State and Federal Accountability System Update ACET Conference October 2006

State and Federal Accountability System Update

ACET Conference

October 2006

Overview of Session

State Accountability System

o Overview of August 1 Release

o Summary of Key Updates to 2006 AEIS Reports

o Gold Performance Acknowledgments

o AEA Procedures

o Preview of 2007 Accountability

Federal Accountability System

o 2006 AYP Results

o 2007 Assessments and AYP

State Accountability System

Overview of August 1 Release

Districts

Of the 1,227 districts, 19 districts (1.5%) are rated Exemplary and 330 (26.9%) are rated Recognized in 2006.

810 of the 1,227 districts achieved the Academically Acceptable rating.

62 districts are Academically Unacceptable.

Campuses

Of the 7,956 campuses, 555 campuses (7.0%) are rated Exemplary and 2,825 (35.5%) are rated Recognized in 2006.

3,565 of the 7,956 campuses rated (44.8%) achieved the rating Academically Acceptable.

321 of the 7,956 campuses rated (4.0%) are rated Academically Unacceptable.

Hurricane Rita Provision

Under the criteria for using the Hurricane Rita Provision for state accountability, 43 districts representing 196 campuses were eligible for consideration. Of the 196 eligible campuses, 21 used the Hurricane Rita Provision.

Of the 43 eligible districts, 5 used the Hurricane Rita Provision.

Required Improvement

Under standard procedures, 458 campuses were able to demonstrate Required Improvement in order to achieve a higher rating in 2006.

385 campuses (13.6%) used Required Improvement to move from a rating of Academically Acceptable to Recognized.

73 campuses (2.3%) used Required Improvement to move from a rating of Academically Unacceptable to Academically Acceptable.

Required Improvement (cont’d)

Under standard procedures, 86 districts were able to demonstrate Required Improvement in order to achieve a higher rating in 2006.

78 districts (23.6%) used Required Improvement to move from a rating of Academically Acceptable to Recognized.

8 districts (1.1%) used Required Improvement to move from a rating of Academically Unacceptable to Academically Acceptable.

Exceptions

149 campuses were able to avoid the Academically Unacceptable rating due the exceptions provision.

14 districts were rated Academically Acceptable due to exceptions provision.

At the campus level, exceptions were most often used for mathematics, followed by the social studies and then the science subject areas.

At the district level, exceptions were used most often for science and social studies.

Rating Trends 2004 through 2006

From 2004 to 2006, the percent of Exemplary and Recognized campuses (combined) was 39.1% in 2004, 27.9% in 2005, and 42.5% in 2006. The percent of Academically Unacceptable campuses has increased each year from 1.2% in 2004 to 2.9% in 2005 to 3.7% in 2006.

From 2004 to 2006, the percent of Exemplary and Recognized districts (combined) was 32.3% in 2004, 14.9% in 2005, and 28.4% in 2006. The percent of Academically Unacceptable districts has increased each year from 2.0% in 2004 to 3.0% in 2005 to 4.4% in 2006.

Summary of Key Updates to the 2006 AEIS Reports

Grade 8 Science

Performance on the grade 8 science test will not be incorporated into the state accountability system until 2008, but will be reported on the AEIS reports beginning in 2006.

Grade 8 Science (cont’d)

A new section titled, “TAKS Met 2006 Standard (Sum of All Grades Tested, INCLUDING grade 8 Science) will be added.

This section will show science results at the PR standard including grade 8. This is intended to provide a preview of future accountability results. This new block consists of two rows: science and All Tests.

TAKS-I Results

In 2006, results of TAKS-I summed across grades will be shown by subject (i.e., ELA, mathematics, science, social studies).

In 2006 TAKS-I is assessed for these subjects and grades:

o Science (grades 5, 8, 10, 11)

o Science (grade 5 Spanish)

o Social Studies (grades 8, 10, 11)

o ELA (grade 11)

o Mathematics (grade 11)

TAKS/TAKS-I/SDAA II Participation

The 2006 participation results will be shown broken down two ways: by tested versus non-tested categories.

Tested students are further broken down two ways: by type of assessment they took; and, secondly by whether they are included in the accountability system or not.

Students who were not tested at all are shown by reason – absent, exempt, etc.

Students who were coded as hurricane-displaced are shown as a separate non-tested category and as a separate category within the accountability system status.

English Language Learner (ELL) Progress Measure

Based on the commissioner's final decisions released in April, 2006, the ELL measure will be reported for two years (2005-06 and 2006-07).

Decisions regarding the ELL indicator will be made during the 2007 accountability cycle for first possible use in the 2008 accountability ratings.

English Language Learner (ELL) Progress Measure (cont’d)

The ELL Progress measure will report the percentage of current and monitored LEP students who meet any of the following three criteria:

1. the student meets the passing standard on the TAKS English reading/ELA test,

2. the student meets the proficiency level on the RPTE based on years in U.S. schools for first-time RPTE testers, or

3. the student shows progress on the RPTE from the prior year.

Multi-Year Product on the Web

The multi-year product is a report of selected AEIS indicators (primarily indicators that are accountability base indicators) for multiple years.

Reports are available for schools, districts, and the state (no region reports) in either HTML or PDF format.

Multi-year reports currently exist for 1994-2002. No multi-year product was posted in 2002-03, 2003-04, or 2004-05.

Multi-Year Product on the Web (cont’d)

Beginning with posting of the 2005-06 AEIS reports users will have the choice of printing the report for years 1994 through 2002 or 2003 through 2006 through a single website page.

This product is only available on the public website.

Gold Performance Acknowledgments

Overview

Gold Performance Acknowledgment (GPA) created to publicly recognize districts and campuses for high performance on indicators that are in addition to those used to determine state accountability ratings.

Districts are eligible for a maximum of 12 possible GPAs. Campuses are eligible for a maximum of 14 possible GPAs.

Analysis of GPA Results

The GPA link on the Accountability System website allows districts/campuses to generate a list of districts or campuses organized by district name, county, or ESC with any combination of GPA acknowledgments.

This information can provide you with a useful tool for communicating the high achievement of your schools to your district administration, school board, and public.

2006 GPA Release

On Tuesday, October 24, districts can access the following 2006 accountability information on the Texas Education Agency Secure Environment (TEASE).

1. The accountability data tables--both standard and Alternative Education Accountability (AEA) — will be updated to show rating changes as a result of granted appeals.

2. Information about the Gold Performance Acknowledgments (GPA) will be appended to the bottom of the standard data tables and added to the Accountability Summary Reports.

2006 GPA Release (cont’d)

3. A data download feature will be added for both the AEA and standard accountability indicators. As with all data on the TEASE site, the information in the download feature is unmasked and may be confidential. It is designed for educator use only; it is not for public use.

2006 GPA Release (cont’d)

During the afternoon of Wednesday, October 25, the updated ratings, GPA results, and masked versions of the data downloads will be made available to the public. The public will access this information through the TEA public accountability site at:

http://www.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport/account/2006/index.html

Alternative Education Accountability (AEA) Procedures

2007 AEA Campus Registration Process

The 2007 AEA campus registration process occurred September 11 – 22, 2006.

The list of 2007 Registered AECs will be available by the end of October on the AEA website at http://www.tea.state.tx.us/aea.

At-Risk Registration Criterion

An AEA at-risk registration criterion was implemented in 2006. An at-risk registration criterion:

o restricts use of AEA procedures to AECs that are dedicated to serving at-risk students,

o recognizes that by definition students served at Residential Facilities are at-risk of dropping out of school, and

o enhances at-risk data quality.

At-Risk Registration Criterion (cont’d)

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 is 70% in 2007 and 75% in 2008 where it is expected to remain.


Two safeguards have been incorporated for those AECs that are below the at-risk requirement.

1. Prior-Year PEIMS At-Risk Data Safeguard: If a registered AEC does not meet the at-risk criterion in the current year, then it remains under AEA if the AEC meets the at-risk criterion in the prior year.

For example, an AEC with an at-risk enrollment of 65% in 2007 and 70% in 2006 remains registered in 2007.


2. New Campus Safeguard: If a new campus is registered for evaluation under AEA procedures, then the AEC is not required to meet the at-risk criterion in its first year of operation. This safeguard provides an accommodation for new campuses with no prior-year data.


In April 2007, letters will be mailed to the AECs that did not meet the 2007 at-risk registration criterion informing them that the AEC will shift from AEA to standard accountability and that the AEC will be evaluated under 2007 standard accountability procedures.

The Final 2007 Registered AEC list will be posted on the AEA website in May 2007. This list will contain the AECs that will be evaluated under 2007 AEA procedures.

A list of the charter operators that will be rated under 2007 AEA procedures will also be posted on the AEA website in May 2007.


A State Compensatory Education Questions and Answers (Q and A) document is on the TEA website at:

http://www.tea.state.tx.us/school.finance/audit/sce_presentation.html

This Q and A addresses proper coding of at-risk students. Also, ESC Compensatory Education contacts

can assist with at-risk questions.

2007 AEA Standards

TAKS Progress indicator increases to 45%.

SDAA II indicator increases to 45%.

Completion Rate II indicator (includes graduates, continuing students, and GED recipients) remains 75.0%.

Annual Dropout Rate (Gr 7-12) indicator remains 10.0%.

AEA FAQ

The AEA FAQ is on the AEA website at:

http://www.tea.state.tx.us/aea/2006/faq.pdf

Preview of 2007 Accountability

TAKS

For 2007, the Academically Acceptable standards increase by 5 percentage points for all subjects—to 65% for Reading/ELA, Writing, and Social Studies; to 45% for Mathematics; and to 40% for Science. That same year, the standards for Recognized increase to 75% for all subjects.

Preview of 2007 Accountability (cont’d)

Commended Performance on TAKS

Beginning with ratings released in 2007, a label of “commended” will be appended to campus and district ratings if the campus or district also earns a GPA for at least 50% of the commended indicators on which the campus or district is evaluated.

A minimum of three of the five commended indicators must be evaluated; or if only two are evaluated, both must be acknowledged (2 out of 2).


Commended Performance on TAKS (cont’d)

Only campuses and districts rated Academically Acceptable or higher are eligible to receive this additional label. Campuses and districts evaluated under AEA procedures are not eligible to receive this additional label.


SDAA II

SDAA II indicators will remain the same in 2007 as will their performance standards.

TAKS-I

TAKS-I results will be used in the state accountability system for the first time in 2008. This follows the ‘report, report, use’ mechanism for phasing in new assessment results into the accountability system. This phase-in schedule means that only a portion of the TAKS-I results will be used for accountability in 2008. All TAKS-I grades and subjects will be used beginning in 2010.


Incorporating TAKS Alternative (TAKS-Alt)

TAKS-Alt results will be reported but not used in the accountability system for two years beginning in 2008.

Incorporating the 2% Assessment

The 2% test results will be reported but not used in the accountability system for two years beginning in 2008.


Annual Dropout Rate

For 2007 only, add a Hold Harmless Provision to the system, such that if the grade 7-8 annual dropout rate is the only indicator causing a district or campus to be Academically Unacceptable, then the campus or district is rated Academically Acceptable instead.


Completion Rate (Grade 9 - 12) Indicator

The 2007 accountability year (class of 2006) is the first year the NCES dropout definition is used in the denominator of the completion rate calculation. Also, because of the definitional change to the denominator, RI cannot be used. Both these factors (the definitional change and the lack of an RI feature) increase the rigor of the completion rate in 2007.


Underreported Students

Increase the rigor of the underreported students standard each year through the 2008 accountability ratings. For example, for 2007 any district that had more than 100 underreported students or greater than 1.5% underreported students could not be rated Exemplary or Recognized.

GPA Standards for 2007 and beyond

Keep the 2006 standards steady from 2007 to 2010 for the following indicators: Advanced Placement/International Baccalaureate results, attendance rate, and comparable improvement on Reading and Mathematics.

For advanced/dual enrollment course completion, the acknowledgment standard will increase to 30.0% in 2009.

For commended performance, increase the standard for each subject by 5 percentage points every other year beginning in 2007, resulting in an increase to 30% for 2009 and 2010.

GPA Standards for 2007 and beyond

For RHSP/DAP, increase the standard to 80.0% in 2007 and 2008, and to 85.0% in 2009 and 2010.

Keep the SAT/ACT indicator in the GPA system and maintain the current standard through 2008 and use only the Mathematics and Critical Reading scores on the new SAT.

The standard for the Texas Success Initiative in English Language Arts and Mathematics will remain at 50% in 2007 and increase by 5 percentage points each year thereafter until 2010.

Federal Accountability System

2006 AYP Results

87% of districts and 81% of campuses met AYP in 2006.

Title I School Improvement for the 2006-07 school year includes 60 districts and 291 campuses

2006 AYP Results (cont’d)

7 districts and 22 campuses were Not Evaluated under the Hurricane Rita Provision

Only two campuses failed participation due to the Displaced Student group.

o USDE denied altering the AYP status or School Improvement Requirements for these campuses

2006 AYP District Results

AYP Results2006

Count Percent

Did Not Meet AYP

Missed due to the 3% Federal Cap 88 59.8%

Missed due to Cap and Other Reasons 3 2.0%

Reasons other than 3% Cap 57 38.5%

Performance Only 22

Participation Only 6

Other Measure Only 9

Combination of Measures 20

Total Missed AYP 148 100.0%

2006 AYP Campus Results

AYP Results2006

Count Percent

Did Not Meet AYP

Missed due to the 3% Federal Cap 215 34.5%

Missed due to Cap and Other Reasons 41 6.6%

Reasons other than 3% Cap 368 59.0%

Performance Only 223

Participation Only 31

Other Measure Only 35

Combination of Measures 79

Total Missed AYP 624 100.0%

2007 Assessments and AYP

TAKS-Io Not offered in AYP subjects and grade levels

TAKS-Alto Field test results included as participants, but counted as

non-proficient (failing)

LDAA o Not counted as participants

Standards for 2007 AYP

For 2007, the performance standards increase.

o From 53% to 60% for Reading/ELA

o From 42% to 50% for Mathematics

PARTICIPATION: TOTAL STUDENTS

PARTICIPATION: NUMBER PARTICIPATING

PERFORMANCE: NUMBER TESTED

PERFORMANCE: MET STANDARD – without CAP

PERFORMANCE: MET STANDARD – CAP APPLIED

Overview of AYP Process


Not Included

Absent

Not Tested (blank document)


Students Enrolled on the Day of Testing(Denominator)


Students Tested, both scored and not scored(Numerator)



Students Tested, both scored and not scored(Numerator)


Scored, valid results(Denominator)

Not Included

• Mobile Students

• Tested but not scored

• Absent

• Not tested (blank document)



Scored, valid results(Denominator)

PERFORMANCE: MET STANDARD

Proficient Results for all students (Numerator of Source Data Table)

Not Included

• Not Proficient (fail)

Mobile Students Tested but not scored Absent Not tested (blank document)


Proficient Results for all students meeting the assessment standard


Proficient Results of 3% of District total number of Students Enrolled

on the Day of Testing


Not Included

Proficient Results from Alternative Assessments that

Exceed the Cap

2006 AYP Process


2006: LDAA Included


2006: LDAA IncludedNot Included

Absent

Not Tested (blank document)

2006 AYP Process


2006: LDAA Included


2006: LDAA Included

Not Included

• Mobile Students


• Absent


2006 AYP Process


2006: LDAA Included


2006: LDAA Included when Standard Met

Not Included



2006 AYP Process


2006: LDAA Included when Standard Met


2006: LDAA Included if within Cap

Not Included

Proficient Results that Exceed Cap from

SDAA Below Grade Level

LDAA

Plan for 2007 AYP Process


2007: LDAA & TAKS ALT Included


2007: TAKS ALT Included

Not Included 2007: LDAA Absent Not Tested (blank document)



2007: LDAA Not Included TAKS ALT Included



Not Included

• Mobile Students


• Absent






Not Included2007: TAKS ALT Not Proficient





2007: TAKS Alt Not Included since resultsare Not Proficient


Not Included 2007Proficient Results that Exceed Cap from

SDAA Below Grade Level

Accountability Resources

Email the Division of Performance Reporting at [email protected].

Phone the Division of Performance Reporting at (512) 463-9704.

Web www.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport

ESC Accountability Contacts.

Documents

State and Federal Accountability System Update ACET Conference October 2006