Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Fall Academy for Not-So-New Coordinators September 18 and 19, 2007.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Fall Academy for Not-So-New Coordinators September 18 and 19, 2007."— Presentation transcript:

1 Fall Academy for Not-So-New Coordinators September 18 and 19, 2007

2 State Accountability Update

3 2007 Ratings Highlights District Ratings by Rating Category (including Charter Operators) ACCOUNTABILITY RATING 2007 CountPercent Exemplary272.2% Recognized % Academically Acceptable % Standard Procedures % AEA Procedures604.9% Academically Unacceptable594.8% Standard Procedures574.7% AEA Procedures20.2% Not Rated: Other20.2% Total:1, %

4 2007 Ratings Highlights (cont.) ACCOUNTABILITY RATING 2007 CountPercent Exemplary6377.9% Recognized2, % Academically Acceptable4, % Standard Procedures3, % AEA Procedures3844.8% Academically Unacceptable3013.7% Standard Procedures2883.6% AEA Procedures130.2% Not Rated: Other6768.4% Total:8, % Campus Ratings by Rating Category (including Charter Campuses)

5 2007 Ratings Highlights (cont.) 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.

6 2007 Ratings Highlights (cont.) 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.

7 2007 Ratings Highlights (cont.) 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.

8 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 ) under AEA Procedures.

9 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 This information will be the basis for dropout and completer indicators used in 2008 ratings.

10 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 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.

11 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

12 2006/07 AEIS Reports issued (Public) – late November 2007/08 TAT list notification – November 1, /09 PEG list notification – mid-December 2006/07 School Report Cards – mid-December 2007 Remaining Calendar Items (cont.)

13 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

14 Standard Accountability Decisions for 2008 and Beyond (cont.) 2008 (Final Decision) Recommended 2009*2010* Exemplary 90% Recognized 75% 80% 80 %** Academically Acceptable Reading/ELA 70% 70% ** Writing, Social Studies 65% 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 If altered, the Recognized standard will also be reconsidered. Numbers in bold indicate a change from the prior year. TAKS Indicator (cont.)

15 Standard Accountability Decisions for 2008 and Beyond (cont.) TAKS (Accommodated) 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 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

16 Standard Accountability Decisions for 2008 and Beyond (cont.) TAKS-Modified Will be administered for the first time in spring 2008, with the first possible use in the state accountability system in 2010

17 Standard Accountability Decisions for 2008 and Beyond (cont.) TAKS-Alternate (TAKS-Alt) Results will be reported for two years beginning with 2008, with the first possible use in the state accountability system in 2010

18 Standard Accountability Decisions for 2008 and Beyond (cont.) School Leaver provision does not apply in 2008 under standard procedures Required Improvement – Available beginning in (Final Decision) Academically Acceptable 1.0%TBD Recognized 0.7%TBD Exemplary 0.2%TBD Annual Dropout Rate (Grades 7-8)

19 Standard Accountability Decisions for 2008 and Beyond (cont.) 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 2008 (Final Decision) 2009* (Recommended) 2010* (Recommended) Academically Acceptable 75.0% Recognized 85.0% Exemplary 95.0% Completion Rate I Definition of a Completer Graduates + Continued HS Dropout Definition (used in denominator) Phase-in NCES Definition NCES Definition * Standards for 2009 and beyond will be reviewed annually and are subject to change. Completion Rate I (Grade 9-12) Indicator

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

21 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 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 the AEA: Academically Acceptable label.

22 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.

23 Federal Accountability Update

24 2007 State Summary Results 86% of districts and 79% of campuses met AYP in districts and 284 campuses are in Title I School Improvement for the 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.

25 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 for each district and campus.

26 Schedule for 2007 AYP Appeals and Final 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.

27 2008 AYP Preview Performance standards for will remain the same as for Under the NCLB Act, all states are required to assess students in science during the 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.

28 2008 Assessments included in AYP Calculations Reading/ELA Assessments Participation 95% Standard Performance/Accountability Subset 60% Standard Total Students Number Participating Number TestedMet Standard TAKSYesIf participant If non-mobileIf standard is met TAKS (Accommodated) YesIf participant If non-mobileIf standard is met TAKS-MYesIf participant If non-mobile If standard is met (subject to 2% cap) TAKS-AltYesIf participant If non-mobile If standard is met (subject to 1% cap) RPTE*YesNon-ParticipantN/ANot Included LAT version of TAKS* YesIf participant If non-mobileIf standard is met * Students in their First Year in U. S. Schools are counted as participants, but excluded from the performance calculation.

29 2008 Assessments included in AYP Calculations (cont.) Mathematics Assessments Participation 95% Standard Performance/Accountability Subset 50% Standard Total Students Number Participating Number TestedMet Standard TAKSYesIf participant If non-mobileIf standard is met TAKS (Accommodated) YesIf participant If non-mobileIf standard is met TAKS-MYesIf participant If non-mobile If standard is met (subject to2% cap) TAKS-AltYesIf participant If non-mobile If standard is met (subject to1% cap) LAT version of TAKS* YesIf participant If non-mobileIf standard is met * Students in their First Year in U. S. Schools are counted as participants, but excluded from the performance calculation.

30 2008 AYP Preview: Federal Cap In general, the federal cap process has been applied to Texas schools in the following steps: Determine the districts total participation count, based on the school districts total participation denominator for the Reading/English Language Arts and Mathematics. This count is based on students identified as enrolled on the day of testing in grades 3 – 8 and 10 only. Apply the percentage to the total participation count for the cap limit on 1% or 2% proficient results. District Participation Denominator x.01 = TAKS-Alt Limit District Participation Denominator x.02 = TAKS-M Limit

31 2008 AYP Preview: Federal Cap (cont.) In past years, TEA determined how many proficient scores could be included in the performance rates for each district based on a sorting priority. All students in the school district were sorted in the order of priority regardless of the campus identification.

32 2008 AYP Preview: Federal Cap (cont.) Proficient scores that remain after the district cap was reached were counted as non-proficient for AYP purposes only. Since the limit of proficient results in the federal cap has been based on the school district participation count, it is difficult to determine the specific campus results of the federal cap calculation.

33 2008 AYP Preview: Federal Cap (cont.) An Important Note about Alternate Test Administration It should be emphasized that the federal cap relates to counting students as proficient for AYP purposes only and does not provide direction to ARD committees regarding how students with disabilities should be assessed. For students with disabilities receiving special education services, state policies and procedures related to assessment decision-making are detailed in the TEA publication titled Admission, Review, and Dismissal (ARD) Committee Decision-Making Process for the Texas Assessment Program. It is important that local school districts ensure that appropriate assessments are selected and administered to students with disabilities.

34 2008 AYP Preview: Federal Cap (cont.) Texas has been under a flexibility agreement that allows the state to evaluate the proficient results of new alternate assessments and their appropriate caps for the first time in The protocol for determining which students are included or excluded in AYP if the 1% or 2% caps are exceeded has not yet been determined.

35 2008 AYP Preview: Federal Cap (cont.) The USDE federal regulation released in April 2007 provides specific guidelines on the implementation of the federal cap: Districts cannot exceed the 1% cap for TAKS- Alt. However, if they do not fully use the 1% cap, then they can exceed the 2% cap (up to 3%). In other words, TAKS-M proficient scores may spill over beyond the cap, but the TAKS-Alt may not.

36 2008 AYP Preview: Federal Cap (cont.) One Possible Scenario: Subject Area: Reading/ELA Total Number of AYP Participants in District = 742 (Grades 3 – 8 & 10 only) 1% x 742 = students may be counted as proficient in AYP from TAKS-ALT 2% x 742 = students may be counted as proficient in AYP from TAKS M 3% is the total number of students, or 23

37 2008 AYP Preview: Federal Cap (cont.) Second Scenario: Subject Area: Reading/ELA Total Number of AYP Participants in District = 742 (Grades 3 – 8 & 10 only) 1% x 742 = 7.42 from students may be counted as proficient in AYP from TAKS-ALT 2% x 742 = from students may be counted as proficient in AYP from TAKS M The combined total is 23 students, or 3%

38 2008 AYP Preview Timeline Standard setting for the TAKS-M assessment will not be completed until August Discussions have begun with the USDE to modify the 2008 AYP timeline. Texas will request that the preliminary 2007–2008 AYP status and the corresponding 2008–2009 School Improvement Program (SIP) status be released after the beginning of the 2008–2009 school year.

39 2008 AYP Preview (cont.) The 2008 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Guide will include the details of the federal cap process and 2008 timeline. The AYP Guide will be available on the Texas Education Agency website in late spring Examples like those in the AYP Information Packet, available from the TEASE Accountability website, may be incorporated into the AYP Guide federal cap process description.

40 Accountability Resources the Division of Performance Reporting at Phone the Division of Performance Reporting at (512) ESC Accountability Contacts. Online: ACCT: AEA: AYP:


Download ppt "Fall Academy for Not-So-New Coordinators September 18 and 19, 2007."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google