Your Federal Quarterly Tax Payments are due April 15th Get Help Now >>

Accountability Plan Texas Education Agency Department of Accountability and by whattaman

VIEWS: 22 PAGES: 38

									2003 Accountability Plan


            Texas Education Agency
     Department of Accountability and Data Quality

                Updated October 2003
This publication is available only on the Texas Education Agency website and can be
accessed from:

              http://www.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport/account/2003/plan/index.html


Material in this publication is not copyrighted and may be reproduced.
                                                      Preface
A description of the contents for each section of the updated 2003 Accountability Plan follows. Also described are
changes from the July 2002 version of the 2003 Accountability Plan.

Section I: Introduction
This section provides an overview of the 2003 accountability system. A 2003-2004 timeline and key dates for releases
and reports are also provided. The 2003 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Status and 2002-03 Academic Excellence
Indicator System (AEIS) report releases will address the statutory requirement for annual campus evaluations; therefore,
campus and district performance evaluations will not be conducted in December 2003. Information related to the
December 2003 campus and district performance evaluations has been removed from this publication. Other dates have
been updated.

Section II: 2003 Accountability
This section covers components of the accountability system and describes how specific features of the accountability
system will be applied in 2003. The 2003 AYP Status and 2002-03 AEIS report releases will address the statutory
requirement for annual campus evaluations; therefore, information related to the December 2003 campus and district
performance evaluations has been removed from this publication. Other dates have been updated.

Section III: Preview of the 2004 and Beyond Accountability System
This section contains a preview of how the accountability system will evolve over the next few years. Minor changes to
text have been made; dates have been updated.

Section IV: Additional Information
This section contains dates significant to 2003 accountability, instructions on accessing accountability information on the
Internet, and to whom and where comments and questions should be directed. Calendar dates have been updated and
added.

Appendix A: Excerpts from No Child Left Behind

Appendix B: Acknowledgments
                                          Table of Contents
Section I – Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                 1
    System Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .          1
    Key Dates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .    4

Section II – 2003 Accountability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                         5
    Components of the System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                5
      District Ratings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .        5
      Alternative Education Campuses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                      6
      Charters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .      7
      Appeals Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .             7
      AEIS Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .          7
      School Report Cards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .               8
      Listings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .    8
      Gold Performance Acknowledgment System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                                9
      Rewards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .       9
      Sanctions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .       9
      System Safeguards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .              10
      Data Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .      11
      Local Reporting and Use of Performance Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                               11
                                                  Table of Contents
       Section III – Preview of the 2004 and Beyond Accountability System                                                             13
               Planning for the Future – Accountability System Blueprint . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                            13
                     2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   16
                     2004 and 2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .          17
                     Developing Assessments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                 18
               Future Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .      21

       Section IV – Additional Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                          23
               Calendar for 2002-2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .           23
               Accessing Accountability Information on the Internet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                         25
               Comments and Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .               25

       Appendix A: Excerpts from No Child Left Behind Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                                     27

       Appendix B: Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                        29




TABLE OF EXHIBITS

       Table 1: Commissioner of Education Plan for 2003 and 2004 Accountability . . . . . . .                                          3
       Table 2: Blueprint for Accountability Indicators and Standards 2004 and 2005 . . . . . .                                       14
       Table 3: TAAS vs. TAKS A Comparison of Subjects and Grades Tested . . . . . . . . . .                                          19
Section I – Introduction
                      The 2003 accountability system will provide a transition from the current accountability rating system that uses Texas
                      Assessment of Academic Skills (TAAS) results and annual dropout rates to the new accountability rating system that
                      will use Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS) results and longitudinal completion rates. This 2003
                      Accountability Plan is intended to serve as a resource to help educators and the public understand how accountability
                      will be administered during this year of transition.



System Overview

                      The defining characteristics of the 2003 accountability system are the use of the new TAKS assessments results and
                      completion rates for the first time. The State Board of Education (SBOE) set student passing standards for the TAKS
                      in November 2002. The first administration of the TAKS occurred in spring 2003. The Commissioner of Education
                      cannot begin work on setting accountability standards for the TAKS component of the accountability system until
                      results from the first statewide administration are available in summer 2003. For this reason, accountability
                      procedures will be modified for 2003 and administered under a revised calendar.

                      The 2003 accountability procedures have been designed to accomplish multiple objectives. These objectives include:
                             (1) Meet statutory requirements for annual district accountability ratings and annual campus evaluations, and
                                 ensure institutional accountability for 2003 school district and campus performance.
                             (2) Provide districts, campuses, and education service centers (ESCs) with data on new performance indicators
                                 as early as possible for planning and improvement for 2003 and 2004.
                             (3) Advise those districts and campuses most in need of improvement.
                             (4) Provide a transition from the current accountability rating system that uses TAAS assessments and annual
                                 dropout rates to the new accountability rating system that will use TAKS assessments and longitudinal
                                 completion rates.




____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Section I – Introduction                          2003 ACCOUNTABILITY PLAN                                         1
                                                    Updated October 2003
System                State statute requires annual district performance ratings with the standard accountability labels of Exemplary,
Overview (cont.)      Recognized, Academically Acceptable, and Academically Unacceptable. To comply with state statute, district 2002
                      accountability ratings will be carried forward to 2003.

                      The 2002-03 Academic Excellence Indicator System (AEIS) reports will be published October 1, 2003, in order to
                      provide data as early as possible on as many new performance indicators as possible. The traditional role of these
                      reports as a basis for planning and improvement will be emphasized in 2003. These reports will provide districts,
                      campuses, and ESCs with the first preview data for performance indicators that will be included in the accountability
                      system for 2004 and beyond, including TAKS results for the accountability subset and student groups, by subject
                      summed across grades, and aggregated for the state, region, district, campus group, and campus.

                      District 2002 accountability ratings will be printed on the 2002-03 district AEIS reports published October 1, 2003.
                      Campus 2002 ratings will not be carried forward to 2003 and, therefore, will not be printed on the 2002-03 campus AEIS
                      reports.

                      The period from July 2003 through March 2004 will be devoted to development of the accountability system for 2004
                      and beyond. The development work will include analysis of campus and district AEIS performance data, meetings with
                      focus/advisory groups, surveys of educators to obtain input on the proposed structure of the new accountability system,
                      and incorporation of new state requirements such as the TAKS and completion rates, as well as new federal statutory
                      requirements. In April 2004, the Commissioner will notify districts and campuses of decisions about the indicators
                      and accountability standards for 2004 ratings.

                      Table 1 on page 3 illustrates the timeline for the 2003 accountability process described above.

                      Many factors will be considered in the accountability rating system for 2004 and beyond, some of which are not
                      available in 2003. Foremost among these factors is TAKS improvement measures, which cannot be calculated until
                      results from the second year of statewide testing are received in summer 2004. The 2004 and beyond standards may
                      include measures of required improvement for completion measures as well as TAKS, comparable improvement, and
                      progress of prior year failers. In addition to TAKS performance and completion rates, performance on the State-
                      Developed Alternative Assessment (SDAA) for students receiving special education services, measures related to the
                      Student Success Initiative (SSI), and new federal requirements must be incorporated into the accountability system for
                      2004 and beyond.


____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Section I – Introduction                          2003 ACCOUNTABILITY PLAN                                         2
                                                    Updated October 2003
                               Table 1: Commissioner of Education Plan for 2003 and 2004 Accountability
2003                                                                                                         2004
Jan    Feb       Mar       Apr       May      Jun   Jul     Aug       Sep       Oct       Nov          Dec   Jan     Feb        Mar        Apr        May     Jun   Jul      Aug        Sep


       2003 TAKS Administration:                    2002-03 AEIS Reports (September/October 2003):                   2004 TAKS Administration:                      2004 Accountability:
       The first statewide administration           Under the modified calendar for 2003 accountability,             The second statewide                           Release of ratings will
       of the TAKS will take place on               the 2002-03 AEIS reports will be transmitted in                  administration of the TAKS will                be delayed until
       designated test dates in February,           September/October 2003. District 2002 accountability             take place in spring 2004.                     October 2004 to
       April, and May 2003. Districts will          ratings of Exemplary, Recognized, Academically                   Districts will receive results for all         allow time for
       receive results for all students             Acceptable, and Academically Unacceptable will be                students tested from the test                  development and
       tested from the test contractor in           carried forward to 2003 and printed on the 2002-03               contractor in late May. TEA will               application of TAKS
       late May. The Texas Education                district AEIS reports.                                           receive state results for all                  improvement measures,
       Agency (TEA) will receive state                                                                               students in late May and                       which cannot begin until
       results for all students in late May                                                                          accountability subset results in               summer 2004 because
       2003 and accountability subset                                                                                mid-June 2004.                                 two years of test results
       results in mid-June 2003.                                                                                                                                    are required to calculate
                                                                                                                                                                    improvement.

                                                    2003/2004 Accountability Development: The period from July 2003 through
                                                    March 2004 will be devoted to development of the new accountability rating
                                                    system for 2004 and beyond. The new accountability system will incorporate the
                                                    new TAKS and other state and federal requirements. In April 2004 the
                                                    Commissioner of Education will release final decisions regarding performance
                                                    indicators and accountability standards on which districts and campuses will be
                                                    rated in 2004.



                                                                       2003 Adequate Yearly
                                                                       Progress (AYP) Status:
                                                                       Preliminary status (Meets
                                                                       AYP/Needs Improvement)
                                                                       will be released on
                                                                       September 10, 2003, with
                                                                       final status released in late
                                                                       November 2003.




____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Section I – Introduction                          2003 ACCOUNTABILITY PLAN                                         3
                                                    Updated October 2003
Key Dates              Key dates for releases and reports are shown below. A more detailed schedule of events affecting the accountability
                       system is provided in Section IV, Additional Information.
                      Summer 2002          2003 Accountability Plan. This Plan describing administration of the 2003 accountability system
                                           was adopted as a commissioner’s rule and transmitted to districts and campuses.
                      May 2003             TAKS Results. Like the timing with the TAAS administration, districts and campuses received
                                           TAKS/SDAA assessment results for all students tested from the test contractor.
                      July 2003 -          Accountability System Development. This period will be devoted to development of the
                      March 2004           accountability rating system for 2004 and beyond.
                      October 2003         2003 Accountability Plan. This Plan will be updated, published electronically, and readopted as
                                           a commissioner’s rule.
                                           AEIS Reports. AEIS reports will be published electronically October 1, 2003.
                                           District Ratings. In October 2003, district 2002 accountability ratings will be carried forward to
                                           2003 and printed on the 2002-03 district AEIS reports. Campus ratings will not be carried
                                           forward.
                      November 2003        School Report Card. School Report Cards will be provided to all districts for each campus
                                           electronically in November 2003.
                      January 2004         PEG Program Notification (Districts). TEA will notify districts of the schools identified under the
                                           criteria for the Public Education Grant Program.
                      April 2004          2004 Accountability System. The Commissioner of Education will announce final decisions
                                          regarding performance indicators and accountability standards on which districts and campuses
                                          will be rated in 2004. TAKS improvement measures cannot be calculated until results from the
                                          second year of statewide testing are received in summer 2004. The 2004 ratings will be based on
                                          performance results from the 2003-04 school year.




____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Section I – Introduction                          2003 ACCOUNTABILITY PLAN                                         4
                                                    Updated October 2003
Section II - 2003 Accountability

Components of the System

                    Sections I and II of this 2003 Accountability Plan describing administration of 2003 accountability will be adopted as a
                    commissioner’s rule. Some of the detailed information about accountability processes included in the 2002
                    Accountability Manual is not repeated in this Plan. For that reason, this Plan contains references to the 2002
                    Accountability Manual.

                    The following information describes how specific features of the accountability system will be applied in 2003. Many
                    features will be modified for 2003 as a result of the introduction of the new Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills
                    (TAKS) assessment program and/or modifications to the accountability calendar for 2003.


District Ratings    ♦ District Ratings. In October 2003, district 2002 accountability ratings will be carried forward to 2003 and printed on
                      the 2002-03 district Academic Excellence Indicator System (AEIS) reports. The following 2002 district ratings will be
                      carried forward to 2003:

                       - - - - - - - - DISTRICT 2002 RATINGS CARRIED FORWARD TO 2003 - - - - - - - -
                       Standard                                        Special Circumstances
                       • Exemplary                                     • Charter
                       • Recognized                                    • Academically Acceptable: Special Accreditation Investigation
                       • Academically Acceptable                       • Academically Unacceptable: Special Accreditation Investigation
                       • Academically Unacceptable

                    Special Accreditation Investigation. A district that received a 2002 accountability rating of Academically
                    Unacceptable: SAI will carry forward that rating to 2003 unless the Commissioner of Education determines that a change
                    in district status is warranted. If SAI status does change, the Commissioner will notify the district in writing of the district’s
                    rating. If the change is made before the October 2003 publication of the 2002-03 AEIS reports, the updated
                    accountability rating will be printed on the district AEIS report. Also, a district that received one of the four standard

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Section II – 2003 Accountability                  2003 ACCOUNTABILITY PLAN                                         5
                                                    Updated October 2003
District Ratings    accountability ratings in 2002 but is under special accreditation investigation at the time the 2002-03 AEIS reports are
(cont.)             published will have an accountability rating of Academically Unacceptable: SAI or Academically Acceptable: SAI printed
                    on the 2002-03 district AEIS report. Special accreditation investigations will be handled as in the past.
                    Suspended: Data Inquiry. TEA staff will conduct audits of performance data during the 2002-03 school year at districts
                    receiving the Suspended: Data Inquiry rating in 2002. One of the standard ratings will be assigned to districts before
                    October 2003 based on the resolution of these data audits. This is the rating that will be carried forward to 2003.
                    Therefore, Suspended: Data Inquiry ratings will not be carried forward.


Alternative         ♦ Alternative Education Campuses. Optional accountability procedures for alternative education campuses (AECs)
Education             for 2004 and beyond will be reexamined as part of the development of the new accountability system.
Campuses                Alternative education campuses are requested to register with TEA for 2003 and 2004 while the new accountability
                        system is under development. Districts and charters receive information about the AEC registration in August.
                        Registration is conducted in September. On-line registration is available. Registration information and instructions
                        are available on the TEA website. Registration as an AEC is necessary for the following reasons:
                        •   Registered AECs can continue to report campus of accountability information on their Public Education
                            Information Management System (PEIMS) data submissions as in the past. No change in data reporting
                            procedures will be required. Alternative education campuses that do not register will receive fatal errors on their
                            PEIMS data submissions if they continue to report campus of accountability information as in the past.
                        •   Registered AECs can continue to attribute assessment results for students enrolled for fewer than 85 cumulative
                            days to their locally assigned regular campuses as in the past. No change in local test administration procedures
                            for students in alternative settings will be required. Alternative education campuses that do not register cannot
                            attribute test results to another campus.
                        •   The 2003 AEC registration will determine campus of accountability for 2002-03 PEIMS leaver data. The
                            dropout/completion rate measures for the 2004 accountability ratings will be the 2002-03 rates. Therefore,
                            registration for 2003 is necessary to ensure that leaver data for the 2004 accountability ratings are attributed to the
                            correct campus.
                        •   The accountability development process for 2004 and beyond will rely on analysis of 2003 data. Correct
                            attribution of TAKS and dropout data will provide more reliable results, especially for AECs.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Section II – 2003 Accountability                  2003 ACCOUNTABILITY PLAN                                         6
                                                    Updated October 2003
Charters             ♦ Charter Districts. Before 2003, charter districts did not receive ratings other than Charter. Therefore, no charter
                       district will carry forward a 2002 accountability rating other than Charter. Beginning in 2004, charters will be
                       evaluated at the district level as well as the campus level. Details regarding charter district accountability ratings will
                       be determined as part of the development process for the accountability system for 2004 and beyond.


Appeals              ♦ Appeals Process. There will be no appeals process for the 2002 district accountability ratings carried forward in
Process                October 2003.


AEIS Reports         ♦ AEIS Reports. AEIS district and campus reports will be produced in October 2003 in order to provide data as early
                       as possible on as many new indicators as possible. They will be issued electronically. To the extent possible, the
                       2002-03 AEIS reports will include data for performance indicators that will be included in the accountability system
                       for 2003 and 2004 and beyond. In addition to TAKS and dropout/completion rates, performance on the State-
                       Developed Alternative Assessment (SDAA), measures related to the Student Success Initiative (SSI), and new
                       federal requirements must be incorporated into the accountability system for 2004 and beyond. Some measures
                       that will be considered for 2004 and beyond, such as TAKS improvement measures, will not be available in 2003.
                       The 2002-03 AEIS reports will contain changes from the prior year. Some of these changes include:
                         • results from the first year of the TAKS will replace Texas Assessment of Academic Skills (TAAS) results;
                         • TAKS results will be reported on the AEIS reports for each subject area (reading, writing, language arts,
                           mathematics, science, and social studies) by grade and summed across grades 3-10 and grades 3-11;
                         • because 2003 is the first year of testing on the TAKS, only one year of test data can be reported;
                         • TAKS results will be reported at four levels: Met Standard (2 SEM Below Panel Recommendation), Met
                           Standard (1 SEM Below Panel Recommendation), Met Standard (Panel Recommendation), and Commended
                           Performance;
                         • two SSI performance measures will be reported for Grade 3 Reading: Students Requiring Accelerated
                           Instruction and TAKS Second Administration Met Standard;
                         • since 2003 is the first year of statewide testing on TAKS, campus comparable improvement measures cannot be
                           reported because two years of test results are needed to calculate improvement;
                         • improvement of prior year failers cannot be reported due to the change in tests; and

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Section II – 2003 Accountability                  2003 ACCOUNTABILITY PLAN                                         7
                                                    Updated October 2003
AEIS (cont.)             • end-of-course assessments will no longer be reported.
                         Accountability Subset. TAKS results reported on AEIS will be based on an October subset of students, those
                         students tested who were enrolled in the district as of the last Friday in October (October 25, 2002). Throughout
                         this Plan, TAKS results for all students refers to the October subset of students unless otherwise stated.
                         Student Groups. Performance on all indicators will be reported on AEIS for all students and disaggregated by
                         ethnicity, gender, socioeconomic status, and special education designation. The 2002-03 AEIS reports will
                         include additional disaggregation of performance data for limited English proficient (LEP) students.
                         Minimum Size Requirements. Under the current accountability system, only those student groups that meet
                         minimum size requirements are evaluated to determine accountability ratings. Minimum size requirements will be
                         reexamined as part of the development process for the accountability system for 2004 and beyond.
                        Comparison Groups. Although comparable improvement cannot be calculated in 2003, campus comparison
                        groups will be constructed for 2002-03 to report group statistics on AEIS campus reports and School Report
                        Cards (SRCs). See Section V, 2002 Campus Comparable Improvement, in the 2002 Accountability Manual for
                        more information on how the comparison groups are constructed. Regular instructional campuses with
                        demographic data from the fall of the 2002-03 school year will be grouped. Schools such as disciplinary
                        alternative education programs (DAEP), Juvenile Justice Alternative Education Programs (JJAEP), alternative
                        education campuses, and schools that do not serve grades where the TAKS is given (such as
                        prekindergarten/kindergarten schools) will be excluded from the grouping.
                        Special Education Compliance Status. Statute requires that an annual special education compliance status be
                        determined by TEA for each school district. District level exemption rates for special education students are
                        analyzed as a component of determining the status. In 2003, SDAA performance will also be analyzed as a
                        component of special education compliance status. In 2003, special education compliance status as of July 2003
                        will be printed on the AEIS district report.
SRC                  ♦ School Report Cards. School Report Card information will be transmitted electronically in November 2003. See
                       Appendix B, Commissioner’s Rules, in the 2002 Accountability Manual for complete text of the SRC rule.
Listings             ♦ Listings. Detailed membership listings for class of 2002 completion rate cohorts will be available upon request in
                       September 2003. Detailed dropout listings for 2001-02 dropouts will be available upon request in December 2003.



____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Section II – 2003 Accountability                  2003 ACCOUNTABILITY PLAN                                         8
                                                    Updated October 2003
GPA                  ♦ Gold Performance Acknowledgment System. The Gold Performance Acknowledgment (GPA) System will be
                       suspended for 2003 because GPA is linked statutorily to the standard rating categories of Academically Acceptable/
                       Acceptable, Recognized, and Exemplary. District 2002 Gold Performance Acknowledgments will not be carried
                       forward to 2003.


Rewards              ♦ Excellence Exemptions. No districts or campuses will receive automatic excellence exemptions authorized under
                       Texas Education Code (TEC), §39.112, because these exemptions are linked to the standard rating category of
                       Exemplary.
                     ♦ TSSAS. Financial awards will not be made through the Texas Successful Schools Award System (TSSAS) in 2003
                       because the program was not funded for the 2002/2003 biennium.
                     ♦ PPIP. Another statutory awards program, the Principal Performance Incentive Program, was not funded for the
                       2002/2003 biennium.


Sanctions            ♦ On-site Visits. Districts whose 2002 Academically Unacceptable ratings are carried forward to 2003 may receive
                       on-site visits during the 2003-04 school year as a follow-up to the 2002-03 visits. On-site investigations will continue
                       to be scheduled for other districts identified through Agency-initiated analyses such as compliance monitoring
                       procedures and data inquiry analyses.
                     ♦ PEG List. The Public Education Grant (PEG) Program list will be produced. This list will identify campuses at
                       which 50 percent or more of the students did not pass the statewide assessment in any two of the preceding three
                       years (TAAS grades 3-8 and 10 in 2001-02 and 2000-01, or TAKS grades 3-11 in 2002-03) or were rated Low-
                       performing in 2002 or 2001 under the statewide accountability system.
                     ♦ Consecutive Years of Low Performance. District and campus final 2002 accountability ratings and 2004
                       accountability ratings of Academically Unacceptable, Academically Unacceptable: Special Accreditation
                       Investigation, Low-performing, Alternative Education: Needs Peer Review, and Not Rated: Data Quality will be
                       considered consecutive years of low performance for purposes of accreditation sanctions.




____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Section II – 2003 Accountability                  2003 ACCOUNTABILITY PLAN                                         9
                                                    Updated October 2003
System               Each data source for the AEIS has a prescribed process and calendar for correcting errors and omissions discovered
Safeguards           after the original submission. The opportunities for correction for each performance measure are described in Section
                     XI, Local Reporting and Use of Performance Results, in the 2002 Accountability Manual. Rules for correcting
                     demographic and scoring status information on the TAKS answer documents will be the same as those applied to
                     TAAS.

                     The TEA analyzes current year accountability information for internal consistency. In addition, the test contractor for the
                     student assessment program notifies TEA of potential data problems for districts and campuses. See Section VIII,
                     System Safeguards, in the 2002 Accountability Manual for more information on the types of analyses undertaken to
                     validate data integrity, audit procedures, accreditation investigations, state interventions and sanctions, and special
                     accreditation investigations.
                     ♦ Legal Liability for Record Tampering. It is a third-degree felony to tamper with a government record that is a
                       public school record, report, or assessment required under TEC, Chapter 39. If the intent of the tampering is to
                       defraud or harm another, then the offense is a felony of the second degree. See Section XV, Appendix A, of the
                       2002 Accountability Manual for full text of the statute in the Texas Penal Code.
                     ♦ Data Quality Desk Audits. As in the past, accountability data will undergo routine screening to ensure that student
                       performance on the TAKS is properly measured and that dropouts are accurately reported. This auditing process
                       can lead to a data quality investigation. Districts investigated for data quality issues in the prior year will
                       automatically be subject to desk audits of their current year data to determine whether continued problems exist. If
                       it is determined that data quality could still be an issue in the current year, TEA will initiate its standard inquiry
                       procedures with the district.
                     ♦ Independent Dropout Record Audits. In spring 2003, the first Independent Auditors’ Annual Dropout Records
                       Reports were submitted to TEA from audits conducted on 2001-02 leaver data. Campuses or districts may be
                       identified for data quality investigations on the basis of the Independent Auditors’ Annual Dropout Records Reports.
                     ♦ Underreported Students. As in the past, districts with substantial numbers or percentages of underreported
                       students may be identified for data quality investigations. Beginning with 2003, identification of underreported
                       student records will be an entirely automated process. This means that TEA will discontinue processes that remove
                       Person Identification Database (PID) error records from the counts of underreported records. This process was not
                       intended to become a permanent part of leaver data processing and must be discontinued so that independent
                       auditors and school districts are working from the same data. Accountability consequences linked to Recognized
                       and Exemplary ratings will not be applicable in 2003.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Section II – 2003 Accountability                  2003 ACCOUNTABILITY PLAN                                        10
                                                    Updated October 2003
Data Issues          ♦ Accountability Correction Period for TAKS Results. As in the past for TAAS, there is no accountability
                       correction period for TAKS in 2003. As always, districts may correct information on a student’s permanent testing
                       record with the contractor and request corrected student reports, but those changes will not be reflected in the
                       results provided to TEA for accountability purposes. The accountability subset of results is constructed from the
                       student information reported on TAKS answer documents as received by the test contractor.
                     ♦ Source of Dropouts/Completers. Dropout and longitudinal completion/student status rates are calculated from
                       information submitted on the PEIMS Leaver Record, which reports the departures of all students enrolled in the
                       district in grades 7-12 during the prior school year. Leaver information reported for some students served at DAEPs
                       and JJAEPs, and students served on registered AECs for short terms, will be attributed to the “campus of
                       accountability” either reported by the district or assigned by TEA based on PEIMS attendance records submitted the
                       prior year.
                     ♦ Campus ID Changes. Although performance growth will not be calculated for 2003, changes in campus
                       identification numbers can affect other aspects of the accountability system in 2003 that require merging with prior
                       year files. See Section VI, Special Issues and Exceptions, in the 2002 Accountability Manual for more information
                       on accountability consequences of changes in county-district-campus (CDC) numbers.


Local                ♦ Local Reporting and Use of Performance Results. Public notification of accountability results and campus
Reporting and          planning are governed by multiple statutory requirements. Section XV of the 2002 Accountability Manual includes
Use of                 copies of relevant statute (Appendix A) and Commissioner of Education Rules (Appendix B). As in the past, the
                       2002-03 AEIS reports will include the Agency-provided information required for the district annual performance
Performance            report. District 2002 accountability ratings will be printed on the 2002-03 district AEIS reports. Campus ratings will
Results                not be printed on the 2002-03 campus AEIS reports.
                         •   Public Discussion of the Annual Performance Report [AEIS Reports]. Statute and Commissioner of
                             Education rules governing requirements for a board of trustees public hearing for discussion of the AEIS report,
                             dissemination of the report in the district, and a district-level decision-making committee public meeting to
                             discuss the report remain in place for 2003. The earlier release of the AEIS reports will require districts to meet
                             these obligations earlier.
                             Each campus site-based decision-making committee should hold at least one public meeting after receipt of the
                             campus AEIS report for the purpose of discussing the performance of the campus and the campus performance
                             objectives, as required under TEC, §11.253(g).
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Section II – 2003 Accountability                  2003 ACCOUNTABILITY PLAN                                        11
                                                    Updated October 2003
Local                   •   Public Discussion of District Ratings. For a district whose 2002 Academically Unacceptable rating is carried
Reporting and               forward to 2003, the board of trustees is not required to notify property owners and parents in the district of the
Use of                      rating after receipt of the 2002-03 AEIS report. (Notification of property owners and parents of the Academically
                            Unacceptable rating should have taken place the prior year after receipt of 2002 accountability ratings.)
Performance
Results (cont.)     ♦ District-Provided Information on the 2003 AEIS Reports. Districts must include additional information on AEIS
                      reports that is prepared locally. At this point, there are no known changes in requirements for additional district-
                      provided information from those in 2001-02, which are described in Section X, Accountability System Reports, in the
                      2002 Accountability Manual.




____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Section II – 2003 Accountability                  2003 ACCOUNTABILITY PLAN                                        12
                                                    Updated October 2003
Section III – Preview of the 2004 and Beyond Accountability System
                          With the introduction of the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS) in 2003 and availability of longitudinal
                          completion rates, the statewide accountability system will enter a new phase. This section presents a preview of how
                          the accountability system will evolve over the next few years.



Planning for the Future              – Accountability System Blueprint
                           In order to provide schools and districts with adequate time to prepare for more rigorous standards and new
                           assessments, the blueprint for accountability system criteria and standards through the year 2005 is presented below.
                           This blueprint was defined with the assistance of focus groups of educators, administrators, and local school board
                           members; other district and regional education service center (ESC) representatives; legislative staff; and business and
                           education partners. Table 2 on pages 14-15 illustrates the framework of the blueprint for accountability standards and
                           indicators for 2004 and 2005.
                           Although the design of the new accountability system is incomplete at this time, it is clear that, in the absence of
                           statutory change in 2003, the new accountability system will minimally include evaluation of:
                                •   assessment results for all TAKS subjects and grades, possibly phased in over the years 2004 and 2005
                                    (results for all subjects and grades must be used for ratings in 2005);
                                •   district (and possibly campus) completion rates for grades 9-12, either in place of or in conjunction with annual
                                    dropout rates;
                                •   percent meeting admission, review, and dismissal (ARD) committee expectations on the State-Developed
                                    Alternative Assessment (SDAA) for special education students;
                                •   progress of prior year failers; and
                                •   measures related to the Student Success Initiative (SSI).




______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Section III – Preview of the 2004 and Beyond Accountability Systems 2003 ACCOUNTABILITY PLAN                                               13
                                                                      Updated October 2003
                            Table 2: Blueprint for Accountability Indicators and Standards 2004 and 2005
                                                                                         2004                                      2005
                      State Assessments Administered

                           Texas Assessment of Knowledge                            Gr. 3-11:                                 Gr. 3-11:
                           and Skills (TAKS)                                  R, W, ELA, M, SS, Sc                      R, W, ELA, M, SS, Sc

                           State-Developed Alternative
                           Assessment (SDAA) for Special                                Gr. 3-8                                 Gr. 3-10
                                                                                                                          (Gr. 9-10 baseline)
                           Education Students
                      TAKS Passing Rate Standards [for all students and each student group]

                           Exemplary                                                      TBD                                      TBD

                           Recognized                                         10% below Exemplary                       10% below Exemplary

                           Academically Acceptable /
                                                                                          TBD                                      TBD
                           Acceptable
                           Academically Unacceptable /
                                                                                    < Acceptable                             < Acceptable
                           Low-performing
                      PROGRESS OF PRIOR YEAR FAILERS                                      TBD                                      TBD
                      SDAA STANDARDS                                                      TBD                                      TBD
                      MINIMUM SIZE REQUIREMENTS FOR
                                                                                          TBD                                      TBD
                      EVALUATION OF STUDENT GROUPS
                                                                                  data for grade 3;                        data for grade 3;
                      STUDENT SUCCESS INITIATIVE (SSI)
                                                                                     use: TBD                                 use: TBD
                 Legend:    TBD = To Be Determined; R = Reading; W = Writing; ELA = English Language Arts; M = Mathematics; SS = Social Studies; Sc = Science




______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Section III – Preview of the 2004 and Beyond Accountability Systems 2003 ACCOUNTABILITY PLAN                                               14
                                                                      Updated October 2003
                 Table 2: Blueprint for Accountability Indicators and Standards 2004 and 2005 (continued)
                                                                                    2004               2005
                     Dropout Measures Available
                       Annual Dropout Rate, Grades 7-12
                         [district and campus]
                       Completion Rate, Grades 9-12,
                         4-year rates based solely on the
                         Leaver Collection
                         [districts and campuses serving grades
                         9-12 inclusive]

                     Dropout Rate Standards (Gr. 7-12) [for all students and each student group]

                       Exemplary                                            TBD, if necessary    TBD, if necessary

                       Recognized                                           TBD, if necessary    TBD, if necessary

                       Academically Acceptable /
                                                                            TBD, if necessary    TBD, if necessary
                       Acceptable
                       Academically Unacceptable / Low-
                                                                            TBD, if necessary    TBD, if necessary
                       performing
                     Completion Rate Standards (Gr. 9-12) [for all students and each student group]

                       Exemplary                                                    TBD                TBD

                       Recognized                                                   TBD                TBD

                       Academically Acceptable /
                                                                                    TBD                TBD
                       Acceptable
                       Academically Unacceptable / Low-
                                                                                    TBD                TBD
                       performing
                     DISTRICT SPECIAL EDUCATION
                      COMPLIANCE STATUS

                   Legend:     = Used for Ratings or Acknowledgments; TBD = To Be Determined


______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Section III – Preview of the 2004 and Beyond Accountability Systems 2003 ACCOUNTABILITY PLAN                                               15
                                                                      Updated October 2003
Accountability            Implementation of a new assessment system is expected to have a significant impact on the design of the accountability
System                    system for 2004 and beyond. However, there are components of the system that are expected to remain stable under
Blueprint (cont.)         this blueprint. These components are:
                               •   the use of multiple rating categories;
                               •   the evaluation of the performance of student groups;
                               •   ratings based on multiple indicators;
                               •   state assessment results used for accountability purposes based on the October subset of students;
                               •   provisions for small numbers of students and schools serving grades not tested through the state assessment
                                   system; and
                               •   reports and recognitions based on the performance results.

                          Being able to match student results over time will become increasingly important, particularly as new assessments are
                          developed. The SDAA for special education students and the Reading Proficiency Tests in English (RPTE) are both
                          measures of change between one year and the next and accuracy of reported results depend upon being able to link a
                          prior year baseline result to current year performance. Currently, the ability to accurately match student information from
                          different sources and dates is critical to calculating the accountability subset, Comparable Improvement (CI), the current
                          performance of prior year failers, completion rates, and longitudinal dropout rates.

                           An overview of accountability system design for 2003 through 2005 is provided below.

2003                       To the extent possible, the October 2002-03 Academic Excellence Indicator System (AEIS) reports will provide a limited
                           preview of district and campus performance on some measures on which 2004 ratings will be based. Many factors will
                           be considered in the accountability ratings system for 2004 and beyond, some of which are not available in 2003.
                           Foremost among these factors are TAKS improvement measures, which cannot be calculated until results from the
                           second year of statewide testing are received in summer 2004.




______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Section III – Preview of the 2004 and Beyond Accountability Systems 2003 ACCOUNTABILITY PLAN                                               16
                                                                      Updated October 2003
2004 and 2005              This information applies generally to accountability system development for the 2004 and 2005 rating cycles.
                           ♦ STATE ASSESSMENT SUBJECT AREA TESTS. Assessment results for reading, writing, language arts, mathematics,
                             social studies, and science will be used in determining accountability ratings.
                           ♦ TAKS ACCOUNTABILITY STANDARDS. Subject area standards will be maintained in the accountability system and
                             they will increase over time. The increments and schedule for raising the standards will be determined after the
                             2003 and 2004 test results can be evaluated.
                           ♦ COMPLETION RATES. A longitudinal high school completion rate indicator will be incorporated into the accountability
                             system as a Base Indicator in the ratings evaluation for 2004 and beyond. District-level completion rates for grades
                             9-12 were reported for the first time on 1997-98 AEIS reports. Enrollment, attendance, leaver, and General
                             Educational Development (GED) completion information must be linked across six school years to create this
                             measure. A four-year completion rate for grades 9-12 can be computed for the first time in 2002 for the class of
                             2001 based completely on information reported on the Public Education Information Management System (PEIMS)
                             Leaver Record. Plans are to use the completion rate in the accountability system beginning in 2004.
                           ♦ DROPOUT / COMPLETION RATE DEFINITIONS AND STANDARDS. Indicator definitions and standards for completion rates
                             and/or dropout rates will be determined as part of the accountability development process.
                           ♦ REQUIRED IMPROVEMENT. Required Improvement as it is currently defined was eliminated after the 1999 rating cycle.
                             If such a measure continues to be statutorily required in 2004, a new methodology for calculating Required
                             Improvement will be developed.
                           ♦ COMPARABLE IMPROVEMENT. Assuming that there will be a Texas Learning Index (TLI)-type measure available to
                             assess year-to-year progress, CI will be calculated. There are no plans at this time to develop a district-level CI
                             measure.
                           ♦ PROGRESS OF PRIOR YEAR FAILERS. Accountability measures will be developed that evaluate the progress of
                             students who failed to perform satisfactorily in the preceding school year on the TAKS.
                           ♦ STUDENT SUCCESS INITIATIVE. Measures related to the SSI are required by statute to be developed as part of the
                             AEIS and used in the accountability system. (See Texas Education Code (TEC), §28.0211, in Section XV,
                             Appendix A of the 2002 Accountability Manual.)
                           ♦ OTHER INDICATORS. Other statutorily defined indicators not used to determine ratings will be designated as either
                             Acknowledgment Indicators upon which Gold Performance Acknowledgment (GPA) can be determined, or Report-
                             Only Indicators, which will appear on AEIS reports and possibly the School Report Card (SRC).
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Section III – Preview of the 2004 and Beyond Accountability Systems 2003 ACCOUNTABILITY PLAN                                               17
                                                                      Updated October 2003
2004 and 2005              ♦ STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS. New federal statutory requirements must be considered. Also, state legislative action in
(cont.)                      2003 or 2004 may affect the accountability system ratings, reports, sanctions, and rewards. At this point in time,
                             such action cannot be predicted.


Developing                 It is anticipated that all TAKS assessments and SDAA will be incorporated into the state accountability system at the
Assessments                appropriate time. Thus, districts and campuses will be held accountable for all assessment measures developed by the
                           state except those designed primarily for diagnostic purposes such as the RPTE and Texas Primary Reading Inventory
                           (TPRI). A brief summary of anticipated development projects is provided.
                           TEXAS ASSESSMENT OF KNOWLEDGE AND SKILLS. The defining component for accountability system design for
                           the future is the implementation of a new assessment system, the TAKS, in 2003, and a more rigorous testing
                           requirement for graduation beginning with the class of 2005. New assessments will be administered beginning in 2003
                           to assess reading, writing, language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies. Students will be tested in grades 3-
                           11, with grade 11 assessments defined as the exit-level testing requirements for graduation. Table 3 on page 19
                           provides a comparison of subjects and grades tested under the Texas Assessment of Academic Skills (TAAS) and
                           TAKS. The TAAS and End-of-Course tests will be administered statewide only through 2002, except for administrations
                           for students graduating under the TAAS exit-level test requirement.
                           SDAA: STATE-DEVELOPED ALTERNATIVE ASSESSMENT. Legislation passed in 1997 amending TEC, §39.023,
                           required the adoption of a new state assessment instrument appropriate for special education students being instructed
                           in the essential knowledge and skills (TEKS), but not on grade level, and students for whom allowable modifications to
                           TAAS or TAKS do not provide an appropriate measure. A baseline administration of the SDAA for grades 3-8 was given
                           in the spring of 2001. The percent of students meeting their ARD expectation as determined after the 2002
                           administration was reported on the 2001-02 AEIS reports. The authorizing legislation specifically requires inclusion of
                           the results of those tested on the alternative assessment in the accountability system by 2003. The baseline
                           administration of the SDAA for grades 9-10 will be given in the spring of 2005. No alternative assessment is required for
                           the exit-level examination.




______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Section III – Preview of the 2004 and Beyond Accountability Systems 2003 ACCOUNTABILITY PLAN                                               18
                                                                      Updated October 2003
                                                      Table 3: TAAS vs. TAKS
                                            A Comparison of Subjects and Grades Assessed


                                                                                          Grades
                      Subject
                                                  3          4         5          6          7          8            9   10        11

         Reading                                 ✓          ✓         ✓          ✓          ✓          ✓             ★   @

         Writing                                            ✓                               ★          @                 @

         English Language Arts                                                                                           ★         ★
         Mathematics                             ✓          ✓         ✓          ✓          ✓          ✓             ★   ✓         ★
         Science                                                      ★                                @                 ★         ★
         Social Studies                                                                                ✓                 ★         ★

        Legend:
        ✓     = tested with TAAS and continues to be tested with TAKS
        ★     = not tested with TAAS but tested with TAKS
        @     = tested with TAAS but not tested with TAKS
        Test content at all grade levels was affected by the changes in the exit-level requirements for graduation
        Subjects assessed on TAKS exit-level: English III, Algebra I, Geometry, Biology, Integrated Chemistry and Physics, early American
        and U.S. History, World Geography, World History


______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Section III – Preview of the 2004 and Beyond Accountability Systems 2003 ACCOUNTABILITY PLAN                                               19
                                                                      Updated October 2003
Developing                 There are three assessment choices for special education students. Given that the student is enrolled in grades
Assessments                3-8 at the time of the tests (or grades 3-10 beginning in 2005), the assessment choices are:
(cont.)                        •   test the student on TAAS or TAKS if he or she is receiving instruction in the essential knowledge and
                                   skills on grade level and has no testing accommodations that would invalidate TAAS or TAKS;
                               •   test the student on the SDAA if he or she is receiving instruction in the TEKS below grade level or if the
                                   testing modifications required for the TAAS or TAKS would invalidate the results; or
                               •   exempt the student if he or she is not receiving instruction in the TEKS, or if the testing modifications
                                   required for the SDAA would invalidate the results. [These students must take an alternate assessment
                                   selected by the ARD committee.]
                           Performance on the SDAA differs from the TAAS or TAKS in two distinct ways:
                               1. Unlike the TAAS and TAKS tests, which have uniform passing standards set by the State Board of
                                  Education, the passing standard for this alternative assessment is set individually for each student by
                                  his or her ARD committee.
                               2. The TAAS and TAKS pass/fail status can be determined for any given test. For the alternative
                                  assessment, the percent of students meeting ARD expectation depends on meeting an expectation
                                  standard measured on the second of two administrations of the test, given a year apart. Because the
                                  alternative assessment has been designed to measure an individual’s performance change, two
                                  assessments are needed: one that will be used as the baseline and a second with which to measure
                                  progress against that baseline.
                           Beginning in 2001-02, the Texas Education Agency (TEA) is required to investigate the exemption policies of districts
                           exceeding statutory maximums. (See TEC, §39.027, in Section XV, Appendix A of the 2002 Accountability Manual.)
                           READING PROFICIENCY TESTS IN ENGLISH. The RPTE are administered to limited English proficient (LEP)
                           students in grades 3-12 who have not achieved a rating of “advanced” during a previous RPTE administration. For LEP
                           students who are tested on the RPTE in consecutive years, it is possible to measure change in their reading proficiency
                           in English. Growth on the RPTE was reported on AEIS beginning in 2000-01. There are no current plans to include the
                           RPTE in the rating system.




______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Section III – Preview of the 2004 and Beyond Accountability Systems 2003 ACCOUNTABILITY PLAN                                               20
                                                                      Updated October 2003
Future Research

                           The TEA continues to research issues that may affect the accountability system in future years. A number of issues
                           must be addressed to establish the implementation details for the new Texas public school accountability system that
                           will begin with 2004. These issues are briefly described.
                          ♦     The maximum number of measures to be evaluated in the new rating structure will increase substantially. The
                                TAAS base indicator represented up to 15 measures – 3 assessment subjects for each of 5 student groups. The
                                TAKS base indicator may represent up to 30 measures – 6 assessment subjects for each of 5 student groups.
                                Dropout/completion rates must be evaluated for 5 student groups, plus SDAA results. If other statutory indicators
                                become base indicators, that will add to the maximum number of indicators to be evaluated.
                          ♦     The new assessment system has three assessments related to language arts: reading in grades 3-9, writing in
                                grades 4 and 7, and English language arts in grades 10 and 11. Whether each of these subjects should be
                                evaluated separately within the accountability system or become a combined measure of language arts
                                performance must be determined.
                          ♦     Indicator definitions for the percent of students meeting ARD expectations on the SDAA must be developed.
                          ♦     Definitions for a completion rate indicator must be developed. TEA currently reports the percent of 9th graders who
                                graduated, received their GED certificates, continued in high school four years later, or dropped out. Any one of
                                the first three components or a combination of these measures could be designated as the completion rate
                                indicator. A 2002 Accountability Focus Group recommended defining the completion rate as the sum of the first
                                three components.
                          ♦     Accountability rating standards for each indicator must be established.
                          ♦     Required Improvement has not been applied in the accountability system since 1999. Once a new accountability
                                system structure has been developed and if there is still a statutory requirement for Required Improvement,
                                measures must be defined.
                          ♦     The SSI, which requires students in grades 3, 5, and 8 to pass specific state assessments in order to be promoted
                                without the intervention of a grade placement committee, will be implemented for third graders beginning in 2003.
                                Those students are required to pass the reading assessment. The spring 2003 grade 3 results will be available for
                                reporting in 2003; information regarding the following year’s performance of those who failed will be reported in


______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Section III – Preview of the 2004 and Beyond Accountability Systems 2003 ACCOUNTABILITY PLAN                                               21
                                                                      Updated October 2003
Future                          2004. How results on the statutory indicators related to this program will be treated within the accountability
Research                        system must be determined.
(cont.)                   ♦     The incorporation of federal requirements from the No Child Left Behind Act passed in January 2002 must be
                                considered. Excerpts from the No Child Left Behind Act can be found in Appendix A.




______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Section III – Preview of the 2004 and Beyond Accountability Systems 2003 ACCOUNTABILITY PLAN                                               22
                                                                      Updated October 2003
Section IV – Additional Information

Calendar for 2002 - 2004

                                                   Dates significant to 2003 accountability are listed below. Due to the development of the
                                                   new accountability system, the calendar dates listed in this section may be modified.

2002                              June 20          2001-02 PEIMS Submission 3 due (2001-02 Attendance)
                                  July             2003 Accountability Plan published

                                  July 25          Last date for districts with traditional calendars to resubmit changes and corrections to 2001-02
                                                   PEIMS Submission 3
                                  August           Districts and charters received Alternative Education Campus registration information

                                  September        Alternative Education Campus registration conducted

                                  September 12     Last date for districts with year-round calendars to resubmit changes and corrections to 2001-02
                                                   PEIMS Submission 3
                                  October 25       Accountability System “as of” date for enrolled students

                                  November         SBOE adopted TAKS passing standards for spring 2003 administration

                                  December         TEA provided 2003 Early Indicator Reports (2002 data) to districts and campuses

                                  December 12      2002-03 PEIMS Submission 1 due (includes 2001-02 Leavers; 2002-03 Enrollment)

2003                              January 23       Last date to resubmit changes and corrections to 2002-03 PEIMS Submission 1
                                  February 25-27   TAKS test administration: exit-level language arts (grade 11); writing (grades 4 & 7); reading
                                                   (grade 9); language arts (grade 10); SDAA writing (grades 4 & 7)

Section IV – Additional Information                              2003 ACCOUNTABILITY PLAN                                                              23
                                                                   Updated October 2003
2003 (cont.)                      March 4            TAKS test administration: reading (grade 3)

                                  March 26           Reading Proficiency Tests in English administered

                                  April 23           Last day to submit Independent Auditors’ Annual Dropout Records Reports to TEA

                                  April 29 – May 2   TAKS test administration: mathematics (grades 3–11); reading (grades 3–8); social studies
                                                     (grades 8, 10 & 11); science (grades 5, 10 & 11); SDAA mathematics and reading (grades 3–8)
                                  May 16-23          Districts received TAKS/SDAA results for all students tested in grades 3–11 from test contractor

                                  July 2003 –        Development of accountability rating system for 2003 and 2004 and beyond
                                  March 2004
                                  September 10       TEA issues electronically preliminary 2003 AYP Status

                                  October            2003 Accountability Plan updated and published electronically

                                  October 1          TEA issues electronically 2002-03 AEIS reports to all districts and campuses

                                  November           TEA provides electronically the 2002-03 School Report Card to all campuses
                                  Late November      TEA issues electronically final 2003 AYP Status
                                  December           Detailed dropout listings for 2001-02 dropouts and membership listings for class of 2002
                                                     completion rate cohorts available upon request


2004                              January            TEA notifies districts of 2002-03 campuses identified under PEG criteria

                                  February 1         Districts notify parents of students in campuses identified under PEG criteria

                                  April              Commissioner announces 2004 accountability system framework




Section IV – Additional Information                                2003 ACCOUNTABILITY PLAN                                                             24
                                                                     Updated October 2003
Accessing Accountability Information on the Internet
                                  Accountability-related information on the Texas Education Agency (TEA) website continues to be improved and
                                  enhanced. Campus and district information prepared as part of the Academic Excellence Indicator System (AEIS) is
                                  available on-line. District and/or campus information can be downloaded for some web products. Use this URL to
                                  access the website of the TEA Division of Performance Reporting:

                                          http://www.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport/

                                  Topics on the web include:
                                  ♦    AEIS REPORTS.
                                  ♦    ACCOUNTABILITY RATINGS.
                                  ♦    SCHOOL REPORT CARDS.
                                  ♦    RELATED INFORMATION.

Comments and Questions
                                  Comments about the development of the Texas public           Comments and questions about the determination of
                                  school accountability system should be addressed to:         accountability ratings should be addressed to:
                                      Address:   Criss Cloudt, Associate Commissioner            Address:    Nancy Stevens, Director
                                                 for Accountability and Data Quality                         Division of Performance Reporting
                                                 Texas Education Agency                                      Texas Education Agency
                                                 1701 North Congress Avenue                                  1701 North Congress Avenue
                                                 Austin, Texas 78701-1494                                    Austin, Texas 78701-1494
                                      Phone:     (512) 463-9701                                  Phone:      (512) 463-9704
                                      FAX:       (512) 475-3499                                  FAX:        (512) 475-3584
                                      E-mail:    ccloudt@tea.state.tx.us                         E-mail:     perfrept@tea.state.tx.us




Section IV – Additional Information                                 2003 ACCOUNTABILITY PLAN                                                         25
                                                                      Updated October 2003
Section IV – Additional Information   2003 ACCOUNTABILITY PLAN   26
                                        Updated October 2003
Appendix A


                                    Excerpts From No Child Left Behind Act, H.R. 1, Title I, Part A, Sec. 1111.State Plans
Stat. Ref.                                                                                  Description

(b) (2) (A)   ACCOUNTABILITY
              Each state plan shall demonstrate that the State has developed and is implementing a single, statewide State accountability system that will be effective in ensuring
              that all local education agencies, public elementary schools, and public secondary schools make adequate yearly progress as defined under this paragraph. Each
              State accountability system shall --

(i)           be based on the academic standards and academic assessments adopted under paragraphs (1) and (3), and other academic indicators consistent with subparagraph
              C (vi) and (vii), and shall take into account the achievement of all public elementary school and secondary school students;

(ii)          be the same accountability system the State uses for all public elementary schools and secondary schools or all local educational agencies in the State…..

(ii)          include sanctions and rewards…..

(B)           ADEQUATE YEARLY PROGRESS – Each state plan shall demonstrate, based on academic assessments described in paragraph (3), and in accordance with this
              paragraph, what constitutes adequate yearly progress of the State…..

(C)           ‘Adequate yearly progress’ shall be defined by the State in a manner that--
              (i) applies the same high standards of academic achievement to all public elementary school and secondary school students in the State;
              (ii) is statistically valid and reliable;
              (iii) results in continuous and substantial academic improvement for all students;
              (iv) measures the progress of public elementary schools, secondary school and local education agencies and the State based primarily on the academic
              assessments described in paragraph (3);
              (v) includes separate measurable annual objectives for continuous and substantial improvement for each of the following:
                           (I) The achievement of all public elementary school and secondary school students.
                           (II) The achievement of (aa) economically disadvantaged students; (bb) students from major racial and ethnic groups; (cc) students with disabilities; and
              (dd) students with limited English proficiency:….
              (vi) in accordance with subparagraph (D), includes graduation rates for public secondary school students defined as the percentage of students who graduate from
              secondary school with a regular diploma in the standard number of years) and at least one other academic indicator, as determined by the State for all public
              elementary school students; and
              (vii) in accordance with subparagraph (D), at the State’s discretion may also include other academic indicators, as determined by the State for all public school
              students, measured separately for each group described in clause (v), such as achievement on additional State or local administered assessments, decreases in
              grade-to-grade retention rates, attendance rates, and changes in the percentages of students completing gifted and talented, advanced placement, and college

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Appendix A                                                  2003 ACCOUNTABILITY PLAN                                                        27
                                                              Updated October 2003
                                    Excerpts From No Child Left Behind Act, H.R. 1, Title I, Part A, Sec. 1111.State Plans
Stat. Ref.                                                                               Description
             preparatory courses.

(E)          Each State…..shall establish the starting point for measure, under subparagraph (G) and (H), the percentage of students meeting or exceeding the State’s proficient
             level of academic achievement on the State assessments under paragraph (3) and pursuant to the timeline described in subparagraph (F). The starting point shall
             be, at a minimum, based on the higher of the percentages of students at the proficient level who are in --
             (i) the State’s lowest achieving group of students described in subparagraph (C)(v)(II); or
             (ii) the school at the 20th percentile in the State, based on enrollment, among all schools ranked by the percentage of students at the proficient level.

(F)          Each State shall establish a timeline for adequate yearly progress. The timeline shall ensure that not later than 12 years after the end of the 2001-2002 school year,
             all students in each group described in subparagraph (C)(v) will meet or exceed the State’s proficient level of academic achievement on the State assessments under
             paragraph (3).




______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Appendix A                                                  2003 ACCOUNTABILITY PLAN                                                        28
                                                              Updated October 2003
Appendix B
Many people have contributed to the development of the 2003 Accountability Plan. The project staff wishes to thank these individuals for their expert advice.
Commissioner’s                  Representatives from legislative offices, school districts, and the business community were invited to participate in resolving
                                many issues critical to the accountability system. The Commissioner’s Accountability Advisory Committee met in February 2002
Accountability
                                to discuss issues related to the 2002, 2003, and 2004 and beyond accountability system. We appreciate these individuals and
Advisory Committee              their efforts to creatively and fairly resolve the accountability issues addressed.
                                School District / Regional Education Service Center (ESC) Representatives
                                       Kaye Stripling, Superintendent, Houston ISD
                                       Thomas S. Tocco, Superintendent, Fort Worth ISD
                                       Jesus Chavez, Superintendent, Corpus Christi ISD
                                       Pat Forgione, Superintendent, Austin ISD
                                       Thomas Randle, Superintendent, Lamar CISD
                                       David Splitek, Superintendent, Lackland ISD
                                       Herman L. Smith, Jr., Superintendent, Bryan ISD
                                       Mike Strozeski, Director of Research, Garland ISD
                                       Jim Scales, Deputy Superintendent, Dallas ISD
                                       Harlan Howell, Director of Research and Evaluation / Computer Services, Harlingen ISD
                                       Joe Farmer, Executive Director, Region X ESC
                                       Tom Norris, Executive Director, Region XII ESC
                                Legislative Staff
                                       Robert Scott, Public Education Policy Director, Office of Governor Perry
                                       Ursula Parks, Public Education Team Manager, Legislative Budget Board
                                       Patricia Hayes, Special Assistant for Education, Office of the Lieutenant Governor
                                       Trish Conradt, Special Assistant for Education, Office of the Speaker of the House
                                       Rhonda McCollough, Committee Director, Senate Education Committee
                                       Craig Smith, Committee Clerk, Office of Representative Paul Sadler
                                Other Representatives
                                       Johnny Veselka, Executive Director, Texas Association of School Administrators
                                       Jim Crow, Executive Director, Texas Association of School Boards
                                       David Dunn, Associate Executive Director, Texas Association of School Boards
                                       John Stevens, Executive Director, Texas Business and Education Coalition
                                       Darv Winick, Winick Consultants
                                       Bill Miller, President, The Med Group
                                       Sandy Kress, Partner, Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer, and Feld
Appendix B                                                               2003 ACCOUNTABILITY PLAN                                                                 29
                                                                           Updated October 2003
Other Advisory   The Educator Focus Group on Accountability convened January 31 and February 1, 2002, to address accountability system
                 development issues related to 2002, 2003, and 2004 and beyond. We appreciate these individuals who committed their time and
Groups
                 expertise to address accountability issues presented.
                 Educator Focus Group
                       Daniel King, Superintendent, Hidalgo ISD
                       Nabor F. Cortez, Jr., Superintendent, Brooks County ISD
                       Charlotte Baker, Director of Instruction, Palacios ISD
                       Adrain Johnson, Superintendent, La Marque ISD
                       Roberta Warner, Director of Testing and Research, Cypress-Fairbanks ISD
                       Tom Harvey, Superintendent, Sabine Pass ISD
                       Raymon Puente, Principal, Rockdale High School, Rockdale ISD
                       Mary Ann Adams Whiteker, Superintendent, Hudson ISD
                       Travis Weatherspoon, Curriculum Director, Pewitt CISD
                       Anne Poplin, Superintendent, Windthorst ISD
                       Whitcomb Johnstone, Director of Planning, Evaluation and Research, Irving ISD
                       Mike Strozeski, Director of Research, Garland ISD
                       Francine Holland, Deputy Executive Director for Instructional Services, Region XI Education Service Center
                       Jim Dickson, Superintendent, Corsicana ISD
                       Libby Gardner, Superintendent, Pflugerville ISD
                       Ledessa White, Principal, Robert E. Lee Elementary, Abilene ISD
                       Marsha Lindahl, Director of Special Education, Small Schools Cooperative
                       Dawson Orr, Superintendent, Pampa ISD
                       Mike Motheral, Superintendent, Sundown ISD
                       Billy Espino, Principal, Ft. Stockton Intermediate School, Fort Stockton ISD
                       Sylvia Garza, Assistant Superintendent of Instructional Services, Clint ISD
                       Iris Amon, Executive Director for Planning and Assessment, Southwest ISD
                       David Splitek, Superintendent, Lackland ISD




Appendix B                                               2003 ACCOUNTABILITY PLAN                                                          30
                                                           Updated October 2003
Other Advisory   Commissioner’s TASA Cabinet of Superintendents                 Education Service Center Executive Directors
Groups (cont.)   Randy Albers, Midway ISD (Waco area)                           Sylvia R. Hatton, Region I
                 Dennis Bennet, Bellvue ISD                                     Ernest Zamora, Region II
                 Jesus Chavez, Corpus Christi ISD                               Julius D. Cano, Region III
                 John Conley, Bellville ISD                                     William L. McKinney, Region IV
                 Donald Egg, Ganado ISD                                         R. Steve Hyden, Region V
                 Libby Gardner, Pflugerville ISD                                Thomas Poe, Region VI
                 Bill Graves, Paint Rock ISD                                    Eddie J. Little, Region VII
                 Jim Hawkins, DeSoto ISD                                        Scott Ferguson, Region VIII
                 Henry D. Herrera, Alice ISD                                    Ron Preston, Region IX
                 Richard Kitchens, Pewitt CISD                                  Joe T. Farmer, Region X
                 Gail Krohn, Nederland ISD                                      Richard Ownby, Region XI
                 Steve Maikell, Sweetwater ISD                                  Tom Norris, Region XII
                 Leonard Merrill, Katy ISD                                      Patrick G. Pringle, Region XIII
                 Richard Middleton, North East ISD                              Terry Harlow, Region XIV
                 Rolando Pena, Rio Hondo ISD                                    Clyde Warren, Region XV
                 Sylvester Perez, Clint ISD                                     Darrell L. Garrison, Region XVI
                 Jenny Preston, Allen ISD                                       Kyle Wargo, Region XVII
                 Jery Roberts, Kilgore ISD                                      Charles W. Greenawalt, Region XVIII
                 Berhl Robertson, Jr., Roosevelt ISD                            James R. Vasquez, Region XIX
                 Carroll Thomas, Beaumont ISD                                   Judy Castleberry, Region XX
                 Jeff Turner, Burleson ISD
                 James Veitenheimer, Canyon ISD
                 Maxie Watts, Wink-Loving ISD
                 Jeff Weaver, Eanes ISD
                 John Wilson, Clear Creek ISD
                 Johnny Veselka, Texas Association of School Administrators
                 Paul Whitton, Texas Association of School Administrators

Appendix B                                           2003 ACCOUNTABILITY PLAN                                                  31
                                                       Updated October 2003
Commissioner’s   The Commissioner’s Accountability Advisory Committee met on August 5, 2003 to discuss updating the 2003 Accountability Plan
                 and other issues related to accountability. We appreciate these individuals and their efforts to creatively and fairly resolve the
Accountability
                 accountability issues addressed.
Advisory
Committee        School District / Regional ESC Representatives
                      Kaye Stripling, Superintendent, Houston ISD
                      Thomas S. Tocco, Superintendent, Fort Worth ISD
                      Jesus Chavez, Superintendent, Corpus Christi ISD
                      Pat Forgione, Superintendent, Austin ISD
                      Thomas Randle, Superintendent, Lamar CISD
                      David Splitek, Superintendent, Lackland ISD
                      Herman L. Smith, Jr., Superintendent, Bryan ISD
                      Mike Strozeski, Executive Director of Accountability, Richardson ISD
                      Jim Scales, Deputy Superintendent, Dallas ISD
                      Harlan Howell, Director of Research and Evaluation / Computer Services, Harlingen ISD
                      Joe Farmer, Executive Director, Region X ESC
                      Tom Norris, Executive Director, Region XII ESC
                      James R. Vasquez, Executive Director, Region XIX ESC
                 Legislative Staff
                      Todd Webster, Public Education Policy Director, Office of the Governor
                      Ursula Parks, Public Education Team Manager, Legislative Budget Board
                      Andrea Sheridan, Special Assistant for Education, Office of the Lieutenant Governor
                      Harrison Keller, Special Assistant for Education, Office of the Speaker of the House
                      Adam Jones, Committee Director, Senate Education Committee
                      LouAnn Martinez, Chief of Staff for School Finance Studies
                 Other Representatives
                      Johnny Veselka, Executive Director, Texas Association of School Administrators
                      Jim Crow, Executive Director, Texas Association of School Boards
                      John Stevens, Executive Director, Texas Business and Education Coalition
                      Darv Winick, Education Advisor, Winick Consultants
                      Don McAdams, President, Center for Reform of School Systems
                      Sandy Kress, Partner, Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer, and Feld
                      Bill Hammond, President and CEO, Texas Association of Business




Appendix B                                                  2003 ACCOUNTABILITY PLAN                                                                  32
                                                              Updated October 2003
TEA Staff    The following people contributed to the update of the 2003 Accountability Plan.

              Executive Management
                Robert Scott, Commissioner of Education (Acting)
                Ron L. McMichael, Chief Deputy Commissioner
              Project Leadership
                Criss Cloudt, Associate Commissioner for Accountability and Data Quality
                Nancy Stevens, Director, Division of Performance Reporting
              Contributors
                Nancy Rinehart, Manager, Division of Performance Reporting
                Betty Weed, Program Specialist, Division of Performance Reporting




Appendix B                                         2003 ACCOUNTABILITY PLAN                    33
                                                     Updated October 2003

								
To top