State & AYP Accountability

2009 Ratings Highlights District Ratings by Rating Category (including Charter Operators) ACCOUNTABILITY RATING 2009 CountPercent Exemplary1179.5% Recognized % Academically Acceptable % Standard Procedures % AEA Procedures514.1% Academically Unacceptable877.0% Standard Procedures705.7% AEA Procedures171.4% Not Rated: Other110.9% Total1,235100%

2009 Ratings Highlights ACCOUNTABILITY RATING 2009 CountPercent Exemplary2, % Recognized2, % Academically Acceptable2, % Standard Procedures1, % 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)

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%. 4

All Students African American HispanicWhiteEconomically Disadvantaged Reading/ELAxxxxx Mathematicsxxxxx Writingxxxxx Sciencexxxxx Social Studiesxxxxx Completion Ratexxxxx Dropout Ratexxxxx State Potential Measures - 35

All Students African American HispanicWhiteEco Dis.Special Ed LEP Reading/ELA Performance xxxxxxx Reading/ELA Participation xxxxxxx Mathematics Performance xxxxxxx Mathematics Participation xxxxxxx Graduation/ Attendance x!!!!!! AYP Potential Measures - 29 ! = Used for other measure

Additional Features for TAKS Measures *Only one feature can be used per measure; however, different features can be used for different measures. **Without TPM State*AYP Required Improvement (RI)** Texas Projection Measure (TPM) Exceptions Provision (EP) Performance Improvement/ Safe Harbor ** Texas Projection Measure (TPM)

8 The TPM Impact on State Ratings 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.

VSS (Vertical Scale Scores) TPM (Texas Projection Measure)

Vertical Scale Scores

VSS - TPM What do Vertical Scale Scores look like from 2008 to 2009? How do we emphasize the need to look at assessment results without TPM?

3 rd Grade SSI HB3 – Eliminates 3 rd grade SSI requirements What does that mean? 30&menu_id3= &menu_id3=793

TPM and SSI When a student takes a retest, the student’s best score from the primary administration or retest administrations will be used in the TPM. Since scores from more than one subject area are used in the projection equations, whenever a student takes a retest, projections are made again in all subjects. This means the evaluation of TPM values in the SSI grades cannot be made until after the last retest administration, if needed. Accountability processing will use the best TPM value, though any TPM used must be tied to a score code from a test version that is part of the accountability system.

Exceptions … or Not! 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.

Performance Standards Documents

Standard Accountability Decisions for 2009 through * Exemplary ≥ 90% Recognized ≥ 75%≥ 80% Academically Acceptable Reading/ELA ≥ 70% Writing, Social Studies ≥ 70% Mathematics ≥ 55%≥ 60%≥ 65% Science ≥ 50%≥ 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. Besides changes in standards, ….

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) Use TAKS-Modified All Subjects and GradesReportUse Standard Accountability Decisions for 2009 through 2011

State AYP

Audience Poll

Where Have We Been? State AssessmentYear IntroducedYears in Operation TABS Essential Elements– TEAMS TAAS TEKS – TAKS ‘Replacement TAKS’ & EOC ***********

HB3 - “Replacement TAKS” – The agency shall develop assessment instruments required under Subsection (a) in a manner that allows, to the extent practicable: (1) The score a student receives to provide reliable information relating to a student ’s satisfactory performance for each performance standard under Section ; and (2)An appropriate range of performances to serve as a valid indication of growth in student achievement.

End-of-Course Exams ‘Replacement TAKS’ which will align with End-of-Course exams and the expectation for post-graduation preparation. HB3 - “Replacement TAKS” –

TAKS-M State AYP – Then what?

TAKS-Alt State AYP – Then what?

State Changes and Beyond — Student passing standards on reading and mathematics in grades 3-8 will be based on the new vertical scale. This conversion will increase the passing standard for some subjects and grades.

AEIS Reports issued (TEASE) – early November list of Technical Assistance Team (TAT) campuses – early November (concurrent with AEIS TEASE release) AEIS and TAT public releases – late November Public Education Grant (PEG) list (not applicable to charters or registered AECs) – mid-December School Report Cards – early December 2009 Remaining Calendar Items

2009 AYP State Summary Results Of those missing AYP, 52% (113) of districts and 6% (22) of campuses missed AYP solely due to the 1% and/or 2% federal caps in compared to 18% of districts and 1% of campuses in A total of 154 campuses missed the Mathematics Performance indicator, the largest category that failed to Meet AYP standards. The Texas Projection Measure (TPM) was used for 2009 AYP evaluations, and allowed 10% (126) of districts to Meet AYP that would have otherwise missed AYP; and 6% (528) of campuses.

2009 AYP Final Release Schedule September 4 th Appeals and Federal Cap Exceptions Deadline. Early December Final 2009 AYP Status released. Preview of NCLB School Report Card (SRC) data, Part I only. January, 2010Public release of NCLB SRC.

2010 Preview: Assessments * Students in their First Year in U. S. Schools are counted as participants, but excluded from the performance calculation Reading/ELA Assessments Participation 95% Standard Performance ( Accountability Subset) 73% Standard Total Students Number Participating  Number Tested Met Standard or TPM TAKSYesIf participant  If in the Accountability subset If standard is met or if projected to meet standard by TPM TAKS (Accommodated) YesIf participant  If in the Accountability subset If standard is met or if projected to meet standard by TPM TAKS-M / LAT TAKS-M * YesIf participant  If in the Accountability subset If standard is met (subject to 2% cap) T B D TAKS-AltYesIf participant  If in the Accountability subset If standard is met (subject to 1% cap) No TPM available TELPAS Reading* Yes Non- Participant N/ANot IncludedNot includedN/A LAT version of TAKS* YesIf participant  If in the Accountability subset If standard is met or if projected to meet standard by TPM

2010 Preview: Assessments * Students in their First Year in U. S. Schools are counted as participants, but excluded from the performance calculation Mathematics Assessments Participation 95% Standard Performance (Accountability Subset) 67% Standard Total Students Number Participating  Number Tested Met Standard or TPM TAKSYesIf participant  If in the Accountability subset If standard is met or if projected to meet standard by TPM TAKS (Accommodated) YesIf participant  If in the Accountability subset If standard is met or if projected to meet standard by TPM TAKS-M / LAT TAKS-M * YesIf participant  If in the Accountability subset If standard is met (subject to 2% cap) TBD TAKS-AltYesIf participant  If in the Accountability subset If standard is met (subject to 1% cap) No TPM available LAT version of TAKS* YesIf participant  If in the Accountability subset If standard is met or if projected to meet standard by TPM

2010 Preview: Use of TPM in AYP Review of AYP Performance Calculation Three steps for AYP Performance calculation: 1.AYP Proficiency Rate (without Growth) 2.Performance Improvement/Safe Harbor (without Growth) 3.AYP Performance Rate with Growth. AYP Performance Rate with Growth: (Students who Met the Passing Standard + Students predicted to meet the Standard) Total Number of Students Tested

2010 Preview: Use of TPM in AYP Phase-in for the TAKS–M projection equations (TPM) TPM projections are expected to be reported for TAKS–M tests in school year for Grade 4, 7, and 10 The Federal Cap process will be reviewed to determine the application of 2% Federal Cap on student results that are projected to meet the passing standard based on the TPM.

English Language Learners (ELL) Progress Measure - – Performance on this indicator will be reported again on the AEIS reports. It will incorporate progress made by students tested on the TELPAS reading test between the 2009 and 2010 administrations. – Will be incorporated into the rating system as a separate indicator at the “All Students” level only, beginning with the 2011 ratings. Standards will be determined during the 2010 accountability cycle. TAKS-M and TAKS-Alt. Performance on these assessments for students with disabilities will be reported again on the AEIS reports Preview: Report Only Measures

AYP Preview: Final Title I Regulations Regulations directly related to AYP: A Uniform, Comparable Graduation Rate Graduation Rate Goal, Targets, and AYP – Set a state graduation rate goal and requirement for continuous improvement from the prior year toward meeting that goal, i.e. annual targets. – Use for AYP decisions in 2010 AYP.

AYP Preview: Final Title I Regulations Regulations directly related to AYP: A Uniform, Comparable Graduation Rate Disaggregating Graduation Rate Data – Report the four-year adjusted cohort graduation rate or a transitional graduation rate reported for school, district, and state levels by student groups prior to school year 2010–11; – States report the four-year adjusted cohort graduation rate by the 2010–11 school year; and – Use the cohort graduation rate by student group in 2012 AYP.

AYP Preview: 2010 Texas AYP Workbook As required by federal regulation, Texas will develop a graduation rate goal and requirements for continuous improvement, i.e. annual targets, for the 2010 AYP Workbook. Texas does not plan to request any further changes to the AYP calculation. The Federal Cap process will be reviewed to determine the application of 2% Federal Cap on student results that are projected to meet the passing standard based on the TPM. Any additional changes related to the Federal Cap process will be detailed in the 2010 AYP Guide.