2009 Ratings Highlights Compared to the 2008 TAKS results, the 2009 statewide performance on the TAKS was equal to or improved for all students and each student group in each subject area tested. Compared to the class of 2007, Completion Rate I for the class of 2008 improved for all students and for each student group. (first gains demonstrated since the class of 2003.) The state average grade 7-8 annual dropout rate improved from 0.4% to 0.3%. 2
3 2009 Ratings Highlights (cont.) District Ratings by Rating Category (including Charter Operators) ACCOUNTABILITY RATING 2009 CountPercent Exemplary1179.5% Recognized45937.2% Academically Acceptable56145.4% Standard Procedures51041.3% AEA Procedures514.1% Academically Unacceptable877.0% Standard Procedures705.7% AEA Procedures171.4% Not Rated: Other110.9% Total1,235100%
4 2009 Ratings Highlights (cont.) ACCOUNTABILITY RATING 2009 CountPercent Exemplary2,15125.8% Recognized2,93035.2% Academically Acceptable2,29827.6% Standard Procedures1,89522.8% AEA Procedures4034.8% Academically Unacceptable2703.2% Standard Procedures2292.8% AEA Procedures410.5% Not Rated: Other6728.1% Not Rated: Data Integrity Issues10.0% Total8,322100% Campus Ratings by Rating Category (including Charter Campuses)
Movement Under certain circumstances initial ratings can be changed. Reasons for a rating change include: Special Analysis Districts with Academically Unacceptable campus(es) Districts with excessive underreported students Hurricane Ike Provision Granted Appeals (n/a until October) 5
Movement (cont.) Special Analysis 2 districts and 32 campuses affected Most moved to Not Rated: Other (1 district and 25 campuses) Academically Unacceptable Campuses Only the district is evaluated 2 districts moved from Recognized to Academically Acceptable due to having one or more Academically Unacceptable campuses. 6
Movement (cont.) Excessive Underreported Students Only the district is evaluated 7 districts moved from Recognized to Academically Acceptable due to having more than 150 or more than 5.0% underreported students. 7
Movement (cont.) Hurricane Ike Provision 49 districts and 562 campuses were eligible. 3 districts and 37 campuses used the provision. Of the 3 districts, 2 would have been Academically Unacceptable without the provision. Of the 37 campuses, 14 would have been either Academically Unacceptable or AEA: Academically Unacceptable without the provision. 8
Additional Features There are three additional features in the system: Required Improvement (RI) Texas Projection Measure (TPM) Exceptions Provision (EP) Only one feature can be used per measure; however, different features can be used for different measures. 9
10 Additional Features (cont.) Required Improvement (RI) - Campuses Under standard procedures, 747 campuses used RI to achieve a higher rating. 601 campuses moved to Recognized (20.5% of all Recognized campuses) 146 campuses moved to Academically Acceptable (7.8% of all Academically Acceptable campuses) A portion of these campuses may have used other features for other measures.
11 Additional Features (cont.) Required Improvement (RI) - Districts Under standard procedures, 141 districts used RI to achieve a higher rating. 126 districts used RI to move to Recognized (27.5% of all Recognized districts ) 15 districts used RI to move to Academically Acceptable (2.9% of all Academically Acceptable districts) A portion of these districts may have used other features for other measures.
12 Additional Features (cont.) Texas Projection Measure (TPM) - Campuses Under standard procedures only, 2,543 campuses used TPM to achieve a higher rating. 355 used it to achieve Academically Acceptable 1,077 used it to achieve Recognized 1,111 used it to achieve Exemplary A portion of these campuses may have used other features for other measures.
13 Additional Features (cont.) Texas Projection Measure (TPM) - Districts Under standard procedures, 329 districts used TPM to achieve a higher rating. 78 used it to achieve Academically Acceptable 178 used it to achieve Recognized 73 used it to achieve Exemplary A portion of these districts may have used other features for other measures.
14 Additional Features (cont.) Exceptions Provision (EP) - Campuses Of the 319 campuses that used the Exceptions Provision: 72 used one or more exceptions to achieve a rating of Academically Acceptable 96 used one or more exceptions to achieve a rating of Recognized 151 used one exception to achieve a rating of Exemplary A portion of these campuses may have used other features for other measures.
15 Additional Features (cont.) Exceptions Provision (EP) - Campuses Of the 319 campuses using exceptions: 263 campuses used 1 37 campuses used 2 19 campuses used 3 0 campuses used 4
16 Additional Features (cont.) Exceptions Provision (EP) - Districts Of the 17 districts that used the Exceptions Provision: 1 used one or more exceptions to achieve a rating of Academically Acceptable 8 used one or more exceptions to achieve a rating of Recognized 8 used one exception to achieve a rating of Exemplary A portion of these districts may have used other features for other measures.
17 Additional Features (cont.) Exceptions Provision (EP) - Districts Of the 17 districts using exceptions: 16 districts used 1 1 district used 2 0 districts used 3 0 districts used 4
Additional Features Summary CampusesDistricts 2008200920082009 Any RI521747106141 Any TPMn/a2,543n/a329 Any EP8323199017 18 RI is also available with the Completion Rate and Annual Dropout Rate indicators. In 2009, 7 districts and 24 campuses used RI with the Completion Rate and 0 districts and 0 campuses used RI with the Annual Dropout Rate indicators. These counts are not included in the table.
19 Rating Reasons Of the 70 Academically Unacceptable districts: 48 (69%) were due to Completion Rate only; 14 were due to TAKS only; 5 were due to Annual Dropout Rate only; and, 3 were due to a combination of base indicators. Of the 229 Academically Unacceptable campuses: 146 (64%) were due to TAKS only; 63 were due to Completion Rate only; 5 were due to Annual Dropout Rate only; and 15 were due to a combination of base indicators.
Rating Reasons (cont.) Completion Rate – Exemplary and Recognized Ratings Missed Exemplary due to Completion Rate only: 1 district 7 campuses Missed Recognized due to Completion Rate only: 50 districts 71 campuses See the Highlights document for more details on the 09 system: http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport/account/2009/highlights.pdf 20
21 Appeals deadline (postmarked) – August 14, 2009 Appeals Panel meets – early October Appeal decisions mailed to districts (and posted on secure web) – mid-October Ratings change due to granted appeals will be published concurrent with Gold Performance Acknowledgment (GPA) release – late October. Appeals Process and Dates
22 2008-09 AEIS Reports issued (TEASE) – early November 2009-10 list of Technical Assistance Team (TAT) campuses – early November (concurrent with AEIS TEASE release) AEIS and TAT public releases – late November 2010-11 Public Education Grant (PEG) list (not applicable to charters or registered AECs) – mid-December 2008-09 School Report Cards – early December 2009 Remaining Calendar Items
23 Standard Accountability Decisions for 2010 and 2011 20102011* Exemplary 90% Recognized 80% Academically Acceptable Reading/ELA 70% Writing, Social Studies 70% Mathematics 60% 65% Science 55% 60% * Standards for 2011 will be reviewed in 2010 and are subject to change. Numbers in bold indicate a change from the prior year. TAKS Indicator
24 Standard Accountability Decisions for 2010 and 2011 (cont.) TAKS (Accommodated)20102011 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) Use TAKS-Modified20102011 All Subjects and GradesReportUse
Standards for 2011 will be reviewed in 2010 and are subject to change. Numbers in bold indicate a change from the prior year. Standard Accountability Decisions for 2010 and 2011 (cont.) Completion Rate I, Annual Dropout Rate, and Underreported Students 20102011* Completion Rate I Exemplary Recognized Academically Acceptable 95.0% 85.0% 75.0% 95.0% 85.0% 75.0% Gr. 7-8 Annual Dropout Rate (All categories) 1.8% 1.6% Underreported Students (District only) 150 and 4.0% 150 and 3.0%
26 AEA Decisions for 2010 and 2011 TAKS Progress Indicator The TAKS Progress indicator includes all TAKS (Accommodated) results as described on slide 24. The TAKS Progress indicator standard remains 50% for 2010. The TAKS Progress indicator standard for 2011 will be reviewed with accountability advisory groups in spring 2010.
27 AEA Decisions for 2010 and 2011 (cont.) Annual Dropout Rate (Grades 7-12) and Completion Rate II Indicators The Annual Dropout Rate indicator standard remains 20.0% for 2010. The Completion Rate II indicator standard remains 60.0% for 2010. In spring 2010, the accountability advisory groups will review various options and make recommendations to the commissioner about the leaver indicators evaluated under AEA procedures for 2011.
28 2010 AEA Campus Registration Process The 2010 AEA campus registration process will be conducted online using the TEASE Accountability website. The 2009-10 AEA campus registration process opens September 9, 2009. An email notification will be sent to all superintendents stating that alternative education campuses (AECs) rated under 2009 AEA procedures will be re-registered automatically in 2010 subject to the 75% at-risk registration criterion.
29 2010 AEA Campus Registration Process (cont.) AECs wishing to rescind AEA registration must complete an electronic 2009-10 AEA Campus Rescission Form. AECs requesting AEA registration must complete an electronic 2009-10 AEA Campus Registration Form. AECs for which 2009 AEA registration was rescinded due to not meeting the at-risk registration criterion must submit an electronic 2009-10 AEA Campus Registration Form if the AEC wishes to request AEA campus registration in 2010. AEA rescission and registration forms submitted via TEASE Accountability must be printed and maintained locally as official documentation of AEA campus registration requests.
30 2010 AEA Campus Registration Process (cont.) The 2009-10 AEA registration process closes September 23, 2009, at 1:00 p.m. C.D.T. AEA rescissions and registrations will not be processed after this time. When finalized, the list of 2010 Registered AECs will be available on the AEA website at: http://www.tea.state.tx.us/aea. http://www.tea.state.tx.us/aea
31 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 2010, then it remains under AEA if the AEC had at least 75% at-risk enrollment in 2009. 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.
32 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. 2006 – 17 AECs 2007 – 24 AECs 2008 – 17 AECs 2009 – 17 AECs
33 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.
34 Technical Assistance Team (TAT) Districts with TAT-identified campuses will be notified in early November through TEASE at the same time the AEIS reports are posted to TEASE. Campuses rated Academically Acceptable in 2009 are identified if 2008-09 performance does not meet 2010 accountability system criteria. Required Improvement and the Exception Provision will be part of the 2010 TAT methodology. However, the TPM feature will not be part of the 2010 TAT methodology. (The 2008 TPM equations used for 2009 accountability will not be applied to 2010 TAT Identification).
35 TAT (cont.) The 2010 TAKS Preview indicator is evaluated for TAT. This indicator includes all TAKS (Accommodated) grades and subjects and applies the new 2010 student standards on the vertical scale. Campuses will be able to see their data for this indicator on their AEIS reports. Because the 2010 standards for the completion and dropout rate indicators are the same as the 2009 standards, no additional campuses will be added to the TAT list due to these indicators. 2009 TAT requirements will be modified to begin transition to statutory changes reflected in HB3. Details to follow from the Division of Program Monitoring and Interventions.
36 The school-start window closes on September 25, 2009. HB3 changes to statute regarding dropouts do not affect the processing of the class of 2009 leaver data. Completion and Dropout Processing 2009
HB 3 Implementation Transition Plans through 2012 July 30, 20102010 ratings are issued under current accountability system. By December 1, 2010Transition plan to the new assessment and accountability/accreditation system is submitted to the governor, lieutenant governor, other key legislative members and staff, and the Legislative Budget Board (LBB). August 1, 20112011 ratings are the last ratings issued under the current accountability system. 37
HB 3 Implementation (cont.) Transition Plans through 2012 2011-2012Assignment of accreditation statuses and performance ratings are suspended for this school year. New accreditation and academic accountability system is developed with input from the educator advisory groups on the timelines specified in the transition plan. 38
HB 3 Implementation (cont.) Transition Plans for 2013 August 8, 2013District accreditation statuses and district and campus performance ratings are issued for the first time under new system. Ratings will be based on the percent proficient indicators. The percent college-ready indicators will be report only. Distinction designations will be issued to districts and campuses with acceptable performance concurrent with the release of performance ratings. Performance ratings and accreditation statuses issued in 2010-2011 and 2012-2013 school years will be considered consecutive. 39
HB 3 Implementation (cont.) Transition Plans for 2014 August 8, 2014District accreditation statuses and district and campus performance ratings will be issued for second time. Ratings will be based on both percent proficient and percent college-ready indicators. Distinction designations will be issued to districts and campuses with acceptable performance concurrent with the release of performance ratings. 40
HB 3 Implementation (cont.) Detailed analysis of HB3 and other education-related legislation that passed during the 2009 legislative session can be found in the TEA publication, 81 st Texas Legislative Session: Briefing Book on Public Education Legislation. Go to the URL shown below and select, Briefing Book – 81 st Texas Legislature http://www.tea.state.tx.us/index4.aspx?id=5142 41
HB 3 Implementation (cont.) Exclusions to the NCES Dropout Definition HB3 defined certain exclusions that the TEA must make when evaluating dropout and completion rates for accreditation and performance ratings. The exclusions can be grouped into five categories: Previous dropouts; ADA ineligible dropouts; Court-ordered GEDs, not earned; Incarcerated in facilities not served by Texas public schools; and Refugees and asylees. 42
HB 3 Implementation (cont.) Exclusions to the NCES Dropout Definition HB3 explicitly requires use of the current NCES dropout definition until 2011-12. TEA is interpreting the 2011-12 effective date to mean the 2010-11 dropouts collected in the 2011-12 year. The 2008-09 dropouts collected in the 2009-10 year (2010 ratings) will be processed using current definitions with no new exclusions applied. The 2009-10 dropouts collected in the 2010-11 year (2011 ratings) will be processed using current definitions with no new exclusions applied. 43
44 Ethnicity and Race Data Collection and Reporting PEIMS collects ethnicity and race using both old and new definitions. TAKS answer documents collect both old and new definitions (pre-coded from PEIMS). Reporting and Use – State accountability, federal accountability, AEIS (and related reports) use old definitions. 2009-10
45 TETN Accountability Update Sessions Remaining 2009 Date and Tentative Agenda Topics November 19 Accountability Ratings Update Gold Performance Acknowledgments TAT List AEIS Reports School Report Cards PEG List 2009-10 NCLB School Report Card The above date is for 1 p.m. to 3 p.m.
46 TETN Accountability Update Sessions 2010 Dates and Tentative Agenda Topics February 18Update on Accountability Development April 29Accountability Decisions for 2010and Beyond June 24Accountability Manuals – State and AYP August 19Accountability Results for 2010 November 18Accountability Ratings Update Gold Performance Acknowledgments AEIS Reports School Report Cards PEG List The above dates are for 1 p.m. to 3 p.m.
47 Accountability Resources Email the Division of Performance Reporting at email@example.com. firstname.lastname@example.org Phone the Division of Performance Reporting at (512) 463-9704. ESC Accountability Contacts. Online: ACCT: http://www.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport/account/http://www.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport/account/ AEA: http://www.tea.state.tx.us/aea/http://www.tea.state.tx.us/aea/ AYP: http://www.tea.state.tx.us/ayp/http://www.tea.state.tx.us/ayp/
Your consent to our cookies if you continue to use this website.