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

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

July 30th

August 6th

District and campus AYP results available on TEASE Accountability web application.

Public release of Preliminary AYP results.

December 15Final 2009 AYP Status released - TEASE.

Preview of NCLB School Report Card (SRC) data, Part I only.

December 17Final 2009 AYP Status released – TEA website.

January, 2010 Public release of NCLB SRC.

4

2009 AYP State Summary Results

District Results

AYP StatusFinal 2008

ResultsPreliminary 2009

Results

Meets AYP 824 67% 992 80%

Missed AYP 391 32% 218 18%

Not Evaluated 14 1% 25 2%

TOTAL 1,229 100% 1,235 100%

5

2009 AYP State Summary Results(cont.)

Campus Results (Regular and Charter)

AYP StatusFinal 2008 Results

Preliminary 2009 Results

Meets AYP 6,170 75% 6,696 80%

Missed AYP 1,109 14% 391 5%

Not Evaluated 916 11% 1,235 15%

TOTAL 8,195 100% 8,322 100%

6


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


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


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:

1. AYP Proficiency Rate (without Growth)

2. Performance Improvement/Safe Harbor (without Growth)

3. 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.

2010 Reading/ELA Assessments

Participation95% Standard

Performance ( Accountability Subset)73% Standard

Total Students

Number Participating

Number Tested

Met Standard or TPM

TAKS Yes If participant If in the

Accountability subset

If standard is met or if projected to meet standard by TPM

TAKS(Accommodated)

Yes If participant If in the



TAKS-M /LAT TAKS-M *




(subject to 2% cap)

TAKS-Alt Yes If participant If in the


If standard is met(subject to 1% cap)

No TPMavailable

TELPAS Reading*

YesNon-

ParticipantN/A Not Included Not included N/A

LAT version of TAKS*




14

2010 Preview: Assessments (cont.)

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

2010 Mathematics AssessmentsParticipation95% Standard

Performance (Accountability Subset)67% Standard

Total Students

Number Participating

Number Tested

Met Standard or TPM

TAKS Yes If participant If in the



TAKS(Accommodated)




TAKS-M /LAT TAKS-M *




(subject to 2% cap)

TAKS-Alt Yes If participant If in the


If standard is met(subject to 1% cap)

No TPMavailable

LAT version of TAKS*




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, or

Texas will use 4-year and 5-year graduation rates

20



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



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



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



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



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



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.

NCLB School Report Card (cont.)

28

29


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


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


Sections of the NCLB SRC, continued:

Part V – NAEP-2007 (Based on a Statewide Sample)

a. State-level percentages at NAEP achievement levels

b. State-level actual participation rates

32


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


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


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 Website

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.

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

Documents

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