TETN Accountability Update Session August 14, 2008

State Accountability Update

Ratings Highlights District Ratings by Rating Category (including Charter Operators) ACCOUNTABILITY RATING 2008 CountPercent Exemplary433.5% Recognized % Academically Acceptable % Standard Procedures % AEA Procedures655.3% Academically Unacceptable373.0% Standard Procedures312.5% AEA Procedures60.5% Not Rated: Other30.2% Total1,229100%

Ratings Highlights (cont.) ACCOUNTABILITY RATING 2008 CountPercent Exemplary % Recognized2, % Academically Acceptable3, % Standard Procedures3, % AEA Procedures3974.8% Academically Unacceptable2172.6% Standard Procedures1942.4% AEA Procedures230.3% Not Rated: Other6578.0% Not Rated: Data Integrity Issues10.0% Total8,195100% Campus Ratings by Rating Category (including Charter Campuses)

Ratings Highlights (cont.) About Required Improvement CAMPUSES Under standard procedures, 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 (4.7% of all Academically Acceptable campuses).

Ratings Highlights (cont.) About Required Improvement DISTRICTS Under standard procedures, 106 districts used RI to achieve 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 Academically Acceptable districts).

Ratings Highlights (cont.) About Exceptions – Campuses 832 campuses increased their rating due to the Exceptions Provision. 638 campuses used campuses used 2 69 campuses used 3 8 campuses used 4 11 campuses were prevented from using exceptions because the same measure was used last year. At the campus level, exceptions were most often used for mathematics and science, followed by reading/ELA, writing and social studies.

Ratings Highlights (cont.) About Exceptions - Campuses 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 achieve a rating of Recognized; 177 used one exception to achieve a rating of Exemplary.

Ratings Highlights (cont.) About Exceptions - Districts 90 districts increased their rating due to the Exceptions Provision. 76 districts used 1 11 district used 2 2 districts used 3 1 district used 4 1 district was prevented from using exceptions because the same measure was used last year. At the district level, exceptions were used most often for science and mathematics.

Ratings Highlights (cont.) About Exceptions - Districts In 2008, 19 of the Recognized districts are large (10,000 or more enrolled) compared to only 2 districts of this size earning Recognized in Only 1 of the 19 large Recognized districts used an exception to achieve the Recognized rating. The Exceptions Provision will be examined by the accountability advisory groups in spring 2009 to determine whether modifications are needed for the 2009 ratings.

Ratings Highlights (cont.) School Leaver Provision (SLP) – District Impact (Standard Procedures) 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.

Ratings Highlights (cont.) School Leaver Provision – District Impact (Standard Procedures) By 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.

Ratings Highlights (cont.) School Leaver Provision – Campus Impact (Standard Procedures) 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.

Ratings Highlights (cont.) School Leaver Provision – Campus Impact (Standard Procedures) By using SLP 142 campuses were able to achieve 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.

Ratings Highlights (cont.) School Leaver Provision – Charter District Impact (AEA Procedures) 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.

Ratings Highlights (cont.) School Leaver Provision – Campus Impact (AEA Procedures) 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.

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 2007 and the class of 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%

17 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.

18 School Leaver Provision in 2009 (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 2009 ratings.

19 TAT and the School Leaver Provision 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.

20 The Division of Accountability Research has prepared the attached summary of the completion rate processing for the Class of Processing of Completion Rate

21 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 Ratings Release Calendar

22 Appeals Process and Dates See Appeals Chapter in Manual (Chapter 15, p. 125). Particularly note: Appeals calendar (p. 125) Situations not favorable for appeal (p.126) Special circumstance appeals (p. 128) How to submit an appeal (p. 129)

23 August 15, 2008 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 Final ratings Release – late October Gold Performance Acknowledgments issued – late October AEIS Reports issued (TEASE) – early November 2008 Remaining Calendar Items

TAT list notification – November 6, AEIS Reports issued (Public) – late November PEG list notification – mid-December School Report Cards – mid-December 2008 Remaining Calendar Items (cont.)

26 Standard Accountability Decisions for 2009 and Beyond 2009 (Final Decision) 2010* Exemplary 90% Recognized 75% 80% Academically Acceptable Reading/ELA 70% Writing, Social Studies 70% Mathematics 55% 60% Science 50% 55% * Standards for 2010 will be reviewed in 2009 and are subject to change. Numbers in bold indicate a change from the prior year. TAKS Indicator

27 Standard Accountability Decisions for 2009 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

28 Standard Accountability Decisions for 2009 and Beyond (cont.) 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

29 AEA Decisions for 2009 and Beyond TAKS Progress Indicator The TAKS Progress Indicator continues to include grade 8 science and the TAKS (Accommodated) results described on slide 27. The AEA: Academically Acceptable standard will increase by five percentage points to 50% in 2009 and will remain at 50% for 2010.

30 AEA Decisions for 2009 and Beyond (cont.) Annual Dropout Rate (Grades 7-12) and Completion Rate II In spring 2009, the accountability advisory groups will review various options and make recommendations to the commissioner about the leaver indicators evaluated under AEA procedures for 2009 and beyond.

AEA Campus Registration Process In 2009, 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 2008 AEA procedures will be re-registered automatically in 2009 subject to the 75% 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 2008 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 24, 2008, at 1:00 p.m. C.D.T. AEA rescissions and registrations will not be processed after this time. When finalized, the list of 2009 Registered AECs will be available on the AEA website at:

34 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 2009, then it remains under AEA if the AEC had at least 75% at-risk enrollment in 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.

35 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. Rescinding AEA registration also impacts the number of charters evaluated under AEA – 17 AECs and 8 charters 2007 – 24 AECs and 12 charters 2008 – 17 AECs and 5 charters

36 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.

Federal Accountability Update

AYP Timeline Summer TAKS-M Standard Setting Process AugustTexas school 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.

AYP Timeline (cont.) October 2 nd Release of 2008 Preliminary Data Tables and Student Lists to Campuses and Districts via TEASE. Confidential unmasked preliminary data tables available on the TEASE site will not include the preliminary AYP and SIP status labels. The AYP Explanation Table will be included on these tables. October 8 th Public release of Preliminary 2008 AYP/SIP with updated SIP statuses for all districts and campuses.

AYP Timeline (cont.) 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-DecemberIssue Final AYP and SIP Results

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

42 Changes to the 2008 AYP Guide (cont.) Section V APPEALS Expanded Title I School Improvement Requirements Refer to App B Limitations on 2008 AYP Appeals New Includes AYP Appeal Guidelines: Guidelines by Indicator for Appeals Special Circumstance Appeals

43 Changes to the 2008 AYP Guide (cont.) Section VIII APPENDICES Expanded Appendix B: Title I School Improvement New Policy Appendix C: Sample AYP Products New Items: o Federal Regulation Reporting Requirement o AYP Source Data Table o Sample District and Federal Cap Calculation o AYP Student Data Listings

44 Changes to the 2008 AYP Guide (cont.) Section VIII APPENDICES (continued) Appendix D: Calculating 2008 AYP Results for Sample School New Items: o AYP Explanation Table o Reconciling Student Level Data o How to Calculate the 1% and 2% Federal Cap Limit

AYP Preview Performance standards in will increase from 60% to 67% for Reading/ELA and from 50% to 58% for mathematics. AYP performance standards will increase each year in order to meet the 100% proficiency target required by

Assessments included in AYP Calculations Reading/ELA Assessments Participation 95% Standard Performance/Accountability Subset 67% 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-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% cap) TELPAS Reading*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 58% 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-M / LAT TAKS-M* YesIf 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.

Assessments used for 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 and federal accountability in

49 Select Committee on Public School Accountability Tuesday, August 19 (10 a.m.) – Committee meets in Dallas with school district officials regarding growth models. The meeting will be held at the Dallas ISD Administration Building. Wednesday, August 20 (10 a.m.) – Committee meets in Lubbock - Location and Agenda TBD Audio/video and handouts for all prior meetings are available online at Remaining Meeting Dates

50 TETN Accountability Update Sessions November 13 Accountability 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

51 TETN Accountability Update Sessions 2009 Tentative Dates and Agenda Topics February 19 Update on Accountability Development April 23Accountability Decisions for 2009 and Beyond June 18 Accountability Manuals – State and AYP August 20Accountability Results for 2009 November 19Accountability Ratings Update Gold Performance Acknowledgments AEIS Reports School Report Cards PEG List The above dates are for 1 p.m. to 3 p.m.

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