TETN Accountability Update Session August 16, 2007

State Accountability Update

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, %

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)

Ratings Highlights (cont.) 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).

Ratings Highlights (cont.) About Required Improvement (contd) 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.

Ratings Highlights (cont.) 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.

Ratings Highlights (cont.) About Exceptions (contd) 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.

Ratings Highlights (cont.) 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.

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.

Ratings Highlights (cont.) 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.

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.

Ratings Highlights (cont.) 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.

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.

Ratings Highlights (cont.) 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 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%

15 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.

16 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.

17 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.

18 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.

19 TAT Methodology For the TAT list, the and 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.

20 TAT Methodology (cont.) A campus that is included on the 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.

21 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 campuss identification is based on data quality issues, this can be addressed by tailoring the interventions to fit the reason for being on the list.

22 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.

23 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.)

24 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

/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.)

26 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

27 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.)

28 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

29 Standard Accountability Decisions for 2008 and Beyond (cont.) 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

30 Standard Accountability Decisions for 2008 and Beyond (cont.) 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

31 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)

32 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

33 Standard Accountability Decisions for 2008 and Beyond (cont.) 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.

34 Standard Accountability Decisions for 2008 and Beyond (cont.) English Language Learner (ELL) Indicator Will be reported for 2 nd year on 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

35 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.

36 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.

37 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.

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 AEA campus registration process opens September 10, An 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.

AEA Campus Registration Process (cont.) AECs wishing to rescind AEA registration must complete an electronic AEA Campus Rescission Form. AECs requesting AEA registration must complete an electronic 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 AEA Campus Registration Form if the AEC wishes to request AEA campus registration in AEA rescission and registration forms submitted via TEASE Accountability must be printed and maintained locally as official documentation of AEA campus registration requests.

AEA Campus Registration Process (cont.) The 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:

Federal Accountability Update

42 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.

43 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.

44 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.

45 General Considerations for AYP 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.

46 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.

47 AYP Information Packet Please turn now to the AYP Information Packet that was provided to you via along with this presentation. The AYP Information Packet is available from the TEASE Accountability website.

48 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.

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.

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.

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.

52 TETN Accountability Update Sessions November 15Accountability Ratings Update Gold Performance Acknowledgments TAT List AEIS Reports School Report Cards PEG List The above date is for 1 p.m. to 3 p.m Dates and Tentative Agenda Topics

53 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.

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