ACCOUNTABILITY UPDATE State and Federal Systems TSNAP Not-So-New Coordinator’s Academy September 24, 2008 Sandra Poth, Northside ISD

STATE ACCOUNTABILITY UPDATE

FUNDAMENTALS State system evaluates all TAKS subjects x all grades tested x all ‘significant’ student groups “Significant” means that a student group has 30 or more students across a campus grade span such as elementary, middle, high.

FUNDAMENTALS PEIMS subset used for TAKS analysis Many ‘twists’ to the “WHO COUNTS?” question (refer to Manual) Discussion: Student is ‘here’ on PEIMS day at the end of October, leaves district at Winter Break, and returns Monday prior to TAKS testing in March. ???DOES HE “COUNT”???

DISTRICT RATINGS IN 2008 Includes Charter Schools ACCOUNTABILITY RATING 2008 CountPercent Exemplary433.5% Recognized % Academically Acceptable % Standard Procedures Standard Procedures % AEA Procedures AEA Procedures655.3% Academically Unacceptable 373.0% Standard Procedures Standard Procedures312.5% AEA Procedures AEA Procedures60.5% Not Rated: Other 30.2% Total1,229100%

CAMPUS RATINGS IN 2008 ACCOUNTABILITY RATING 2008 CountPercent Exemplary % Recognized2, % Academically Acceptable 3, % Standard Procedures Standard Procedures3, % AEA Procedures AEA Procedures3974.8% Academically Unacceptable % Standard Procedures Standard Procedures1942.4% AEA Procedures AEA Procedures230.3% Not Rated: Other % Not Rated: Data Integrity Issues 10.0% Total8,195100% Includes Charter Schools

2008 RATINGS HIGHLIGHTS REQUIRED IMPROVEMENT (RI) 521 CAMPUSES used RI to achieve a higher rating. 374 campuses moved to Recognized (13.3% of all Recognized campuses). 147 campuses moved to Academically Acceptable (AA) (4.7% of all AA campuses). 106 DISTRICTS used RI to gain a higher rating. 86 districts used RI to move to Recognized (26.2% of all Recognized districts ). 20 districts used RI to move to Academically Acceptable (2.7% of all AA districts).

2008 RATINGS HIGHLIGHTS EXCEPTIONS used at CAMPUS Level 832 CAMPUSES increased their rating due to the Exceptions Provision, mostly in Math and Science. 11 could not use this provision because of using the same measure in campuses used campuses used 2 69 campuses used 3 8 campuses used 4 Of the 832 campuses that used the Exceptions Provision: 313 used one or more exceptions to achieve a rating of Academically Acceptable 342 used one or more exceptions to gain a rating of Recognized 177 used one exception to gain a rating of Exemplary. ???? WHAT DOES THIS MEAN TO YOU????

2008 RATINGS HIGHLIGHTS EXCEPTIONS used at DISTRICT Level 90 DISTRICTS increased their rating using Exceptions with Science and Math used most. One district could not use this provision again in districts used 1 11 districts used 2 2 districts used 3 1 district used 4 Historical look  2007: 2 districts with a student population of 100,000+ were Recognized status while in 2008, this number was 19. Only one (1) used an exception to get there! NOTE: The exceptions provision is NOT a ‘given’. It will be discussed in spring 2009 to decide if it will be used and how it will be used.

2008 RATINGS HIGHLIGHTS COMPLETION RATE TRENDS IN TEXAS Completion Rate I, used for Standard Procedures, DECLINED for all students and for each student group between the class of 2007 and the class of 2006!!! All Students rate declined by 2.2% African American rate declined by 3.8% Hispanic rate declined by 3.0% White rate declined by 0.9% Economically Disadvantaged rate declined by 3.4% ???WHAT DOES THIS MEAN TO YOU???

2008 RATINGS HIGHLIGHTS SCHOOL LEAVER PROVISION (SLP) at the DISTRICT Level 3 districts used the SLP for Dropout Rate only. 80 districts used the SLP for Completion rate only. 6 districts used the SLP for both Dropout AND Completion Rates. 6 districts used the SLP for excessive underreported students B y using SLP 95 districts were able to achieve a higher rating: 76 districts went from Academically Unacceptable to Academically Acceptable. 3 districts went from Academically Unacceptable to Recognized. 15 districts went from Academically Acceptable to Recognized. 1 district went from Academically Acceptable to Exemplary

2008 RATINGS HIGHLIGHTS SCHOOL LEAVER PROVISIONS at the CAMPUS Level 27 campuses used the SLP for Dropout Rate only. 115 campuses used the SLP for Completion rate only. 0 campuses used the SLP for both Dropout and Completion Rates. By using SLP 142 campuses were able to gain a higher rating: 133 campuses went from Academically Unacceptable to Academically Acceptable. 4 campuses went from Academically Unacceptable to Recognized. 4 campuses went from Academically Acceptable to Recognized. 1 campus went from Recognized to Exemplary.

2008 RATINGS HIGHLIGHTS SCHOOL LEAVER PROVISIONS for CHARTERS and AEA 9 charters used the SLP for Dropout Rate only. 6 charters used the SLP for Completion Rate II only. 15 charters used the SLP for both Dropout and Completion Rates. 19 AECs used the SLP for Dropout Rate only. 26 AECs used the SLP for Completion Rate II only. 20 AECs used the SLP for both Dropout and Completion Rates.

SCHOOL LEAVER PROVISION in 2009 This provision will no longer apply in 2009 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 Based on final decisions released in April 2008, this provision will apply to the Annual Dropout Rate (Gr. 7-12) indicator under AEA Procedures, but will be reviewed in spring 2009 by the advisory groups. NOTE: 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 2009 ratings.

SCHOOL LEAVER PROVISION Technical Advisory Team (TAT) Campuses that avoid being rated Academically Unacceptable in 2008 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 2008 are identified for technical assistance teams (TATs) if their 2008 accountability results do not meet the 2009 accountability standards. This is because campuses rated Academically Acceptable in 2008 are identified for technical assistance teams (TATs) if their 2008 accountability results do not meet the 2009 accountability standards.

Thursday, July 31 (1 p.m.) - TEASE site updated with final data tables. Friday, August 1 (10 a.m.) – Secure sent to each ESC director with ratings lists for each district and campus in the region. Friday, August 1 (1 p.m.) – Press Briefing and public release on TEA website. Tuesday, August 19 – List of districts and campuses rated as AU for one or more consecutive years will be posted on the 2008 accountability ratings website. August 15, 2008 is appeals postmark deadline. Ratings changed due to granted appeals published in late October. No appeals necessary for annual dropout rate, completion rate, or underreported students indicators AEIS Reports issued (TEASE) – early November 2008 RATINGS CALENDAR

ACCOUNTABILITY DECISIONS 2009 and BEYOND TAKS INDICATORS 2009 Final Decision 2010 Exemplary ≥ 90% Recognized ≥ 75% ≥ 80% Academically Acceptable Reading/ELA Reading/ELA ≥ 70% Writing, Social Studies Writing, Social Studies ≥ 70% Mathematics Mathematics ≥ 55% ≥ 60% Science Science ≥ 50% ≥ 55% * Standards for 2010 will be reviewed in spring 2009 and are subject to change.

ACCOUNTABILITY DECISIONS for 2009 and BEYOND TAKS (Accommodated) Science (grades 5/8/10/11) Science (grade 5 Span) Social Studies (grades 8/10/11) English Language Arts (grade 11) Mathematics (grade 11) UseUseUse Reading/ELA (grades 3– 0) Reading (grades 3–6 Spanish) Mathematics (grades 3–10) Mathematics (grades 3–6 Span) Writing (grades 4 & 7) Writing (grade 4 Spanish) Report in AEIS Only UseUse

ACCOUNTABILITY DECISIONS for 2009 and BEYOND In spring 2009, the accountability advisory groups will review various options and make recommendations to the commissioner about the leaver indicators evaluated under standard accountability procedures for 2009 and beyond. Annual Dropout Rate (Grades 7-8) and Completion Rate I ???WHAT DOES THIS MEAN TO YOU???

FEDERAL ACCOUNTABILITY UPDATE

2008 AYP TIMELINE Late Summer TAKS-M Standard-Setting process is completed TAKS-M Standard-Setting process is completed August Texas districts retain all SIP evaluations from the prior year (based on 2007 AYP results) and continue implementation of SIP requirements. By late September School districts receive TAKS-M student results. October 2 nd Release of 2008 Preliminary Data Tables and Release of 2008 Preliminary Data Tables and Student Lists to Campuses/Districts via TEASE. Student Lists to Campuses/Districts via TEASE. Confidential unmasked preliminary data tables Confidential unmasked preliminary data tables available on the TEASE site will not include the available on the TEASE site will not include the preliminary AYP and SIP status labels. The AYP preliminary AYP and SIP status labels. The AYP Explanation Table will be included on tables. Explanation Table will be included on tables. October 8 th Public release of Preliminary 2008 AYP/SIP with Public release of Preliminary 2008 AYP/SIP with updated SIP statuses for all districts/campuses. updated SIP statuses for all districts/campuses.

2008 AYP TIMELINE October 17 th AYP Appeal Deadline No later than October 20 th Parental Notification by all Texas Districts of School Improvement Requirements. November – December Process AYP Appeals Mid-December Issue Final AYP and SIP Results

2008 AYP GUIDE CHANGES AYP Guide Table of Contents will be used to cover items that have changed in Section III INDICATORS, COMPONENTS, MEASURES, & STANDARDS STANDARDS  Components of Reading and Mathematics Indicators  Participation Reorganized  Performance  Federal Caps New Section IV EXCEPTIONS  Exception to the 1% Federal Cap on TAKS-Alt New Policy

CHANGES TO 2008 AYP GUIDE Section V APPEALS Expanded –Title I School Improvement Requirements (Refer to Appendix B)  Limitations on 2008 AYP Appeals New  Guidelines by Indicator for Appeals  Special Circumstance Appeals Section VIII APPENDICES Expanded  Appendix B: Title I School Improvement New Policy  Appendix C: Sample AYP Products New Items: Federal Regulation Reporting Requirement AYP Source Data Table Sample District and Federal Cap Calculation AYP Student Data Listings

CHANGES TO 2008 AYP GUIDE Section VIII APPENDICES (continued) Appendix D: Calculating 2008 AYP Results for Sample School New Items: oAYP Explanation Table oReconciling Student Level Data oHow to Calculate the 1% and 2% Federal Cap Limit ???HOW DOES THIS IMPACT YOUR POSITION???

LOOKING AT AYP Performance standards increase: –60%  67% for Reading/ELA –50%  58% for Mathematics NOTE: AYP performance standards will increase each year in order to meet the 100% proficiency target required by

ASSESSMENTS IN 2009 AYP Reading/ELA Assessments Participation 95% Standard Performance/Accountability Subset 67% Standard Total Students Number Participating Number Tested Met Standard TAKSYes If participant  If non- mobile If standard is met TAKS (Accommodated)YesIf participant  If non- mobile If standard is met TAKS-M / LAT TAKS-M YesIf 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% TELPAS Reading*Yes Non- Participant N/AN/A Not Included LAT version of TAKS YesIf participant  If non- mobile If standard is met

ASSESSMENTS in 2009 AYP Mathematics Assessments Participation 95% Standard Performance/Accountability Subset 58% Standard Total Stude nts Number Participating  Number Tested Met Standard TAKSYes If participant  If non-mobile If standard is met TAKS (Accommodated) YesIf participant  If non-mobileIf standard is met TAKS-M / LAT TAKS-M* YesIf participant  If non-mobile If standard is met (subject to 2% 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

2009 ASSESSMENTS USED IN STATE AND FEDERAL ACCOUNTABILITY An attachment to the September 19, 2007, To The Administrator Addressed letter outlined the use of TAKS (Accommodated), TAKS-M, and TAKS-Alt in state and federal accountability for the school year. The attached document outlines the use of TAKS, TAKS (Accommodated), TAKS-M, TAKS-Alt, LAT versions, and TELPAS assessments that will be used for state/federal accountability in

ACCOUNTABILITY TETN SESSIONS for November 13Accountability Ratings Update Gold Performance Acknowledgments TAT List AEIS Reports School Report Cards PEG List Update on Accountability Development February 19 Update on Accountability Development April 23Accountability Decisions for 2009 & Beyond June 18 Accountability Manuals – State and AYP August 20Accountability Results for 2009

RESOURCES for ACCOUNTABILITY the Division of Performance Reporting at TEA Division of Performance Reporting ESC Accountability Contacts Online Resources: –ACCT: –AEA: –AYP:

FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS IN ACCOUNTABILITY Part of law requiring review of existing accountability system Joint Committee on Accountability held hearings all around State Groups making proposals for new system that makes significant changes to the existing system Legislative action in 2009 session

TEXAS STAR SYSTEM Proportionality Growth measure Comparable group comparison Diagnostic in nature Transparent in methodology Tiered priority of indicators Flexible for adding future indicators Rewards and Consequences have different time frames

ACCOUNTABILITY and YOU Testing only? Still affects you! Testing AND Evaluation? It IS you! Curriculum too! You are IT! Keys to success: –KNOWLEDGE –AWARENESS –COMMUNICAITON –ADVOCACY

THE RACE IS ON!!