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.
TAKS Indicator (continued)
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.
TAKS Indicator (continued)
Exceptions Provision (continued)
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.
TAKS Indicator (continued)
Exceptions Provision (continued)
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
TAKS Indicator (continued)
Exceptions Provision (continued)
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.
TAKS Indicator (continued)
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
TAKS Indicator (continued)
Exceptions Provision (continued)
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%.
TAKS Indicator (continued)
Exceptions Provision (continued)
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
School Leaver Provision
The School Leaver Provision will not be applied in 2008 and beyond.
Underreported Students Data Quality Indicator
Standards
Accountability Year
Underreported students data
year
Underreported students cannot exceed
Number Percent
2008 2006-07 200 5.0
School Leaver Provision
The School Leaver Provision will not be applied in 2008 and beyond.
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 2008 and Beyond
*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
Standards 2008 and Beyond
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.
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.
Final Decision on the 2008 Federal Cap (continued)
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.
Final Decision on the 2008 Federal Cap (continued)
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.
Final Decision on the 2008 Federal Cap (continued)
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.
Final Decision on the 2008 Federal Cap (continued)
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.
Final Decision on the 2008 Federal Cap (continued)
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.
Final Decision on the 2008 Federal Cap (continued)
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
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.
How the Federal Cap Works
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%
How the Federal Cap Works (continued)
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 .
How the Federal Cap Works (continued)
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
How the Federal Cap Works (continued)
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.
How the Federal Cap Works (continued)
AYP Source Data Table: AYP Performance results are reported without the application of the federal caps for Reading and Mathematics.
Page 1 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 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%
How the Federal Cap Works (continued)
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.
How the Federal Cap Works (continued)
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
2% Federal Cap Limit = 21
The overall 3% cap limit = 11 + 21 = 32.
How the Federal Cap Works (continued)
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
How the Federal Cap Works (continued)
The TAKS-M and TAKS-Alt results exceed the federal limit.
Reading Performance:
1% Federal Cap Limit = 10
2% Federal Cap Limit = 20
District Name: SOMEWHERE ISD TAKS-
M TAKS-
Alt District Summary Number Proficient 20 10 Tests Taken 73 52
After Reclassification to Non-proficient:
How the Federal Cap Works (continued)
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
District Name: SOMEWHERE ISD TAKS-
M TAKS-
Alt District Summary Number Proficient 24 14 Tests Taken 73 52
How the Federal Cap Works (continued)
How do we select proficient results from TAKS-Alt?
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.
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
How the Federal Cap Works (continued)
1% Cap: Select 10 students randomly from the available pool of TAKS-Alt proficient results:
District Name: SOMEWHERE ISD TAKS-
M TAKS-
Alt District Summary Number Proficient 20 10 Tests Taken 73 52
How the Federal Cap Works (continued)
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 the Federal Cap Works (continued)
How do we select proficient results from TAKS-M?
Final Decision on the 2008 Federal Cap
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%
How the Federal Cap Works (continued)
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
How the Federal Cap Works (continued)
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
Elementary Elementary 04 25.0
How the Federal Cap Works (continued)
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
Elementary Elementary 04 25.0
4 3 103 My
Elementary Elementary 05 10.0
How the Federal Cap Works (continued)
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.
How the Federal Cap Works (continued)
2% Cap, Selection Step 1: Begin with the campus ranked with the highest priority, in this example, The High School.
Page 1 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
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
Page 1 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
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
How the Federal Cap Works (continued)
2% Cap, Selection Step 2: Determine the number and type of students needed to Meet AYP.
Page 1 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
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
How the Federal Cap Works (continued)
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
How the Federal Cap Works (continued)
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
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 . .
.
How the Federal Cap Works (continued)
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.
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 . .
.
How the Federal Cap Works (continued)
2% Cap, Selection Step 3: Select only students needed to Meet AYP in Reading:
Some students will not be selected and may be listed as “Exceeders”
on AYP Student Lists
Page 1 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 (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
How the Federal Cap Works (continued)
2% Cap, Selection Step 3: Select only students needed to Meet AYP in Reading, and update AYP Data Table results.
How the Federal Cap Works (continued)
2% Cap, Proceed with the next campus, Selection Step 1: The campus ranked 2nd in priority in this example is Our Middle School.
Page 1 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
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%
Meets AYP in Reading
Page 1 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
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%
Meets AYP in Reading
How the Federal Cap Works (continued)
2% Cap, Selection Step 2: Determine the number of students needed to Meet AYP in Reading.Our Middle School, already Meets AYP in Reading.
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 . .
.
How the Federal Cap Works (continued)
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
How the Federal Cap Works (continued)
2% Cap, Proceed with the next campus, Selection Step 1: The campus ranked 3rd in priority in this example is North Elementary.
Page 1 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
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 1 Special Education student 10 Total students
Page 1 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
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
How the Federal Cap Works (continued)
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…
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
How the Federal Cap Works (continued)
2% Cap, Selection Step 3: Select only students needed to Meet AYP in Reading:
Only 2 students are included in the TAKS-M pool of proficient results…
127
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
How the Federal Cap Works (continued)
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
How the Federal Cap Works (continued)
2% Cap, Last Campus, Selection Step 1, 2 & 3: Campus ranked 4th in priority, Meets AYP and no students are needed.
Page 1 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
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%
Meets AYP in Reading
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
How the Federal Cap Works (continued)
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.
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
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.
How the Federal Cap Works (continued)
2% Cap, Final Step 5: Determine the number and type of students needed for the school district to Meet AYP in Reading.
Page 1 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 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%
Meets AYP in Reading
No students are needed.
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
How the Federal Cap Works (continued)
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.
How the Federal Cap Works (continued)
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
2% Federal Cap Limit = 20
Alternate Assessments within the federal cap limit
District Name: SOMEWHERE ISD TAKS-
M TAKS-
Alt District Summary Number Proficient 20 10 Tests Taken 73 52 Percent Passing 27% 19%
How the Federal Cap Works (continued)
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:
How the Federal Cap Works (continued)
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.
How the Federal Cap Works (continued)
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.
How the Federal Cap Works
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.
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!