Federal Accountability/ AYP Update

1
Federal Accountability/AYP Update

• Accountability TETNAugust 20, 2009
• Shannon Housson and Ester Regalado
• TEA, Performance Reporting Division

2
AYP Topics

• 2009 AYP Preliminary Results
• 2009 Final Release Schedule
• Appeal and Exceptions Process
• Preview of 2010
• Increasing Standards
• Review of the Federal Cap
• Title I Final Regulations/Graduation Rate

3
2009 AYP State Summary Results

District Results District Results
AYP Status Final 2008 Results Final 2008 Results Preliminary 2009 Results Preliminary 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

4
2009 AYP State Summary Results(cont.)

Campus Results (Regular and Charter) Campus Results (Regular and Charter) Campus Results (Regular and Charter) Campus Results (Regular and Charter)
AYP Status Final 2008 Results Final 2008 Results Preliminary 2009 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

5
2009-10 SIP Results based on 2009 AYP
District Results
SIP Stage Identification Final 2008Results Final 2008Results Preliminary 2009 Results Preliminary 2009 Results
Stage 1 50 53 140 73
Stage 2 27 29 23 12
Stage 3 17 18 30 16
TOTAL 94 100 193 100

6
2009-10 SIP Results based on 2009 AYP (cont.)
Campus Results (Regular and Charter) Campus Results (Regular and Charter) Campus Results (Regular and Charter) Campus Results (Regular and Charter)
SIP Stage Identification Final 2008 Results Final 2008 Results Preliminary 2009 Results Preliminary 2009 Results
Stage 1 145 42 160 45
Stage 2 78 22 67 19
Stage 3 69 20 59 17
Stage 4 36 10 39 11
Stage 5 21 6 30 8
TOTAL 349 100 355 100

7
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.

8
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.
September 4th Appeals and Federal Cap Exceptions Deadline.
Early December Final 2009 AYP Status released. Preview of NCLB School Report Card (SRC) data, Part I only.
January, 2010 Public release of NCLB SRC.
9
General Considerations forAYP Appeals

• Appeals are not a data correction opportunity.
• Appeals are not considered for areas where a
  district/campus Meets 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.However, appeals for only one component
  (Performance or Participation) of an subject area
  indicator (Reading or Math) that would continue
  to miss AYP for that indicator are not
  considered.
• Appeals are considered for data relevant to the
  2009 AYP result, and are not considered for data
  reported in the prior year for Performance,
  Participation, Graduation Rate measures.

10
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 are not favorable
  for appeal.
• Appeals related to the Federal Cap, Campus
  Rankings, or to the performance results due to
  the federal caps are not considered.
• Graduation Rate Appeals based on the use of the
  National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES)
  dropout definition cannot be considered.

11
General Considerations for AYP Appeals (cont.)

• Appeals to the AYP Graduation Rate indicator
  include those
• Based on recent immigrant students in U.S.
  schools for one year or less with limited English
  proficiency (LEP), or
• Based on students served by special education
  with individualized education programs (IEPs)
  indicating 5-year (or longer) graduation plans.
• Appeal packet must include sufficient
  documentation for students developed in their
  earliest years of inclusion in the Class of 2008
  cohort.
• Students served in special education programs
  with IEPs developed during their fourth year (or
  Grade 12) of the longitudinal cohort will not be
  favorable for appeal.

12
General Considerations for AYP Appeals (cont.)

• New Items in 2009 AYP Guide
• Special Circumstance Data quality of first time
  PEIMS collections. (Page 69)
• Texas Projection Measure (TPM). (Page 70)
• Students Ineligible for the Linguistically
  Accommodated Testing (LAT) of TAKS
  Reading/English Language Arts. (Page 71)

13
General Considerations for AYP Appeals (cont.)

• New Items in 2009 AYP Guide
• Appeals Related to Hurricane Ike. (Page 75)
• Hurricane Ike Displaced Students.
• Districts and Campuses Closed by Hurricane Ike.
• Appeals Related to the H1N1 Flu Outbreak. (Page
  76)
• Participation Results
• Performance Results

14
2009 AYP Exceptions Process

• School districts registered in the RF Tracker
  system and school districts with RDSPD that are
  included in the 2008-2009 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).

15
2009 AYP Exceptions Process
AYP 1 Exception and 2 Spill Over AYP 1 Exception and 2 Spill Over AYP 1 Exception and 2 Spill Over
1 Cap Limit on TAKSAlt passing results 1 Exception? 2 Spill Over?
Exceeds (Greater than) 1 Limit Exceptions applied to increase 1 cap No spill over is possible
Does Not Exceed (Less than) the 1 Limit Exception is not necessary Spill over beyond the 2 limit may occur
Is Equal to the 1 Limit Exception is not necessary No spill over is possible
16
2009 AYP Other Circumstance Exceptions

• Other circumstance exceptions are allowable and
  can be 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.
• Based on 2009 statewide participation data, the
  statewide 1 cap limit can 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).

17
2010 AYP 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.

18
2010 Preview Assessments
2010 Reading/ELA Assessments 2010 Reading/ELA Assessments 2010 Reading/ELA Assessments 2010 Reading/ELA Assessments 2010 Reading/ELA Assessments 2010 Reading/ELA Assessments 2010 Reading/ELA Assessments
Participation 95 Standard Participation 95 Standard Performance ( Accountability Subset) 73 Standard Performance ( Accountability Subset) 73 Standard Performance ( Accountability Subset) 73 Standard
Total Students Number Participating ? Number Tested Met Standard or TPM 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 If standard is met or if projected to meet standard by TPM
TAKS(Accommodated) Yes If participant ? If in the Accountability subset If standard is met or if projected to meet standard by TPM If standard is met or if projected to meet standard by TPM
TAKS-M / LAT TAKS-M Yes If participant ? If in the Accountability subset If standard is met (subject to 2 cap) T B D
TAKS-Alt Yes If participant ? If in the Accountability subset If standard is met (subject to 1 cap) No TPM available
TELPAS Reading Yes Non-Participant N/A Not Included Not included N/A
LAT version of TAKS Yes If participant ? If in the Accountability subset If standard is met or if projected to meet standard by TPM If standard is met or if projected to meet standard by TPM
Students in their First Year in U. S. Schools
are counted as participants, but excluded from
the performance calculation.
19
2010 Preview Assessments (cont.)
2010 Mathematics Assessments 2010 Mathematics Assessments 2010 Mathematics Assessments 2010 Mathematics Assessments 2010 Mathematics Assessments 2010 Mathematics Assessments 2010 Mathematics Assessments
Participation 95 Standard Participation 95 Standard Performance (Accountability Subset) 67 Standard Performance (Accountability Subset) 67 Standard Performance (Accountability Subset) 67 Standard
Total Students Number Participating ? Number Tested Met Standard or TPM 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 If standard is met or if projected to meet standard by TPM
TAKS(Accommodated) Yes If participant ? If in the Accountability subset If standard is met or if projected to meet standard by TPM If standard is met or if projected to meet standard by TPM
TAKS-M / LAT TAKS-M Yes If participant ? If in the Accountability subset If standard is met (subject to 2 cap) TBD
TAKS-Alt Yes If participant ? If in the Accountability subset If standard is met (subject to 1 cap) No TPM available
LAT version of TAKS Yes If participant ? If in the Accountability subset If standard is met or if projected to meet standard by TPM If standard is met or if projected to meet standard by TPM
Students in their First Year in U. S. Schools
are counted as participants, but excluded from
the performance calculation.
20
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

21
2010 Preview Use of TPM in AYP

• Phase-in for the TAKSM projection equations
  (TPM)
• TPM projections are expected to be reported for
  TAKSM tests in school year 2009-2010 for Grade
  4, 7, and 10
• The Federal Cap process will be reviewed to
  determine the application of 2 Federal Cap on
  student results that are projected to meet the
  passing standard based on the TPM.

22
2010 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 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).

23
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.

24
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.

25
AYP Preview Final Title I Regulations

• On Oct 28, 2008, final Title I regulations were
  issued to strengthen the NCLB Act.
• The regulations were subsequently reviewed by US
  Department of Education Secretary Arne Duncan.
• On April 1, 2009, the Secretary announced his
  intent to repeal the requirement that a State
  revise its Accountability Workbook with respect
  to its definition of adequate yearly progress
  (AYP) and submit those revisions for peer review.
• The Secretary supports the provisions in the
  October 2008 Title I regulations regarding
  graduation rate.
• No other information has been provided by the
  USDE at this time.

25
26
AYP Preview Final Title I Regulations (cont.)

• Regulations directly related to AYP
• A Uniform, Comparable Graduation Rate
• Timeline to Implement the Four-year Adjusted
  Cohort Graduation Rate
• Report the Four-year Adjusted Cohort Graduation
  Rate by 2011 AYP
• Use for AYP decisions in 2012 AYP.
• 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.

27
AYP Preview Final Title I Regulations (cont.)

• Regulations directly related to AYP
• A Uniform, Comparable Graduation Rate
• 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, i.e. annual targets.
• Use for AYP decisions in 2010 AYP.

28
AYP Preview Final Title I Regulations (cont.)

• Regulations directly related to AYP
• 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 201011
• States report the four-year adjusted cohort
  graduation rate by the 201011 school year and
• Use the cohort graduation rate by student group
  in 2012 AYP.

29
AYP Preview 2010 Texas AYP Workbook

• As required by federal regulation, Texas will
  develop a graduation rate goal and requirements
  for continuous improvement, i.e. annual targets,
  for the 2010 AYP Workbook.
• Texas does not plan to request any further
  changes to the AYP calculation.
• The Federal Cap process will be reviewed to
  determine the application of 2 Federal Cap on
  student results that are projected to meet the
  passing standard based on the TPM.
• Any additional changes related to the Federal Cap
  process will be detailed in the 2010 AYP Guide.

30
AYP Preview 2010 Texas AYP Workbook (cont.)

• The federal accountability advisory group, Title
  I Committee of Practitioners (COP), will review
  recommended changes to the 2010 AYP Workbook and
  Federal Cap process for 2010.
• See the current Texas AYP Workbook of June 12,
  2009 at http//ritter.tea.state.tx.us/ayp/txworkbo
  ok09.pdf

31
TEA Security Environment (TEASE)Accountability
Website

• Each superintendent and charter school executive
  director may apply for access or may designate
  others in their district (including ESC Region
  staff) to also have 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 superintendents
  authorization on the required access forms.
• TEASE access forms are available at
  http//ritter.tea.state.tx.us/webappaccess/AppRef.
  htm

32
SIP Resources

• SIP Delay ProvisionFor more information about
  the School Improvement Program or the
  implementation of SIP delay provisions, please
  contact the School Improvement Unit in the No
  Child Left Behind (NCLB) Program Coordination
  at(512) 463-9374.
• 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.

33
TETN Resources

• Federal Cap ProcessA review of the federal cap
  process was provided through a district
  accessible Texas Education Telecommunications
  Network (TETN) session on May 21, 2009 from
  1pm-4pm (Event 34920).

34
AYP Resources

• For more information on AYP, see the 2009 AYP
  Guide, accessible at http//ritter.tea.state.tx.us
  /ayp.
• 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.
• U.S. Department of Education information is
  available at www.ed.gov/nclb/.
• Contact the Division of Performance Reporting by
  email at performance.reporting_at_tea.state.tx.us,
  or phone at [phone].