1. 1 2008 AYP Update: Federal Accountability Performance Reporting Division Texas Education Agency TETN Accountability Session April 24, 2008

2. 2 2008 AYP Update Todays Agenda Update on 2008 Texas AYP Workbook 2008 AYP Timeline 2008 AYP Federal Cap Decision How the Cap Works Important documents (found at www.tea.state.tx.us/ayp)www.tea.state.tx.us/ayp February 15, 2008: Requested Amendments to the Texas Consolidated State Application Accountability Workbook March 25, 2008: Final version of research-based options for Development of the Federal Cap April 15, 2008: Final Decision on the 2008 Federal Cap

3. 3 Update on 2008 Texas AYP Workbook

4. 4 2008 Texas AYP Workbook Amendments Amendments included: Expiration of the November 30, 2005, US Department of Education 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. 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).

5. 5 2008 Texas AYP Workbook Amendments (continued) Amendments, continued: Request the use of TAKS-Modified assessment test results in AYP calculations, which requires a request for a modified timeline for 2008 AYP results. Request for resubmission of an amendment to the AYP Performance Safe Harbor calculation as a result of the Title I monitoring visit conducted in Texas on January 17-18, 2008. The 2008 amendment requests are currently pending USDE approval, however, tentative approval has been received for the 2008 modified AYP timeline. Typically by May of each year the USDE approves the Texas AYP Workbook and detail is provided in the AYP Guide.

6. 6 Resubmission of 2006 amendment: Performance Safe Harbor Current AYP Performance Safe Harbor calculation for Reading/ELA and Mathematics: either (1) Standard Met, or (2) Performance Safe Harbor Current Performance Safe Harbor calculation: Performance Improvement: 10% decrease in percent not passing, and Improvement on the Other Indicator.

7. 7 Resubmission of 2006 amendment: Performance Safe Harbor (continued) Proposed Amendment: If a district, charter, or campus meets the absolute standard on the other measure for the specific student groups that meet minimum size criteria (in addition to all students), they do not have to show improvement on the other measure as a condition of safe harbor. Proposed AYP Performance Safe Harbor calculation: Performance Improvement: 10% decrease in percent not passing, and Other Measure requirement: Meet the standard on the Other Indicator or Improvement on Other Indicator

8. 8 2008 AYP Timeline

9. 9 Proposed 2008 AYP Timeline Spring TAKS-M test administrations Summer TAKS-M Standard Setting Process August Texas school districts retain all SIP evaluations from the prior year (based on 2007 AYP results) and continue implementation of SIP requirements

10. 10 2008 AYP Timeline (continued) Proposed 2008 AYP Timeline (continued) By late September School districts receive TAKS-M student results October 8 th Public release of Preliminary 2008 AYP/SIP with updated SIP statuses for all districts and campuses. Campuses must continue to meet the requirements of the Title I School Improvement Program and no identified 2007-08 SIP campus will stop interventions (exit SIP) during school year 2008-09.

11. 11 2008 AYP Timeline (continued) Proposed 2008 AYP Timeline (continued) 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

12. 12 2008 AYP Federal Cap Decision

13. 13 Final Decision on the 2008 Federal Cap 1% cap on TAKS-Alternate Assessment Results Option 1. By Random Assignment Students are randomly selected up to the federal cap limit. 2% cap on TAKS-Modified Assessment Results Option 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.

14. 14 Final Decision on the 2008 Federal Cap (continued) Each of these options presented were included in a paper funded by the federal Office of Special Education Programs that describes methods used by states (Appendix A of the Federal Cap Decision Document). The options document was available for educator input from February 13 through March 21, 2008. Comments and suggestions received from educators were included in the review of the proposed options for processing the federal cap for 2008 AYP.

15. 15 Final Decision on the 2008 Federal Cap (continued) Option 6 was chosen because it combines the features of Option 3 (prioritizing by Grade Level) and Option 4 (prioritizing by Proportion of Students with Disabilities) with features of Option 5 (school district input and optimizing the number of students in the federal cap). Option 6 is more closely aligned with the overall goal to encourage districts and campuses to maximize the number of students with disabilities achieving grade-level proficiency. The 2008 federal cap process did not require USDE approval. The 2008 AYP Guide will provide detailed information on the options selected for the 1% and 2% federal cap processes.

16. 16 Final Decision on the 2008 Federal Cap (continued) Advantages of Option 6 default sort by campus type and proportion of students with disabilities enrolled: provides a strong incentive for instruction in elementary schools to focus on maintaining grade-level student proficiency and testing on TAKS or TAKS (Accommodated) least adversely affects high schools, which are overrepresented among campuses not meeting AYP rewards campuses that have successfully accelerated instruction for students in the highest grade levels in order to attain enrolled grade level proficiency potentially rewards campuses that have historically and appropriately served a high number of students with disabilities.

17. 17 Final Decision on the 2008 Federal Cap (continued) Advantages of Option 6 provision to allow districts to modify the campus ranking: Since the 2% cap is a limit on district results, it is appropriate to provide district input and thereby support local policy decisions on the selection of appropriate tests for students with disabilities. Advantages of Option 6 provision for the strategic selection of students: The selection of students only to the extent needed for each campus to meet AYP minimizes number of campuses that miss AYP solely due to the federal 2% cap. An approach that minimizes negative consequences may be appropriate for new policy that represents a very high standard on a new assessment.

18. 18 Final Decision on the 2008 Federal Cap (continued) Disadvantages of Option 6 default sort by campus type and proportion of students with disabilities enrolled: Potentially rewards campuses that over identify students with disabilities taking alternate assessments. Under the default sort, AYP results for elementary schools may be adversely affected.

19. 19 Final Decision on the 2008 Federal Cap (continued) Disadvantages of Option 6 provision to allow districts to modify the campus ranking : Districts have discretion to modify the campus sorting priority and could do so in ways that: may be seen as rewarding campuses that are in SIP because of performance problems do not promote the application of challenging educational standards or reward appropriate testing. Districts may be reluctant to modify rankings because of the potential for complaints from schools that are moved down in the ranking. May lead to unintended consequences.

20. 20 Final Decision on the 2008 Federal Cap (continued) Disadvantages of Option 6 provision for the strategic selection of students: Difficult to replicate by school districts. Prioritizing campus AYP performance could result in the district missing AYP due to the federal cap. Campuses that either Meet AYP or continue to Miss AYP even with all proficient students included are given the lowest priority within the federal cap. Students included in the 2% cap may come only from student groups that do not meet the AYP standards. May lead to unintended consequences.

21. 21 How the Federal Cap Works

22. 22 How the Federal Cap Works In general, the federal cap process will be applied to Texas schools based on the following general concepts: The options selected for the 2008 Federal Cap process will be used to determine the 2008 AYP results. The school districts AYP participation count for Reading/English Language Arts and Mathematics will continue to be used to calculate the federal caps. The following example will explain the federal cap process to be used for the 2008 AYP calculations for one school district.

23. 23 How the Federal Cap Works Assume there are 2,000 students enrolled in a school district. Enrollment information is found on the state AEIS report.

24. 24 How the Federal Cap Works (continued) Enrollment by grade level is available on AEIS. Approximately 50% of district enrollment are in Grades 3 – 8 & 10.

25. 25 How the Federal Cap Works (continued) Of the total 2,000 students enrolled in a school district, approximately 1,030 will be enrolled in grades evaluated for AYP, Grades 3 – 8 and 10. The school district tests all enrolled students in various subjects in Spring of each year. AYP data tables report the number of students enrolled on the day of testing for the Reading and Mathematics test subjects.

26. 26 How the Federal Cap Works (continued) Students participating in Reading and Mathematics tests will be reported on AYP.

27. 27 How the Federal Cap Works (continued) The AYP Source Data Table will continue to be provided to school districts to show AYP performance results without the application of the federal 1% and 2% caps. The AYP full academic year (accountability subset) definition requires that AYP Performance results include students enrolled in Fall 2007 and tested in Spring 2008 in the same school district. For this reason, fewer than 1,000 students are included in the AYP performance results.

28. 28 How the Federal Cap Works (continued) AYP Source Data Table: AYP Performance results are reported without the application of the federal caps for Reading and Mathematics.

29. 29 How the Federal Cap Works (continued) The AYP Federal Caps on Proficient results are: District Participation Denominator x.01 = TAKS-Alt Limit District Participation Denominator x.02 = TAKS-M Limit, For the Reading Performance results, School District SOMEWHERE ISD will have the following caps: 1% Federal Cap Limit = 1,000 x.01 = 10.0 = 10 2% Federal Cap Limit = 1,000 x.02 = 20.0 = 20 The overall 3% cap limit for Reading is the 1% limit plus the 2% limit, or 10 + 20 = 30.

30. 30 How the Federal Cap Works (continued) For the Mathematics Performance results, School District SOMEWHERE ISD will have the following caps: 1% Federal Cap Limit = 1,030 x.01 = 10.3 2% Federal Cap Limit = 1,030 x.02 = 20.3 Federal Cap Rounding Rules The federal cap limit is rounded up to the next whole number for any decimal value. 1% Federal Cap Limit = 11 2% Federal Cap Limit = 21 The overall 3% cap limit = 11 + 21 = 32.

31. 31 How the Federal Cap Works (continued) Assume the following test takers for the district: Reading Assessments Grades 3 – 8 & 10

32. 32 How the Federal Cap Works (continued) The TAKS-M and TAKS-Alt results exceed the federal limit. Reading Performance: 1% Federal Cap Limit = 10 2% Federal Cap Limit = 20

33. 33 After Reclassification to Non-proficient: How the Federal Cap Works (continued) For proficient results to remain within the federal cap limits, 4 students taking TAKS-M and 4 students taking TAKS-Alt must be reclassified to non-proficient for AYP purposes only. Actual Assessment Results

34. 34 How the Federal Cap Works (continued) How do we select proficient results from TAKS-Alt? Final Decision on the 2008 Federal Cap 1% cap on TAKS-Alternate Assessment Results Option 1. By Random Assignment Students are randomly selected up to the federal cap limit.

35. 35 How the Federal Cap Works (continued) 1% Cap: Select 10 students randomly from the available pool of TAKS-Alt proficient results:

36. 36 How the Federal Cap Works (continued) 1% Cap: Select 10 students randomly from TAKS-Alt proficient results, and use for campus, district, and state AYP calculations only. AYP Reading Results for TAKS-Alt After Reclassified to non-proficient:

37. 37 How the Federal Cap Works (continued) How do we select proficient results from TAKS-M? Final Decision on the 2008 Federal Cap 2% cap on TAKS-Modified Assessment Results Option 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.

38. 38 How the Federal Cap Works (continued) 2% Cap: TEA prioritizes campuses, School districts have the opportunity to review and/or modify. Late May/Early June The Texas Education Agency Security Environment (TEASE) Accountability Website will be used to provide the prioritized list of campuses for each school district. By Early July Districts may modify the sorting order and change the ranking of the campuses using any method they choose, and must either provide a final campus ranking to TEA or allow the default ranking to be used.

39. 39 How the Federal Cap Works (continued) 2% Cap: TEA prioritizes campuses. TEA provides a list of campus rankings that districts may accept as the default campus ranking. Default Campus Ranking lists are based on Fall 2007 PEIMS information for each campus (reported in December 2008). The lists are sorted by: 1 st Sort: School Type (Secondary, Both, Middle, Elem.) 2 nd Sort: Highest Grade Served on the Campus 3 rd Sort: Percent of Students served by Special Education of Total Enrolled on the campus These values are found on the campus AEIS reports.

40. 40 How the Federal Cap Works (continued) 2% Cap: TEA provides a list of campus rankings based on 2007 Fall PEIMS data, reported on 2008 AEIS Reports. 1 st Sort Order 2 nd Sort Order 3 rd Sort Order

41. 41 How the Federal Cap Works (continued) 2% Cap: TEA provides a list of campus rankings to school districts via TEASE. SAMPLE

42. 42 How the Federal Cap Works (continued) 2% Cap: School districts have the opportunity to review and/or modify and submit their ranking to TEA. SAMPLE

43. 43 How the Federal Cap Works (continued) 2% Cap: Student results are selected in order to maximize the number of campuses that Meet AYP beginning with the campuses assigned the highest priority. The steps to select proficient results from the pool of TAKS-M proficient Reading tests include: 1. Begin with the campus ranked with the highest priority. 2. Determine the number and type of students needed to Meet AYP in Reading. 3. Select proficient results for only the number needed to Meet AYP in Reading for AYP Data Table results. 4. Continue with the campus ranked 2 nd in priority. Final Step 5: After all campuses are completed, select remaining students to help the district Meet AYP up to the federal cap.

44. 44 How the Federal Cap Works (continued) 2% Cap, Selection Step 1: Begin with the campus ranked with the highest priority, in this example, The High School.

45. 45 How the Federal Cap Works (continued) 2% Cap, Selection Step 2: Determine the number and type of students needed to Meet AYP.

46. 46 How the Federal Cap Works (continued) 2% Cap, Selection Step 2: Determine the number and type of students needed to Meet AYP for all Student Groups.

47. 47 How the Federal Cap Works (continued) 2% Cap, Selection Step 3: Select only students needed to Meet AYP in Reading from the available pool of TAKS-M proficient results: and student criteria that help Meet AYP Sorted by Priority Campus

48. 48 How the Federal Cap Works (continued) 2% Cap, Selection Step 3: Select only students needed to Meet AYP in Reading: Only 4 students are selected for Campus 001, … … and selected students contribute to other AYP student groups.

49. 49 How the Federal Cap Works (continued) 2% Cap, Selection Step 3: Select only students needed to Meet AYP in Reading: Some students will not be selected and may be listed as Exceeders on AYP Student Lists

50. 50 How the Federal Cap Works (continued) 2% Cap, Selection Step 3: Select only students needed to Meet AYP in Reading, and update AYP Data Table results.

51. 51 How the Federal Cap Works (continued) 2% Cap, Proceed with the next campus, Selection Step 1: The campus ranked 2nd in priority in this example is Our Middle School.

52. 52 How the Federal Cap Works (continued) 2% Cap, Selection Step 2: Determine the number of students needed to Meet AYP in Reading. Our Middle School, already Meets AYP in Reading.

53. 53 How the Federal Cap Works (continued) 2% Cap, Selection Step 3: Select only students needed to Meet AYP, however, no students are needed from Our Middle School. No students selected from this campus, and students may be listed as Exceeders on AYP Student Lists

54. 54 How the Federal Cap Works (continued) 2% Cap, Proceed with the next campus, Selection Step 1: The campus ranked 3rd in priority in this example is North Elementary.

55. 55 How the Federal Cap Works (continued) 2% Cap, Selection Step 2: Determine the number and type of students needed to Meet AYP in Reading for North Elementary. This campus needs 10 students in order to Meet AYP in Reading…

56. 56 How the Federal Cap Works (continued) 2% Cap, Selection Step 3: Select only students needed to Meet AYP in Reading: Only 2 students are included in the TAKS-M pool of proficient results…

57. 57 How the Federal Cap Works (continued) 2% Cap, Selection Step 3: There are not enough students to Meet AYP in Reading; no students are selected from North Elementary. … therefore, no students selected from this campus, and students may be listed as Exceeders on AYP Student Lists

58. 58 How the Federal Cap Works (continued) 2% Cap, Last Campus, Selection Step 1, 2 & 3: Campus ranked 4th in priority, Meets AYP and no students are needed.

59. 59 How the Federal Cap Works (continued) 2% Cap, Last Campus, Selection Step 1, 2 & 3: No students selected. No students selected from the last Campus listed in the Ranking

60. 60 How the Federal Cap Works (continued) 2% Cap, Final Step 5: After all campuses are completed, select remaining students to help the district Meet AYP up to the federal cap. Additional processing is conducted to ensure that: As many students available in the pool of TAKS-M results are selected in up to the federal cap limit. The number and type of students needed for the school district to Meet AYP in Reading are considered. Additional students selected will be counted proficient in campus, district, and state AYP Data Table results.

61. 61 How the Federal Cap Works (continued) 2% Cap, Final Step 5: After all campuses are completed, select remaining students to help the district Meet AYP up to the federal cap.

62. 62 How the Federal Cap Works (continued) 2% Cap, Final Step 5: Determine the number and type of students needed for the school district to Meet AYP in Reading. No students are needed.

63. 63 How the Federal Cap Works (continued) 2% Cap, Final Step 5: Remaining students are selected randomly from the unselected students. Random selection of 16 more students from campuses that Meet AYP or will never Meet AYP.

64. 64 How the Federal Cap Works (continued) 2% Cap, Final Step 5: A final summary of the proficient student results selected:

65. 65 How the Federal Cap Works (continued) 2% Cap Final results. After the selection all student results in the 2% cap for TAKS-M (20 students), the AYP campus, district, and state Data Tables are calculated using the reclassified results. AYP Reading Results for TAKS-M After Reclassified to Non-proficient:

66. 66 How the Federal Cap Works (continued) Additional considerations related to the 1% and 2% Federal Caps on 2008 AYP Appeals to the campus ranking or 2008 federal cap process will not be considered. Districts cannot exceed the 1% cap for TAKS-Alt. However, if they do not fully use the 1% cap, then districts can exceed the 2% cap (up to 3%). School districts may not Meet AYP after the federal cap process since priority is given to the campuses meeting AYP.

67. 67 How the Federal Cap Works (continued) Additional considerations related to the 1% and 2% Federal Caps on 2008 AYP (continued) Campuses given a higher priority for the selection of students may require all available proficient student results.

68. 68 How the Federal Cap Works Exceptions to the 1% Federal Cap on TAKS-Alt for 2008 AYP Exceptions to the 1% cap on TAKS-Alt proficient results will be automatically applied for school districts registered with the TEA Special Education Residential Facilities Tracking System (RF Tracker). Exceptions to the 1% cap for school districts with Regional Day School Programs for the Deaf will be automatically applied. Exceptions to the 1% cap for Other Circumstances will continue to be considered during the 2008 AYP Appeal period.

69. 69 Accountability Resources For more information on the 1% and 2% federal cap, see the 2008 AYP Guide, available in June, 2008 and accessible at www.tea.state.tx.us/ayp.www.tea.state.tx.us/ayp Email the Division of Performance Reporting at performance.reporting@tea.state.tx.us. performance.reporting@tea.state.tx.us Phone the Division of Performance Reporting at (512) 463-9704.