State Accountability System Update Charter School Conference November 26-28, 2006 Presented by Nancy Rinehart, TEA, Division of Performance Reporting

2 Todays Discussion will cover… Accountability Calendars – 2006 and Alternative Education Accountability (AEA) and Charter Ratings Overview Preview of 2007 and Beyond AEA Procedures 2007 AEA Indicators Preview of 2007 Standard Accountability Procedures TEASE Accountability Accountability Resources

3 Recent and Upcoming Events August Ratings release on TEA public website September2007 AEA campus registration October 24Final 2006 Ratings and GPA release on TEASE October 25Final 2006 Ratings and GPA release on TEA public website November AEIS release on TEASE November AEIS release on TEA public website December School Report Cards (SRCs) released Public Education Grant (PEG) list released on TEASE Pocket Edition published (web and print)

Accountability Timeline January and Development of 2007 Accountability February 2007 System February 26-27Educator Focus Group Meeting March 21Commissioners Accountability Advisory Committee Meeting Early AprilFinal Decisions Announced by Commissioner May/June2007 Accountability Manual posted online August 1Release of 2007 Accountability Ratings September2008 AEA campus registration

2006 AEA and Charter Ratings Overview

AEA Ratings Overview Accountability RatingAEC Of ChoiceResidential FacilityTotal AEA: Academically Acceptable AEA: Academically Unacceptable16319 AEA: Not Rated – Other022 Total A total of 417 AECs and 84 charter operators were evaluated under AEA procedures in The AEA ratings distributions follow.

AEA Ratings Overview (cont.) 2006 Campus AEA Ratings Charter Campuses Standard Campuses Total AEA Campuses AEA: Academically Acceptable AEA: Academically Unacceptable81119 AEA: Not Rated - Other022 Total AEA Ratings – Charter OperatorsTotal AEA Enrollment AEA: Academically Acceptable7627,311 AEA: Academically Unacceptable81,693 Total8429,004

Charter Operator Ratings Accountability RatingCountPercent Exemplary63.1% Recognized2412.4% Academically Acceptable % Standard Procedures5628.9% AEA Procedures7639.2% Academically Unacceptable2914.9% Standard Procedures2110.8% AEA Procedures84.1% Not Rated: Other31.5% AEA: Not Rated - Other00.0% Total %

Charter Campus Ratings Accountability RatingCountPercent Exemplary123.8% Recognized3410.9% Academically Acceptable % Standard Procedures6520.8% AEA Procedures % Academically Unacceptable3711.8% Standard Procedures299.3% AEA Procedures82.6% Not Rated: Other165.1% AEA: Not Rated - Other00.0% Total %

Preview of 2007 and Beyond AEA Procedures

11 Principles of AEA Procedures AEA procedures evaluate the performance of alternative education campuses (AECs) including charters and charter campuses and are based on these principles: o AEA procedures apply to AECs, not programs. o AEA procedures apply to AECs and charters that are dedicated to serving students at risk of dropping out. o AEA procedures apply only to those AECs that qualify and register annually for evaluation under AEA procedures. o AEA procedures do not apply to standard campuses, even if the campus primarily serves at-risk students.

12 The 3 AEA Rating Labels AEA: Academically Acceptable AEA: Academically Unacceptable AEA: Not Rated – Other

13 Required Improvement An AEA: Academically Acceptable rating may be achieved by meeting the absolute standards for each indicator or by demonstrating Required Improvement. Required Improvement compares prior year performance to current year performance. In order to qualify for this comparison, the target group (All Students or any student group) must meet a minimum size requirement for the prior year.

14 Charters Evaluated under AEA Charter ratings are based on aggregate performance of the campuses operated by the charter. Performance results of all students in the charter are included in the charters performance and used in determining the charters rating. Charters rated under AEA procedures are evaluated on the same indicators as registered AECs.

15 Charters Evaluated under AEA (cont.) Charters that operate only registered AECs are evaluated automatically under AEA procedures. 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. 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.

16 AEA Campus Types Two types of campuses have the option to register for evaluation under AEA procedures: o AECs of Choice – at-risk students enroll at AECs of Choice to expedite progress toward performing at grade level and high school completion. o Residential Facilities – education services are provided to students in residential programs and facilities operated under contract with the TYC, students in detention centers and correctional facilities registered with the TJPC, and students in private residential treatment centers. AECs that choose not to register under AEA are evaluated under the standard accountability procedures.

17 AEA Registration Criteria Ten criteria are required for campuses to be registered for evaluation under AEA procedures. The requirements in criteria 6-10 may not apply to charter campuses (depending on the terms of the charter) or for community-based dropout recovery campuses established in accordance with TEC §29.081(e). The requirements in criterion 9 apply to Residential Facilities only if students are placed in the facility by the school district.

18 AEA Registration Criteria (cont.) 1. The AEC must have its own campus number to which PEIMS data are reported and test answer documents are coded. 2. The AEC must be identified in AskTED as an alternative campus. 3. The AEC must be dedicated to serving students at risk of dropping out of school as defined in TEC §29.081(d). 4. The AEC must operate on its own budget.

19 AEA Registration Criteria (cont.) 5. The AEC must offer nontraditional settings and methods of instructional delivery designed to meet the needs of the students served on the AEC. 6. The AEC must have an appropriately certified, full-time administrator whose primary duty is the administration of the AEC. 7. The AEC must have appropriately certified teachers assigned in all areas including special education, bilingual education, and/or ESL to serve students eligible for such services.

20 AEA Registration Criteria (cont.) 8. The AEC must provide each student the opportunity to attend a 7-hour school day according to the needs of the student. 9. If the campus serves students with disabilities, the students must be placed at the AEC by their ARD committee. 10. Students with disabilities must receive all services outlined in their IEPs. LEP students must receive all services outlined by their LPAC. Students with disabilities and LEP students must be served by appropriately certified teachers.

Registered AECs A total of 472 AECs are registered for evaluation under 2007 AEA procedures. 170 of the 472 are charter campuses. A list of 2007 Registered AECs is on the AEA website at Each registered AEC must meet the 70% at-risk registration criterion in order to receive an AEA rating on August 1, 2007.

22 At-Risk Registration Criterion An AEA at-risk registration criterion was implemented in An at-risk registration criterion: o restricts use of AEA procedures to AECs that are dedicated to serving at-risk students, o recognizes that by definition students served at Residential Facilities are at-risk of dropping out of school, and o enhances at-risk data quality.

23 At-Risk Registration Criterion (cont.) 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. The at-risk criterion is 70% in 2007 and 75% in 2008 where it is expected to remain.

24 At-Risk Registration Criterion (cont.) 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 the current year, then it remains under AEA if the AEC meets the at-risk criterion in the prior year. For example, an AEC with an at-risk enrollment of 65% in 2007 and 70% in 2006 remains registered in 2007.

25 At-Risk Registration Criterion (cont.) 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.

26 At-Risk Registration Criterion (cont.) In April 2007, letters will be mailed to the AECs that did not meet the 2007 at-risk registration criterion informing them that the AEC will shift from AEA to standard accountability and that the AEC will be evaluated under 2007 standard accountability procedures. The Final 2007 Registered AEC list will be posted on the AEA website in May This list will contain the AECs that will receive a 2007 AEA rating. A list of the charter operators that will be rated under 2007 AEA procedures will also be posted on the AEA website in May 2007.

27 At-Risk Registration Criterion (cont.) A State Compensatory Education Questions and Answers (Q and A) document is on the TEA website at: sce_presentation.html This Q and A addresses proper coding of at-risk students. Also, ESC Compensatory Education contacts can assist with at-risk questions.

AEA Registration The 2008 AEA campus registration process will be conducted electronically. Details will be included in the 2007 Accountability Manual. The 2008 AEA campus registration process will occur in September 2007.

29 Attribution of Data to Registered AECs For 2007 accountability: Campus accountability subset determines attribution of AEC test data. Only test results for students enrolled on the same campus on the PEIMS enrollment snapshot date (the last Friday in October) and on the testing data are included in the campus performance measure. Accountability subset does not apply to exit-level retests leaver data are attributed to the last campus of attendance.

30 Attribution of Data to Charter Operators For 2007 accountability: For the district accountability subset, only test results for students enrolled in the same charter on the PEIMS enrollment snapshot date (the last Friday in October) and on the testing data are included in the charter performance measure. Accountability subset does not apply to exit-level retests.

2007 AEA Indicators

32 The 4 AEA Indicators The AEA procedures use four base indicators: performance on the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS), performance on the State-Developed Alternative Assessment II (SDAA II), Completion Rate II (including GED recipients), and Annual Dropout Rate for grades 7 through 12.

AEA Standards TAKS Progress indicator increases to 45%. SDAA II indicator increases to 45%. Completion Rate II (includes GED recipients) indicator remains 75.0%. Annual Dropout Rate (Grades 7-12) indicator remains 10.0%.

34 TAKS Progress Indicator The TAKS Progress indicator sums performance results across grades (3-12) and across subjects to determine ratings under AEA procedures. This indicator is based on the number of tests taken, not on the number of students tested. In 2006, 24,728 test takers at registered AECs took a total of 59,649 TAKS tests.

35 TAKS Progress Indicator (cont.) The TAKS Progress numerator is calculated as the number of tests meeting the student passing standard or having a Texas Growth Index (TGI) score that meets the student growth standard of 0 (zero) or higher and TAKS exit-level retests meeting the student passing standard at the February and April administrations or in the previous October or July. The denominator is the number of TAKS tests taken and the number of TAKS exit-level retests meeting the student passing standard at the February and April administrations or in the previous October or July.

36 TAKS Progress Indicator (cont.) Student groups evaluated and minimum size requirements: All Students performance is always evaluated. Students groups (African American, Hispanic, White, and Economically Disadvantaged) are evaluated if there are: o 30 – 49 tests for the student group and the student group represents at least 10% of All Students tests; or o at least 50 tests for the student group even if these tests represent less than 10% of All Students tests (30/10%/50).

37 Use of District At-Risk TAKS Data Applies to AECs only – performance results of all students in the charter are included in the charters performance and used in determining the charters rating. If the AEC does not meet the TAKS Progress standard or demonstrate Required Improvement based on results for fewer than 10 TAKS tests, or if there are no TAKS results for the AEC, then the AEC is evaluated on the district performance of at-risk students. In 2006, district at-risk TAKS data were used to evaluate 52 AECs.

38 SDAA II Indicator The SDAA II indicator sums performance results across grades (3-10) and across subjects. Like the TAKS Progress indicator, the SDAA II indicator is based on the number of tests taken, not on the number of students tested. In 2006, 2,035 test takers at registered AECs took a total of 3,836 SDAA II tests.

39 SDAA II Indicator (cont.) Student groups evaluated and minimum size requirements: All Students performance is evaluated when there are 30 or more SDAA II tests. Students groups (African American, Hispanic, White, and Economically Disadvantaged) are not evaluated.

40 Completion Rate II Indicator This longitudinal rate shows the percent of students who completed or who are continuing their education four years after first attending grade 9 in Texas. Completion Rate II counts graduates, continuing students (students who return to school for a fifth year), and GED recipients in the definition of Completion Rate II for AECs of Choice and charters evaluated under AEA procedures. Residential Facilities are not evaluated on the Completion Rate II indicator. Charters that operate only Residential Facilities are not evaluated on the Completion Rate II indicator.

41 Completion Rate II Indicator (cont.) Student groups evaluated and minimum size requirements: All Students are evaluated if there are: o at least 5 dropouts; and o at least 10 students in the Completion Rate II class. Students groups (African American, Hispanic, White, and Economically Disadvantaged) are evaluated if there are: o at least 5 dropouts in the student group, and; o 30 – 49 students in the student group and they represent at least 10% of All Students in the class; or o at least 50 students in the student group even if they represent less than 10% of All Students in the class.

42 Completion Rate II Indicator (cont.) Required Improvement for the Completion Rate II indicator cannot be calculated and will not be applied in The changes to the dropout definition will prevent comparisons of rates used in 2006 and 2007.

43 Use of District At-Risk Completion Rate II Data Applies to AECs of Choice only – performance results of all students in the charter are included in the charters performance and used in determining the charters rating. If the AEC of Choice does not meet the accountability standard or demonstrate Required Improvement, or if the AEC of Choice has students in grades 9, 10, 11, and/or 12 but does not have a Completion Rate II, then the AEC of Choice is evaluated on Completion Rate II (including GED recipients) of at-risk students in the district. In 2006, district at-risk Completion Rate II data were used to evaluate 131 AECs of Choice.

44 Annual Dropout Rate Indicator The Annual Dropout Rate indicator is grade 7-12 dropouts as a percent of total students enrolled at the registered AEC or charter in grades 7-12 in a single school year. All Students are evaluated if there are: o at least 5 dropouts; and o at least 10 students in grades 7-12.

45 Annual Dropout Rate Indicator (cont.) Students groups (African American, Hispanic, White, and Economically Disadvantaged) are evaluated if there are: o at least 5 dropouts in the student group, and; o 30 – 49 students in the student group and they represent at least 10% of All Students in grades 7-12; or o at least 50 students in the student group even if they represent less than 10% of All Students in grades 7-12.

46 Annual Dropout Rate Indicator (cont.) The dropout definition transitions from the current state definition to the NCES definition in Students dropping out of school during the school year are reported in in accordance with the NCES dropout definition. Required Improvement for the Annual Dropout Rate indicator cannot be calculated and will not be applied in The changes to the dropout definition will prevent comparisons of rates used in 2006 and 2007.

47 Annual Dropout Rate Indicator (cont.) Due to the definitional and Required Improvement changes described above, if the Annual Dropout Rate is the only indicator causing a registered AEC or charter to be AEA: Academically Unacceptable, then a hold harmless provision will be applied and a rating of AEA: Academically Acceptable will be assigned. This provision will be in place for 2007 only.

Preview of 2007 Standard Accountability Procedures

49 Preview of 2007 Standard Accountability TAKS Standards For 2007, the Academically Acceptable standards increase by 5 percentage points for all subjectsto 65% for Reading/ELA, Writing, and Social Studies; to 45% for Mathematics; and to 40% for Science. That same year, the standards for Recognized increase to 75% for all subjects.

50 Preview of 2007 Standard Accountability (cont.) Commended Performance on TAKS Beginning with ratings released in 2007, a label of commended will be appended to campus and district ratings if the campus or district also earns a GPA for at least 50% of the commended indicators on which the campus or district is evaluated. A minimum of three of the five commended indicators must be evaluated; or if only two are evaluated, both must be acknowledged (2 out of 2).

51 Preview of 2007 Standard Accountability (cont.) Commended Performance on TAKS (cont.) Only campuses and districts rated Academically Acceptable or higher are eligible to receive this additional label. Campuses and districts evaluated under AEA procedures are not eligible to receive this additional label.

52 Preview of 2007 Standard Accountability (cont.) TAKS-I TAKS-I results will be used in the state accountability system for the first time in This follows the report, report, use mechanism for phasing in new assessment results into the accountability system. This phase-in schedule means that only a portion of the TAKS-I results will be used for accountability in All TAKS-I grades and subjects will be used beginning in 2010.

53 Preview of 2007 Standard Accountability (cont.) Incorporating TAKS Alternative (TAKS-Alt) TAKS-Alt results will be reported but not used in the accountability system for two years beginning in Incorporating the 2% Assessment The 2% test results will be reported but not used in the accountability system for two years beginning in 2008.

54 Preview of 2007 Standard Accountability (cont.) SDAA II The standard for meeting ARD expectations will continue to be set locally, consistent with state statute. SDAA II indicators will remain the same in 2007 as will their performance standards.

55 Preview of 2007 Standard Accountability (cont.) Annual Dropout Rate (Grade 7 - 8) Indicator For 2007 only, a hold harmless provision is added to the system, such that if the grade 7-8 annual dropout rate is the only indicator causing a district or campus to be Academically Unacceptable, then the campus or district is rated Academically Acceptable instead.

56 Preview of 2007 Standard Accountability (cont.) Completion Rate (Grade ) Indicator The 2007 accountability year (class of 2006) is the first year the NCES dropout definition is used in the denominator of the completion rate calculation. Also, because of the definitional change to the denominator, Required Improvement cannot be used. Both these factors (the definitional change and the lack of an Required Improvement feature) increase the rigor of the completion rate in 2007.

57 Preview of 2007 Standard Accountability (cont.) Underreported Students Increase the rigor of the underreported students standard each year through the 2008 accountability ratings. For example, for 2007 any district that had more than 100 underreported students or greater than 1.5% underreported students could not be rated Exemplary or Recognized.

58 TEASE Accountability The TEASE Accountability secure website provides school districts and charters with performance-based monitoring analysis system (PBMAS) reports, and confidential unmasked data tables, summary tables, confidential student listings, data files, and other helpful state and federal accountability information. Each superintendent and charter school executive director should apply for access and may designate others in their district (and at the ESC) to also have access.

59 Accountability Resources ESC Accountability Contacts TEA Division of Performance Reporting (512) AEA website Accountability ratings system website Accountability Resources website AYP website