1 / 59

TETN Accountability Update Session

TETN Accountability Update Session. February 15, 2007. State Accountability. 2007 Accountability Timelines. Proposed Calendar. February 26 – 27 Educator Focus Group meeting March 13 Focus Group report transmitted to Commissioner's Accountability Advisory Committee (CAAC) members

len-horn
Download Presentation

TETN Accountability Update Session

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. TETN Accountability Update Session February 15, 2007

  2. State Accountability

  3. 2007 Accountability Timelines

  4. Proposed Calendar • February 26 – 27 Educator Focus Group meeting • March 13 Focus Group report transmitted to Commissioner's Accountability Advisory Committee (CAAC) members Focus Group report posted on web • March 21 CAAC meeting • Week of April 2 – 6 Commissioner reviews CAAC recommendations and announces final decisions Commissioner's Final Decisions posted on web

  5. 2007 At-Risk Registration Criterion and Charters evaluated under AEA Procedures

  6. 2007 At-Risk Registration Criterion • Each registered AEC must have at least 70% at-risk student enrollment verified through 2006-07 PEIMS fall enrollment data in order to be evaluated under 2007 AEA procedures and receive an AEA rating on August 1, 2007. 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 2007, then it remains under AEA if the AEC had at least 70% at-risk enrollment in 2006. • New Campus Safeguard: If a newcampus 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.

  7. 2007 At-Risk Registration Criterion (cont.) • In April, letters will be mailed to the AECs that do 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.

  8. Charters evaluated under 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. • Charters that operate only registered AECs are evaluated automatically under AEA procedures.

  9. Charters evaluated under AEA Procedures (cont.) • Charters that operate both standard campuses and registered AECs have the option to be evaluated under AEA procedures if at least 50% of the charter’s 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 charter’s students are enrolled at registered AECs, then the charter is evaluated under standard accountability procedures

  10. Accountability Ratings History

  11. Ratings History • Accountability interventions and sanctions escalate with each consecutive year a district or campus receives the lowest rating • Academically Unacceptable • AEA: Academically Unacceptable • If the pattern of AU ratings is broken, interventions stop, even if campus performance has not improved • Campus number change • Campus not rated

  12. Former Accountability Policy • Campus number change • Campus number was used to link accountability ratings across years • Change in campus number broke pattern of consecutive years of AU ratings • New campus number was treated as new campus with no accountability ratings history • Campus not rated • No rating or label Not Rated broke pattern of consecutive years of AU ratings • Exceptions published in Accountability Manuals • New accountability system (2003) • New AEA procedures (2003 and 2004) • Hurricane Rita provision (2006)

  13. New Accountability Policies • Timing of campus number changes • Linking ratings history across campus numbers • Linking ratings history across years campuses and districts not rated • Accountability system safeguards • Apply to districts, charters, and campuses • Apply to campuses and districts rated under standard accountability procedures and AEA procedures • Few campuses and districts affected • Restructuring and closing campuses not affected

  14. Timing of Campus Number Changes • Campus number changes for the current school year • must be requested by October 1 • must be effective by the PEIMS fall submission snapshot date • PEIMS Enrollment Tracking (PET) records must be submitted • Does not apply to requests for new campus numbers • New active campuses opening mid-year • Campuses under construction • Campus number changes for subsequent school year processed after November

  15. Linking Ratings History • AU and AEA: AU ratings received under two different campus numbers may be considered consecutive years AU for interventions and sanctions • Number change after AU rating issued • Number change before AU rating issued

  16. Number Change After Rating • TEA approval required to change campus number of AU campus • Campus Number Change Request form available through TEA AskTED • TEA approval process includes determination of whether ratings history is linked to the new number • Districts know accountability implications at time campus number changed

  17. Number Change After Rating (cont.) • Example 1: • 2007 ratings: Campus 001 is AU (1st year AU) • September 1, 2007, request to change campus number to 005 for 2007-08 school year • TEA determines ratings under 001 and 005 are linked • 2008 ratings: Campus 001 not rated Campus 005 is AU • 2007 and 2008 are consecutive years AU • Campus 005 is 2nd year AU

  18. Number Change After Rating (cont.) • Example 2: • 2007 ratings: Campus 001 is AU (1st year AU) • November 1, 2007, request to change campus number to 005 for 2008-09 school year • TEA determines ratings under 001 and 005 are linked • 2008 ratings: Campus 001 is AU (2nd year AU) • 2009 ratings: Campus 001 not rated Campus 005 is AU • 2007, 2008, and 2009 are consecutive years AU • Campus 005 is 3rd year AU

  19. Number Change Before Rating • Campus that receives AU rating on August 1 has already been assigned a new campus number for the upcoming school year • TEA follows up to determine if the AU rating will be associated with a new campus number

  20. Number Change Before Rating (cont.) • Example 1: • June 1, 2007, request to change campus number of Campus 001 to 005 effective 2007-08 school year • 2007 ratings: Campus 001 is AU (1st year AU) • TEA determines ratings under 001 and 005 are linked • Campus 005 engaged in 1st year AU interventions during 2007-08 school year • 2008 ratings: Campus 005 is AU (2nd year AU)

  21. Number Change Before Rating (cont.) • Example 2: • June 1, 2007, request to change campus number of Campus 001 to 005 effective 2007-08 school year • 2007 ratings: Campus 001 is AU (1st year AU) • TEA determines ratings under 001 and 005 not linked • Campus 005 not engaged in 1st year AU interventions during 2007-08 school year • 2008 ratings: Campus 005 is AU (1st year AU)

  22. Linking Ratings History • Ratings history may be linked to more than one new campus number • K-12 campus splits into separate elementary and secondary – both may carry AU ratings history • Large high school splits into three smaller academies – all three may carry AU ratings history • Factors considered in determining whether or not ratings history will be linked across campus numbers • Statute • Interventions status • Innovative redesign • Reconstitution • Closure • Merge AU campus with another campus

  23. Linking Ratings History (cont.) • Ratings are linked but data are not linked • New campus number has no prior year data for calculation of Required Improvement • AEIS reports show no prior year data for comparison and campus planning

  24. Campuses and Districts Not Rated • No rating issued • Campuses that report no students in membership on the PEIMS fall snapshot date • Accountability exclusions • 2003 all campuses • 2004 AEA campuses • 2006 Hurricane Rita provision (campuses and districts)

  25. Campuses and Districts Not Rated (cont.) • If a campus receives no accountability rating, the year before and the year after are considered consecutive years • 2006: AU or AEA: AU • 2007: no rating issued • 2008: AU or AEA: AU • 2006 and 2008 are consecutive years AU

  26. Campuses and Districts Not Rated (cont.) • Not Rated: Data Integrity Issues assigned in the rare situation where data accuracy and/or integrity are compromised • Not Rated: Data Integrity Issues not equivalent to an AU rating • Districts and campuses can receive an AU rating due to data integrity issues

  27. Campuses and Districts Not Rated (cont.) • If a campus or district receives a rating of Not Rated: Data Integrity Issues, the year before and the year after are considered consecutive years • 2006: AU or AEA: AU • 2007: Not Rated: Data Integrity Issues • 2008: AU or AEA: AU • 2006 and 2008 are consecutive years AU

  28. Campuses and Districts Not Rated (cont.) • Not Rated: Other and AEA: Not Rated – Other assigned when district or campus with fall enrollment has no TAKS results in accountability subset or too few TAKS results to rate • Not Rated: Other and AEA: Not Rated – Other not equivalent to an AU rating

  29. Campuses and Districts Not Rated (cont.) • If a campus or district receives a rating of Not Rated: Other or AEA: Not Rated - Other, the year before and the year after are considered consecutive years • 2006: AU or AEA: AU • 2007: Not Rated: Other • 2008: AU or AEA: AU • 2006 and 2008 are consecutive years AU

  30. Campuses and Districts Not Rated (cont.) • Exception for Residential Facilities rated AEA: Not Rated - Other • 2006: AEA: AU Residential Facility • 2007: AEA: Not Rated - Other • 2008: AEA: AU Residential Facility • 2006 and 2008 are NOT consecutive years AU for Residential Facility • AU campus reports no students in membership the following fall • TEA follows up to determine if the AU rating will be associated with a different campus number

  31. Contacts • Campus number assignment: school districts • TEA AskTED Administrator • 512-463-9809 • AskTed@tea.state.tx.us • Campus number assignment: charters • Charter Schools Division • 512-463-9575 • Valerie.Anderson@tea.state.tx.us

  32. Contacts (cont.) • Accountability interventions • Program Monitoring and Interventions • 512-463-9414 • pmidivision@tea.state.tx.us • Accountability ratings • Performance Reporting • 512-463-9704 • performance.reporting@tea.state.tx.us

  33. Technical Assistance Team Campuses

  34. Background • Section 39.1322 of HB 1 provides for technical assistance teams (TAT) to be selected and assigned to campuses rated Academically Acceptable in the current year, but that would be rated Academically Unacceptable if the following year’s criteria were in effect. The commissioner has the authority to waive the requirement to assign the TAT based on specific improvement criteria.

  35. Identification of TAT Campuses • In 2006, the Academically Acceptable standards were 60% for Reading/ELA, Writing, and Social Studies; 40% for Mathematics; and 35% for Science. • In 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.

  36. Identification of TAT Campuses (cont.) • Campuses rated Academically Acceptable in the state accountability rating system are identified for technical assistance teams if that campus would be rated Academically Unacceptable using the accountability standards for the subsequent year for each base indicator. • All students and each student group evaluated in the state accountability system that meets minimum size requirements in the current school year must meet the standards established for the subsequent school year. • A technical assistance team will be assigned to a campus evaluated under either standard or alternative education accountability procedures.

  37. Identification of TAT Campuses (cont.) • The commissioner will annually identify campuses assigned technical assistance teams following the resolution of appeals related to the state accountability ratings, as defined in the Texas Education Code, §39.301.

  38. Identification of TAT Campuses Demonstrating Improvement • Campuses identified for technical assistance teams that do not meet the subsequent year standards but demonstrate improvement over the preceding three years may be eligible to receive a waiver from the commissioner. • A campus must be evaluated under the same accountability procedures, either standard or alternative education accountability, in each of the preceding three years in order to be eligible for the waiver.

  39. Identification of TAT Campuses Demonstrating Improvement (cont.) • Campuses meet the TAT required improvement if the sum of actual change averaged across the three prior years is equal to or greater than the improvement needed to achieve each standard established for the subsequent school year. The improvement needed is the difference between the standard established for the subsequent school year and actual performance in the current school year, as shown below.

  40. TAT Requirements for Campuses Eligible for Waiver in 2006-07 • Campuses granted TAT waivers are not subject to TAT assignment or intervention requirements. • TEA has pre-determined those campuses that are eligible for waivers from TAT identification.  Additional waiver requests will not be considered by the TEA. 

  41. TAT Requirements for Campuses Identified in 2006-07 • Since the commissioner’s rules were not effective until late in the 2006-07 school year, the TAT intervention activities for this year will be limited to a requirement that identified campuses without a TAT waiver continue implementation of local improvement planning processes targeted to performance concerns. 

  42. TAT Requirements for Campuses Identified in 2006-07 (cont.) • Districts will not be required to submit intervention or improvement planning information to the TEA. •  However, campuses may wish to access information contained on the TEA website at http://www.tea.state.tx.us/pmi/accmon/ to assist in the analysis of performance data and implementation of improvement planning activities. 

  43. Status of Adoption of Commissioner’s Rules • The proposed commissioner’s rules for the identification of the technical assistance team campuses were filed with the Texas Register on Monday, December 11, 2006 and were published in the Texas Register on December 22, 2006. • The official 30-day public comment period was December 22, 2006 – January 21, 2007. No public comments were received, so the effective date is scheduled for February 25, 2007.

  44. Schedule for District Notification and Public Release • Letters will be mailed on Thursday, February 15 to districts with one or more TAT campuses. The letter will include the list of TAT campuses in the district. • A copy of the district notification letter and the list of TAT campuses for the region with be mailed to ESC directors on Thursday, February 15. • The TAT notification letter and statewide list of TAT campuses will be released publicly on Monday, February 26, one day after the effective date of February 25.

  45. Federal Accountability

  46. Update on 2007 Texas AYP Workbook

  47. 2007 Texas AYP Workbook • Submitted for approval to the USDE on February 15, 2007 • Changes and edits incorporate 4 decisions by the USDE • TEA expects a positive response by June

  48. 2007 Texas AYP Workbook Edits • Expiration of the May 23, 2006 USDE Hurricane Katrina/Rita Flexibility Waiver agreement for 2006 AYP calculations, http://www.tea.state.tx.us/ayp/flexwaiver.pdf • Deleted text references to Hurricane Katrina/Rita displaced students. • Deleted text reference to school districts closed by Hurricane Rita. • Deleted text of revised statewide AYP release schedule. • USDE Peer Review response of October 27, 2006, http://www.tea.state.tx.us/ayp/USDE102706.pdf • Added text to include revisions to the use of RPTE in AYP.

  49. 2007 Texas AYP Workbook Edits (cont.) • Final federal regulation regarding the inclusion of limited English proficient (LEP) students posted September 13, 2006 http://www.ed.gov/legislation/FedRegister/finrule/2006-3/091306a.html • Updated references in summary table of Participation Rate Definition and Methodology for 2007. • USDE Flexibility Agreement on Inclusion of Students with Disabilities in AYP, signed November 30, 2005 • Deleted text reference to LDAA assessments

  50. 2007 and 2008 Assessments Used for AYP

More Related