Public Education Accountability Overview

1
Public EducationAccountability Overview

• Presented to the Lancaster I.S.D.
• Board of Trustees
• October 25, 2007

2
(No Transcript)
3
(No Transcript)
4
Academic ExcellenceIndicator System

• Authorized by Texas Legislature in 1984 (HB 72)
• Performance Indicators
• Results of Texas Assessment of Knowledge and
  Skills (TAKS) by grade, by subject, and by all
  grades tested
• Results of State-Developed Alternative Assessment
  II (SDAA II)
• Progress of Prior Year TAKS Failers
• Results of Student Success Initiative
• Results of Texas Assessment of Knowledge and
  Skills-Inclusive (TAKS-I) by subject
• Progress of English Language Learners (ELL)
• Performance-Based Monitoring (PBM) Special
  Education Monitoring Results Status
• Attendance Rates
• Annual Dropout Rates (grades 7-8 and grades
  7-12)
• Completion Rates (4-year longitudinal)
• Completion of Advanced / Dual Enrollment Courses
  
• Completion of the Recommended High School Program
  or Distinguished Achievement Program
• Participation and Performance on Advanced
  Placement (AP) and International Baccalaureate
  (IB) Examinations
• Texas Success Initiative (TSI) Higher Education
  Readiness Component and
• Participation and Performance on the College
  Admissions Tests (SAT I and ACT)

5
State ComplianceMonitoring Background

• Statutory changes, combined with 2003 and 2004
  reorganizations of the agency,
• resulted in a realignment of agency functions and
  an emphasis on a coordinated
• approach to agency monitoring. Through this new
  approach, TEA began a
• coordinated implementation of several different
  agency evaluation and
• monitoring components, including the following
• the PBMAS
• the Data Validation System
• federal program and fiscal compliance
• the state accountability system, including
  alternative education accountability (AEA)
  procedures
• federal accountability provisions, including
  Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)
• the Financial Integrity Rating System of Texas
  (FIRST)
• financial audits
• complaints
• due process hearings
• governance and
• other monitoring responsibilities such as those
  required by the Office for Civil Rights.

6
State ComplianceMonitoring Background (cont.)

• These changes also led to a new definition of
  agency monitoring
• 1) using a data-driven, performance-based model
  to observe,
• evaluate, and report on the public education
  system at the
• individual student group, campus, local education
  agency, regional,
• and statewide levels across diverse areas
  including program
• effectiveness, compliance with federal and state
  law and regulations,
• financial management, and data integrity for the
  purpose of assessing
• that student needs are being met
• 2) promoting diagnostic and evaluative systems in
  local education
• agencies (LEAs) that are integrated with the
  agencys desk audit and
• intervention process and
• 3) relying on a research-based framework of
  interventions that ensures
• compliance and enhances student success.

7
Performance BasedMonitoring Analysis System

• Desk audit of achievement to ensure compliance,
  effectiveness and equity to be used by district
  for continuous improvement planning
• Focus Areas/ of Indicators
• Bilingual Education/English as a Second Language
  / 10
• Career and Technical Education (CTE) / 10
• NCLB Program Coordination / 10
• the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
  (IDEA) / 20
• Indicator ratings of 0-3 assigned relative to
  state achievement norms
• Districts interventions assigned according to
  holistic performance in each focus area

8
(No Transcript)
9
Adequate Yearly Progress

• Authorized by No Child Left Behind Education Act
• Performance Goals
• All students will reach proficiency or better in
  reading and mathematics by 2013-14.
• All limited English proficient students will
  become proficient in English and reach high
  academic standards.
• By 2005-2006, all students will be taught by
  highly qualified teachers.
• All students educated in a safe, drug free
  environment conducive to learning.
• All students will graduate from high school
• Performance Criteria
• Achievement
• Participation
• District and Individual School Rating Assigned
• Meets AYP
• Missed AYP (School Improvement)

10
Initial Compliance Review

• Desk audit of achievement to ensure compliance,
  effectiveness and equity to be used by district
  for continuous improvement planning
• Focus Areas
• Federal Title programs
• Data Sources
• NCLB Consolidated Application for Federal Funding
• NCLB Consolidated Compliance Report
• Highly Qualified Teacher Report
• New Generation System (NGS)
• 30 Individual Indicator Ratings
• Met Standard
• Did Not Meet Standard
• Did Not Meet Standard Due To Late Submission
• Not Applicable

11
Lancaster I.S.D.as of 2006-07

• AEIS
• District Academically Acceptable
• Schools 7 Academically Acceptable,
• 2 Academically Unacceptable (LHS Rolling
  Hills)
• AYP
• District Meets AYP
• Schools 7 Met AYP, 2 Missed AYP (LHS LMS)
• - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
  - - - - - - - -
• PBMAS
• Stage 3 Intervention for Special Education (TAKS
  Achievement)
• Stage 4 Intervention for Bilingual/ESL (TAKS
  Achievement)
• ICR
• Met Standard on all eligible indicators except
  the following
• Reserved funds in NCLB Consolidated Application
  for Federal Funding for homeless students
• Sent notification to Title I campuses that their
  childs teachers were not Highly Qualified
• Reported private/non-profit participation as
  approved in 2006-07 NCLB Consolidated Application
  for Federal Funding
• Submitted Highly Qualified submitted by deadline
  (late submission)