1 / 36

Federal Accountability/ AYP Update

Detailed insights from the 2009 Texas Assessment Conference presentation by Shannon Housson and Ester Regalado from TEA, covering topics like the 2009 Final Release Schedule, State Summary Results, TPM in AYP, and more.

taylornancy
Download Presentation

Federal Accountability/ AYP 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. Federal Accountability/AYP Update Texas Assessment ConferenceDecember 7 - 8, 2009 Shannon Housson and Ester Regalado TEA, Performance Reporting Division

  2. AYP Topics • 2009 Final Release Schedule • 2009 State Summary Results • Preview of 2010 • Use of TPM in AYP • Review of the Federal Cap • Title I Final Regulations/Graduation Rate • No Child Left Behind School Report Card

  3. 2009 AYP Final Release Schedule

  4. 2009 AYP State Summary Results

  5. 2009 AYP State Summary Results(cont.)

  6. 2009 AYP State Summary Results(cont.) • Of those missing AYP, 52% (113) of districts and 6% (22) of campuses missed AYP solely due to the 1% and/or 2% federal caps in 2009. compared to 18% of districts and 1% of campuses in 2008. • A total of 154 campuses missed the Mathematics Performance indicator, the largest category that failed to Meet AYP standards. • The Texas Projection Measure (TPM) was used for 2009 AYP evaluations, and allowed 10% (126) of districts to Meet AYP that would have otherwise missed AYP; and 6% (528) of campuses.

  7. 2009 AYP State Summary Results(cont.) Comparison to State Accountability (preliminary results) • 6,696 campuses met AYP, of which, 6,547 (98%) campuses received a state accountability rating of Exemplary, Recognized, and Academically Acceptable (in standard or AEA procedures). • 149 campuses (2%) of those that met AYP were rated Academically Unacceptable in either standard or AEA procedures.

  8. 2009 AYP State Summary Results(cont.) Comparison to State Accountability (preliminary results) • Of the 391 campuses that missed AYP, 104 campuses (27%) received an Academically Unacceptable rating (in standard or AEA procedures); 242 campuses (62%) were rated Academically Acceptable in either standard or AEA procedures, and 43 campuses (11%) were rated Exemplary or Recognized.

  9. 2010 Preview • 2010 AYP Performance Standards increase to: • 73% in Reading/English language arts • 67% in Mathematics • Participation Rate and Other Indicator standards remain unchanged. • No changes in state assessments used for 2010 AYP. • TPM will continue to be used for AYP 2010. • Annual review of the 2% Federal Cap on TAKS-M: • Application of the cap for TAKS-M TPM values projected to meet the passing standard.

  10. 2010 Preview: Use of TPM in AYP Review of AYP Performance Calculation • Three steps for AYP Performance calculation: • AYP Proficiency Rate (without Growth) • Performance Improvement/Safe Harbor (without Growth) • AYP Performance Rate with Growth. • AYP Performance Rate with Growth: (Students who Met the Passing Standard + Students predicted to meet the Standard) Total Number of Students Tested

  11. 2010 Preview: Use of TPM in AYP (cont.) Phase-in for the TAKS–M projection equations (TPM) • TPM projections are expected to be reported for TAKS–M tests in school year 2009-2010 for grades 4, 7, and 10. • If a student is tested on TAKS-M in one predictor subject (reading or mathematics) and tested in TAKS, TAKS (Accommodated), or LAT TAKS in the other subject, the student will not receive a TPM projection.

  12. 2010 Preview: Use of TPM in AYP (cont.) Phase-in for the TAKS–M projection equations (TPM) • The Federal Cap process will include student results that are projected to meet the passing standard based on the TPM. • Priority will be given to students meeting the passing standard (will likely be included in the 2% federal cap first), followed by students projected to meet the passing standard by TPM.

  13. 2010 Preview: Assessments * Students in their First Year in U. S. Schools are counted as participants, but excluded from the performance calculation.

  14. 2010 Preview: Assessments (cont.) * Students in their First Year in U. S. Schools are counted as participants, but excluded from the performance calculation.

  15. 2010 Preview: AYP Federal Caps • Review of the 1% Federal Cap • Students are selected randomly from TAKS-Alt proficient results. • Exceptions to the 1% cap will be processed prior to the Preliminary AYP Release in August 2010 for: • School districts registered with the TEA Special Education Residential Facilities Tracking System (RF Tracker) for school year 2009-10. • School districts included in the 2009-10 Directory for Services for the Deaf in Texas, Regional Day School Programs for the Deaf (RDSPD).

  16. 2010 Preview: AYP Federal Caps (cont.) Review of the 2% Federal Cap Step 1) 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. Step 2) Student results are selected in order to maximize the number of campuses that Meet AYP beginning with the campuses assigned the highest priority.

  17. 2010 Preview: AYP Federal Caps (cont.) • Reminder: The federal cap relates to counting students as proficient for AYP purposes only and does not limit the number of students that may take an alternate assessment. • State policies and procedures related to assessment decision-making are detailed in the TEA publication titled Admission, Review, and Dismissal (ARD) Committee Decision-Making Process for the Texas Assessment Program. • A review of the federal cap process will be provided through a Texas Education Telecommunications Network (TETN) session accessible by ESC and school district staff in spring 2010.

  18. 2010 Preview: Texas AYP Workbook • Final Title I regulations were implemented to provide a Uniform, Comparable Graduation Rate. • On November 19, 2009, the Title I Committee of Practitioners (COP) reviewed the recommended changes to the 2010 AYP Workbook and Federal Cap process for 2010. • The proposed amendments include: • The state’s definition of graduation rate, • A description of the state’s reporting plans, • The state’s goal and targets, and • Possible use of the Extended-Year Graduation Rate.

  19. 2010 Preview: Texas AYP Workbook (cont.) Proposed Amendments: • Graduation Rates: Regulations require a four-year graduation rate for the AYP 2010 calculations; an extended-year (5 or 6 year) rate is optional. Decision to be made • Texas will use a 4-year rate alone, orTexas will use 4-year and 5-year graduation rates

  20. 2010 Preview: Texas AYP Workbook (cont.) Proposed Amendments: • Graduation Rate calculation for AYP: Examples for use of 4-year and 5-year rates can be found in US Department of Education, NCLB High School Graduation Rate, Non-Regulatory Guidance, December 22, 2008. Decision to be made • Districts and campuses must meet either:annual target for the 4-year rate, or annual target for the 5-year rate

  21. 2010 Preview: Texas AYP Workbook (cont.) Proposed Amendments: • State Goal: a State must set a single graduation rate goal that represents the rate the State expects all high schools in the State to meet. Decision to be made • Graduation rate goal of either: 80% / 85% / 90% / 95% / 100%

  22. 2010 Preview: Texas AYP Workbook (cont.) Proposed Amendments: • Annual Graduation Rate Targets: a State must set annual graduation rate targets. Decision to be made • Calculation for the 4-year rate could include three alternatives: • Absolute standard of 70.0%, or • Improvement standard, similar to safe harbor calculation (10% decline in the difference between the prior year rate and the goal), or • 1.0 percentage point increase in rate.

  23. 2010 Preview: Texas AYP Workbook (cont.) Proposed Amendments: • Annual Graduation Rate Targets: Federal regulations specify if an extended-year rate is used, the target must be higher than the target for the 4-year rate. Decision to be made • Calculation for the 5-year rate could require meeting: • An absolute standard of 75.0%.

  24. 2010 Preview: Texas AYP Workbook (cont.) Proposed Amendments: • Targets for 2011 and beyond: Decision to be made • Propose that absolute standards for 2011 and beyond not be included in this proposal, although the improvement standard would apply to 2011 and beyond. • Plan for the submission of proposed amendments to the 2011 Texas AYP Workbook that could include a transition plan for new End of Course assessments with annual graduation rate targets submitted as part of the transition plan.

  25. 2010 Preview: Texas AYP Workbook (cont.) Proposed Amendments: • Student group definition changes: Federal regulations allow states to develop business rules for the definition of student groups used for AYP. Decision to be made • Apply the current definition of LEP student group, defined as students in the LEP program during their final (4th) year in the longitudinal cohort.

  26. AYP Preview: Final Title I Regulations Regulations also require: • Disaggregating Graduation Rate Data • √ Report the four-year adjusted cohort graduation rate or a transitional graduation rate reported for school, district, and state levels by student groups prior to school year 2010–11; • √ States report the four-year adjusted cohort graduation rate by the 2010–11 school year; and • Use the cohort graduation rate by student group in 2012 AYP.

  27. No Child Left Behind School Report Card • Section 1111(h)(1) and (2) of the ESEA amended by the NCLB Act requires the annual reporting of student achievement and AYP information. • For 2008-09, and beyond, the US Department of Education requires that Texas’ state, district, and campus reports be accessible by stakeholders in one document. • NCLB School Report Cards (SRC) will be available for easy dissemination by school districts on one website in January, 2010.

  28. NCLB School Report Card (cont.)

  29. NCLB School Report Card (cont.) • There are five sections that make up the NCLB SRC: • Part I – Percent of Students Tested, Student Achievement by Proficiency Level Achievement Trend Data (as shown on handout) • Part II, a. – Comparison Between Student Achievement and the State's Academic Expectations as measured by Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) (as shown on handout) • Part II, b. – Number of Recently Arrived LEP Students Who Are Not Assessed on the State's Reading/ELA Test • Part III – Information on Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) and School Improvement Program (SIP) for districts and campuses receiving Title I, Part A funds

  30. NCLB School Report Card (cont.) • Sections of the NCLB SRC, continued: • Part IV, a. – Professional Qualifications of All Public Elementary and Secondary Teachers, As Defined by the State (Teacher Degree) • Part IV b. – Percentage of Public Elementary and Secondary Teachers With Emergency/Provisional Credentials • Part IV c. – Percentage of Classes Not Taught by Highly Qualified Teachers by High Poverty Compared to Low Poverty Campuses

  31. NCLB School Report Card (cont.) • Sections of the NCLB SRC, continued: • Part V – NAEP-2007 (Based on a Statewide Sample)a. State-level percentages at NAEP achievement levelsb. State-level actual participation rates

  32. NCLB School Report Card (cont.) • TEA will provide a confidential unmasked NCLB SRC Part I: Student Achievement Preview Report to school districts via TEASE in December, 2009. • Appendix E of the 2009 AYP Guide (page 137) describes the relationship between the Part I of the NCLB SRC and AYP performance results. • Difference between AYP and NCLB SRC Part I: Student Achievement: • Does not include students that were projected to meet the standard by TPM. • The LEP student group does not include Monitored LEP students.

  33. NCLB School Report Card (cont.) • Difference between AYP and NCLB SRC Part I: Student Achievement : • Includes all TAKS-M and TAKS-Alt passing results (federal caps are not applied), • Includes mobile students (students that are not in the accountability subset), • Includes all students reported for each school district, including data reported on any campuses designated as TYC or Texas Juvenile Probation Commission (TJPC) campuses (see page 52 of the 2009 AYP Guide).

  34. NCLB School Report Card (cont.) • For more information on the performance results included in the NCLB School Report Card, please contact the Performance Reporting Division at (512) 463-9704. • For more information on the distribution requirements of the NCLB School Report Card, please contact the Division of NCLB Program Coordination at (512) 463-9374.

  35. AYP Resources • For more information on AYP, see the 2009 AYP Guide, accessible at http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/ayp. • U.S. Department of Education information is available at www.ed.gov/nclb/. • The current Texas AYP Workbook of June 12, 2009 is accessible at http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/ayp/txworkbook09.pdf. • Frequently Asked Questions about AYP are available at http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/ayp/faq/faq.html.

  36. SIP Resources • SIP History WebsiteDistricts and campuses can view their Title I School Improvement Program (SIP) status history reports from 2003 through the present. See the AYP guide for the appropriate year for descriptions of any of the AYP or SIP status labels shown. The SIP history reports are accessible at http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/ayp/index_multi.html. • Contact the Division of Performance Reporting by email at performance.reporting@tea.state.tx.us, or phone at (512) 463-9704.

More Related