2007 & 2008 Accountability Update Session November 12, 2007.

2007 & 2008 Accountability Update

Session

November 12, 2007

State / Region 2

2007 Accountability Update

3

2007 State Ratings Highlights

District Ratings by Rating Category

(including Charter Operators)

ACCOUNTABILITY RATING2007

State Region 2

Exemplary 2.2% 4.2%

Recognized 17.5% 12.5%

Academically Acceptable 75.3% 81.2%

Standard Procedures 70.4% 77.0%

AEA Procedures 4.9% 4.2%

Academically Unacceptable 4.8% 2.1%



Not Rated: Other 0.2% 0.0%

Total: 1,222 100.0%

4

2007 State Ratings Highlights (cont.)

ACCOUNTABILITY RATING2007

State Region 2

Exemplary 7.9% 4.7%

Recognized 29.1% 29.6%

Academically Acceptable 50.9% 55.3%



Academically Unacceptable 3.7% 5.2%



Not Rated: Other 8.4% 5.2%

Total: 100.0% 100.0%

Campus Ratings by Rating Category

(including Charter Campuses)

5

Region 2: Reading ELA (65%)

Reading/ELA 2007 2006 Growth

All Students 88% 86% +2

African American

86% 84% +2

Hispanic 85% 83% +2

White 94% 93% +1

Eco. Dis. 83% 81% +2

6

Region 2: Writing (65%)

Writing 2007 2006 Growth


African American

91% 91% +0

Hispanic 91% 90% +1

White 94% 93% +1

Eco. Dis. 90% 89% +1

7

Region 2: Social Studies (65%)

Social Studies 2007 2006 Growth


African American

83% 80% +3

Hispanic 82% 78% +4

White 94% 93% +1

Eco. Dis. 80% 76% +4

8

Region 2: Mathematics (45%)

Mathematics 2007 2006 Growth


African American

65% 62% +3

Hispanic 68% 64% +4

White 84% 82% +2

Eco. Dis. 80% 76% +4

9

Region 2: Science (40%)

Science 2007 2006 Growth


African American

57% 59% -2

Hispanic 60% 58% +2

White 83% 83% +0

Eco. Dis. 58% 56% +2

10

Required Improvement

In order for Required Improvement to move a campus or district to Academically Acceptable, the campus or district must have shown enough improvement on the deficient TAKS measures since 2006 to be able to meet the current year accountability standard in two years.

Actual Change Required Improvement

2007 – 2006 ≥ (2007 – 2006) ÷ 2

11


About Required Improvement

CAMPUSES

Under standard procedures, 359 campuses used RI to achieve a higher rating.

290 campuses moved to Recognized (12.4% of all Recognized campuses).

69 campuses moved to Academically Acceptable (1.9% of all Academically Acceptable campuses).

12


About Required Improvement (cont’d)

DISTRICTS

Under standard procedures, 37 districts used RI to achieve a higher rating.

29 districts used RI to move to Recognized (13.6% of all Recognized districts ).

8 districts used RI to move to Academically Acceptable(0.9% of all Academically Acceptable districts).

Required Improvement was most often used for the mathematics and science subject areas.

13

Exceptions

Campuses or districts evaluated as Academically Unacceptable after application of Required Improvement may be able to “gate up” to Academically Acceptable using up to three exceptions for TAKS and/or SDAA II measures.

Number of Assessment Measures Evaluated

Maximum Number of Exceptions Allowed

1-5 0 exceptions

6-10 1 exception

11-15 2 exceptions

15 or more 3 exceptions

14

Exceptions (cont.)

Performance Floor: No more than five percentage points below the accountability standard for Academically Acceptable.

One-Time Use: Exceptions will not be granted for the same measure for two consecutive years.

Only Successful Application: Only applied if it will successfully move a campus or district from Academically Unacceptable to Academically Acceptable.

15

Exceptions (cont.)

Only for Assessment: TAKS and SDAA II Appeals: Exceptions are automatically

calculated and assigned. No need to appeal. Other “Charged” Exceptions:

Districts/campuses can be “charged” with an exception in the process of Special Analysis or in granting appeals.

16

Exceptions (cont.)

Only for Academically Acceptable: Exceptions will not move districts/campuses to Recognized or Exemplary

Move Only One Level: Exceptions cannot be used to move up more than one rating level.

Campus Improvement Plan: Any campuses that uses one or more exceptions must address performance on these measures to which the exceptions are applied in its campus improvement plan.

17


About Exceptions

210 campuses avoided the Academically Unacceptable rating due the Exceptions Provision. 173 campuses used 1 34 campuses used 2 3 campuses used 3

Six campuses were prevented from using exceptions because the same measure was used last year.

At the campus level, exceptions were most often used for science and mathematics, followed by social studies, reading/ELA, writing and SDAA II.

18


About Exceptions (cont’d)

31 districts avoided the Academically Unacceptable rating due to the Exceptions Provision. 30 districts used 1 1 district used 2 No districts used 3

At the district level, exceptions were used most often for science and mathematics.

19

School Leaver Provision

The School Leaver Provision was added for 2007: Change in dropout definition Change to the PEIMS leaver data collection Effect of students displaced by Hurricane

Katrina on the 2005-2006 dropout rate Absence of Required Improvement for the

Annual Dropout Rate for 2007

20


School Leaver Provision – District Impact(Standard Procedures)

25 districts and charters used the School Leaver Provision for Dropout Rate only.

32 districts and charters used the School Leaver Provision for Completion rate only.

8 districts and charters used the School Leaver Provision for both Dropout and Completion Rates.

2 districts used the School Leaver Provision for excessive underreported students.

21


School Leaver Provision – District Impact(Standard Procedures)

By using SLP 67 districts were able to achieve a higher rating:

64 districts went from Academically Unacceptable to Academically Acceptable.

1 district went from Academically Unacceptable to Recognized.

1 district went from Academically Acceptable to Recognized.

1 district went from Academically Acceptable to Exemplary.

22


School Leaver Provision – Campus Impact(Standard Procedures)

90 campuses used the School Leaver Provision for Dropout Rate only.

60 campuses used the School Leaver Provision for Completion rate only.

1 campus used the School Leaver Provision for both Dropout and Completion Rates.

23


School Leaver Provision – Campus Impact(Standard Procedures)

By using SLP 151 campuses were able to achieve a higher rating:

125 campuses went from Academically Unacceptable to Academically Acceptable.

13 campuses went from Academically Unacceptable to Recognized.

8 campuses went from Academically Acceptable to Recognized.

4 campuses went from Academically Acceptable to Exemplary.

1 campus went from Recognized to Exemplary.

24


School Leaver Provision – Charter District Impact(AEA Procedures)

10 charters used the School Leaver Provision for Dropout Rate only.

3 charters used the School Leaver Provision for Completion rate only.

19 charters used the School Leaver Provision for both Dropout and Completion Rates.

25


School Leaver Provision – Campus Impact(AEA Procedures)

132 AECs used the School Leaver Provision for Dropout Rate only.

7 AECs used the School Leaver Provision for Completion rate only.

42 AECs used the School Leaver Provision for both Dropout and Completion Rates.

26

Completion Rate I

Percent of students who first attended ninth grade in the 2002-2003 school year and have completed or are continuing their education four years later.

To count as a “completer,” a student must have received a high school diploma with his/her class (or earlier) or have re-enrolled in the fall of 2006 as a continuing student.

27

Completion Rate I (cont.)

Exemplary 95.0% or more

Recognized 85.0% or more

Academically Acceptable

75.0% or more

28


Completion Rate I Trends

Completion Rate I, used for Standard Procedures, declined for all students and for each student group between the class of 2006 and the class of 2005.

All Students rate declined by 3% African American rate declined by 6.9% Hispanic rate declined by 4.8% White rate declined by 0.1% Economically Disadvantaged rate declined by 5.5%

29

School Leaver Provision in 2008

This provision will no longer apply in 2008 and may be the cause for lower district and campus ratings for :

Completion Rate I Annual Dropout Rate (Gr. 7-8) (Standard Procedures) Completion Rate II Underreported students

This provision will apply for Annual Dropout Rate (Gr. 7-12) under AEA Procedures.

30

School Leaver Provision in 2008 (cont.)

Districts that used the School Leaver Provision need to pay special attention to the quality of leaver data that will be submitted in fall 2007. This information will be the basis for dropout and completer indicators used in 2008 ratings.

31

NCES Dropout Definition

Items that have changed for 2007 & beyond: Leaver Reason Codes GED must be completed by August 31st

Movers (TEA will make this decision) Dropouts No Longer Removed School Start Window (First Day thru Sept. 29) PEIMS Reporting

School-start window Fall “as of” (October Snapshot Date) Final Day of School

32

Technical Assistance Team (TAT)

Campuses rated Academically Acceptable for 2007 under either standard or AEA procedures are identified for technical assistance teams (TAT) if their 2006-2007 performance does not meet the accountability standards established for the 2007-2008 school year.

Science 8 and TAKS (Accommodated) results are included in the 2007 TAT analysis

33

Technical Assistance Team (TAT)

The technical assistance team (TAT) should be composed of the members of the campus-level planning and decision-making committee and should include an additional member with the knowledge and ability to provide technical assistance in the area(s) subject to improvement planning.

The commissioner will review and approve the final membership of a TAT assigned.

34

TAT and the School Leaver Provision

Campuses that avoid being rated Academically Unacceptable in 2007 due to the application of the School Leaver Provision will be subject to technical assistance team (TAT) intervention requirements in the 2007-08 school year.

This is because campuses rated Academically Acceptable in 2007 are identified for technical assistance teams (TATs) if their 2007 accountability results do not meet the 2008 accountability standards.

35

TAT and the School Leaver Provision (cont.)

The 2008 dropout/completion standards are identical to those waived in 2007 through the application of the School Leaver Provision.

The purpose of the TAT identification is to serve as an early warning system and, therefore, provide interventions that may prevent the campus from being rated Academically Unacceptable in the subsequent year.

In addition, districts are subject to identification and

intervention under the Performance-Based Monitoring (PBM) system for dropout rates and leaver reporting.

36

TAT Methodology

For the 2007-08 TAT list, the 2006-07 and 2005-06 TAKS results will be re-built to include grade 8 science at the panel recommended standard and to include selected TAKS (Accommodated) subjects and grades.

These results will be evaluated against the 2008 accountability standards.

37

TAT Methodology (cont.)

A campus that is included on the 2007-08 TAT list will not be eligible for a waiver this year:

AECs on the TAT list were not eligible for a waiver last year and are not eligible this year because the AEA procedures have not been in place to determine improvement over the preceding three years.

For campuses that used the SLP, as stated in the 2007 Accountability Manual, “these campuses are automatically subject to the requirements for TAT campuses and are not eligible to receive a waiver from the commissioner.”

The TAKS data are not evaluated for improvement over the preceding three years because three years of comparably defined TAKS indicators are not available.

38

TAT Methodology (cont.)

There is no appeals process for the TAT list:

Districts cannot appeal for a campus to be removed from the TAT list.

The TAT list is not a rating – it is a list of campuses at risk of being Academically Unacceptable in the future.

If a district feels a campus’s identification is based on data quality issues, this can be addressed by tailoring the interventions to fit the reason for being on the list.

39

TAT Results for Region 2

8 High Schools 17 Middle Schools 1 Elementary School 7 AEA Campuses

33 TOTAL INCREASE

40

2006/07 AEIS Reports issued (TEASE) – early November

2006/07 AEIS Reports issued (Public) – late November

2007/08 TAT list notification – November 1, 2007

2008/09 PEG list notification – mid-December

2006/07 School Report Cards – mid-December

2007 Remaining Calendar Items

41

Standard Accountability Decisions for 2008 and Beyond

TAKS IndicatorBeginning in 2008:

includes Grade 8 science

includes TAKS (Accommodated)

combined with TAKS limited subjects/grades in 2008 and 2009 All subjects/grades in 2010

SSI and Grade 8 Reading and Mathematics

“TAKS Commended” label will be appended to ratings

42

Standard Accountability Decisions for 2008 and Beyond (cont.)

2008 (Final Decision)

Recommended

2009* 2010*

Exemplary ≥ 90% ≥ 90% ≥ 90%

Recognized ≥ 75% ≥ 80% ≥ 80%**

Academically Acceptable

Reading/ELA ≥ 70% ≥ 70% ≥ 70%**

Writing, Social Studies ≥ 65% ≥ 70% ≥ 70%

Mathematics ≥ 50% ≥ 55% ≥ 60%

Science ≥ 45% ≥ 50% ≥ 55%* Standards for 2009 and beyond will be reviewed annually and are subject to change.

** A Reading/ELA Academically Acceptable standard of 75% will be considered for 2010. If altered, the Recognized standard will also be reconsidered.

Numbers in bold indicate a change from the prior year.

TAKS Indicator (cont.)

43


TAKS (Accommodated): Grade Level Exam

2008 2009 2010

Science (grades 5, 8, 10, & 11)

Science (grade 5 Spanish)

Social Studies (grades 8, 10, & 11)

English Language Arts (grade 11)

Mathematics (grade 11)

Use Use Use

Reading/ELA (grades 3 – 10)

Reading (grades 3 – 6 Spanish)

Mathematics (grades 3 – 10)

Mathematics (grades 3 – 6 Spanish)

Writing (grades 4 & 7)

Writing (grade 4 Spanish)

Report in AEIS

Only

Report in AEIS

OnlyUse

44


TAKS-Modified: Grade Level Exam

Designed to meet the federal requirements mandated under NCLB

Will be administered for the first time in spring 2008, with the first possible use in the state accountability system in 2010

Federal regulations allow up to two percent (2%) of students taking this assessment to be counted as proficient for Adequate Yearly Progress calculations

45


TAKS-Alternate (TAKS-Alt): Alternative Exam

Designed for students with significant cognitive disabilities

Federal regulations allow up to one percent (1%) of students taking this assessment to be counted as proficient for Adequate Yearly Progress calculations

Field tested in spring 2007 and will be administered for the first time in spring 2008

Results will be reported for two years beginning with 2008, with the first possible use in the state accountability system in 2010

46


School Leaver provision does not apply in 2008 under standard procedures

Required Improvement – Available beginning in 2008


2009 2010

Academically Acceptable ≤ 1.0% TBD TBD

Recognized ≤ 0.7% TBD TBD

Exemplary ≤ 0.2% TBD TBD

Annual Dropout Rate (Grades 7-8)

47


School Leaver Provision does not apply. Specific appeals policy for hurricane-displaced students who are non-completers will be considered.

Required Improvement - Continues to be used


2009*(Recommended)

2010*(Recommended)

Academically Acceptable ≥ 75.0% ≥ 75.0% ≥ 75.0%

Recognized ≥ 85.0% ≥ 85.0% ≥ 85.0%

Exemplary ≥ 95.0% ≥ 95.0% ≥ 95.0%

Completion Rate I Definition of a ‘Completer’

Graduates + Continued HS

Dropout Definition (used in denominator)

Phase-in NCES DefinitionNCES

Definition* Standards for 2009 and beyond will be reviewed annually and are subject to change.

Completion Rate I (Grade 9-12) Indicator

48


Underreported Students

The School Leaver Provision will no longer apply for underreported students.

The number and percent of underreported students that can prevent a district from being rated Exemplary or Recognized will remain at greater than 5.0%, or greater than 200 students.

Districts with fewer than 5 underreported students will not be evaluated on this indicator.

49


English Language Learner (ELL) Indicator

Will be reported for 2nd year on 2006-07 AEIS reports

First possible use in state accountability ratings in 2009

When used, the ELL measure will be a separate indicator evaluated at the ‘All Students’ level only

50

AEA Decisions for 2008 and Beyond

TAKS Progress Indicator

The TAKS Progress Indicator will include grade 8 science in 2008 and will phase in TAKS (Accommodated) results until all results are included in 2010.

The AEA: Academically Acceptable standard will remain 45% in 2008 and will increase by five percentage points to 50% in 2009.

For 2008 accountability, prior-year (2007) assessment results will be recalculated to include both grade 8 science and TAKS (Accommodated) results. This will make 2007 and 2008 performance comparable and enable the use of Required Improvement in 2008.

51

AEA Decisions for 2008 and Beyond (cont.)

Annual Dropout Rate (Grades 7-12) Indicator

For 2008 accountability ratings, the Annual Dropout Rate standard remains 10.0%.

Annual Dropout Rate Required Improvement will be calculated as it was in 2006. Two years of dropout rates under the NCES definition will be available. Dropout rates used in 2007 and 2008 will be comparable.

School Leaver Provision will apply only to the AEA Annual Dropout Rate indicator. If the Annual Dropout Rate is the only indicator causing an AEA: Academically Unacceptable rating, then the AEC or charter is assigned theAEA: Academically Acceptable label.

52

AEA Decisions for 2008 and Beyond (cont.)

Completion Rate II Indicator

For 2008 – 2010 accountability ratings, the Completion Rate II standard remains 75.0%.

Completion Rate II Required Improvement will be applied.

School Leaver Provision does not apply in 2008.

53

2008 AEA Campus Registration Process

Beginning in 2008, the AEA campus registration process will be conducted online using the Texas Education Agency Secure Environment (TEASE) Accountability website.

The 2007-08 AEA campus registration process opens September 10, 2007.

An email notification will be sent to all superintendents stating that alternative education campuses (AECs) rated under 2007 AEA procedures will be re-registered automatically in 2008 subject to the at-risk registration criterion.

54

2008 AEA Campus Registration Process (cont.)

AECs wishing to rescind AEA registration must complete an electronic 2007-08 AEA Campus Rescission Form.

AECs requesting AEA registration must complete an electronic 2007-08 AEA Campus Registration Form.

AECs for which 2007 AEA registration was rescinded due to not meeting the at-risk registration criterion must submit an electronic 2007-08 AEA Campus Registration Form if the AEC wishes to request AEA campus registration in 2008.

AEA rescission and registration forms submitted via TEASE Accountability must be printed and maintained locally as official documentation of AEA campus registration requests.

2007 Federal Accountability Update

56

State Summary Results

86% of districts and 79% of campuses met AYP in 2007.

59 districts and 284 campuses are in Title I School Improvement for the 2007-08 school year.

Of those missing AYP, 29% of districts and 10% of campuses missed AYP solely due to the 3% cap in 2007 compared to 60% of districts and 35% of campuses in 2006.

57

New AYP Features for 2007

Region Data Products are now available.

AYP Data Tables for each ESC Region List of district and campus AYP Status and SIP Labels

for each ESC

Multi-year SIP State History for 2003-2007 for each district and campus.

58

Schedule for 2007 Final Release

Late November/early December: Districts will receive their appeal decision notification letters and TEA will release final 2007 results updated with the results of appeals.

59

AYP Information Packet

Please turn now to the AYP Information Packet that was provided to you via email along with this presentation.

The AYP Information Packet is available from the TEASE Accountability website.

60

Exceptions Process

The federal 3% cap is extended by the number of Exceptions.

Total Cap applied to eligible districts:

Federal 3% cap + Total Exceptions

See the Exceptions section of the 2007 AYP Guide for a detailed description of the Exceptions process.

61

2008 AYP Preview

Performance standards for 2007-08 will remain the same as for 2006-07.

Under the NCLB Act, all states are required to assess students in science during the 2007-08 school year. However, the statute does not require that the science assessment results be used for calculating AYP. Any such changes would require an amendment to the statute which could possibly occur after final reauthorization of NCLB.

62

2008 Assessments included in AYP Calculations

Reading/ELA Assessments

Participation95% Standard

Performance/Accountability Subset60% Standard

Total Students

Number Participating Number Tested Met Standard

TAKS Yes If participant If non-mobile If standard is met

TAKS (Accommodated) Yes If participant If non-mobile If standard is met

TAKS-M Yes If participant If non-mobileIf standard is met

(subject to 2% cap)

TAKS-Alt Yes If participant If non-mobileIf standard is met

(subject to 1% cap)

RPTE* Yes Non-Participant N/A Not Included Not Included

LAT version of TAKS*

Yes If participant If non-mobile If standard is met

* Students in their First Year in U. S. Schools are counted as participants, but excluded from the performance calculation.

63

2008 Assessments included in AYP Calculations (cont.)

Mathematics Assessments

Participation95% Standard

Performance/Accountability Subset50% Standard

Total Students

Number Participating Number Tested Met Standard

TAKS Yes If participant If non-mobile If standard is met

TAKS (Accommodated)


TAKS-M Yes If participant If non-mobileIf standard is met

(subject to2% cap)

TAKS-Alt Yes If participant If non-mobileIf standard is met

(subject to1% cap)

LAT version of TAKS*


* Students in their First Year in U. S. Schools are counted as participants, but excluded from the performance calculation.

Which test should a student be required to take in regards to AEIS & AYP?

Let’s Explore…

65

ESC TETN Accountability Update Sessions

November 15 Accountability Ratings UpdateGold Performance

AcknowledgmentsTAT ListAEIS ReportsSchool Report CardsPEG List

Any new information will be shared via video stream in the next few weeks.

2007 Dates and Tentative Agenda Topics

66

Bottom Line???

Create an accountability “cushion”: The higher the state accountability score in Reading/ELA and Math by subgroup, the better chance of meeting AYP.

67

Bottom Line???

TAKS-A and TAKS-M tests are GRADE LEVEL exams. Are your SPED students receiving GRADE LEVEL instruction with accommodations?

Have your teachers & administrators studied the new 2007 Accommodations Manual?

68

Bottom Line???

Focus heavily on “bubble students” that barely passed or barely failed. The accountability “score” should have a “face” attached. Who is your focus?

Johnny: Reading 72

Javier: Science 65

69

Bottom Line???

Did you meet state accountability based on an “exception?” If so, you are not eligible for the same exception in 2008.

70

Accountability Resources

Email the Division of Performance Reporting at [email protected].

Phone the Division of Performance Reporting at (512) 463-9704.

ESC Accountability Contact: [email protected]

Online: ACCT: http://www.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport/account/

AEA: http://www.tea.state.tx.us/aea/

AYP: http://www.tea.state.tx.us/ayp/

Accommodations Manual: http://www.tea.state.tx.us/student.assessment/admin/AccommManual_2007_08_tagged.pdf

Questions? Comments?

Dawn Schuenemann

[email protected]

(361) 561-8551

2007 & 2008 Accountability Update Session November 12, 2007.

Documents

exceptions cont

acceptable campuses

charged exceptions

exceptions provision

recognized campuses

campus ratings

acceptable districts

state region