Presentation on theme: "Alternative Education Accountability (AEA) Update Texas Association for Alternative Education (TAAE) Conference February 5–6, 2009 Nancy Rinehart TEA,"— Presentation transcript:
Alternative Education Accountability (AEA) Update Texas Association for Alternative Education (TAAE) Conference February 5–6, 2009 Nancy Rinehart TEA, Performance Reporting Division
2 Todays Topics Hot Topics Accountability Calendars – 2008 and AEA Overview Preview of 2009 and Beyond AEA Procedures and Indicators TEASE Accountability Accountability Resources
3 Hot Topics School Leaver Provision (SLP) – slides 9-10 TAKS-M and TAKS-Alt assessments – slide 32 Texas Projection Measure (TPM) – slide 33 Hurricane Ike Provision – slide accountability development topics – slide 40 Select Committee on Accountability – slides 41-42
4 Recent Events August Ratings release (TEA website) Sept 10 – Oct AEA Campus Registration (TEASE) October 23Final 2008 Ratings and GPA release (TEA website) November AEIS release (TEASE) November AEIS release (TEA website) December PEG list release (TEASE) December School Report Cards release (TEA website) December PEG list posted online (TEA website)
Accountability Timeline Jan - Feb Accountability System Development – 2008 Review / 2009 and beyond Development February 26-27Educator Focus Group Meeting March 24Commissioners Accountability Advisory Committee (CAAC) Meeting AprilFinal decisions for 2009 and beyond announced by Commissioner Late May2009 Accountability Manual posted online July Accountability Ratings release Mid-September2010 AEA Campus Registration
2008 AEA Overview
7 Accountability Rating AEC of Choice Residential FacilityTotal AEA Enrollment AEA: Academically Acceptable ,880 AEA: Academically Unacceptable105152,374 AEA: Not Rated – Other110111,607 Total ,861 A total of 423 alternative education campuses (AECs) and 71 charter operators were evaluated under AEA procedures in The AEA ratings distributions follow.
AEA Overview (cont.) 2008 AEA Ratings – AECs Charter Campuses Standard Campuses Total AEA Campuses AEA: Academically Acceptable AEA: Academically Unacceptable51015 AEA: Not Rated – Other10111 Total AEA Ratings – Charter OperatorsTotal AEA Enrollment AEA: Academically Acceptable6527,381 AEA: Academically Unacceptable2612 AEA: Not Rated – Other41,767 Total7129,760
9 School Leaver Provision A School Leaver Provision (SLP) was included in the 2008 state accountability system, such that the leaver indicators (either alone or in combination) did not cause a lowered campus or district rating. For 2008 AEA ratings, if the Completion Rate II and/or Annual Dropout Rate indicator(s) were the only cause for an AEA: Academically Unacceptable rating, then the AEC or charter was assigned the AEA: Academically Acceptable label. Use of the SLP in 2009 and beyond will be reviewed with advisory groups in spring The SLP is scheduled to apply only to the AEA Annual Dropout Rate indicator in 2009.
10 School Leaver Provision (cont.) As a result of the SLP, a total of 65 AECs achieved the AEA: Academically Acceptable rating in o 19 AECs used the SLP for Annual Dropout Rate o 26 AECs used the SLP for the Completion Rate II o 20 AECs used the SLP for both the Annual Dropout Rate and Completion Rate II indicators A total of 30 charter operators used the SLP to achieve the AEA: Academically Acceptable rating in o 9 charters used the SLP for Annual Dropout Rate o 6 charters used the SLP for the Completion Rate II o 15 charters used the SLP for both the Annual Dropout Rate and Completion Rate II indicators
11 AEA Gold Performance Acknowledgments (GPA) Overview GPA was created to recognize districts and campuses for high performance on indicators that are in addition to those used to determine state accountability indicators. Beginning in 2008, AEA GPA indicators recognize charters and AECs evaluated under AEA procedures for high performance. Lists of districts or schools by GPA categories or by any combination of acknowledgments are located at
12 AEA GPA Overview (cont.) AEA campuses and charters were first evaluated on GPA indicators in Only the All Students group is evaluated; student groups are not evaluated separately. There are 12 AEA GPA indicators. The two Comparable Improvement indicators are not evaluated for AEA GPA. An Attendance Rate standard of 95.0% is applied to all AECs and charters under AEA GPA. The percentages of AECs and charters earning GPAs are smaller than their counterparts evaluated under standard procedures. Among AEA charters, the GPA earned most often is the RHSP/DAP (21.1%). The GPA earned most often by AECs is Attendance Rate (20.5%).
Preview of 2009 and Beyond AEA Procedures
14 Charters Evaluated under AEA Charter ratings are based on aggregate performance of the campuses operated by the charter. Performance results of all students in the charter are included in the charters performance and used in determining the charters rating. Charters rated under AEA procedures are evaluated on the same indicators as registered AECs.
15 Charters Evaluated under AEA (cont.) Charters that operate only registered AECs are evaluated automatically under AEA procedures. Charters that operate both standard campuses and registered AECs have the option to be evaluated under AEA procedures if at least 50% of the charters students are enrolled at registered AECs. TEA contacts the charter to obtain its preference. If a preference cannot be obtained, then the charter is evaluated under standard accountability procedures. If fewer than 50% of the charters students are enrolled at registered AECs, then the charter is evaluated under standard accountability procedures.
16 AEA Campus Types Two types of campuses have the option to register for evaluation under AEA procedures: o AECs of Choice – at-risk students enroll at AECs of Choice to expedite progress toward performing at grade level and high school completion. o Residential Facilities – education services are provided to students in residential programs and facilities operated under contract with the TYC, students in detention centers and correctional facilities registered with the TJPC, and students in private residential treatment centers. AECs that choose not to register under AEA are evaluated under standard accountability procedures.
17 AEA Registration Criteria Ten criteria are required for campuses to be registered for evaluation under AEA procedures. The requirements in criteria 6-10 may not apply to charter campuses (depending on the terms of the charter) or for community-based dropout recovery campuses established in accordance with TEC §29.081(e). The requirements in criterion 9 apply to Residential Facilities only if students are placed in the facility by the school district.
18 AEA Registration Criteria (cont.) 1. The AEC must have its own campus number to which PEIMS data are reported and test answer documents are coded. 2. The AEC must be identified in AskTED as an alternative campus. 3. The AEC must be dedicated to serving students at risk of dropping out of school as defined in TEC §29.081(d). 4. The AEC must operate on its own budget.
19 AEA Registration Criteria (cont.) 5. The AEC must offer nontraditional settings and methods of instructional delivery designed to meet the needs of the students served on the AEC. 6. The AEC must have an appropriately certified, full-time administrator whose primary duty is the administration of the AEC. 7. The AEC must have appropriately certified teachers assigned in all areas including special education, bilingual education, and/or ESL to serve students eligible for such services.
20 AEA Registration Criteria (cont.) 8. The AEC must provide each student the opportunity to attend a 7-hour school day according to the needs of the student. 9. If the campus serves students with disabilities, the students must be placed at the AEC by their ARD committee. 10. Students with disabilities must receive all services outlined in their IEPs. LEP students must receive all services outlined by their LPAC. Students with disabilities and LEP students must be served by appropriately certified teachers.
Registered AEC s The list of 2009 Registered AECs is available on the AEA website at Each registered AEC must meet the 75% at-risk registration criterion in order to receive an AEA rating on July 31, 2009.
22 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. The at-risk registration criterion is 75%, where it is expected to remain.
23 At-Risk Registration Criterion (cont.) Two safeguards have been incorporated for AECs that are below the at-risk registration requirement. 1. Prior-Year PEIMS At-Risk Data Safeguard: If a registered AEC does not meet the at-risk criterion in the current year, then it remains under AEA if the AEC meets the at-risk criterion in the prior year. 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.
24 At-Risk Registration Criterion (cont.) In April 2009, letters will be mailed to the registered AECs that do not meet the 75% at-risk registration criterion informing them the AEC will shift from AEA to standard accountability and that the AEC will be evaluated under 2009 standard accountability procedures. The Final 2009 Registered AEC list will be posted on the AEA website in May This list will contain the AECs that will receive an AEA rating on July 31, A list of the charter operators that will be rated under 2009 AEA procedures will be posted on the AEA website in May 2009.
AEA Registration The 2010 AEA campus registration process will be conducted electronically using TEASE Accountability. Details will be included in the 2009 Accountability Manual. The 2010 AEA campus registration process will occur in September 2009.
26 Attribution of Data to Registered AECs and Charter Operators Campus Accountability Subset – test results for students enrolled on the same campus on the PEIMS enrollment snapshot date (the last Friday in October) and on the testing date are included in the campus performance measure. District Accountability Subset – test results for students enrolled in the same charter on the PEIMS enrollment snapshot date (the last Friday in October) and on the testing date are included in the charter performance measure. Accountability subset does not apply to exit-level retests.
2009 AEA Indicators
AEA Standards TAKS Progress indicator standard increases to 50%. Completion Rate II (including GED recipients) indicator standard remains 70.0%. Annual Dropout Rate (Grades 7-12) indicator standard is scheduled to remain 10.0%.
29 TAKS Progress Indicator The TAKS Progress indicator sums performance results across grades (3-12) and subjects to determine ratings under AEA procedures. This indicator is based on the number of tests taken, not on the number of students tested.
30 TAKS Progress Indicator (cont.) The TAKS Progress numerator is calculated as the number of tests meeting the student passing standard or having a Texas Growth Index (TGI) score that meets the student growth standard of 0 (zero) or higher and TAKS exit-level retests meeting the student passing standard at the March and April/May administrations or in the previous October or July. The denominator is the number of TAKS tests taken and the number of TAKS exit-level retests meeting the student passing standard at the March and April/May administrations or in the previous October or July.
31 TAKS (Accommodated) Subjects and Grade Levels 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 for Accountability Ratings 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 Use for Accountability Ratings
32 TAKS-M and TAKS-Alt TAKS-M – performance results will be included in the 2009 and 2010 AEIS reports and are scheduled for use in 2011 ratings. TAKS-Alt – performance results will be included in the 2009 and 2010 AEIS reports and are scheduled for use in 2011 ratings.
33 Texas Projection Measure (TPM) The 2009 accountability development process will review the possible use of the new student projection measure in the 2009 standard accountability procedures. AEA procedures are scheduled to use TGI in 2009 and the new TPM in Final decisions will be announced by the Commissioner in April 2009.
34 Use of District At-Risk TAKS Data Applies to AECs only – performance results of all students in the charter are included in the charters performance and used in determining the charters rating. If the AEC does not meet the TAKS Progress standard or demonstrate Required Improvement based on results for fewer than 10 TAKS tests, or if there are no TAKS results for the AEC, then the AEC is evaluated on the district performance of at-risk students. In 2008, district at-risk TAKS data were used to evaluate 50 AECs.
35 Completion Rate II Indicator This longitudinal rate shows the percent of students who completed or who are continuing their education four years after first attending grade 9 in Texas. Completion Rate II counts graduates, continuing students (students who return to school for a fifth year), and GED recipients in the definition for AECs of Choice and charters evaluated under AEA procedures. Residential Facilities are not evaluated on the Completion Rate II indicator. Charters that operate only Residential Facilities are not evaluated on the Completion Rate II indicator. Beginning in 2008, only All Students are evaluated; student groups are not evaluated separately.
36 Use of District At-Risk Completion Rate II Data Applies to AECs of Choice only – performance results of all students in the charter are included in the charters performance and used in determining the charters rating. If the AEC of Choice does not meet the accountability standard or demonstrate Required Improvement, or if the AEC of Choice has students in grades 9, 10, 11, and/or 12 but does not have a Completion Rate II, then the AEC of Choice is evaluated on Completion Rate II (including GED recipients) of at-risk students in the district. In 2008, district at-risk Completion Rate II data were used to evaluate 168 AECs of Choice.
37 Annual Dropout Rate Indicator The Annual Dropout Rate indicator is grade 7-12 dropouts as a percent of total students enrolled at the registered AEC or charter in grades 7-12 in a single school year. Beginning in 2008, only All Students are evaluated; student groups are not evaluated separately. Use of the SLP in 2009 and beyond will be reviewed with advisory groups in spring AEA procedures are scheduled to apply a SLP only for the Annual Dropout Rate indicator.
38 Use of District At-Risk Annual Dropout Rate Data District at-risk dropout data were used for the first time in 2008 AEA ratings. Applies to AECs only – performance results of all students in the charter are included in the charters performance and used in determining the charters rating. If the AEC does not meet the accountability standard or demonstrate Required Improvement, then the AEC is evaluated on Annual Dropout Rate of at-risk students in the district. In 2008, district at-risk Annual Dropout Rate data were used to evaluate 110 AECs.
39 Hurricane Ike Provision Consider options for districts that were directly affected by Hurricane Ike similar to Hurricane Rita provision during the school year. Consider options for districts serving students displaced by Hurricane Ike similar to the Hurricane Katrina/Rita provision, based on the PEIMS Crisis Code data collected in fall 2008.
Accountability Development Topics Annual review of RI and Exceptions Provision TAKS indicators and standards Annual review of GPA indicators and standards Completion/Dropout indicators and standards Inclusion of Texas Projection Measure (TPM), TAKS-M, and TAKS-Alt Transition timeline from TAKS to EOC assessments Transition to new Race/Ethnicity codes
41 Select Committee on Accountability The 15-member Select Committee held public hearings across the state in 2008 to review the state accountability system and make recommendations regarding how the system should be restructured. The Select Committee submitted their final report to the Legislature on December 1, 2008 and is available online at
42 Select Committee on Accountability Highlights of Recommendations Develop new state tests at grades 3-8 that measure a broader range of achievement with standards aligned vertically across grades. Provide credit for growth in the state accountability system for students that are on target to meet standards within three years. Focus on educating students to a postsecondary readiness standard and ensuring that the state assessment program is designed to measure postsecondary readiness. Develop understandable and relevant reports to parents, educators, and administrators that address student achievement and fiscal performance.
43 TEASE Accountability The TEASE Accountability secure website provides school districts and charters with performance-based monitoring analysis system (PBMAS) reports and state and federal accountability products, such as confidential unmasked data tables, summary tables, confidential student listings, data files, and other helpful accountability information. Each superintendent and charter school executive director should apply for access and may designate others in their district (and at the ESC) to also have access.