TETN Accountability Update Session August 16, 2007.

TETN Accountability Update Session

August 16, 2007

State Accountability Update

3

2007 Ratings Highlights

District Ratings by Rating Category

(including Charter Operators)

ACCOUNTABILITY RATING2007

Count Percent

Exemplary 27 2.2%

Recognized 214 17.5%

Academically Acceptable 920 75.3%

Standard Procedures 860 70.4%

AEA Procedures 60 4.9%

Academically Unacceptable 59 4.8%



Not Rated: Other 2 0.2%

Total: 1,222 100.0%

4

2007 Ratings Highlights (cont.)

ACCOUNTABILITY RATING2007

Count Percent

Exemplary 637 7.9%

Recognized 2,345 29.1%

Academically Acceptable 4,102 50.9%

Standard Procedures 3,718 46.1%


Academically Unacceptable 301 3.7%



Not Rated: Other 676 8.4%

Total: 8,061 100.0%

Campus Ratings by Rating Category

(including Charter Campuses)

5


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).

6


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.

7


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.

8


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.

9


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.

10


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.

11


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.

12


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.

13


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.

14


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.

15


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%

16

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.

17

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.

18

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.

19

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.

20

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.

21

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.

22

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.

23

Appeals Process and Dates

See Appeals Chapter in Manual (Chapter 14, p. 115).

Particularly note:

Appeals calendar (p. 115)

Situations not favorable for appeal (p.116)

Special circumstance appeals (p. 118)

How to submit an appeal (p. 119)

Please note that appeals should be addressed to Acting Commissioner, Robert Scott.

24

August 17, 2007 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/early October

Final ratings Release – late October

Gold Performance Acknowledgments issued – late October

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

2007 Remaining Calendar Items

26

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 (cont.)

27

Standard Accountability Decisions for 2008 and Beyond

TAKS Indicator

Beginning in 2008:

includes Grade 8 science

includes TAKS (Accommodated)

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

28

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.)

29


TAKS (Accommodated)

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

30


TAKS-Modified

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

31


TAKS-Alternate (TAKS-Alt)

Designed for students with significant cognitive disabilities

Federal regulations allow up to one percent 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

32


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)

33


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

34


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.

35


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

36

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.

37

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.

38

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.

39

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.

40

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.

41

2008 AEA Campus Registration Process (cont.)

The 2007-08 AEA registration process closes September 21, 2007, at 5:00 p.m. C.D.T.

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

When finalized, the list of 2008 registered AECs will be available on the AEA website at: http://www.tea.state.tx.us/aea.

Federal Accountability Update

43

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.

44

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.

45

Schedule for 2007 AYP Appeals andFinal Release

August 27: Deadline for parental notification of School Improvement Requirements

September 7: Appeals deadline (must be postmarked by this date)

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.

46

General Considerations forAYP Appeals

Appeals are not a data correction opportunity.

Appeals are not considered for areas where a district/campus Met AYP or was Not Evaluated.

Appeals are considered for areas where AYP was missed, even if the result would mean the district/campus still misses AYP overall.

47

Other Circumstance Exceptions

Districts with students served by Regional Day School Programs for the Deaf may also submit an online application for an exception due to other circumstances.

The federal cap exceptions process conducted automatically in the AYP system did not cause the state to exceed the 3% cap.

Other circumstance exceptions are allowable and should be submitted as a regular appeal through the online system.

48

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.

49

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.

50

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.

51

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.

52

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.

53

TETN Accountability Update Sessions

November 15 Accountability Ratings UpdateGold Performance

AcknowledgmentsTAT ListAEIS ReportsSchool Report CardsPEG List

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

2007 Dates and Tentative Agenda Topics

54

TETN Accountability Update Sessions - Tentative 2008 Dates

February 18

April 3

June 11

August 14

November 13

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

55

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 16, 2007.

Documents

exceptions provision

acceptable campuses

recognized campuses

acceptable districts

recognized districts

dropout rate

campus ratings

charter campuses