Federal Accountability/ AYP Update TASA Midwinter Conference January 27, 2009 Shannon Housson and Ester Regalado TEA, Performance Reporting Division

Federal Accountability/AYP Update

TASA Midwinter ConferenceJanuary 27, 2009

Shannon Housson and Ester Regalado

TEA, Performance Reporting Division

2

AYP Topics

2008 AYP Final Results

2008 Appeal and Exceptions Process

Preview of 2009:

Assessments

Federal Cap Process

Texas Projection Measure

Texas AYP Workbook

AYP Preview of Final Title I Regulations

Resources

SIP / TEASE / AYP

3

2008 AYP State Summary Results

District Results

AYP StatusFinal 2007

ResultsFinal 2008

Results

Meets AYP 1,069 87% 824 67%

Missed AYP 136 11% 391 32%

Not Evaluated 17 1% 14 1%

TOTAL 1,222 100% 1,229 100%

4

2008 AYP State Summary Results(cont.)

Campus Results (Regular and Charter)

AYP StatusFinal 2007 Results

Final 2008 Results

Meets AYP 6,447 80% 6,170 75%

Missed AYP 664 8% 1,109 14%

Not Evaluated 950 12% 916 11%

TOTAL 8,061 100% 8,195 100%

5

2008 AYP State Summary Results(cont.)

Of those missing AYP, 18% (71) of districts and 1% (12) of campuses missed AYP solely due to the 1% and/or 2% caps in 2008, compared to 32% of districts and 11% of campuses in 2007.

A total of 482 campuses missed the Mathematics Performance indicator, the largest category that failed to Meet AYP standards.

6

2008 AYP Appeals

127 school districts submitted a total of 274 AYP appeals:

94 (34%) of the 274 appeal requests for either districts or campuses were granted.

Of the 78 district appeals, 8 (10%) changed the district AYP status to Meets AYP.

Of the 196 campus appeals, 48 (24%) changed the campus AYP status to Meets AYP.

7

General Considerations forAYP Appeals Appeals are not a data correction opportunity.

Appeals are not considered for areas where a district/campus Met AYP or was Not Evaluated.

Appeals are considered for areas where AYP was missed, even if the result would mean the district/campus still misses AYP overall.

Appeals are considered for data relevant to the 2008 AYP result, and are not considered for data reported in the prior year for Performance, Participation, Graduation Rate measures.

8

General Considerations for AYP Appeals (cont.)

Appeal of the USDE approved Texas AYP Workbook requirements, including the performance or participation indicators based on the results of TAKS-Modified (TAKS-M), TAKS-Alternate (TAKS-Alt), or TELPAS Reading were not favorable for appeal.

Appeals related to the Federal Cap, Campus Rankings, or to the performance results due to the federal caps were not considered.

Graduation Rate Appeals based on the State Accountability School Leaver Provision or the use of the National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES) dropout definition could not be considered.

9

2008 AYP Exceptions Process

School districts registered in the RF Tracker system and school districts with RDSPD that are included in the 2007-2008 Directory for Services for the Deaf in Texas were automatically applied an exception to the 1% cap.

The federal cap applied to proficient TAKS-Alt results was extended to include an additional number of students up to the statewide 1% cap limit.

The statewide 1% cap limit was sufficient to allow every school districts with an exception to include all TAKS-Alt passing students as proficient for AYP (in effect, remove the 1% cap).

10

2008 AYP Other Circumstance Exceptions

Other circumstance exceptions were allowable and were submitted as a regular appeal through the online system.

The approval of school district requests for exceptions to the federal cap is based on the availability of statewide slots within the cap that allow the state to maintain a 1% cap limit on proficient results from TAKS-Alt.

The statewide 1% cap limit was sufficient to allow requests for exceptions based on other circumstances to include all TAKS-Alt passing students as proficient for AYP (in effect, remove the 1% cap).

11

2009 AYP Preview

2009 AYP Performance Standards increase to:

67% in Reading/English language arts

58% in Mathematics

No changes in state assessments used for 2009 AYP.

No changes in the AYP Federal Cap process for 2009.

State assessments used for 2009 AYP are outlined in the August 28, 2008 correspondence to districts.

12

2009 Preview: Assessments

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

2009 Reading/ELA Assessments

Participation95% Standard

Performance / Accountability Subset67% Standard

Total Students

Number Participating

Number Tested Met Standard

TAKS Yes If participant If non-mobile If standard is met

TAKS(Accommodated)

Yes If participant If non-mobile If standard is met

TAKS-M /LAT TAKS-M

Yes If participant If non-mobileIf standard is met

(subject to 2% cap)

TAKS-Alt Yes If participant If non-mobileIf standard is met (subject to 1% cap)

TELPAS Reading* Yes Non-Participant N/A Not Included Not Included

LAT version of TAKS


13

2009 Preview: Assessments (cont.)

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

2009 Mathematics Assessments

Participation95% Standard

Performance / Accountability Subset58% Standard

Total Students

Number Participating

Number Tested Met Standard

TAKS Yes If participant If non-mobile If standard is met

TAKS(Accommodated)


TAKS-M /LAT TAKS-M*

Yes If participant If non-mobileIf standard is met

(subject to 2% cap)

TAKS-Alt Yes If participant If non-mobileIf standard is met

(subject to 1% cap)

LAT version of TAKS*


14

2009 Preview: AYP Federal Caps

The 2008 AYP Federal Cap process was implemented for the first time with results showing that the strategic process for helping campuses was very effective.

The federal accountability advisory group, Title I Committee of Practitioners (COP), met on November 18, 2008, and voted to recommend the continuation of the Federal Cap process in 2009, with no modifications.

A review of the federal cap process will be provided through a district accessible Texas Education Telecommunications Network (TETN) session on May 21, 2009 from 1pm-4pm (Event # 34920). Contact your school district or ESC for more information.

15

2009 Preview: AYP Federal Caps (cont.)

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 2009 for:

School districts registered with the TEA Special Education Residential Facilities Tracking System (RF Tracker) for school year 2008-09.

School districts included in the 2008-09 Directory for Services for the Deaf in Texas, Regional Day School Programs for the Deaf (RDSPD).

16


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


Review of the 1% and 2% Federal Caps

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.

18

2009 Preview: AYP Growth Proposal

October 15, 2008 Texas submits a proposal to use a growth model for

determining whether schools, school districts, and the state Meet AYP for the 2008-2009 school year. The proposal may be accessed at the TEA Student Assessment website: http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/student.assessment

December 2 – 3, 2008 USDE Peer reviewers met in Washington, DC to discuss

each proposal. Information related to the completed peer review process may be found at the USDE website: www.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/growthmodel/index.html

19

2009 Preview: AYP Growth Proposal (cont.)

January 8, 2009

USDE announces that Texas can incorporate the Texas Projection Measure in 2009 AYP calculations contingent on:

meeting the requirements in the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with USDE concerning TAKS-Alt, and

discontinued use of Confidence Intervals (CI) and Uniform Averaging for determining the AYP status with fewer than 50 assessments (small numbers analysis).

20

2009 Preview: Texas AYP Workbook

On December 5, 2008, the U.S. Department of Education announced that requests for amendments to the 2008-09 AYP evaluation are due on January 15, 2009. Texas received approval to submit amendments by January 31, 2009.

Amendments to the 2009 AYP Workbook:

1) Incorporate the Texas Projection Measure (TPM) in AYP evaluations.

2) Remove references to the use of confidence intervals and uniform averaging in small numbers analysis.

21

2009 Preview: Texas AYP Workbook (cont.)

Amendments to the 2009 AYP Workbook (cont.)

3) Provisions for districts impacted by Hurricane Ike:

A separate Hurricane Ike student group will be created that includes all students enrolled in districts, campuses, and charters who were displaced by Hurricane Ike. This separate student group will be evaluated for participation only.

School districts or campuses that were closed for ten or more days due to Hurricane Ike and are located in a county designated by FEMA as a disaster area that miss AYP will receive a 2009 AYP status of Not Evaluated.

See the current Texas AYP Workbook of May 9, 2008 at http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/ayp/txworkbook08.pdf

22

2009 Preview: Texas Projection Measure

TPM provides an estimate for how individual students are likely to perform in the next high-stakes grade (grades 5, 8, and 11) after receiving instruction in grade-level content.

For example, students in grades 3 and 4 who take reading and mathematics TAKS, TAKS (Accommodated), or LAT TAKS will be projected to meet the passing standard in grade 5.

23

2009 Preview: Texas Projection Measure (cont.)

Students’ 2009 Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS), TAKS (Accommodated), and LAT scores in both reading/English language arts and mathematics, along with the campus-level mean scores in the projection subject, will be used to predict their performance in next high-stakes testing grade.

For example, a student’s 2009 reading and mathematics TAKS scale score and the mean campus scale score in reading will be used to project the reading scale score for the student in the next high stakes grade level.

24

2009 Preview: TPM in AYP

Who may use TPM in 2009 AYP Calculations?

Student taking both reading/English language arts & mathematics in the same test version language (English or Spanish) of:

TAKS,TAKS (Accommodated), or Linguistically Accommodated Testing (LAT) TAKS

will have data that can be used to predict their performance for 2009.

25

2009 Preview: TPM in AYP (cont.)

How is TPM used in 2009 AYP Calculations?

Students who are predicted to meet proficiency will be counted in the numerator of the AYP percent proficiency calculation along with students meeting the standard, and this new percent would be compared with the AYP targets to determine if the performance standard for percent proficient is met.

26


How is TPM used in 2009 AYP Calculations?

AYP Performance Rate:

(Students who Met the Passing Standard +Students Projected to meet the Standard)

Total Number of Students Tested

Performance Rate is compared to the 2009 AYP Targets of 67% in Reading/English language Arts and

58% in Mathematics

Participation Rate calculations are not affected.

27


USDE Growth Model Proposal: 2008 AYP Impact Data

District AYP Results

AYP Status Preliminary 2008

Results Meets AYP 816 66% Misses AYP 399 32% Not Evaluated 14 1% TOTAL 1,229 100% District AYP Results

AYP Status

2008 w/Predicted Growth

Change


Change

Meets AYP 952 77% 136 833 68% -119 Misses AYP 263 21% -136 382 31% 119 Not Evaluated 14 1% 0 14 1% 0 TOTAL 1,229 100% 0 1,229 100% 0

28


USDE Growth Model Proposal: 2008 AYP Impact Data

Campus AYP Results (Regular and Charter)

AYP Status Preliminary 2008

Results Meets AYP 6,122 75% Misses AYP 1,160 14% Not Evaluated 913 11% TOTAL 8,195 100% Campus AYP Results (Regular and Charter)

AYP Status


Change


Change

Meets AYP 6,533 80% 411 6,272 77% -261 Misses AYP 749 9% -411 1,010 12% 261 Not Evaluated 913 11% 0 913 11% 0 TOTAL 8,195 100% 0 8,195 100% 0

29

AYP Preview: Final Title I Regulations

On Oct 28, 2008, final Title I regulations were issued to strengthen the NCLB Act, and the following are directly related to AYP.

See Final Regulations for Title I Fact Sheets and Summary at http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/reg/title1/index.html

Regulations directly related to AYP:

National Technical Advisory Council (National TAC) established for peer review of state assessment and accountability systems.

National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) Data reported on State and District NCLB Report Cards.

30

AYP Preview: Final Title I Regulations (cont.)


Minimum Subgroup Size and Inclusion of Students in Accountability

Peer Review and Requirements of the Title I Accountability Workbook

Submit for approval in time for 2010 AYP (TBD);

Explain the minimum group size and other components of its AYP definition;

Include the number and percentage of students and subgroups excluded from school-level accountability determinations.

31



A Uniform, Comparable Graduation Rate

Timeline to Implement the Four-year Adjusted Cohort Graduation Rate set for 2012.

Option to Use an Extended-Year Adjusted Cohort Graduation Rate or Rates Permit states to propose one or more extended-year

adjusted cohort graduation rates. Graduation Rate Goal, Targets, and AYP

Set a state graduation rate goal and requirement for continuous improvement from the prior year toward meeting that goal;

Submit for Peer Review and approval.

32



A Uniform, Comparable Graduation Rate

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 results.

33

Resources: TEA Security Environment (TEASE) Accountability Website

Each superintendent and charter school executive director may apply for access. They may also designate others in their district (including ESC Region staff) to acquire access.

Multi-District User Access is available for certain charter operators and Education Service Center (ESC) staff that have the unique situation of requiring access to multiple school district or charter operator information.

Access for Multi-District Users is obtained through the school district superintendent’s authorization on the required access forms.

TEASE access forms are available at: http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/webappaccess/AppRef.htm

34

SIP Resources

Districts 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.

For more information about the School Improvement Program, please contact the School Improvement Unit in the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Program Coordination at (512) 463-9374.

35

AYP Resources

For more information on 2008 AYP, see the 2008 AYP Guide, 2008 AYP Appeals Guidelines, and 2008 AYP Highlights accessible at http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/ayp/2008/.

Frequently Asked Questions about AYP are available at http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/ayp/faq/faq.html.

U.S. Department of Education information is available at www.ed.gov/nclb/.

Contact the Division of Performance Reporting by email at [email protected], or phone at (512) 463-9704.

Documents

Federal Accountability/ AYP Update TASA Midwinter Conference January 27, 2009 Shannon Housson and Ester Regalado TEA, Performance Reporting Division