1 / 51

State Accountability System Update

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

llarson
Download Presentation

State Accountability System Update

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. State Accountability System Update TAAEFebruary 2 – 4, 2006 Presented by Nancy Rinehart, TEA,Division of Performance Reporting

  2. 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

  3. 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 January 2006(web and print)

  4. 2005 and BeyondAEA Procedures

  5. 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.

  6. The 3 AEA Rating Labels • AEA: Academically Acceptable • AEA: Academically Unacceptable • AEA: Not Rated – Other

  7. Required Improvement • An AEA: Academically Acceptable rating may be achieved by meeting the absolute standards for each indicator or by demonstrating Required Improvement.

  8. 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.

  9. 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.

  10. 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.

  11. 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.

  12. AEA Registration Criteria (cont.) • 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.

  13. 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. • The AEC must provide each student the opportunity to attend a 7-hour school day according to the needs of the student. • If the campus serves students with disabilities, the students must be placed at the AEC by their ARD committee. • 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.

  14. 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).

  15. 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.

  16. 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.

  17. AEA Indicators

  18. 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.

  19. 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.

  20. 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.

  21. 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).

  22. 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.

  23. 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.

  24. 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.

  25. 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.

  26. 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.

  27. Use of District At-RiskCompletion 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.

  28. 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.

  29. 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.

  30. 2005 AEARatings Overview

  31. 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.

  32. 2005 AEA Ratings Overview(cont.)

  33. Preview of 2006 AEA

  34. 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/.

  35. 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%.

  36. SDAA II Required Improvement • In 2006, when two years of data are available, SDAA II Required Improvement will be implemented.

  37. 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).

  38. Preview of 2006 Standard Accountability Procedures

  39. 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.

  40. 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.

  41. 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.

  42. 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.

  43. 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%

  44. 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.

  45. 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%.

  46. 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.

  47. 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.

  48. 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.

  49. 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 May2006 Accountability Manual posted online • August 1 Release of 2006 Accountability Ratings

  50. 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

More Related