texas Tribune: Change in Rating Formula Creates Anxiety in Schools

This will be the first year the official ratings — which categorize schools as “exemplary,” “recognized,” “acceptable” or “unacceptable” based primarily on test scores — will not contain the mechanism known as the Texas Projection Measure since it was put into use in 2009.

Instead of using students’ actual scores on standardized tests, the ratings formula gauged students’ future test scores based on a campuswide average, which raised ratings statewide. For instance, in the 2009-10 school year, 245 schools were rated “unacceptable” with the projection measure factored in. Without it, 603 would have fallen into that category.

So whether or not schools’ actual passing rates have changed, many school leaders will be forced to explain lower ratings to parents and taxpayers.

“Districts are facing this real dilemma,” said Jackie Lain, an associate executive director at the Texas Association of School Boards. “They have in some cases significantly lower accountability ratings they will have to explain to their community.”

Accountability ratings, so easily brandished on banners across campuses, are often the simplest way for administrators to communicate how their schools are performing, especially to voters who do not have children in their schools.

School officials will enter the new school year with $4 billion less in state revenue over the next biennium, and an additional $1.4 billion less in discretionary grants for programs like pre-kindergarten and dropout prevention. Many will try to approach their school boards and communities to raise local property tax rates to help cushion the blow. They are also moving to a complex new standardized testing system.

The education agency first indicated that it was considering discontinuing the projection measure last summer, after lawmakers and others in the education community said that the measure artificially raised ratings and allowed schools to count students as passing tests when they had not. After the public uproar, the agency decided to issue two side-by-side ratings, one with the measure factored in and one without.

Earlier this year, lawmakers again attacked the measure and unanimously voted against it during a spirited debate in the Texas House on a testing bill. Then Robert Scott, the Texas commissioner of education, wrote a letter to administrators giving them the final word that the measure would not be included in the 2011 ratings in order “to preserve the integrity of the accountability system and public education as a whole.”

Ray Braswell, superintendent of the Denton Independent School District, said the late decision was difficult on his district, though he said he believed it was the right one. Denton I.S.D., he said, was making sure to find an “apples to apples” comparison across the ratings so parents could accurately gauge changes in test scores.

“It will be a communication effort on our part,” Mr. Braswell said.

Ms. Lain said schools will have to deliver a complicated message: that in most cases, it is not their achievement level that has changed but how the ratings are calculated. She said that her organization was preparing materials to help schools deal with that, but that the lack of public explanation about how eliminating the measure would affect accountability ratings from the education agency has made that more difficult.

Representative Scott Hochberg, Democrat of Houston and vice chairman of the House Public Education Committee, led the charge against the projection measure. Mr. Hochberg said he was not concerned about the transition because districts have known what to expect since they received both ratings last summer.

“The measure was only used for about two years,” he said, “and so this is not an earth-shattering sort of change. The ratings released show what students actually do, not what they were predicted to do.”

View the original article here

The Texas Tribune: Change in Rating Formula Creates Anxiety in Schools

This will be the first year the official ratings — which categorize schools as “exemplary,” “recognized,” “acceptable” or “unacceptable” based primarily on test scores — will not contain the mechanism known as the Texas Projection Measure since it was put into use in 2009.

Instead of using students’ actual scores on standardized tests, the ratings formula gauged students’ future test scores based on a campuswide average, which raised ratings statewide. For instance, in the 2009-10 school year, 245 schools were rated “unacceptable” with the projection measure factored in. Without it, 603 would have fallen into that category.

So whether or not schools’ actual passing rates have changed, many school leaders will be forced to explain lower ratings to parents and taxpayers.

“Districts are facing this real dilemma,” said Jackie Lain, an associate executive director at the Texas Association of School Boards. “They have in some cases significantly lower accountability ratings they will have to explain to their community.”

Accountability ratings, so easily brandished on banners across campuses, are often the simplest way for administrators to communicate how their schools are performing, especially to voters who do not have children in their schools.

School officials will enter the new school year with $4 billion less in state revenue over the next biennium, and an additional $1.4 billion less in discretionary grants for programs like pre-kindergarten and dropout prevention. Many will try to approach their school boards and communities to raise local property tax rates to help cushion the blow. They are also moving to a complex new standardized testing system.

The education agency first indicated that it was considering discontinuing the projection measure last summer, after lawmakers and others in the education community said that the measure artificially raised ratings and allowed schools to count students as passing tests when they had not. After the public uproar, the agency decided to issue two side-by-side ratings, one with the measure factored in and one without.

Earlier this year, lawmakers again attacked the measure and unanimously voted against it during a spirited debate in the Texas House on a testing bill. Then Robert Scott, the Texas commissioner of education, wrote a letter to administrators giving them the final word that the measure would not be included in the 2011 ratings in order “to preserve the integrity of the accountability system and public education as a whole.”

Ray Braswell, superintendent of the Denton Independent School District, said the late decision was difficult on his district, though he said he believed it was the right one. Denton I.S.D., he said, was making sure to find an “apples to apples” comparison across the ratings so parents could accurately gauge changes in test scores.

“It will be a communication effort on our part,” Mr. Braswell said.

Ms. Lain said schools will have to deliver a complicated message: that in most cases, it is not their achievement level that has changed but how the ratings are calculated. She said that her organization was preparing materials to help schools deal with that, but that the lack of public explanation about how eliminating the measure would affect accountability ratings from the education agency has made that more difficult.

Representative Scott Hochberg, Democrat of Houston and vice chairman of the House Public Education Committee, led the charge against the projection measure. Mr. Hochberg said he was not concerned about the transition because districts have known what to expect since they received both ratings last summer.

“The measure was only used for about two years,” he said, “and so this is not an earth-shattering sort of change. The ratings released show what students actually do, not what they were predicted to do.”

View the original article here

Managing Change Effectively - Utilizing eLearning for Corporate Training Programs

Change is one of the most talked about topics in business. This is probably because there are few things that are more important to the continued success of an organization. As Retired Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army, General Eric Shinseki, put it, "If you don't like change, you're going to like irrelevance even less." Change is an integral part of all organizations. It is like oxygen to a person; it is absolutely required to keep organizations alive. The biggest challenge with change is the poor reputation that surrounds it. People often complain about change. Some people fear it. Others fight, resist, or even secretly work to undermine it. Is change really that bad?

The truth of the matter is that people do not really dislike change. Most people would not resist change if they believed it would benefit them. Ask yourself this question: would employees of an organization resist change if the change provided them double their salary with twice as much time off? Not likely. They would probably be willing to take one for the team and accept without a fight. So it is important to consider why some change is resisted. Resistance to change commonly occurs when people think the change will negatively impact them in some way. Change that requires people to stop, start or change a habit is also often met with resistance. So, how do organizational leaders minimize resistance to change?

The most practical solution for overcoming resistance to change is effective online corporate training programs. Many times organizations send out memos and hold meetings or training sessions to try to communicate change information to employees. Unfortunately, many employees do not get the memos or miss the meetings and training and, therefore, are left in the dark. Soon afterwards, fear and resistance grows. A more effective method is to use an online solution that allows for the delivery and subsequent tracking of all important communications and training related to the change. Whether companies want to share documents or training videos with employees, the information is ready and waiting for the employee when they need it. Following dissemination, managers throughout the organization are able to use the system to track who has or has not reviewed the information. The key to decreasing resistance to change is to provide information long before the change occurs. With an online solution, important training and information can be developed and sent to employees early. They can then provide training for the changes will benefit the organization. Additional training can be offered on the benefits of implementation. There can be updates as to how the change is being received by the organization. What positive benefits are coming from the change? In addition, it becomes possible to receive feedback from the field using online training systems. This is incredible valuable as it will allow companies to slightly alter course if needed. It can act as an early warning system or feedback system.

Our organization offers a turnkey system to implementing an online learning solution which can effectively communicate information throughout the entire organization. Online corporate training programs like BIStrainer can train thousands of people per day, in multiple languages, in different countries to bring focus to effectively implementing change within your organization.

If your organization is looking for online learning solutions contact us and learn why thousands of users prefer our online system. You satisfaction is virtually guaranteed!

View the original article here