special education directors meeting

Special Education Directors Meeting

May 15, 2008

Dr. Nori Cuellar Mora Associate Director of Instructional Services

Welcome and District News

FIEP Facilitation Update

Barbie Tumlinson

PBM, RF & SPP Monitoring Updates

Sherrill Burge

PBM

The Proposed 2008 PBM Manual will be posted May 16, 20008

PBM: Intervention Update

The ISAM system will be used to provide updates to LEAs related to the completion of 2007-2008 TEA review activities.

“Correspondence” indicating completion of “routine” reviews will be disseminated through ISAM beginning in late May or early June

Correspondence that details noncompliance of that reflects unique, individualized circumstances for an LEA will continue to be disseminated in hard copy

RF Update

A 2008 Helpful Hints document and a revised Guidance Document was posted March 31, 2008

http://www.tea.state.tx.us/pmi033108.htm

RF Update

Snapshot: May 23, 2008 Deadline for data submission: June 2, 2008 Deadline for data funding request: June 2,

2008 to the ESC-2 Next TETN RF: June 18, 2008,

Commensurate Day

SPP 13 – Secondary Transition

All 14 big districts self-identified noncompliance The districts will develop a CIP to correct the

noncompliance Any district reporting noncompliance in SPP

data submissions will be expected to submit a CIP for corrective actions

SPP

Fall 2008 (anticipated October)

Districts will be required to review documentation and submit information to the TEA for SPP indicators 11,12, and 13 related to 2007-2008 data.

SPP

SPP Indicators:

11: child Find (Timely Evaluation)

12: Early Childhood Transition

13: Secondary Transition

SPP - Significant Change

Districts that have intervention levels in Fall 2008 and that identify noncompliance with these indicators will have to include this noncompliance in their 2008-2009 CIP

Districts that do not have intervention levels from PBM, but identify noncompliance will have to develop and submit a CIP (due date projected as November 2008)

SPP

The correction of any noncompliance identified will follow the same procedures as currently being implemented for the 14 identified districts

SPP 7 Preschool Updates

Dina Hinojosa

Indicator 11

Percent of children with parental consent to evaluate, who were evaluated and eligibility determined with 60 days

Indicator 12•Percent of children referred by ECI prior to age 3, who are found eligible for services and who have an IEP developed and implemented by their 3rd birthdays.

Coming soon…

In fall 2008 (letter from IDEA Coordination planned for October), all LEAs will be required to review documentation and submit information to the TEA for SPP indicators 11 and 12, related to 2007-2008 data.

SPP 13 Transition Updates SPP 14 for Big 15 Districts

Valerie Trevino

Updates on SPP 13

Indicator 13 Percent of youth aged 16 and above with an IEP that includes coordinated, measurable, annual IEP goals and transition services that will reasonably enable the student to meet the postsecondary goals.

School districts should have started or finished data collection entry to the following web site:

https://www.texaseffectiveness.net/txsppindicator13/ Closing date for online data entry: June 30, 2008

Updates on SPP 14

Grade 12 Exiting Demographic Information Survey (2007-2008) Criteria for Data Collection: Data collection for 2007-2008 includes all 12th grade students with

disabilities reported as enrolled on the Fall 2007 October Snapshot date who plan to graduate spring 2008 and students with disabilities who have dropped out, completed a GED, or graduated early since being reported as enrolled on the Fall 2007 snapshot date.

Selected School Districts should have started or finished survey & information must be entered electronically at the following site:

https://www/texaseffectiveness.net/txsppindicator14/

Closing date for online data entry: June 30, 2008

Questions related to Indicators 13 & 14 Content questions related to checklist or

survey should be addressed to Valerie Trevino- [email protected]

Questions on data entry technical support should be addressed to ESC Region XI:

Deborah Norris – [email protected]

Assistive Technology Updates

Kimberly Cook

(presented by Rachel Hoff)

Title I / NCLB Updates

Andi Kuyatt

GT / Differentiation

Mary Beth Jaeger

ESC2 Core Curriculum Consultants’ Updates

Roundtable Discussion and Varia

Directors

State Accountability

Dawn Schuenemann

TETN Accountability Update Session

April 24, 2008

Standard Accountability Decisions for 2008

Factors Affecting 2008 Accountability

Increased Rigor of 2008 Accountability

Addition of grade 8 science assessment at Panel Recommended standard

Addition of TAKS (Accommodated) in science and social studies (all grades) and grade 11 (all subjects)

Removal of the School Leaver Provision from the completion/dropout/underreported indicators

Continued impact of the phase-in of the NCES dropout definition through 2010

Factors Affecting 2008 Accountability (continued)

Increased Rigor of 2008 Accountability (continued)

Impact of Panel Recommended exit level TAKS passing standards on the completion rate for the Class of 2007

Increased number of student groups evaluated due to inclusion of TAKS-Accommodated

Increased number of student groups evaluated on middle school campuses due to grade 8 science

The TAKS standards for Academically Acceptable increase for reading/ELA, mathematics, and science by five points each.

TAKS Indicator

Standards

2007

AA/Re/Ex

2008

AA/Re/Ex

Reading/ELA 65/75/90 70/75/90

Writing, Social Studies 65/75/90 65/75/90

Mathematics 45/75/90 50/75/90

Science 40/75/90 45/75/90

Numbers in bold indicate a change from the prior year

TAKS Indicator (continued)

Exceptions Provision

What Has Changed for 2008

Campuses and districts may now use the provision to achieve a Recognized or an Exemplary rating.

Districts and campuses will be eligible to receive four possible exceptions in order to achieve the Academically Acceptable rating or four possible exceptions in order to achieve the Recognized rating.

The minimum performance floor values are altered for mathematics and science for the Academically Acceptable rating.


Exceptions Provision (continued)

What Remains Unchanged

The Exceptions Provision will continue to be applied to only the 25 TAKS measures (5 subjects multiplied by 5 groups: All Students, African American, Hispanic, White, and Economically Disadvantaged).

The Exceptions Provision will not be applicable to either Completion Rate I or Annual Dropout Rate indicators.

The Exception Provision cannot elevate a rating more than one rating category.

An exception cannot be used for the same measure for two consecutive years.



Use for Academically Acceptable or Recognized

The campus or district must meet a minimum performance floor to be eligible to use this provision. The floors vary by subject and rating category, as shown in the following table.



Minimum Performance Floors

Academically Acceptable Recognized

Mathematics and Science

No more than 10 percentage points

below standards

All Subjects

No more than 5 percentage points

below standardReading/ELA, Writing, and

Social Studies

No more than 5 percentage points below standards



Use for Academically Acceptable or Recognized

The ranges for the number of measures evaluated in order to earn an exception are changed from the ranges used previously, as shown in the following table.


Exceptions Provision (continued)2007

Exceptions Provision Table(for Academically Acceptable only)

2008 and BeyondExceptions Provision Table

(for Academically Acceptable or Recognized)

Number of Assessment

Measures Evaluated

Maximum Number of Exceptions

Allowed

Number of Assessment

Measures Evaluated

Maximum Number of Exceptions

Allowed

1 – 5 0 exceptions 1 – 4 0 exceptions

6 – 10 1 exception 5 – 8 1 exception

11 – 15 2 exceptions 9 – 11 2 exceptions

16 or more 3 exceptions 12 – 15 3 exceptions

n/a n/a 16 or more 4 exceptions



Use for Exemplary

Districts and campuses will be eligible to receive one possible exception in order to achieve the Exemplary rating.

A minimum of 10 assessment measures must be evaluated in order to be eligible to use the one exception.

The campus or district must meet a minimum performance floor that is 5 points below the Exemplary standard. Because the Exemplary standard is 90% for all subjects for 2008 and beyond, the floor is 85%.



2008 and BeyondExceptions Provision Table

(for Exemplary)

Number of Assessment Measures Evaluated

Maximum Number of Exceptions Allowed

1 – 9 0 exceptions

10 or more 1 exception

Annual Dropout Rate (Grades 7-8) Indicator

A single standard will be used for all rating categories.

2008

(Previously Published)

2008

(Final Decision)

Academically Acceptable =< 1.0% =< 2.0%

Recognized =< 0.7% =< 2.0%

Exemplary =< 0.2% =< 2.0%

Dropout Definition NCES Definition NCES Definition

Standards

Numbers in bold indicate a change from the prior year

Annual Dropout Rate (Grades 7-8) Indicator (continued)

In 2008 Required Improvement (RI) will be calculated because the dropout definition for 2006-07 and 2005-06 are the same.

The same RI calculation is applied to all rating categories.

Required Improvement

School Leaver Provision

The School Leaver Provision will not be applied in 2008 and beyond.

Completion Rate I (Grade 9-12) Indicator

Standards are unchanged from 2007 and are scheduled to remain constant through 2010.

Indicator will include two years under the NCES dropout definition.

Standards

2008

Academically Acceptable ≥ 75.0%

Recognized ≥ 85.0%

Exemplary ≥ 95.0%

Completion Rate I Definition of a ‘Completer’

Graduates + Continued HS

Dropout Definition (used in denominator) Phase-in NCES Definition

Completion Rate I (Grade 9-12) Indicator (continued)

The floor needed to be eligible to use RI to achieve the Recognized rating is changed to be the Academically Acceptable standard. This would decrease the floor value from 80.0% to 75.0%.

Required Improvement



Underreported Students Data Quality Indicator

Standards

Accountability Year

Underreported students data

year

Underreported students cannot exceed

Number Percent

2008 2006-07 200 5.0



Standard Accountability Decisions for 2009 and Beyond

TAKS Indicator

2008 (Final

Decision)

Recommended

2009 2010*

Exemplary ≥ 90% ≥ 90% ≥ 90%

Recognized ≥ 75% ≥ 75% ≥ 80%

Academically Acceptable

Reading/ELA ≥ 70% ≥ 70% ≥ 70%

Writing, Social Studies ≥ 65% ≥ 70% ≥ 70%

Mathematics ≥ 50% ≥ 55% ≥ 60%

Science ≥ 45% ≥ 50% ≥ 55%* Standards for 2010 and beyond will be reviewed annually and are subject to change.

Numbers in bold indicate a change from the prior year.

Standards 2008 and Beyond

TAKS (Accommodated)

2008 2009 2010

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

Science (grade 5 Spanish)

Social Studies (grades 8, 10, & 11)

English Language Arts (grade 11)

Mathematics (grade 11)

Use Use Use

Reading/ELA (grades 3 – 10)

Reading (grades 3 – 6 Spanish)

Mathematics (grades 3 – 10)

Mathematics (grades 3 – 6 Spanish)

Writing (grades 4 & 7)

Writing (grade 4 Spanish)

Report Only

Report Only

Use

Use of TAKS (Accommodated) in 2008 and Beyond

Tex in bold indicate a change from the prior year

TAKS Student Growth Measure

A method for measuring annual student improvement on the TAKS tests will be selected during the fall of 2008.

Student growth reporting for individual students is scheduled to begin with the 2008-09 school year.

Student growth will be used in the state accountability system as soon as possible, which could be as early as the 2009 accountability cycle.

TAKS Student Growth Measure (continued)

The 2009 advisory groups will recommend the method for incorporating growth and will review 2009 TAKS standards in relation to the growth decisions.

If student growth is incorporated beginning in 2009, other components of the system such as Required Improvement, Comparable Improvement, and the Exceptions Provision will also be subject to review during the 2009 development cycle.

Vertical Scale

To meet new statutory requirements, a vertical scale will be implemented in grades 3-8 for TAKS mathematics and reading starting with the 2008-09 school year.

A vertical scale is a scale score system that allows comparison of student test scores across grade levels within a subject.

With vertical scaling, scores that measure content in the same subject but at different grade levels are placed onto a common scale.

Vertical Scale (continued)

One implication a vertical scale has for TAKS is that a review of current student passing standards may need to be considered.

Should changes to the TAKS student passing standards occur, a reconsideration of accountability standards for the affected subject(s) will be necessary.

Annual Dropout Rate (Grades 7-8) Indicator

2008 (Final

Decision)

2009(Final

Decision)

Recommended*

2010 2011 2012

Academically

Acceptable=< 2.0% =< 2.0% =< 1.8% =< 1.6% =< 1.4%

Recognized =< 2.0% =< 2.0% =< 1.8% =< 1.6% =< 1.4%

Exemplary =< 2.0% =< 2.0% =< 1.8% =< 1.6% =< 1.4%


*Standards for 2010 and beyond will be reviewed in 2009 and are subject to change.Numbers in bold indicate a change from the prior year.

Completion Rate I (Grade 9-12) Indicator

Standards 2008 and Beyond2008

(Final Decision)

2009(Final Decision)

2010*(Recommended)

Academically Acceptable => 75.0% => 75.0% => 75.0%

Recognized => 85.0% => 85.0% => 85.0%

Exemplary => 95.0% => 95.0% => 95.0%

Completion Rate I Definition of a ‘Completer’

Graduates + Continued HS

Dropout Definition (used in denominator)

Phase-in NCES DefinitionNCES

Definition* Standards for 2010 and beyond will be reviewed annually and are subject to change.

Underreported Students Data Quality Indicator


Accountability Year

Underreported students data

year

Underreported students cannot exceed

Number Percent

2008 2006-07 200 5.0

2009 2007-08 150 5.0

2010* 2008-09 100 4.5

2011* 2009-10 100 4.0

2012* 2010-11 100 3.0

*Standards for 2010 and beyond are subject to annual review. Numbers in bold indicate a change from the prior year.

English Language Learner (ELL) Indicator

For state accountability purposes, progress on the ELL measure will be based on comparisons of two years of Texas English Language Proficiency Assessment System (TELPAS) Reading results, instead of comparisons between the new TELPAS Reading and the former Reading Proficiency Tests in English (RPTE) tests.

Two years of TELPAS Reading data are needed in order to calculate progress and set standards.

Two years will not be available for advisory group review until the 2010 development cycle.

Based on these timelines, the first use of this ELL Measure in state accountability will be 2011.

Alternative Education Accountability (AEA) Decisions for 2008 and Beyond

AEA Indicator Standards

AEA Indicator 2008 2009 2010

TAKS Progress 45% 50% 50%

Annual Dropout Rate 10.0% 10.0% TBD

Completion Rate II 70.0% 70.0% TBD

AEA Standards for 2008 and Beyond

Numbers in bold indicate a change from the prior year.

TAKS Progress Indicator

Beginning in 2008, grade 8 science results are included.

Beginning in 2008, TAKS (Accommodated) results are phased in as shown on slide 22.

For 2008 accountability, prior-year (2007) assessment results will be recalculated to include both grade 8 science and TAKS (Accommodated) results. This will make 2007 and 2008 performance comparable and enable the use of Required Improvement in 2008.

Annual Dropout Rate(Grades 7-12) Indicator

Beginning in 2008, Minimum Size Requirements increase to 10 dropouts.

Beginning in 2008, only the All Students group is evaluated. Student groups are not evaluated separately.

Beginning in 2008, AECs that do not meet the Annual Dropout Rate standard or demonstrate Required Improvement are evaluated for Annual Dropout Rate using data of at-risk students in the district.

Annual Dropout Rate Required Improvement is calculated in 2008.

Annual Dropout RateSchool Leaver Provision

For 2008 and 2009, the School Leaver Provision will apply only to the AEA Annual Dropout Rate indicator. If the Annual Dropout Rate is the only indicator causing an AEA: Academically Unacceptable rating, then the AEC or charter is assigned the AEA: Academically Acceptable label.

Completion Rate II(Grades 9-12) Indicator

Beginning in 2008, Minimum Size Requirements increase to 10 dropouts.

Beginning in 2008, only the All Students group is evaluated. Student groups are not evaluated separately.

AEA Gold Performance Acknowledgments (AEA GPA)

Beginning in 2008, a series of AEA GPA indicators will be awarded to AEA campuses and charters.

Only the All Students group will be evaluated.

The three acknowledgment categories used under the current GPA system will be applied to AEA GPA: Acknowledged, Does Not Qualify, and Not Applicable.

For each campus and charter rated AEA: Academically Acceptable, one of the acknowledgment categories will be reported for each AEA GPA indicator in late October following resolution of all appeals when the final ratings are released.

AEA GPA (continued)

AEA GPA Indicators Standard

1 Advanced Course/Dual Enrollment Completion 25%

2Advanced Placement/International Baccalaureate (AP/IB) Results

>= 15%

and

>= 50%

3Attendance Rate (all AEA campuses and charters)

95%

4-8

Commended Performance:

Reading/ELA

Mathematics

Writing

Science

Social Studies

25%

AEA GPA (continued)

AEA GPA Indicators Standard

9Recommended High School Program/ Distinguished Achievement Program (RHSP/DAP)

80%

10SAT/ACT Results

(College Admissions Tests)

>= 70% of graduates

and

>= 40% at or above

criterion

11Texas Success Initiative: Higher Education Readiness Component - ELA

55%

12Texas Success Initiative: Higher Education Readiness Component - Mathematics

55%

2008 At-Risk Registration Criterion and Charters Evaluated under AEA Procedures

2008 At-Risk Registration Criterion

Each registered AEC must have at least 75% at-risk student enrollment verified through 2007-08 PEIMS fall enrollment data in order to be evaluated under 2008 AEA procedures and receive an AEA rating on August 1, 2008. 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 2008, then it remains under AEA if the AEC had at least 75% at-risk enrollment 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.

2008 At-Risk Registration Criterion (continued)

In April, letters will be mailed to the AECs that do not meet the 2008 at-risk registration criterion informing them that AEA registration is rescinded and that the AEC will be evaluated under 2008 standard accountability procedures.

The Final 2008 Registered AEC list will be posted on the AEA website in May. This list will contain the AECs that will receive a 2008 AEA rating.

Charters Evaluated under AEA Procedures

A list of the charter operators that will be rated under 2008 AEA procedures will be posted on the AEA website in May.

Charters that operate only standard campuses are evaluated automatically under standard accountability procedures.

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

Charters evaluated under AEA Procedures (continued)

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.

Charters submit preference via TEASE Accountability website.

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.

Questions? Comments?

Dawn Schuenemann

[email protected]

2008 AYP Update: Federal Accountability

Performance Reporting DivisionTexas Education Agency

TETN Accountability SessionApril 24, 2008

2008 AYP Update

Today’s Agenda

Update on 2008 Texas AYP Workbook 2008 AYP Timeline 2008 AYP Federal Cap Decision

How the Cap Works

Important documents (found at www.tea.state.tx.us/ayp) February 15, 2008: Requested Amendments to the Texas

Consolidated State Application Accountability Workbook March 25, 2008: Final version of research-based options for

Development of the Federal Cap April 15, 2008: Final Decision on the 2008 Federal Cap

Update on 2008 Texas AYP Workbook

2008 Texas AYP Workbook Amendments

Amendments included:

Expiration of the November 30, 2005, US Department of Education Agreement on Inclusion of Certain Students with Disabilities in the Texas AYP calculation. The Texas AYP Workbook includes updates removing the provisions of that agreement.

Administration of new alternate assessments in spring 2008 for (1) students with the most significant cognitive disabilities (TAKS-Alternate), and (2) students assessed on alternate assessments based on modified academic achievement standards (TAKS-Modified).

2008 Texas AYP Workbook Amendments (continued)

Amendments, continued:

Request the use of TAKS-Modified assessment test results in AYP calculations, which requires a request for a modified timeline for 2008 AYP results.

Request for resubmission of an amendment to the AYP Performance Safe Harbor calculation as a result of the Title I monitoring visit conducted in Texas on January 17-18, 2008.

The 2008 amendment requests are currently pending USDE approval, however, tentative approval has been received for the 2008 modified AYP timeline. Typically by May of each year the USDE approves the Texas AYP Workbook and detail is provided in the AYP Guide.

Resubmission of 2006 amendment: Performance Safe Harbor

Current AYP Performance Safe Harbor calculation for Reading/ELA and Mathematics:

either (1) Standard Met, or

(2) Performance Safe Harbor

Current Performance Safe Harbor calculation: Performance Improvement: 10% decrease in percent

not passing, and Improvement on the Other Indicator.

Resubmission of 2006 amendment: Performance Safe Harbor (continued)

Proposed Amendment: If a district, charter, or campus meets the absolute standard on the other measure for the specific student groups that meet minimum size criteria (in addition to all students), they do not have to show improvement on the other measure as a condition of safe harbor.

Proposed AYP Performance Safe Harbor calculation: Performance Improvement: 10% decrease in percent

not passing, and Other Measure requirement:

Meet the standard on the Other Indicator or Improvement on Other Indicator

2008 AYP Timeline

2008 AYP Timeline

Proposed 2008 AYP Timeline

Spring TAKS-M test administrations

Summer TAKS-M Standard Setting Process

August Texas school districts retain all SIP evaluations from the prior year (based on 2007 AYP results) and continue implementation of SIP requirements

2008 AYP Timeline (continued)

Proposed 2008 AYP Timeline (continued)

By late September

School districts receive TAKS-M

student results

October 8th Public release of Preliminary 2008 AYP/SIP with updated SIP statuses for all districts and campuses.

Campuses must continue to meet the requirements of the Title I School Improvement Program and no identified 2007-08 SIP campus will stop interventions (exit SIP) during school year 2008-09.

2008 AYP Timeline (continued)

Proposed 2008 AYP Timeline (continued)

October 17th AYP Appeal Deadline

No later than October 20th

Parental Notification by all Texas Districts of School Improvement Requirements

November – December

Process AYP Appeals

Mid-December Issue Final AYP and SIP Results

2008 AYP Federal Cap Decision

Final Decision on the 2008 Federal Cap

1% cap on TAKS-Alternate Assessment Results

Option 1. By Random AssignmentStudents are randomly selected up to the federal cap limit.

2% cap on TAKS-Modified Assessment Results

Option 6. Combination MethodTEA 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.

Student results are selected in order to maximize the number of campuses that Meet AYP beginning with the campuses assigned the highest priority.

Final Decision on the 2008 Federal Cap (continued)

Each of these options presented were included in a paper funded by the federal Office of Special Education Programs that describes methods used by states (Appendix A of the Federal Cap Decision Document).

The options document was available for educator input from February 13 through March 21, 2008. Comments and suggestions received from educators were included in the review of the proposed options for processing the federal cap for 2008 AYP.


Option 6 was chosen because it combines the features of Option 3 (prioritizing by Grade Level) and Option 4 (prioritizing by Proportion of Students with Disabilities) with features of Option 5 (school district input and optimizing the number of students in the federal cap).

Option 6 is more closely aligned with the overall goal to encourage districts and campuses to maximize the number of students with disabilities achieving grade-level proficiency.

The 2008 federal cap process did not require USDE approval. The 2008 AYP Guide will provide detailed information on the options selected for the 1% and 2% federal cap processes.


Advantages of Option 6 default sort by campus type and proportion of students with disabilities enrolled:

provides a strong incentive for instruction in elementary schools to focus on maintaining grade-level student proficiency and testing on TAKS or TAKS (Accommodated)

least adversely affects high schools, which are overrepresented among campuses not meeting AYP

rewards campuses that have successfully accelerated instruction for students in the highest grade levels in order to attain enrolled grade level proficiency

potentially rewards campuses that have historically and appropriately served a high number of students with disabilities.


Advantages of Option 6 provision to allow districts to modify the campus ranking:

Since the 2% cap is a limit on district results, it is appropriate to provide district input and thereby support local policy decisions on the selection of appropriate tests for students with disabilities.

Advantages of Option 6 provision for the strategic selection of students: The selection of students only to the extent needed for each

campus to meet AYP minimizes number of campuses that miss AYP solely due to the federal 2% cap. An approach that minimizes negative consequences may be appropriate for new policy that represents a very high standard on a new assessment.


Disadvantages of Option 6 default sort by campus type and proportion of students with disabilities enrolled:

Potentially rewards campuses that over identify students with disabilities taking alternate assessments.

Under the default sort, AYP results for elementary schools may be adversely affected.


Disadvantages of Option 6 provision to allow districts to modify the campus ranking:

Districts have discretion to modify the campus sorting priority and could do so in ways that:

may be seen as rewarding campuses that are in SIP because of performance problems

do not promote the application of challenging educational standards or reward appropriate testing.

Districts may be reluctant to modify rankings because of the potential for complaints from schools that are moved down in the ranking.

May lead to unintended consequences.


Disadvantages of Option 6 provision for the strategic selection of students:

Difficult to replicate by school districts.

Prioritizing campus AYP performance could result in the district missing AYP due to the federal cap.

Campuses that either Meet AYP or continue to Miss AYP even with all proficient students included are given the lowest priority within the federal cap.

Students included in the 2% cap may come only from student groups that do not meet the AYP standards.

May lead to unintended consequences.

How the Federal Cap Works


In general, the federal cap process will be applied to Texas schools based on the following general concepts:

The options selected for the 2008 Federal Cap process will be used to determine the 2008 AYP results.

The school district’s AYP participation count for Reading/English Language Arts and Mathematics will continue to be used to calculate the federal caps.

The following example will explain the federal cap process to be used for the 2008 AYP calculations for one school district.


Assume there are 2,000 students enrolled in a school district. Enrollment information is found on the state AEIS report.

Section II T E X A S E D U C A T I O N A G E N C Y

Academic Excellence Indicator System 2007-08 District Profile

District Name: SOMEWHERE ISD County Name: SOMECOUNTY District #: 999999 |-------District------| STUDENT INFORMATION Count Percent 2,000 100.0% PROGRAM INFORMATION Student Enrollment by Program: Bilingual/ESL Education Career & Technology Education Gifted & Talented Education Special Education 290 14.5%

How the Federal Cap Works (continued)

Enrollment by grade level is available on AEIS. Approximately 50% of district enrollment are in Grades 3 – 8 & 10.

Academic Excellence Indicator System

2006-07 District Profile

District Name: SOMEWHERE ISD Students By Grade: Count Percent Early Childhood 7 0.4% Pre-Kindergarten 124 6.2% Kindergarten 165 8.2% Grade 1 156 7.8% Grade 2 151 7.6% Grade 3 145 7.3% Grade 4 146 7.3% Grade 5 141 7.1% Grade 6 139 7.0% Grade 7 151 7.6% Grade 8 156 7.8% Grade 9 148 7.4% Grade 10 153 7.7% Grade 11 117 5.9% Grade 12 99 5.0%


Of the total 2,000 students enrolled in a school district, approximately 1,030 will be enrolled in grades evaluated for AYP, Grades 3 – 8 and 10.

The school district tests all enrolled students in various subjects in Spring of each year. AYP data tables report the number of students enrolled on the day of testing for the Reading and Mathematics test subjects .


Students participating in Reading and Mathematics tests will be reported on AYP.

Page 2 of 2 T E X A S E D U C A T I O N A G E N C Y

Adequate Yearly Progress District Data Table AYP Results

District Name: SOMEWHERE ISD All Students Participation: Reading/ELA 2007-08 Assessments Number Participating Total Students 1,000 Participation Rate 2006-07 Assessments Number Participating Total Students Participation Rate Average Two-Year Participation Rate Participation: Mathematics 2007-08 Assessments Number Participating Total Students 1,030


The AYP Source Data Table will continue to be provided to school districts to show AYP performance results without the application of the federal 1% and 2% caps.

The AYP full academic year (accountability subset) definition requires that AYP Performance results include students enrolled in Fall 2007 and tested in Spring 2008 in the same school district. For this reason, fewer than 1,000 students are included in the AYP performance results.


AYP Source Data Table: AYP Performance results are reported without the application of the federal caps for Reading and Mathematics.


Adequate Yearly Progress District Data Table 2008 AYP Source Data Table

(Does not apply the federal caps) District Name: SOMEWHERE ISD All Econ. Special Students Disadv. Education Performance: Reading/ELA 2007-08 Assessments Met Standard 764 225 152 Number Tested 940 260 170 % Met Standard 81% 87% 89% 2006-07 Assessments Met Standard 697 214 149 Number Tested 955 261 177 % Met Standard 73% 81% 84% Change 2007 to 2008 8 6 5 Performance: Mathematics 2007-08 Assessments Met Standard 744 214 155 Number Tested 948 261 168 % Met Standard 78% 82% 92%


The AYP Federal Caps on Proficient results are:

District Participation Denominator x .01 = TAKS-Alt Limit

District Participation Denominator x .02 = TAKS-M Limit,

For the Reading Performance results,

School District SOMEWHERE ISD will have the following caps:

1% Federal Cap Limit = 1,000 x .01 = 10.0 = 10

2% Federal Cap Limit = 1,000 x .02 = 20.0 = 20

The overall 3% cap limit for Reading is the 1% limit plus the 2% limit, or 10 + 20 = 30.


For the Mathematics Performance results,

School District SOMEWHERE ISD will have the following caps:

1% Federal Cap Limit = 1,030 x .01 = 10.3

2% Federal Cap Limit = 1,030 x .02 = 20.3

Federal Cap Rounding Rules

The federal cap limit is rounded up to the next whole number for any decimal value.

1% Federal Cap Limit = 11


The overall 3% cap limit = 11 + 21 = 32.


Assume the following test takers for the district:

Reading Assessments

Grades 3 – 8 & 10District Name: SOMEWHERE ISD

Regular Special Education Students

District Summary

All TAKS

TAKS TAKS-Accom

TAKS-M

TAKS-Alt

Tests Taken 1,000 768 69 38 73 52

Percent of Total 77% 7% 4% 7% 5%

Campus List

001 The High School 100 50 22 13 10 5

041 Our Middle School 500 411 19 10 30 30

103 My Elementary 200 140 13 7 25 2

105 North Elementary 200 167 15 8 8 15

District Name: SOMEWHERE ISD TAKS-

M TAKS-

Alt District Summary Number Proficient 24 14 Tests Taken 73 52

Campus List

001 The High School Number Proficient 5 4 Tests Taken 10 5

041 Our Middle School Number Proficient 2 3

Tests Taken 30 30 103 My Elementary Number Proficient 15 2 Tests Taken 25 2 105 North Elementary Number Proficient 2 5

Tests Taken 8 15


The TAKS-M and TAKS-Alt results exceed the federal limit.

Reading Performance:




M TAKS-


After Reclassification to Non-proficient:


For proficient results to remain within the federal cap limits, 4 students taking TAKS-M and 4 students taking TAKS-Alt must be reclassified to non-proficient for AYP purposes only.

Actual Assessment Results


M TAKS-



How do we select proficient results from TAKS-Alt?


1% cap on TAKS-Alternate Assessment Results

Option 1. By Random AssignmentStudents are randomly selected up to the federal cap limit.

Original TAKS-Alt Assessment Results

District Name: SOMEWHERE ISD TAKS-Alt District Summary Number Proficient 14 Tests Taken 52 Proficient Results

Student Campus Met Standard 1 Student A 105 Y

2 Student B 001 Y

3 Student C 105 Y

4 Student D 041 Y

5 Student E 001 Y

6 Student F 105 Y

7 Student G 001 Y

8 Student H 041 Y

9 Student I 041 Y

10 Student J 105 Y

11 Student K 103 Y

12 Student L 001 Y

13 Student M 103 Y

14 Student N 105 Y


1% Cap: Select 10 students randomly from the available pool of TAKS-Alt proficient results:


M TAKS-



1% Cap: Select 10 students randomly from TAKS-Alt proficient results, and use for campus, district, and state AYP calculations only.

AYP Reading Results for TAKS-Alt

After Reclassified to non-proficient:


How do we select proficient results from TAKS-M?


2% cap on TAKS-Modified Assessment Results

Option 6. Combination MethodTEA 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.

Student results are selected in order to maximize the number of campuses that Meet AYP beginning with the campuses assigned the highest priority.

How the Federal Cap Works (continued)2% Cap: TEA prioritizes campuses, School districts have the opportunity to review and/or modify.

Late May/Early June

The Texas Education Agency Security Environment (TEASE) Accountability Website will be used to provide the prioritized list of campuses for each school district.

By Early July

Districts may modify the sorting order and change the ranking of the campuses using any method they choose, and must either provide a final campus ranking to TEA or allow the default ranking to be used.

How the Federal Cap Works (continued)2% Cap: TEA prioritizes campuses.

TEA provides a list of campus rankings that districts may accept as the default campus ranking.

Default Campus Ranking lists are based on Fall 2007 PEIMS information for each campus (reported in December 2008).The lists are sorted by:

1st Sort: School Type (Secondary, Both, Middle, Elem.)

2nd Sort: Highest Grade Served on the Campus

3rd Sort: Percent of Students served by Special Education of Total Enrolled on the campus

These values are found on the campus AEIS reports.

T E X A S E D U C A T I O N A G E N C Y

Academic Excellence Indicator System 2007-08 Campus Profile

Section II – Page 4 District Name: SOMEWHERE ISD Total Students: 517 Campus Name: The High School Grade Span: 09 – 12 Campus #: 000000001 School Type: Secondary ACTUAL OPERATING EXPENDITURE INFORMATION PROGRAM INFORMATION |-------Campus------| Count Percent Student Enrollment by Program: Bilingual/ESL Education Career & Technology Education Gifted & Talented Education Special Education 26 5.0%


2% Cap: TEA provides a list of campus rankings based on 2007 Fall PEIMS data, reported on 2008 AEIS Reports.

1st Sort Order 2nd Sort Order

3rd Sort Order


2% Cap: TEA provides a list of campus rankings to school districts via TEASE.

SAMPLE

2008 FEDERAL CAP CAMPUS PRIORITY LIST SCHOOL DISTRICT: Somewhere ISD

Ranking New

Ranking Campus Number

Campus Name

Campus Type

Highest Grade

Enrolled 2007-08

Campus Pct

Special Education Students Enrolled 2007-08

1 001 The High School

Secondary 12 5.0

2 041 Our Middle

School Middle 08 20.0

3 103 My

Elementary Elementary 05 10.0

4 105 North



2% Cap: School districts have the opportunity to review and/or modify and submit their ranking to TEA.

SAMPLE

2008 FEDERAL CAP CAMPUS PRIORITY LIST SCHOOL DISTRICT: Somewhere ISD

RESORTED

New Ranking

Old Ranking

Campus Number

Campus Name

Campus Type

Highest Grade

Enrolled 2007-08

Campus Pct

Special Education Students Enrolled 2007-08

1 1 001 The High School

Secondary 12 5.0

2 2 041 Our Middle

School Middle 08 20.0

3 4 105 North


4 3 103 My



2% Cap: Student results are selected in order to maximize the number of campuses that Meet AYP beginning with the campuses assigned the highest priority.

The steps to select proficient results from the pool of TAKS-M proficient Reading tests include:

1. Begin with the campus ranked with the highest priority.

2. Determine the number and type of students needed to Meet AYP in Reading.

3. Select proficient results for only the number needed to Meet AYP in Reading for AYP Data Table results.

4. Continue with the campus ranked 2nd in priority.

Final Step 5: After all campuses are completed, select remaining students to help the district Meet AYP up to the federal cap.


2% Cap, Selection Step 1: Begin with the campus ranked with the highest priority, in this example, The High School.



THE HIGH SCHOOL (000000001) SOMEWHERE ISD All Special Students Education Performance: Reading/ELA 2007-08 Assessments Met Standard 59 54 Number Tested 105 92 % Met Standard 56% 59% 2006-07 Assessments Met Standard 68 38 Number Tested 117 68 % Met Standard 58% 56% Change 2007 to 2008 -2 3 Improvement Required 4 4

Number of Students Needed for Reading: 1 Special Education student 4 Total students

of 2 T E X A S E D U C A T I O N A G E N C Y


THE HIGH SCHOOL (000000001) SOMEWHERE ISD All Econ. Special Students Disadv. Education Performance: Reading/ELA 2007-08 Assessments Met Standard 59 58 54 Number Tested 105 103 92 % Met Standard 56% 56% 59% 2006-07 Assessments Met Standard 68 53 38 Number Tested 117 102 68 % Met Standard 58% 52% 56% Change 2007 to 2008 -2 4 3 Improvement Required 4 5 4

Number of Students Needed for Reading: 4 Economically Disadvantaged students 1 Special Education student 4 Total students


2% Cap, Selection Step 2: Determine the number and type of students needed to Meet AYP.



THE HIGH SCHOOL (000000001) SOMEWHERE ISD All Econ. Special Students Disadv. Education Performance: Reading/ELA 2007-08 Assessments Met Standard 59 58 54 Number Tested 105 103 92 % Met Standard 56% 56% 59% 2006-07 Assessments Met Standard 68 53 38 Number Tested 117 102 68 % Met Standard 58% 52% 56% Change 2007 to 2008 -2 4 3 Improvement Required 4 5 4



2% Cap, Selection Step 2: Determine the number and type of students needed to Meet AYP for all Student Groups.

Original TAKS-M Assessment Results

District Name: SOMEWHERE ISD TAKS-M

District Summary Proficient 24

Tests Taken 73

Proficient Results Other Criteria

Student Campus Met

Standard Economically

Disadvantaged Ethnicity 1 Student A 001 Y Yes Asian

2 Student B 001 Y Yes African American

3 Student C 001 Y Yes White

4 Student D 001 Y Yes American Indian

5 Student E 001 Y No Hispanic

6 Student F 041 Y . . 7 Student G 041 Y . . 8 Student H 105 Y . . 9 Student I 105 Y

10 Student J 103 Y . . . . . . . . . 24 Student X 103 Y


2% Cap, Selection Step 3: Select only students needed to Meet AYP in Reading from the available pool of TAKS-M proficient results:

and student criteria that help Meet AYP

Sorted by Priority Campus




Tests Taken 73


Student Campus Met


Disadvantaged Ethnicity 1 Student A 001 Y Yes Asian 2 Student B 001 Y Yes African American





10 Student J 103 Y . .

.


2% Cap, Selection Step 3: Select only students needed to Meet AYP in Reading:

Only 4 students are selected for Campus 001, …

… and selected students contribute to other AYP student

groups.




Tests Taken 73


Student Campus Met








.



Some students will not be selected and may be listed as “Exceeders”

on AYP Student Lists


Adequate Yearly Progress District Data Table AYP Results (After 2% Cap Selection Process)

THE HIGH SCHOOL (000000001) SOMEWHERE ISD All Econ. Special Students Disadv. Education Performance: Reading/ELA 2007-08 Assessments Met Standard 63 62 58 Number Tested 105 103 92 % Met Standard 60% 60% 63%

Meets AYP in Reading


2% Cap, Selection Step 3: Select only students needed to Meet AYP in Reading, and update AYP Data Table results.


2% Cap, Proceed with the next campus, Selection Step 1: The campus ranked 2nd in priority in this example is Our Middle School.



OUR MIDDLE SCHOOL (000000041) SOMEWHERE ISD All Econ. Special Students Disadv. Education Performance: Reading/ELA 2007-08 Assessments Met Standard 383 106 71 Number Tested 438 138 89 % Met Standard 87% 77% 80%




OUR MIDDLE SCHOOL (000000041) SOMEWHERE ISD All Econ. Special Students Disadv. Education Performance: Reading/ELA 2007-08 Assessments Met Standard 383 106 71 Number Tested 438 138 89 % Met Standard 87% 77% 80%



2% Cap, Selection Step 2: Determine the number of students needed to Meet AYP in Reading.Our Middle School, already Meets AYP in Reading.




Tests Taken 73


Student Campus Met








.


2% Cap, Selection Step 3: Select only students needed to Meet AYP, however, no students are needed from Our Middle School.

No students selected from this campus, and students may be listed as “Exceeders” on AYP Student Lists


2% Cap, Proceed with the next campus, Selection Step 1: The campus ranked 3rd in priority in this example is North Elementary.



NORTH ELEMENTARY (000000105) SOMEWHERE ISD All Econ. Special Students Disadv. Education Performance: Reading/ELA 2007-08 Assessments Met Standard 95 61 28 Number Tested 175 119 42 % Met Standard 54% 51% 67% 2006-07 Assessments Met Standard 70 13 32 Number Tested 165 89 51 % Met Standard 42% 15% 63% Change 2007 to 2008 12 36 4 Improvement Required 6 9




NORTH ELEMENTARY (000000105) SOMEWHERE ISD All Econ. Special Students Disadv. Education Performance: Reading/ELA 2007-08 Assessments Met Standard 95 61 28 Number Tested 175 119 42 % Met Standard 54% 51% 67% 2006-07 Assessments Met Standard 70 13 32 Number Tested 165 89 51 % Met Standard 42% 15% 63% Change 2007 to 2008 12 36 4 Improvement Required 6 9

Number of Students Needed for Reading: 10 Economically Disadvantaged students 10 Total students


2% Cap, Selection Step 2: Determine the number and type of students needed to Meet AYP in Reading for North Elementary.

This campus needs 10 students in order to Meet

AYP in Reading…




Tests Taken 73


Student Campus Met










Only 2 students are included in the TAKS-M pool of proficient results…

127




Tests Taken 73


Student Campus Met










2% Cap, Selection Step 3: There are not enough students to Meet AYP in Reading; no students are selected from North Elementary.

… therefore, no students selected from this campus, and students may be listed as

“Exceeders” on AYP Student Lists


2% Cap, Last Campus, Selection Step 1, 2 & 3: Campus ranked 4th in priority, Meets AYP and no students are needed.



MY ELEMENTARY (000000103) SOMEWHERE ISD All Econ. Special Students Disadv. Education Performance: Reading/ELA 2007-08 Assessments Met Standard 160 141 34 Number Tested 180 161 42 % Met Standard 89% 89% 81%





Tests Taken 73


Student Campus Met










2% Cap, Last Campus, Selection Step 1, 2 & 3: No students selected.

No students selected from the last Campus listed in the Ranking

How the Federal Cap Works (continued)2% Cap, Final Step 5:

After all campuses are completed, select remaining students to help the district Meet AYP up to the federal cap.

Additional processing is conducted to ensure that:

As many students available in the pool of TAKS-M results are selected in up to the federal cap limit.

The number and type of students needed for the school district to Meet AYP in Reading are considered.

Additional students selected will be counted proficient in campus, district, and state AYP Data Table results.




Tests Taken 73


Student Campus Met










2% Cap, Final Step 5: After all campuses are completed, select remaining students to help the district Meet AYP up to the federal cap.


2% Cap, Final Step 5: Determine the number and type of students needed for the school district to Meet AYP in Reading.



District Name: SOMEWHERE ISD All Econ. Special Students Disadv. Education Performance: Reading/ELA 2007-08 Assessments Met Standard 740 221 128 Number Tested 940 260 170 % Met Standard 79% 85% 75%


No students are needed.




Tests Taken 73


Student Campus Met










2% Cap, Final Step 5: Remaining students are selected randomly from the unselected students.

Random selection of 16 more students from campuses that Meet AYP or will never Meet

AYP.


2% Cap, Final Step 5: A final summary of the proficient student results selected:

District Name: SOMEWHERE ISD

Summary of TAKS-M Students Selected from each Campus

001 The High School 4

041 Our Middle School 0

103 My Elementary 0

Students selected randomly 16


Alternate Assessments within the federal cap limit


M TAKS-

Alt District Summary Number Proficient 20 10 Tests Taken 73 52 Percent Passing 27% 19%


2% Cap Final results.After the selection all student results in the 2% cap for TAKS-M (20 students), the AYP campus, district, and state Data Tables are calculated using the reclassified results.

AYP Reading Results for TAKS-M

After Reclassified to Non-proficient:


Additional considerations related to the 1% and 2% Federal Caps on 2008 AYP

Appeals to the campus ranking or 2008 federal cap process will not be considered.

Districts cannot exceed the 1% cap for TAKS-Alt. However, if they do not fully use the 1% cap, then districts can exceed the 2% cap (up to 3%).

School districts may not Meet AYP after the federal cap process since priority is given to the campuses meeting AYP.


Additional considerations related to the 1% and 2% Federal Caps on 2008 AYP

(continued)

Campuses given a higher priority for the selection of students may require all available proficient student results.


Exceptions to the 1% Federal Cap on TAKS-Altfor 2008 AYP

Exceptions to the 1% cap on TAKS-Alt proficient results will be automatically applied for school districts registered with the TEA Special Education Residential Facilities Tracking System (RF Tracker).

Exceptions to the 1% cap for school districts with Regional Day School Programs for the Deaf will be automatically applied.

Exceptions to the 1% cap for Other Circumstances will continue to be considered during the 2008 AYP Appeal period.

Accountability Resources

For more information on the 1% and 2% federal cap, see the 2008 AYP Guide, available in June, 2008 and accessible at www.tea.state.tx.us/ayp.

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

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

Questions? Comments?

Dawn Schuenemann

[email protected]

SHARS Update

Kelly Ewing

Random Moment Time Study

Quarterly list of providers Required every quarter to stay in SHARS

program Practitioners need to be listed to bill SHARS

services Penalties for missing deadline

Terminate TPI Return all reimbursement received

Certification of Funds

100% of Billed amounts from State/Local Quarterly Certification

Jan-Mar, Apr-Jun, Jul-Sep, Oct-Dec Notarized and signed by Business/Finance

Officer Penalties for missing reports

Vendor Hold

Annual Cost Report

New Requirement Annual Report

First Report for dates of service 9/1/2007-8/31/2006

First report due April 1, 2008 Special Ed Non-Federal purchases and

salaries

Parental Consent

DOE requirement, started October 2006 Good faith effort to obtain

Enforced starting 2007-08 school year Signed consent required

Most IEP software has consent signature line built in

Annual renewal of consent

National Provider Identifier (NPI)

HIPAA requirement Deadline: May 23, 2008 (National)

Must have number Must have attested to PTI on TMHP website Cannot bill claims starting May 24, 2008

without NPI

AUDITS

TEA for HHSC Selecting 60 districts/Co-ops per year Selecting up to 30 students Auditing all services for 1 month of previous school

year PERM (Payment Error Rate Measurement)

Federal audit for 17 states in 2008 Auditing all Medicaid services Auditing claim information for:

One service, one date, one student If notified, 15 days to respond

Day School for the Deaf Updates

Robert Garcia

Varia

Dr. Nori C. Mora

e-Grants Overview Training

Dr. Nori C. Mora

Conclusion

HAVE

A

WONDERFUL

SUMMER!

special education directors meeting

Documents

spp data submissions

transition updates spp

online data entry

finished data collection

details noncompliance

data funding request

percent of children

intervention levels