TETN Accountability Update Session August 14, 2008.

TETN Accountability Update Session

August 14, 2008

State Accountability Update

3

2008 Ratings Highlights

District Ratings by Rating Category(including Charter Operators)

ACCOUNTABILITY RATING2008

Count Percent

Exemplary 43 3.5%

Recognized 328 26.7%

Academically Acceptable 818 66.6%

Standard Procedures 753 61.3%

AEA Procedures 65 5.3%

Academically Unacceptable 37 3.0%



Not Rated: Other 3 0.2%

Total 1,229 100%

4

2008 Ratings Highlights (cont.)

ACCOUNTABILITY RATING2008

Count Percent

Exemplary 996 12.2%

Recognized 2,815 34.4%

Academically Acceptable 3,509 42.8%

Standard Procedures 3,112 38.0%


Academically Unacceptable 217 2.6%



Not Rated: Other 657 8.0%

Not Rated: Data Integrity Issues 1 0.0%

Total 8,195 100%

Campus Ratings by Rating Category(including Charter Campuses)

5


About Required Improvement

CAMPUSES

Under standard procedures, 521 campuses used RI to achieve a higher rating.

374 campuses moved to Recognized (13.3% of all Recognized campuses).

147 campuses moved to Academically Acceptable (4.7% of all Academically Acceptable campuses).

6


About Required Improvement

DISTRICTS

Under standard procedures, 106 districts used RI to achieve a higher rating.

86 districts used RI to move to Recognized (26.2% of all Recognized districts ).

20 districts used RI to move to Academically Acceptable

(2.7% of all Academically Acceptable districts).

7


About Exceptions – Campuses

832 campuses increased their rating due to the Exceptions Provision. 638 campuses used 1 117 campuses used 2 69 campuses used 3 8 campuses used 4

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

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

8


About Exceptions - Campuses

Of the 832 campuses that used the Exceptions Provision:

313 used one or more exceptions to achieve a rating of Academically Acceptable;

342 used one or more exceptions to achieve a rating of Recognized;

177 used one exception to achieve a rating of Exemplary.

9


About Exceptions - Districts

90 districts increased their rating due to the Exceptions Provision. 76 districts used 1 11 district used 2 2 districts used 3 1 district used 4

1 district was prevented from using exceptions because the same measure was used last year.

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

10


About Exceptions - Districts

In 2008, 19 of the Recognized districts are large (10,000 or more enrolled) compared to only 2 districts of this size earning Recognized in 2007.

Only 1 of the 19 large Recognized districts used an exception to achieve the Recognized rating.

The Exceptions Provision will be examined by the accountability advisory groups in spring 2009 to determine whether modifications are needed for the 2009 ratings.

11


School Leaver Provision (SLP) – District Impact(Standard Procedures)

3 districts used the SLP for Dropout Rate only.

80 districts used the SLP for Completion rate only.

6 districts used the SLP for both Dropout and Completion Rates.

6 districts used the SLP for excessive underreported students.

12


School Leaver Provision – District Impact(Standard Procedures)

By using SLP 95 districts were able to achieve a higher rating:

76 districts went from Academically Unacceptable to Academically Acceptable.

3 districts went from Academically Unacceptable to Recognized.

15 districts went from Academically Acceptable to Recognized.

1 district went from Academically Acceptable to Exemplary.

13


School Leaver Provision – Campus Impact(Standard Procedures)

27 campuses used the SLP for Dropout Rate only.

115 campuses used the SLP for Completion rate only.

0 campuses used the SLP for both Dropout and Completion Rates.

14


School Leaver Provision – Campus Impact(Standard Procedures)

By using SLP 142 campuses were able to achieve a higher rating:

133 campuses went from Academically Unacceptable to Academically Acceptable.

4 campuses went from Academically Unacceptable to Recognized.

4 campuses went from Academically Acceptable to Recognized.

1 campus went from Recognized to Exemplary.

15


School Leaver Provision – Charter District Impact(AEA Procedures)

9 charters used the SLP for Dropout Rate only.

6 charters used the SLP for Completion Rate II only.

15 charters used the SLP for both Dropout and Completion Rates.

16


School Leaver Provision – Campus Impact(AEA Procedures)

19 AECs used the SLP for Dropout Rate only.

26 AECs used the SLP for Completion Rate II only.

20 AECs used the SLP for both Dropout and Completion Rates.

17


Completion Rate I Trends

Completion Rate I, used for Standard Procedures, declined for all students and for each student group between the class of 2007 and the class of 2006.

All Students rate declined by 2.2% African American rate declined by 3.8% Hispanic rate declined by 3.0% White rate declined by 0.9% Economically Disadvantaged rate declined by 3.4%

18

School Leaver Provision in 2009

This provision will no longer apply in 2009 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

Based on final decisions released in April 2008, this provision will apply to the Annual Dropout Rate (Gr. 7-12) indicator under AEA Procedures, but will be reviewed in spring 2009 by the advisory groups.

19

School Leaver Provision in 2009 (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 2008. This information will be the basis for dropout and completer indicators used in 2009 ratings.

20

TAT and the School Leaver Provision

Campuses that avoid being rated Academically Unacceptable in 2008 due to the application of the School Leaver Provision will be subject to technical assistance team (TAT) intervention requirements in the 2008-09 school year.

This is because campuses rated Academically Acceptable in 2008 are identified for technical assistance teams (TATs) if their 2008 accountability results do not meet the 2009 accountability standards.

21

The Division of Accountability Research has prepared the attached summary of the completion rate processing for the Class of 2008.

Processing of Completion Rate

22

Thursday, July 31 (1 p.m.) - TEASE site updated with final data tables.

Friday, August 1 (10 a.m.) – Secure email sent to each ESC director with ratings lists for each district and campus in the region.

Friday, August 1 (1 p.m.) – Press Briefing and public release on TEA website.

Tuesday, August 19 – List of districts and campuses rated as AU for one or more consecutive years will be posted on the 2008 accountability ratings website.

2008 Ratings Release Calendar

23

Appeals Process and Dates

See Appeals Chapter in Manual (Chapter 15, p. 125).

Particularly note:

Appeals calendar (p. 125)

Situations not favorable for appeal (p.126)

Special circumstance appeals (p. 128)

How to submit an appeal (p. 129)

24

August 15, 2008 is appeals deadline (postmarked).

Ratings changed due to granted appeals published in late October.

No appeals necessary for annual dropout rate, completion rate, or underreported students indicators.

Appeals Process and Dates (cont.)

25

Appeals Panel meets - late September

Final ratings Release – late October

Gold Performance Acknowledgments issued – late October

2007-08 AEIS Reports issued (TEASE) – early November

2008 Remaining Calendar Items

26

2008-09 TAT list notification – November 6, 2008

2007-08 AEIS Reports issued (Public) – late November

2009-10 PEG list notification – mid-December

2007-08 School Report Cards – mid-December

2008 Remaining Calendar Items (cont.)

27

Standard Accountability Decisions for 2009 and Beyond

2009(Final Decision)

2010*

Exemplary ≥ 90% ≥ 90%

Recognized ≥ 75% ≥ 80%

Academically Acceptable

Reading/ELA ≥ 70% ≥ 70%

Writing, Social Studies ≥ 70% ≥ 70%

Mathematics ≥ 55% ≥ 60%

Science ≥ 50% ≥ 55%

* Standards for 2010 will be reviewed in 2009 and are subject to change.

Numbers in bold indicate a change from the prior year.

TAKS Indicator

28

Standard Accountability Decisions for 2009 and Beyond (cont.)

TAKS (Accommodated)

2009 2010 2011

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

OnlyUse Use

29

Standard Accountability Decisions for 2009 and Beyond (cont.)

In spring 2009, the accountability advisory groups will review various options and make recommendations to the commissioner about the leaver indicators evaluated under standard accountability procedures for 2009 and beyond.

Annual Dropout Rate (Grades 7-8) and Completion Rate I

30

AEA Decisions for 2009 and Beyond

TAKS Progress Indicator

The TAKS Progress Indicator continues to include grade 8 science and the TAKS (Accommodated) results described on slide 27.

The AEA: Academically Acceptable standard will increase by five percentage points to 50% in 2009 and will remain at 50% for 2010.

31

AEA Decisions for 2009 and Beyond (cont.)

Annual Dropout Rate (Grades 7-12) andCompletion Rate II

In spring 2009, the accountability advisory groups will review various options and make recommendations to the commissioner about the leaver indicators evaluated under AEA procedures for 2009 and beyond.

32

2009 AEA Campus Registration Process

In 2009, the AEA campus registration process will be conducted online using the Texas Education Agency Secure Environment (TEASE) Accountability website.

The 2008-09 AEA campus registration process opens September 10, 2008.

An email notification will be sent to all superintendents stating that alternative education campuses (AECs) rated under 2008 AEA procedures will be re-registered automatically in 2009 subject to the 75% at-risk registration criterion.

33

2009 AEA Campus Registration Process (cont.)

AECs wishing to rescind AEA registration must complete an electronic 2008-09 AEA Campus Rescission Form.

AECs requesting AEA registration must complete an electronic 2008-09 AEA Campus Registration Form.

AECs for which 2008 AEA registration was rescinded due to not meeting the at-risk registration criterion must submit an electronic 2008-09 AEA Campus Registration Form if the AEC wishes to request AEA campus registration in 2009.

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

34

2009 AEA Campus Registration Process (cont.)

The 2008-09 AEA registration process closes September 24, 2008, at 1:00 p.m. C.D.T.

AEA rescissions and registrations will not be processed after this time.

When finalized, the list of 2009 Registered AECs will be available on the AEA website at: http://www.tea.state.tx.us/aea.

35

AEA At-Risk Registration Criterion

Each registered AEC must have a minimum percentage of at-risk students enrolled on the AEC verified through current-year PEIMS fall enrollment data in order to be evaluated under AEA procedures and receive an AEA rating. Two safeguards have been incorporated for those AECs that are below the at-risk requirement.

1. Prior-Year PEIMS At-Risk Data Safeguard: If a registered AEC does not meet the at-risk criterion in 2009, then it remains under AEA if the AEC had at least 75% at-risk enrollment in 2008.

2. New Campus Safeguard: If a new campus is registered for evaluation under AEA procedures, then the AEC is not required to meet the at-risk criterion in its first year of operation. This safeguard provides an accommodation for new campuses with no prior-year data.

36

AEA At-Risk Registration Criterion (cont.)

The AEA at-risk registration criterion was 65% in 2006, 70% in 2007, and 75% in 2008 and beyond.

AEA registration is rescinded for AECs that do not meet the at-risk registration criterion or utilize the safeguards. As a result, the AECs are evaluated under standard accountability procedures.

Below is a history of the number of campuses not meeting the at-risk registration criterion that were shifted to standard accountability procedures. Rescinding AEA registration also impacts the number of charters evaluated under AEA.

2006 – 17 AECs and 8 charters 2007 – 24 AECs and 12 charters 2008 – 17 AECs and 5 charters

37

AEA At-Risk Registration Criterion (cont.)

The PEIMS Edit+ reports below may be helpful when analyzing at-risk student enrollment data. These reports may be run at the district and campus levels.

PRF5D003 – Student Roster. Lists all students enrolled by grade. The ‘AT RS’ column indicates whether a student is at-risk.

PRF5D018 – At-Risk Students by Sex, Ethnicity, and Grade. One-page report of at-risk students by sex, ethnicity, and grade.

PRF5D025 – At-Risk Roster by Grade. Lists at-risk students by grade. Other student demographics are included on this report.

Federal Accountability Update

39

2008 AYP Timeline

Summer TAKS-M Standard Setting Process

August Texas school districts retain all SIP evaluations from the prior year (based on 2007 AYP results) and continue implementation of SIP requirements.

By late September

School districts receive TAKS-M

student results.

40

2008 AYP Timeline (cont.)

October 2nd Release of 2008 Preliminary Data Tables and Student Lists to Campuses and Districts via TEASE.

Confidential unmasked preliminary data tables available on the TEASE site will not include the preliminary AYP and SIP status labels. The AYP Explanation Table will be included on these tables.

October 8th Public release of Preliminary 2008 AYP/SIP with updated SIP statuses for all districts and campuses.

41

2008 AYP Timeline (cont.)

October 17th AYP Appeal Deadline

No later than October 20th

Parental Notification by all Texas Districts of School Improvement Requirements.

November – December

Process AYP Appeals

Mid-December Issue Final AYP and SIP Results

42

Changes to the 2008 AYP Guide

AYP Guide Table of Contents will be used to cover items that have changed in 2008.

Section III INDICATORS, COMPONENTS, MEASURES, & STANDARDS Components of Reading and Mathematics Indicators

o Participation Reorganizedo Performanceo Federal Caps New

Section IV EXCEPTIONS Exception to the 1% Federal Cap on TAKS-Alt

New Policy

43

Changes to the 2008 AYP Guide (cont.)

Section V APPEALS Expanded

Title I School Improvement Requirements Refer to App B Limitations on 2008 AYP Appeals New

Includes AYP Appeal Guidelines: Guidelines by Indicator for Appeals Special Circumstance Appeals

44


Section VIII APPENDICES Expanded

Appendix B: Title I School Improvement New Policy

Appendix C: Sample AYP Products New Items:

o Federal Regulation Reporting Requiremento AYP Source Data Tableo Sample District and Federal Cap Calculationo AYP Student Data Listings

45


Section VIII APPENDICES (continued)

Appendix D: Calculating 2008 AYP Results for Sample School

New Items:o AYP Explanation Tableo Reconciling Student Level Datao How to Calculate the 1% and 2% Federal Cap Limit

46

2009 AYP Preview

Performance standards in 2008-09 will increase from 60% to 67% for Reading/ELA and from 50% to 58% for mathematics.

AYP performance standards will increase each year in order to meet the 100% proficiency target required by 2013-14.

47

2009 Assessments included in AYP Calculations

Reading/ELA Assessments

Participation95% Standard

Performance/Accountability Subset67% 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 / LAT 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)

TELPAS Reading* 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.

48

2009 Assessments included in AYP Calculations (cont.)

Mathematics Assessments

Participation95% Standard

Performance/Accountability Subset58% Standard

Total Students

Number Participating Number Tested Met Standard

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

TAKS (Accommodated)


TAKS-M / LAT 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.

49

2009 Assessments used for State and Federal Accountability

An attachment to the September 19, 2007, To The Administrator Addressed letter outlined the use of TAKS (Accommodated), TAKS-M, and TAKS-Alt in state and federal accountability for the 2007-08 school year.

The attached document outlines the use of TAKS, TAKS (Accommodated), TAKS-M, TAKS-Alt, LAT versions, and TELPAS assessments that will be used for state and federal accountability in

2008-09.

50

Select Committee on Public School Accountability

Tuesday, August 19 (10 a.m.) – Committee meets in Dallas with school district officials regarding growth models. The meeting will be held at the Dallas ISD Administration Building.

Wednesday, August 20 (10 a.m.) – Committee meets in Lubbock - Location and Agenda TBD

Audio/video and handouts for all prior meetings are available online at http://www.senate.state.tx.us/75r/Senate/commit/c835/c835.htm.

Remaining Meeting Dates

51

TETN Accountability Update Sessions

November 13 Accountability Ratings UpdateGold Performance AcknowledgmentsTAT ListAEIS ReportsSchool Report CardsPEG List

The above date is for 1 p.m. to 3 p.m.

2008 Dates and Tentative Agenda Topics

52

TETN Accountability Update Sessions

2009 Tentative Dates and Agenda Topics

February 19 Update on Accountability Development

April 23 Accountability Decisions for 2009 and Beyond

June 18 Accountability Manuals – State and AYP

August 20 Accountability Results for 2009

November 19 Accountability Ratings UpdateGold Performance

AcknowledgmentsAEIS ReportsSchool Report CardsPEG List

The above dates are for 1 p.m. to 3 p.m.

53

Accountability Resources

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

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

ESC Accountability Contacts.

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/

TETN Accountability Update Session August 14, 2008.

Documents

exceptions campuses

exceptions campuses

recognized campuses

exceptions districts

acceptable campuses

acceptable districts

recognized rating

charter campuses