1 / 24

Results Driven Accountability Update

Results Driven Accountability Update. Kelly Joseph ESC 20, Special Education Support Services FSA 210-370-5664 kelly.joseph@esc20.net. SPED Indicator Changes. SPED STAAR 3-8 Passing Rate SPED Year After Exit STAAR 3-8 Passing Rate SPED STAAR EOC Passing Rate

moyers
Download Presentation

Results Driven Accountability 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. Results Driven Accountability Update Kelly Joseph ESC 20, Special Education Support Services FSA 210-370-5664 kelly.joseph@esc20.net

  2. SPED IndicatorChanges SPED STAAR 3-8 PassingRate SPED Year After Exit STAAR 3-8 Passing Rate SPED STAAR EOC PassingRate SPED Annual Dropout Rate (Grades 7-12) SPED GraduationRate SPED Regular Early Childhood Program Rate (ages3-5) SPED Regular Class ≥80% Rate (Ages 6-21) SPED Regular Class <40% Rate (Ages 6-21) SPED Separate Settings Rate (Ages 6-21) SPED Representation (Ages3-21) SPED OSS and Expulsion ≤10 Days Rate (Ages 3-21) SPED OSS and Expulsion >10 DaysRate SPED ISS ≤10 Days Rate (Ages 3-21) SPED ISS >10 Days Rate (Ages3-21) • SPED Alternate 2 Overall Participation (No Action Required) • Significant Disproportionality, Year3 • SPED Total Disciplinary Removals Rate (Ages3-21) 20

  3. 2019 RDAIndicatorPreview: SPED Review & Support |TEA

  4. Reasonable Progress(RP) • Per 34 CFR §300.647(d)(2), the TEA is not required to identify an LEA for significant disproportionality (SD) until the LEA has exceeded the risk ratio threshold and has failed to demonstrateRP. • RP designation requires an LEA to reduce its risk ratio in each of two prior consecutiveyears. • The TEA does not have the option to postpone a finding of SD if the LEA has only achieved a decrease over a multiple-yearperiod. • Risk Ratio =2.5 Review & Support |TEA

  5. Proportionate Improvement Calculation 2.5 - PY2 Risk Ratio CYRisk Ratio – PYRisk Ratio ≤ 2 * 3 CY = CurrentYear PY =first-year An LEA meets RP designation in its third year of SD if the difference between its current year (CY) risk ratio and its first- year (PY2) risk ratio meets the rate of progress needed to fall below the SD threshold (2.5) in yearfour.

  6. DisproportionalityIndicators

  7. DisproportionalityIndicators

  8. DisproportionalityIndicators

  9. Disproportionality Indicators for Discipline (Ages3-21)

  10. DisciplineIndicators SPED DisciplineIndicators PLAssignments SPED Indicator #12: SPED OSS and Expulsion ≤10 Days Rate (Ages 3- 21) SPED Indicator #13: SPED OSS and Expulsion >10 Days Rate (Ages 3- 21) SPED Indicator #14: SPED ISS ≤10 Days Rate (Ages 3-21) SPED Indicator #15: SPED ISS >10 Days Rate (Ages3-21) MSR: Denominator ≥30 Numerator ≥10 RI: No SA:No Year(s) of Data Available for Analysis: 1 AND SD (Year1) SD (Year2) SD (Year3) SD (RP) Review & Support |TEA

  11. DisproportionalityIndicators

  12. General MonitoringActivities

  13. RulemakingUpdate

  14. Where is theManual? 30 DayPublic Comment Period RuleAdoption RuleProposal 1 3 5 Commissioner Approval File with TexasRegister 2 4

  15. Summary • Results Driven Accountability/PBMAS will focus supports for early intervention • RDA reports are anticipated in October • Reporting will be very similar to PBMAS in2019 • Stakeholder input for future revisions This Photoby Unknown Author is licensed under CCBY

  16. Differentiated Monitoring and Support

  17. Differentiated Monitoring and Support (DMS)

  18. DMS Required Elements

  19. Targeted Support Reviews

  20. Cyclical Reviews • Conducted for all LEAs in Texas • Not determined based on Performance Level • Six-year schedule • Comprehensive special education program review • IDEA and state compliance elements

  21. Cyclical Reviews: Required Elements • TEA and LEA collaborate on timelines • LEA completes a Self-Assessment in Ascend • LEA uploads required special education documents in Ascend • TEA completes Comprehensive Desk Review • Clarification conversations occur as needed • TEA issues report to LEA • 30 day window for additional clarification • Public-facing report posted to TEA web page • LEA completes a Strategic Support Plan (SSP)

  22. Cyclical Reviews: On-Site Reviews • Determined using prior academic year’s Performance Level data (PL 3, PL 4) • TEA and LEA collaborate on timelines • Typically completed in three to four days • Gather additional data as part of comprehensive program review • Case study approach • Stakeholder interviews • Student observations • Focus on IEP implementation • Entrance and exit conferences

  23. Questions

  24. ThankYou! For Supporting AllLEAs

More Related