State Accountability System Update

1
State Accountability System Update

• Charter School ConferenceNovember 26-28, 2006
• Presented by Nancy Rinehart, TEA,Division of
  Performance Reporting

2
Todays Discussion will cover

• Accountability Calendars 2006 and 2007
• 2006 Alternative Education Accountability (AEA)
  and Charter Ratings Overview
• Preview of 2007 and Beyond AEA Procedures
• 2007 AEA Indicators
• Preview of 2007 Standard Accountability
  Procedures
• TEASE Accountability
• Accountability Resources

3
Recent and Upcoming Events

• August 1 2006 Ratings release on TEA public
  website
• September 2007 AEA campus registration
• October 24 Final 2006 Ratings and GPA release on
  TEASE
• October 25 Final 2006 Ratings and GPA release on
  TEA public website
• November 9 2005-06 AEIS release on TEASE
• November 16 2005-06 AEIS release on TEA public
  website
• December 2005-06 School Report Cards (SRCs)
  released
• 2007-08 Public Education Grant (PEG) list
  released on TEASE
• 2005-06 Pocket Edition published (web and print)

4
2007 Accountability Timeline

• January and Development of 2007 Accountability
  February 2007 System
• February 26-27 Educator Focus Group Meeting
• March 21 Commissioners Accountability
  Advisory Committee Meeting
• Early April Final Decisions Announced by
  Commissioner
• May/June 2007 Accountability Manual posted
  online
• August 1 Release of 2007 Accountability
  Ratings
• September 2008 AEA campus registration

5

• 2006 AEA and Charter Ratings Overview

6
2006 AEA Ratings Overview
A total of 417 AECs and 84 charter operators
were evaluated under AEA procedures in 2006. The
AEA ratings distributions follow.
Accountability Rating AEC Of Choice Residential Facility Total
AEA Academically Acceptable 321 75 396
AEA Academically Unacceptable 16 3 19
AEA Not Rated Other 0 2 2
Total 337 80 417
7
2006 AEA Ratings Overview (cont.)
2006 AEA Ratings Charter Operators Total AEA Enrollment
AEA Academically Acceptable 76 27,311
AEA Academically Unacceptable 8 1,693
Total 84 29,004
2006 Campus AEA Ratings Charter Campuses Standard Campuses Total AEA Campuses
AEA Academically Acceptable 149 247 396
AEA Academically Unacceptable 8 11 19
AEA Not Rated - Other 0 2 2
Total 157 260 417
8
2006 Charter Operator Ratings

Accountability Rating Count Percent
Exemplary 6 3.1
Recognized 24 12.4
Academically Acceptable 132 68.0
Standard Procedures 56 28.9
AEA Procedures 76 39.2
Academically Unacceptable 29 14.9
Standard Procedures 21 10.8
AEA Procedures 8 4.1
Not Rated Other 3 1.5
AEA Not Rated - Other 0 0.0
Total 194 100.0
9
2006 Charter Campus Ratings

Accountability Rating Count Percent
Exemplary 12 3.8
Recognized 34 10.9
Academically Acceptable 214 68.4
Standard Procedures 65 20.8
AEA Procedures 149 47.6
Academically Unacceptable 37 11.8
Standard Procedures 29 9.3
AEA Procedures 8 2.6
Not Rated Other 16 5.1
AEA Not Rated - Other 0 0.0
Total 313 100.0
10

• Preview of 2007 and BeyondAEA Procedures

11
Principles of AEA Procedures

• AEA procedures evaluate the performance of
  alternative education campuses (AECs) including
  charters and charter campuses and are based on
  these principles
• AEA procedures apply to AECs, not programs.
• AEA procedures apply to AECs and charters that
  are dedicated to serving students at risk of
  dropping out.
• AEA procedures apply only to those AECs that
  qualify and register annually for evaluation
  under AEA procedures.
• AEA procedures do not apply to standard campuses,
  even if the campus primarily serves at-risk
  students.

12
The 3 AEA Rating Labels

• AEA Academically Acceptable
• AEA Academically Unacceptable
• AEA Not Rated Other

13
Required Improvement

• An AEA Academically Acceptable rating may be
  achieved by meeting the absolute standards for
  each indicator or by demonstrating Required
  Improvement.
• Required Improvement compares prior year
  performance to current year performance. In
  order to qualify for this comparison, the target
  group (All Students or any student group) must
  meet a minimum size requirement for the prior
  year.

14
Charters Evaluated under AEA

• Charter ratings are based on aggregate
  performance of the campuses operated by the
  charter.
• Performance results of all students in the
  charter are included in the charters performance
  and used in determining the charters rating.
• Charters rated under AEA procedures are evaluated
  on the same indicators as registered AECs.

15
Charters Evaluated under AEA (cont.)

• Charters that operate only registered AECs are
  evaluated automatically under AEA procedures.
• Charters that operate both standard campuses and
  registered AECs have the option to be evaluated
  under AEA procedures if at least 50 of the
  charters students are enrolled at registered
  AECs. TEA contacts the charter to obtain its
  preference. If a preference cannot be obtained,
  then the charter is evaluated under standard
  accountability procedures. If fewer than 50 of
  the charters students are enrolled at registered
  AECs, then the charter is evaluated under
  standard accountability procedures.

16
AEA Campus Types

• Two types of campuses have the option to register
  for evaluation under AEA procedures
• AECs of Choice at-risk students enroll at AECs
  of Choice to expedite progress toward performing
  at grade level and high school completion.
• Residential Facilities education services are
  provided to students in residential programs and
  facilities operated under contract with the TYC,
  students in detention centers and correctional
  facilities registered with the TJPC, and students
  in private residential treatment centers.
• AECs that choose not to register under AEA are
  evaluated under the standard accountability
  procedures.

17
AEA Registration Criteria

• Ten criteria are required for campuses to be
  registered for evaluation under AEA procedures.
• The requirements in criteria 6-10 may not apply
  to charter campuses (depending on the terms of
  the charter) or for community-based dropout
  recovery campuses established in accordance with
  TEC 29.081(e).
• The requirements in criterion 9 apply to
  Residential Facilities only if students are
  placed in the facility by the school district.

18
AEA Registration Criteria (cont.)

1. The AEC must have its own campus number to which
   PEIMS data are reported and test answer documents
   are coded.
2. The AEC must be identified in AskTED as an
   alternative campus.
3. The AEC must be dedicated to serving students at
   risk of dropping out of school as defined in TEC
   29.081(d).
4. The AEC must operate on its own budget.

19
AEA Registration Criteria (cont.)

1. The AEC must offer nontraditional settings and
   methods of instructional delivery designed to
   meet the needs of the students served on the AEC.
2. The AEC must have an appropriately certified,
   full-time administrator whose primary duty is the
   administration of the AEC.
3. The AEC must have appropriately certified
   teachers assigned in all areas including special
   education, bilingual education, and/or ESL to
   serve students eligible for such services.

20
AEA Registration Criteria (cont.)

1. The AEC must provide each student the opportunity
   to attend a 7-hour school day according to the
   needs of the student.
2. If the campus serves students with disabilities,
   the students must be placed at the AEC by their
   ARD committee.
3. Students with disabilities must receive all
   services outlined in their IEPs. LEP students
   must receive all services outlined by their LPAC.
   Students with disabilities and LEP students must
   be served by appropriately certified teachers.

21
2007 Registered AECs

• A total of 472 AECs are registered for evaluation
  under 2007 AEA procedures. 170 of the 472 are
  charter campuses.
• A list of 2007 Registered AECs is on the AEA
  website at http//www.tea.state.tx.us/aea/.
• Each registered AEC must meet the 70 at-risk
  registration criterion in order to receive an AEA
  rating on August 1, 2007.

22
At-Risk Registration Criterion

• An AEA at-risk registration criterion was
  implemented in 2006. An at-risk registration
  criterion
• restricts use of AEA procedures to AECs that
  are dedicated to serving at-risk students,
• recognizes that by definition students served
  at Residential Facilities are at-risk of
  dropping out of school, and
• enhances at-risk data quality.

23
At-Risk Registration Criterion (cont.)

• 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.

24
At-Risk Registration Criterion (cont.)

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

25
At-Risk Registration Criterion (cont.)

• 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.

26
At-Risk Registration Criterion (cont.)

• 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 receive a 2007 AEA
  rating.
• 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.

27
At-Risk Registration Criterion (cont.)

• 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.

28
2008 AEA Registration

• The 2008 AEA campus registration process will be
  conducted electronically. Details will be
  included in the 2007 Accountability Manual.
• The 2008 AEA campus registration process will
  occur in September 2007.

29
Attribution of Data toRegistered AECs

• For 2007 accountability
• Campus accountability subset determines
  attribution of AEC test data. Only test results
  for students enrolled on the same campus on the
  PEIMS enrollment snapshot date (the last Friday
  in October) and on the testing data are included
  in the campus performance measure.
  Accountability subset does not apply to
  exit-level retests.
• 2005-06 leaver data are attributed to the last
  campus of attendance.

30
Attribution of Data toCharter Operators

• For 2007 accountability
• For the district accountability subset, only test
  results for students enrolled in the same charter
  on the PEIMS enrollment snapshot date (the last
  Friday in October) and on the testing data are
  included in the charter performance measure.
• Accountability subset does not apply to
  exit-level retests.

31

• 2007 AEA Indicators

32
The 4 AEA Indicators

• The AEA procedures use four base indicators
• performance on the Texas Assessment of Knowledge
  and Skills (TAKS),
• performance on the State-Developed Alternative
  Assessment II (SDAA II),
• Completion Rate II (including GED recipients),
  and
• Annual Dropout Rate for grades 7 through 12.

33
2007 AEA Standards

• TAKS Progress indicator increases to 45.
• SDAA II indicator increases to 45.
• Completion Rate II (includes GED recipients)
  indicator remains 75.0.
• Annual Dropout Rate (Grades 7-12) indicator
  remains 10.0.

34
TAKS Progress Indicator

• The TAKS Progress indicator sums performance
  results across grades (3-12) and across subjects
  to determine ratings under AEA procedures.
• This indicator is based on the number of tests
  taken, not on the number of students tested.
• In 2006, 24,728 test takers at registered AECs
  took a total of 59,649 TAKS tests.

35
TAKS Progress Indicator (cont.)

• The TAKS Progress numerator is calculated as the
  number of tests meeting the student passing
  standard or having a Texas Growth Index (TGI)
  score that meets the student growth standard of 0
  (zero) or higher and TAKS exit-level retests
  meeting the student passing standard at the
  February and April administrations or in the
  previous October or July.
• The denominator is the number of TAKS tests taken
  and the number of TAKS exit-level retests meeting
  the student passing standard at the February and
  April administrations or in the previous October
  or July.

36
TAKS Progress Indicator (cont.)

• Student groups evaluated and minimum size
  requirements
• All Students performance is always evaluated.
• Students groups (African American, Hispanic,
  White, and Economically Disadvantaged) are
  evaluated if there are
• 30 49 tests for the student group and the
  student group represents at least 10 of All
  Students tests or
• at least 50 tests for the student group even if
  these tests represent less than 10 of All
  Students tests (30/10/50).

37
Use of District At-Risk TAKS Data

• Applies to AECs only performance results of all
  students in the charter are included in the
  charters performance and used in determining the
  charters rating.
• If the AEC does not meet the TAKS Progress
  standard or demonstrate Required Improvement
  based on results for fewer than 10 TAKS tests, or
  if there are no TAKS results for the AEC, then
  the AEC is evaluated on the district performance
  of at-risk students.
• In 2006, district at-risk TAKS data were used to
  evaluate 52 AECs.

38
SDAA II Indicator

• The SDAA II indicator sums performance results
  across grades (3-10) and across subjects.
• Like the TAKS Progress indicator, the SDAA II
  indicator is based on the number of tests taken,
  not on the number of students tested.
• In 2006, 2,035 test takers at registered AECs
  took a total of 3,836 SDAA II tests.

39
SDAA II Indicator (cont.)

• Student groups evaluated and minimum size
  requirements
• All Students performance is evaluated when there
  are 30 or more SDAA II tests.
• Students groups (African American, Hispanic,
  White, and Economically Disadvantaged) are not
  evaluated.

40
Completion Rate II Indicator

• This longitudinal rate shows the percent of
  students who completed or who are continuing
  their education four years after first attending
  grade 9 in Texas.
• Completion Rate II counts graduates, continuing
  students (students who return to school for a
  fifth year), and GED recipients in the definition
  of Completion Rate II for AECs of Choice and
  charters evaluated under AEA procedures.
• Residential Facilities are not evaluated on the
  Completion Rate II indicator.
• Charters that operate only Residential Facilities
  are not evaluated on the Completion Rate II
  indicator.

41
Completion Rate II Indicator (cont.)

• Student groups evaluated and minimum size
  requirements
• All Students are evaluated if there are
• at least 5 dropouts and
• at least 10 students in the Completion Rate II
  class.
• Students groups (African American, Hispanic,
  White, and Economically Disadvantaged) are
  evaluated if there are
• at least 5 dropouts in the student group, and
• 30 49 students in the student group and they
  represent at least 10 of All Students in the
  class or
• at least 50 students in the student group even if
  they represent less than 10 of All Students in
  the class.

42
Completion Rate II Indicator (cont.)

• Required Improvement for the Completion Rate II
  indicator cannot be calculated and will not be
  applied in 2007. The changes to the dropout
  definition will prevent comparisons of rates used
  in 2006 and 2007.

43
Use of District At-RiskCompletion Rate II Data

• Applies to AECs of Choice only performance
  results of all students in the charter are
  included in the charters performance and used in
  determining the charters rating.
• If the AEC of Choice does not meet the
  accountability standard or demonstrate Required
  Improvement, or if the AEC of Choice has students
  in grades 9, 10, 11, and/or 12 but does not have
  a Completion Rate II, then the AEC of Choice is
  evaluated on Completion Rate II (including GED
  recipients) of at-risk students in the district.
• In 2006, district at-risk Completion Rate II data
  were used to evaluate 131 AECs of Choice.

44
Annual Dropout Rate Indicator

• The Annual Dropout Rate indicator is grade 7-12
  dropouts as a percent of total students enrolled
  at the registered AEC or charter in grades 7-12
  in a single school year.
• All Students are evaluated if there are
• at least 5 dropouts and
• at least 10 students in grades 7-12.

45
Annual Dropout Rate Indicator (cont.)

• Students groups (African American, Hispanic,
  White, and Economically Disadvantaged) are
  evaluated if there are
• at least 5 dropouts in the student group, and
• 30 49 students in the student group and they
  represent at least 10 of All Students in grades
  7-12 or
• at least 50 students in the student group even if
  they represent less than 10 of All Students in
  grades 7-12.

46
Annual Dropout Rate Indicator (cont.)

• The dropout definition transitions from the
  current state definition to the NCES definition
  in 2007. Students dropping out of school during
  the 2005-06 school year are reported in 2006-07
  in accordance with the NCES dropout definition.
• Required Improvement for the Annual Dropout Rate
  indicator cannot be calculated and will not be
  applied in 2007. The changes to the dropout
  definition will prevent comparisons of rates used
  in 2006 and 2007.

47
Annual Dropout Rate Indicator (cont.)

• Due to the definitional and Required Improvement
  changes described above, if the Annual Dropout
  Rate is the only indicator causing a registered
  AEC or charter to be AEA Academically
  Unacceptable, then a hold harmless provision
  will be applied and a rating of AEA Academically
  Acceptable will be assigned. This provision will
  be in place for 2007 only.

48

• Preview of 2007 Standard Accountability Procedures

49
Preview of 2007 Standard Accountability

• TAKS Standards
• For 2007, the Academically Acceptable standards
  increase by 5 percentage points for all
  subjectsto 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.

50
Preview of 2007 Standard Accountability (cont.)

• 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).

51
Preview of 2007 Standard Accountability (cont.)

• Commended Performance on TAKS (cont.)
• 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.

52
Preview of 2007 Standard Accountability (cont.)

• 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.

53
Preview of 2007 Standard Accountability (cont.)

• 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.

54
Preview of 2007 Standard Accountability (cont.)

• SDAA II
• The standard for meeting ARD expectations will
  continue to be set locally, consistent with state
  statute.
• SDAA II indicators will remain the same in 2007
  as will their performance standards.

55
Preview of 2007 Standard Accountability (cont.)

• Annual Dropout Rate (Grade 7 - 8) Indicator
• For 2007 only, a hold harmless provision is
  added 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.

56
Preview of 2007 Standard Accountability (cont.)

• 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, Required Improvement
  cannot be used. Both these factors (the
  definitional change and the lack of an Required
  Improvement feature) increase the rigor of the
  completion rate in 2007.

57
Preview of 2007 Standard Accountability (cont.)

• 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.

58
TEASE Accountability

• The TEASE Accountability secure website provides
  school districts and charters with
  performance-based monitoring analysis system
  (PBMAS) reports, and confidential unmasked data
  tables, summary tables, confidential student
  listings, data files, and other helpful state and
  federal accountability information.
• Each superintendent and charter school executive
  director should apply for access and may
  designate others in their district (and at the
  ESC) to also have access.
• http//www.tea.state.tx.us/webappaccess/AppsRefSht
  -TS2.htm

59
Accountability Resources

• ESC Accountability Contacts
• TEA Division of Performance Reporting(512)
  463-9704performance.reporting_at_tea.state.tx.us
• AEA website http//www.tea.state.tx.us/aea
• Accountability ratings system website
  http//www.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport/account/
• Accountability Resources website
  http//www.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport/resources/in
  dex.html
• AYP website http//www.tea.state.tx.us/ayp