Update on State and Federal Accountability Systems

1. Update on State and Federal Accountability Systems TASA Midwinter Conference January 30, 2007 Shannon Housson TEA, Performance Reporting Division

2. Session Topics • 2007 Standard Accountability Procedures • 2007 AEA Procedures • Technical Assistance Team Campuses • Overview of AYP • TEASE Accountability • Accountability Resources

3. 2007 Standard Accountability Procedures

4. 2007 Standard Accountability TAKS • For 2007, the Academically Acceptable standards increase by 5 percentage points for all subjects—to 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.

5. 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).

6. 2007 Standard Accountability (cont.) Commended Performance on TAKS (cont’d) • 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.

7. 2007 Standard Accountability (cont.) Commended Performance on TAKS (cont’d) • The cover page of the 2006 AEIS reports lists the GPA indicators earned in 2005-06 for each district and campus. On the AEIS cover page for the sample district on the next slide, the district met GPA standards in three of the five TAKS Commended Indicators.

8. 2007 Standard Accountability (cont.) Commended Performance on TAKS (cont’d) 2005-06 Academic Excellence Indicator System District Name: SAMPLE ISD District #: 999999 2006 Accountability Rating: Recognized Gold Performance Acknowledgments: Texas Success Initiative (TSI) ELA Commended on Reading/ELA Commended on Writing Commended on Social Studies

9. 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.

10. 2007 Standard Accountability (cont.) TAKS-I • TAKS-I results will be used in the state accountability system for the first time in 2008. 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 2008. All TAKS-I grades and subjects will be used beginning in 2010.

11. 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 2008. Incorporating the 2% Assessment • The 2% test results will be reported but not used in the accountability system for two years beginning in 2008.

12. 2007 Standard Accountability (cont.) Annual Dropout Rate • 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.

13. 2007 Standard Accountability (cont.) Completion Rate (Grade 9 - 12) 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.

14. 2007 AEA Procedures

15. 2007 Registered AECs • A total of 472 AECs are registered for evaluation under 2007 AEA procedures. • A list of these campuses is on the AEA website at http://www.tea.state.tx.us/aea/. • Each registered AEC must meet the 70% at-risk registration criterion in order to receive an AEA rating on August 1, 2007.

16. 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. • The at-risk criterion is 70% in 2007 and 75% in 2008 where it is expected to remain.

17. At-Risk Registration Criterion (cont.) • Two safeguards have been incorporated for those AECs that are below the at-risk requirement. • 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.

18. At-Risk Registration Criterion (cont.) • New Campus Safeguard: If a newcampus 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.

19. 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 2007. 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.

20. At-Risk Registration Criterion (cont.) • A State Compensatory Education Questions and Answers (Q and A) document is on the TEA website at: http://www.tea.state.tx.us/school.finance/audit/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.

21. 2007 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%.

22. 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.

23. 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.

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 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.

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

26. 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.

27. Annual Dropout Rate Indicator (cont.) • The dropout definition transitions from the current state definition to the NCES definition in 2007. Students dropping out of school during the 2005-06 school year are reported in 2006-07 in accordance with the NCES dropout definition. • Required Improvement for the Annual Dropout Rate indicator cannot be calculated and will not be applied in 2007. The changes to the dropout definition will prevent comparisons of rates used in 2006 and 2007.

28. 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.

29. Technical Assistance Team Campuses

30. Background • Section 39.1322 of HB 1 provides for technical assistance teams (TAT) to be selected and assigned to campuses rated Academically Acceptable in the current year, but that would be rated Academically Unacceptable if the following year’s criteria were in effect. The commissioner has the authority to waive the requirement to assign the TAT based on specific improvement criteria.

31. Identification of TAT Campuses • In 2006, the Academically Acceptable standards were 60% for Reading/ELA, Writing, and Social Studies; 40% for Mathematics; and 35% for Science. • In 2007, the Academically Acceptable standards increase by 5 percentage points for all subjects—to 65% for Reading/ELA, Writing, and Social Studies; to 45% for Mathematics; and to 40% for Science.

32. Identification of TAT Campuses (cont.) • Campuses rated Academically Acceptable in the state accountability rating system are identified for technical assistance teams if that campus would be rated Academically Unacceptable using the accountability standards for the subsequent year for each base indicator. • All students and each student group evaluated in the state accountability system that meets minimum size requirements in the current school year must meet the standards established for the subsequent school year.

33. Identification of TAT Campuses (cont.) • A technical assistance team will be assigned to a campus evaluated under either standard or alternative education accountability procedures. • The commissioner will annually identify campuses assigned technical assistance teams following the resolution of appeals related to the state accountability ratings, as defined in the Texas Education Code, §39.301.

34. Identification of TAT Campuses Demonstrating Improvement • Campuses identified for technical assistance teams that do not meet the subsequent year standards but demonstrate improvement over the preceding three years may be eligible to receive a waiver from the commissioner. • A campus must be evaluated under the same accountability procedures, either standard or alternative education accountability, in each of the preceding three years in order to be eligible for the waiver.

35. Identification of TAT Campuses Demonstrating Improvement (cont.) • Campuses meet the TAT required improvement if the sum of actual change averaged across the three prior years is equal to or greater than the improvement needed to achieve each standard established for the subsequent school year. The improvement needed is the difference between the standard established for the subsequent school year and actual performance in the current school year, as shown below.

36. Results (based on final 2006 ratings) • Under the standard accountability procedures, approximately 8% of the 3,190 campuses rated Academically Acceptable in 2006 would be rated Academically Unacceptable in 2007 based on their 2006 TAKS performance. • Of the identified TAT campuses, approximately 17% are eligible for a waiver based on Improvement over the preceding three years. The remaining campuses are identified for technical assistance teams.

37. Results (based on final 2006 ratings) • Under the alternative education accountability (AEA) procedures, approximately 2% of the 396 AEA campuses rated AEA: Academically Acceptable in 2006 would be rated AEA: Academically Unacceptable at the 2007 standard of 45% for the TAKS Progress measure and the SDAA II measure.  • Improvement over the prior three years cannot be calculated under the AEA procedures, since the AEA procedures were first applied in 2005.

38. Status of Adoption of Commissioner’s Rules • The proposed commissioner’s rules for the identification of the technical assistance team campuses were filed with the Texas Register on Monday, December 11, 2006 and were published in the Texas Register on December 22, 2006. • The official 30-day public comment period was December 22, 2006 – January 21, 2007. No public comments were received, so the effective date is scheduled for February 25, 2007.

39. Schedule for District Notification and Public Release • Letters will be mailed no later than Friday, February 16 to districts with one or more TAT campuses. The letter will include the list of TAT campuses in the district and will provide information regarding any required interventions. • The TAT notification letter and statewide list of TAT campuses will be released publicly on Monday, February 26, one day after the effective date of February 25.

40. AYP Overview

41. Assessments included in 2007 AYP Calculations * Students in their First Year in U. S. Schools are counted as participants, but excluded from the performance calculation.

42. Assessments included in 2007 AYP Calculations (cont.) * Students in their First Year in U. S. Schools are counted as participants, but excluded from the performance calculation.

43. Assessments included in 2008 AYP Calculations * Students in their First Year in U. S. Schools are counted as participants, but excluded from the performance calculation.

44. Assessments included in 2008 AYP Calculations (cont.)

45. Latest on NCLB Reauthorization • In his State of the Union Address, President Bush discussed his plans for the law’s reauthorization. Building On Results: A Blueprint for Strengthening the No Child Left Behind Act is designed to provide additional tools to our schools and educators to help America’s students read and do math at grade level by 2014. • The “BluePrint” report can be found on USDE website at www.ed.gov.

46. 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

47. Accountability Resources • ESC Accountability Contacts • TEA Division of Performance Reporting(512) 463-9704performance.reporting@tea.state.tx.us • AEA website http://www.tea.state.tx.us/aea • Accountability ratings system website http://www.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport/account/ • Accountability Resources website http://www.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport/resources/index.html • AYP website http://www.tea.state.tx.us/ayp