Transcript TAAE Powerpoint slides Feb 2

State
Accountability
System Update
TAAE
February 2 – 4, 2006
Presented by Nancy Rinehart, TEA,
Division of Performance Reporting
Today’s Discussion will cover…
 Accountability Calendar – 2005 and 2006
 Review of 2005 and Beyond Alternative Education




Accountability (AEA) Procedures
Review of AEA Indicators
2005 AEA Ratings Overview
Preview of 2006 AEA
Preview of 2006 Standard Accountability Procedures
2
Recent Events
 August 1, 2005
2005 Ratings release on TEA public website
 October 25
Final 2005 Ratings and GPA release
 November 16
2004-05 AEIS release on TEASE
 December 7
2004-05 AEIS release on TEA public website
 December 9
2006-07 Public Education Grant (PEG) list
released on TEASE
 December 15
2004-05 School Report Cards (SRCs) released
 December/
2004-05 Pocket Edition published
(web and print)
January 2006
3
2005 and Beyond
AEA Procedures
Principles of AEA Procedures
 The new AEA procedures evaluate the performance of
alternative education campuses (AECs) including charters
and charter campuses and are based on these principles:
 AEA procedures apply to AECs, not programs.
 AEA procedures apply to AECs that are dedicated to
serving students at risk of dropping out of school.
 AEA procedures apply only to those AECs that qualify
and register annually for evaluation under AEA
procedures.
 AEA procedures do not apply to DAEPs or JJAEPs.
 AEA procedures do not apply to standard campuses,
even if the campus primarily serves at-risk students.
5
The 3 AEA Rating Labels
 AEA: Academically Acceptable
 AEA: Academically Unacceptable
 AEA: Not Rated – Other
6
Required Improvement
 An AEA: Academically Acceptable rating may be achieved
by meeting the absolute standards for each indicator or by
demonstrating Required Improvement.
7
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 charter’s performance and used in
determining the charter’s rating.
 Charters rated under AEA procedures are evaluated on
the same indicators as registered AECs.
8
Charters Evaluated under AEA (cont.)
 Charters that operate only registered AECs are
evaluated 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 charter’s 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 charter’s students are
enrolled at registered AECs, then the charter is evaluated
under standard accountability procedures.
9
AEA Campus Types
 Two types of campuses have the option to register as an
AEC in 2005 and beyond:
 AECs of Choice – at-risk students enroll at AECs of
Choice to expedite progress toward performing at
grade level and high school completion.
 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.
10
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.
11
AEA Registration Criteria (cont.)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
The AEC must have its own CDC number to which PEIMS
data are reported and test answer documents are coded.
The AEC must be identified in AskTED as an alternative
campus.
The AEC must be dedicated to serving students at risk of
dropping out of school as defined in TEC §29.081(d).
The AEC must operate on its own budget.
The AEC must offer nontraditional settings and methods of
instructional delivery designed to meet the needs of the
students served on the AEC.
The AEC must have an appropriately certified, full-time
administrator whose primary duty is the administration of the
AEC.
12
AEA Registration Criteria (cont.)
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.
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.
13
7.
Attribution of Data to Registered AECs
For 2006 accountability:
 Campus accountability subset determines attribution of
AEC test data.
 2004-05 leaver data are attributed according to the 85-day
rule for AECs that were registered for evaluation under
AEA procedures in 2005.
 2004-05 leaver data are attributed to the last campus of
attendance for AECs that were not registered for
evaluation under AEA procedures in 2005, but are
registered in 2006.
 As required in statute, DAEP and JJAEP data are
attributed to the student’s home campus (see slide 16).
14
Attribution of Data (cont.)
For 2007 accountability:
 Campus accountability subset determines attribution of
AEC test data.
 2005-06 leaver data are attributed to the last campus of
attendance.
15
Attribution of Data (cont.)
DAEP and JJAEP Campuses
 Statute and statutory intent prohibit the attribution of
performance data to DAEP and JJAEP campuses.
 Each district that sends students to DAEP and/or JJAEP
campuses is responsible for properly attributing all
performance data according to the PEIMS Data Standards
and the TAKS testing guidelines.
 For counties with a population of 125,000 or more,
TEC §37.011(h) requires that a student enrolled at a JJAEP
be reported as if the student were attending and being
tested at his/her sending campus.
 DAEP and JJAEP campuses are labeled Not Rated: Other.
Any accountability data reported erroneously to DAEPs and
JJAEPs is subject to further investigation.
16
AEA Indicators
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.
18
TAKS Progress Indicator
 The TAKS Progress indicator sums performance results
across grades (3-11) 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 2005, 22,594 students enrolled at registered AECs took
a total of 55,386 TAKS tests.
19
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.
20
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:
 30 – 49 tests for the student group and the student
group represents at least 10% of All Students tests; or
 at least 50 tests for the student group even if these
tests represent less than 10% of All Students tests
(30/10%/50).
21
Use of District At-Risk TAKS Data
 Applies to AECs only – performance results of all students
in the charter are included in the charter’s performance
and used in determining the charter’s 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.
 If there are results for fewer than 10 at-risk tests in the
district, then Special Analysis is conducted.
 In 2005, district at-risk TAKS data were used to evaluate
51 AECs.
22
SDAA II Indicator
 The SDAAII 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 2005, 2,472 students enrolled at registered AECs took
a total of 4,547 SDAA II tests.
23
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
separately.
24
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.
 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.
25
Completion Rate II Indicator (cont.)
Student groups evaluated and minimum size requirements:
 All Students are evaluated if there are:
 at least 5 dropouts; and
 at least 10 students in the Completion Rate II class.
 Students groups (African American, Hispanic, White, and
Economically Disadvantaged) are evaluated if there are:
 at least 5 dropouts in the student group, and;
 30 – 49 students in the student group and they represent
at least 10% of All Students in the class; or
 at least 50 students in the student group even if they
represent less than 10% of All Students in the class.
26
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 charter’s
performance and used in determining the charter’s 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.
 If at-risk students in the district do not meet minimum size
requirements for All Students, then the AEC of Choice is
not evaluated on Completion Rate II.
 In 2005, district at-risk Completion Rate II data were used
to evaluate 137 AECs of Choice.
27
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.
28
Annual Dropout Rate Indicator (cont.)
Student groups evaluated and minimum size requirements:
 All Students are evaluated if there are:
 at least 5 dropouts; and
 at least 10 students in grades 7-12.
 Students groups (African American, Hispanic, White, and
Economically Disadvantaged) are evaluated if there are:
 at least 5 dropouts in the student group, and;
 30 – 49 students in the student group and they
represent at least 10% of All Students in grades 7-12;
or
 at least 50 students in the student group even if they
represent less than 10% of All Students in grades 7-12.
29
2005 AEA
Ratings Overview
2005 AEA Ratings Overview
A total of 424 AECs and 89 charter operators were evaluated
under AEA procedures in 2005. The AEA ratings
distributions follow.
AEA
Campus
Type
AEA:
Academically
Acceptable
AEA:
Academically
Unacceptable
AEA:
Not Rated –
Other
Total
AEC Of Choice
323
25
0
348
Residential
Facility
69
6
1
76
Total
392
31
1
424
31
2005 AEA Ratings Overview (cont.)
2005 AEA Ratings – Charter Operators
Total
AEA: Academically Acceptable
74
AEA: Academically Unacceptable
15
Total
89
32
Preview of 2006 AEA
2006 Registered AECs
 A total of 466 AECs are registered for evaluation under
2006 AEA procedures.
 A list of these campuses is on the AEA website at
http://www.tea.state.tx.us/aea/.
34
2006 AEA Standards
 TAKS Progress Indicator will remain 40%.
 SDAA II Indicator will remain 40%.
 Completion Rate II (includes GED recipients) Indicator is
scheduled to remain 75.0%.
 Annual Dropout Rate (Grades 7-12) Indicator is scheduled
to remain 10.0%.
35
SDAA II Required Improvement
 In 2006, when two years of data are available, SDAA II
Required Improvement will be implemented.
36
At-Risk Registration Criterion




An at-risk registration criterion will be phased in beginning
in 2006.
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 will begin at 65% in 2006 and
increase by five percentage points each year until it
reaches 75% in 2008 where it is expected to remain.
A safeguard will be incorporated for those AECs that are
below the at-risk requirement (such as averaging the rate
over multiple years).
37
Preview of 2006 Standard
Accountability Procedures
2006 TAKS
Student Passing Standard
 The student passing standard will move to Panel
Recommendation (PR) for the grade 11 test to complete
the phase-in plan adopted by the SBOE in 2003.
Accountability Standards
 The 2006 accountability standards were published in the
2005 Accountability Manual in June 2005 and final
decisions were announced by the commissioner in
September 2005.
39
2006 TAKS (cont.)
Accountability Standards (cont.)
 The Academically Acceptable standards increase from
50% to 60% for reading/ELA, writing, and social studies;
from 35% to 40% for mathematics; and, from 25% to 35%
for science.
 The standards for Recognized and Exemplary remain
70% and 90%, respectively.
40
2006 SDAA II
Student Passing Standard
 The standard for meeting ARD expectations will continue
to be set locally, consistent with state statute.
Accountability Standards
 Standards are unchanged from 2005: 90% for Exemplary,
70% for Recognized, and 50% for Academically
Acceptable.
Required Improvement
 Required Improvement for SDAA II will be available for
2006 when analysis of gains made between 2005 and
2006 is possible.
41
Completion Rate
GED Recipients
 Completion Rate I - Under the standard accountability
procedures, beginning with the class of 2005, only
graduates and continuing students count as high school
completers for the accountability completion rate.
 Completion Rate II - Under AEA procedures, GED recipients
along with graduates and continuing students count as
completers.
42
Completion Rate (cont.)
Accountability Standards
 The standards from 2005 are held constant for 2006 while
the definition of a completer changes:
Exemplary – at least 95.0%
Recognized – at least 85.0%
Academically Acceptable – at least 75.0%
43
Annual Dropout Rate
 No changes are anticipated for this indicator for 2006.
 The Educator Focus Group will likely review the impact of
the minimum size criteria applied in 2005.
44
Additional Features – 2006
 The percent of underreported students that can prevent a
district from being rated Exemplary or Recognized will
decrease from 5.0% to 2.0%.
45
Other Topics for 2006
 The Required Improvement methodology for TAKS will be
reevaluated in 2006.
 The Exceptions Provision will be reevaluated in 2006.
 Whether or not alternative education campuses rated
AEA: Academically Unacceptable can prevent a district
from receiving a rating of Exemplary or Recognized will be
considered.
46
Other Topics for 2006 (cont.)
TAKS - I
 The TAKS-I results will not be included in the state
accountability base indicators used for district and campus
ratings in 2006.
 The Educator Focus Group will propose a plan for
incorporating the TAKS-I results into the state
accountability performance indicators beginning in 2007 or
later.
 January 12, 2006 letter regarding future assessments for
students receiving special education services is on the
Student Assessment website at
http://www.tea.state.tx.us/student.assessment/index.html.
47
Other Topics for 2006 (cont.)
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita
 As announced in October, performance of students
displaced by Hurricane Katrina and/or Hurricane Rita who
are enrolled in Texas school districts in 2005-06 will not be
included in the indicators used for district and campus
2006 state accountability ratings.
 The Educator Focus Group will review proposals for
districts and campuses serving students displaced by
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita and districts and campuses
directly affected by Hurricane Rita.
48
2006 Accountability Timeline
 September 2005






2006 Accountability Standards
Announced by the Commissioner
January- February 2006 Development of 2006 Accountability
System
February 27-28
Educator Focus Group Meeting
March 22
Commissioner’s Accountability
Advisory Committee Meeting
Early April
Final Decisions Announced by
Commissioner
End of May
2006 Accountability Manual
posted online
August 1
Release of 2006 Accountability
Ratings
49
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.
 http://www.tea.state.tx.us/webappaccess/AppsRefSht-TS2.htm
50
Accountability Resources
 ESC Accountability Contacts
 TEA Division of Performance Reporting
(512) 463-9704
[email protected]
 AEA website http://www.tea.state.tx.us/aea
 Accountability ratings system website
http://www.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport/account/
51