Proposed Calendar March 3 - 4 Educator Focus Group meeting March 18 Focus Group report transmitted to Commissioner's Accountability Advisory Committee (CAAC) members Focus Group report posted on web March 26 CAAC meeting Week of April 7 – 11 Commissioner reviews CAAC recommendations and announces final decisions Commissioner's Final Decisions posted on web
2008 At-Risk Registration Criterion and Charters evaluated under Alternative Education Accountability (AEA) Procedures
2008 At-Risk Registration Criterion Each registered Alternative Education Campus (AEC) must have at least 75% at-risk student enrollment verified through 2007-08 PEIMS fall enrollment data in order to be evaluated under 2008 AEA procedures and receive an AEA rating on August 1, 2008. 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 2008, then it remains under AEA if the AEC had at least 75% at-risk enrollment in 2007. 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.
2008 At-Risk Registration Criterion (continued) In April, letters will be mailed to the AECs that do not meet the 2008 at-risk registration criterion informing them that the AEC will shift from AEA to standard accountability and that the AEC will be evaluated under 2008 standard accountability procedures. The Final 2008 Registered AEC list will be posted on the AEA website in May 2008. This list will contain the AECs that will receive a 2008 AEA rating.
Charters evaluated under AEA Procedures A list of the charter operators that will be rated under 2008 AEA procedures will also be posted on the AEA website in May 2008. Charters that operate only registered AECs are evaluated automatically under AEA procedures.
Charters evaluated under AEA Procedures (continued) 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. Charters submits its preference via TEASE. 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
Accountability Development Topics for Educator Focus Group Meeting State Assessments TAKS (Accommodated) 2008 Overview 2009 and 2010 Standards Commended Label District/Campus Diversity Annual Dropout Rates Review Standards Additional Features
Accountability Development Topics for Educator Focus Group Meeting (continued) Completion Rates Review Standards Additional Features Underreported Students Review Standards Future Use
Accountability Development Topics for Educator Focus Group Meeting (continued) Alternative Education Accountability (AEA) Overview of 2007 Overview of 2008 Standards for 2009 and 2010 AEA Acknowledgments English Language Learner (ELL) Progress Indicator Review Current Plans 2009 Decisions
Accountability Development Topics for Educator Focus Group Meeting (continued) Gold Performance Acknowledgment (GPA) System 2008 Standards for 2009 and 2010 SAT/ACT Review RHSP/DAP Review Comparable Improvement
Update on Select Committee on Public School Accountability
Select Committee on Public School Accountability The Committee shall conduct an in-depth, comprehensive review of the public school accountability system. In conducting its review, the Committee shall study the mission, organizational structure, and practices of similar systems in other states and the requirements established by federal law.
Select Committee on Public School Accountability (continued) The review must include: study of each element of accountability with emphasis on indicators used to determine accreditation status; rewards; and incentives for campus excellence; and the sanctions on districts not meeting state performance standards; the extent to which the system is aligned with NCLB; the extent to which the system reflects the public education mission, objectives, and goals in TEC Chapter 4; The extent to which the accountability system meets public expectations;
Select Committee on Public School Accountability (continued) the extent to which the system fairly and accurately reports the effectiveness of teachers, instructional programs, and financial outlays and their impact on student performance; monitor the progress of each student with emphasis on growth in academic performance; performance indicators that would measure the effectiveness of campus teaching and learning environments including discipline; effectiveness of the system in reporting the performance of charter schools and alternative education programs;
Select Committee on Public School Accountability (continued) replacing current high school grade-level assessments with end-of-course (EOC) exams consistent with revisions to the TEKS; the extent to which the system measures the performance of districts and campuses on important indicators and aspects of the educational process other than test scores on standardized tests; the extent to which the system reports to parents and other constituents the overall performance of districts and campuses; and the extent to which the system takes into consideration the differing student demographics of districts and campuses.
Select Committee on Public School Accountability (continued) The Committee held their first meeting on February 18, 2008. The link to the proceedings is at: http://www.senate.state.tx.us/75r/senate/commit/c835/c83 5.htm Subsequent meetings are scheduled for: March 27, 2008 April 14, 2008 May 12, 2008 June 16, 2008 July 14, 2008 August 4, 2008
2008 Texas AYP Workbook Amendments Review of the November 19, 2007, letter regarding Amending Title I Accountability Workbooks in which states were strongly encouraged to submit only amendments that are either (1) necessary to bring your States accountability workbook into compliance with current law, or (2) required to accurately reflect current practice in your States accountability system. Expiration of the November 30, 2005, USDE Agreement on Inclusion of Certain Students with Disabilities in the Texas AYP calculation. The Texas AYP Workbook includes updates removing the provisions of that agreement.
2008 Texas AYP Workbook Amendments (continued) Administration of new alternate assessments in spring 2008 for (1) students with the most significant cognitive disabilities (TAKS-Alternate), and (2) students assessed on alternate assessments based on modified academic achievement standards (TAKS-Modified). Request for resubmission of an amendment to the AYP Safe Harbor calculation as a result of the Title I monitoring visit conducted in Texas on January 17-18, 2008.
Options for 1% cap on TAKS-Alternate Assessment Results 1. By Random Assignment – Students are randomly selected up to the federal cap limit. 2. By Disability Category – Identify students to include in the cap by selecting students in specific disability categories that are aligned with the assessment participation criteria for TAKS-Alt. Sort students by disability category and lowest to highest scale score up to the federal cap limit.
Options for 2% cap on TAKS-Modified Assessment Results (continued) 1. By Random Assignment – Students are randomly selected up to the federal cap limit. 2. By Test Score – Sort students by lowest to highest scale score and include students in this order up to the federal cap limit. 3. By Grade Level – Sort students by highest to lowest grade level, and lowest to highest scale score. Students in the highest grade (Grade 10 for most districts) are the first to be included under the federal cap limit.
Options for 2% cap on TAKS-Modified Assessment Results (continued) 4. By Campus Proportion of Students with Disabilities – Determine a campus level federal cap proportion based on the campus percentage of school district students with disabilities tested on alternate assessments, and sort students by lowest to highest scale score up to the campus limit. 5. Strategic Method with School District Input – TEA identifies one method to use statewide to prioritize campuses strategically by SIP status. School districts have the opportunity to review and/or modify the campus rankings. Student results are selected in order to maximize the number of campuses that Meet AYP beginning with the campuses assigned the highest priority.
Options for 2% cap on TAKS-Modified Assessment Results (continued) 6. Combination Method – TEA prioritizes campuses by grades served and proportion of students with disabilities enrolled. School districts have the opportunity to review and/or modify the campus rankings. Student results are selected in order to maximize the number of campuses that Meet AYP beginning with the campuses assigned the highest priority.
General comments regarding Federal Cap Options Each of these options are included in a paper funded by the federal Office of Special Education Programs that describes methods used by states to implement the federal cap and summarized in Appendix A. When combining two or more sorting orders, the first or primary sort order will be the greater factor in determining the order of the proficient results that may be included within the federal cap limits. The secondary sort order has a greater impact when determining the specific cut off point for students included in the cap.
General comments regarding Federal Cap Options (continued) The options document will be available for educator input until Friday, March 21, 2008. Feedback and reactions can be submitted via email to the Division of Performance Reporting at firstname.lastname@example.org@tea.state.tx.us Comments and suggestions received from educators will be included in the review of the proposed options for processing the federal cap for 2008 AYP.
TETN Accountability Update Sessions 2008 Dates and Tentative Agenda Topics April 3 Accountability Decisions for 2008 & Beyond June 11 Accountability Manuals – State and AYP August 14 Accountability Results for 2008 November 13Accountability Ratings Update Gold Performance Acknowledgments AEIS Reports School Report Cards PEG List The above dates are for 1 p.m. to 3 p.m.
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/