state of the state texas education agency tcase summer conference july 2008

State of the StateTexas Education

AgencyTCASE Summer ConferenceJuly 2008

Texas Education Agency TCASE | July 2008

472,749


3-5 37,5286-21

435,221


370000

390000

410000

430000

450000

470000

490000

510000

Totals(3-21)

Number of SWD (3-21)


9.00%

9.50%

10.00%

10.50%

11.00%

11.50%

12.00%

12.50%

13.00%

Totals (3-21)

% of SWD (3-21) of Total Enrollment


LD (6-21) 1995-2007

200000

225000

250000

275000

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

LD

214,728

266,934


20000

25000

30000

35000

40000

45000

50000

55000

60000

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

OHI

OHI (6-21) 1995-2007


2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

18000

20000

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

AU

AU (6-21) 1995-2007


30000

31000

32000

33000

34000

35000

36000

37000

38000

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

ED

ED (6-21) 1995-2007


Additional Data

Economically Disadvantaged 11%LEP 10%Bilingual

5%ESL 14%Migrant 11%G&T 1%CTE 11%


State Performance Plan (SPP)/

Annual Performance (APR)


Big 16


IEP/ Evaluation

Evaluations completed within state-established timelines

Notice of intent or refusal to implement service

Eligibility determinations have appropriate documentation


IEP Procedures

ARD membership not including parent participation

Convening ARD committee meetings Parents are afforded the opportunity

for meaningful participation in the eligibility determination and the development of the IEP

FAPE, IEP not calculated to provide educational benefit


IEP Content

IEPs that did not have all required components appropriately documented

IEP is not implemented as written Reevaluation determinations

completed in a timely manner Pattern of service: Related

Services, Homebound, and ESY Frequency/duration of services


IEP/AGC

LRE Placement Participation and performance of

children with disabilities on statewide assessments


Discipline

Suspension and expulsion


Personnel

Provision of services by certified personnel


New Data Collection Systems2007-2008

Indicators 7, 13, & 14


Indicator 7 (Preliminary data 2007-2008)

Districts Reporting Data 1136

Campuses Reporting Data 3843

Entry Data 20,188

Exit Data 1,119


Indicator 13 (Preliminary data)

Total districts for data collection 1249

Districts that have submitted data 1081

Districts indicating no students 125Districts with no data/information

43


Indicator 13 (Preliminary Data 2007-2008)

Number of Students 27,969

The IEP meets the requirements of the SPPIndicator 13

67%

The IEP does not meet the requirements ofthe SPP Indicator 13

33%


Indicator 13 (13 Objectives) Areas of Concern

1. IEP includes measurable postsecondary goals.

6. Annual IEP goals facilitate movement toward postsecondary goals.

9. Student needs, taking account strengths, preferences, and interests are reflected in identified postsecondary.


Indicator 14 (Preliminary data)

Total districts in sample 179

Districts that have submitted data 147

Districts indicating no students 19

Districts no data/information 13


Indicator 14 (Preliminary data 2007-2008)

Final sample size:Post-secondary phone calls completed 1381

Response rate 48.8%


Indicator 14(Preliminary data 2007-2008)

The % of youth who had IEPS and were no longer in secondary school, and had been competitively employed or enrolled in postsecondary school, within one year of leaving high school: 82%


New System for Data Collection

Indicators 11 & 12 2007-2008

Indicator 13 2008-2009


Indicators 11, 12, & 13Timelines for applying for TEA SE ID

or adding a new application to your current ID

SPP 11 and 12 – Begins August 1 SPP 13 – Begins Early Spring 2009

SPP 11, 12 and 13 - Only one TEA SE ID needed for the district certifier of an SSA (will allow to certify the data for all member districts). It will be the TEA SE ID/password of the fiscal agent. Must still go into TEA SE and add the application.


Indicators 11, 12, & 13 SPP 13 - The SSA may have a data

entry agent from each member district but they will get approval through their own district.

When TEA SE is ready to access to add a new application, TEA will notify the ESCs of its availability and will include information on how to apply for a new TEA SE account and how to add an application.


First Time Collection2007-2008

Indicators 11 & 12


Indicators 11 & 122007-2008 (July 1, 2007 – June 30, 2008)Preliminary Information Late

August

Training Mid to Late September

System Open in October

Open for 60 days


Indicators 11 & 122008-2009 (July 1, 2008 – June 30, 2009)

System Open July 1, 2009

Open for 90 days


Indicator 11 The system will calculate the percentage of

students ages 3 through 21 for whom parental consent was received, whose Admission, Review, and Dismissal Committee (ARDC) meeting was held within 90 calendar days of receipt of parental consent, and whose eligibility was determined.

For those students who did not have an ARDC meeting completed within 90 calendar days of the receipt of parental consent, the system will also calculate and display the numbers of students in that category, and allow the user to collect data for ranges of days beyond 90 and the reasons for the delay, for both eligible and not eligible students.


Indicator 12The system captures the following data: a. Number of students served in Part C and referred

to Part B for eligibility determination. b. The number of students referred to Part B for

eligibility determination who were not previously served by Part C.

c. The number of children from 'a' AND 'b' determined to be NOT eligible, the number determined to be NOT eligible by their third birthday, and the number determined to be NOT eligible after their third birthday.

d. Of those students determined to be NOT eligible after their third birthday, the number of children for whom the ARDC meeting was held less than 30 days after their third birthday, the number of children for whom the ARDC meeting was held more than 30 days after their third birthday, and the reasons for the delay.


Indicator 12 e. The number of children from 'a' AND 'b'

determined to be eligible, the number determined eligible by their third birthday, and the number determined eligible after their third birthday.

f. Of those students determined to be eligible after their third birthday, the number of children for whom an IEP was developed and implemented less than 30 days after their third birthday, the number of children for whom an IEP was developed and implemented more than 30 days after their third birthday, and the reasons for the delay.


State Determination


State Determination

Meets RequirementsNeeds Assistance (2007)Needs Intervention (2008)

Needs Substantial Intervention


PolicyUpdate


LEA Determinations


LEA Determinations/ 2008 Determination Criteria

States Must Consider1. SPP Compliance (9 and 10)2. Valid, Reliable, and Timely Data3. Status of Uncorrected

Noncompliance4. Financial Audits

States May Consider5. Program Effectiveness


LEA Determinations/ 2008

Number of districts in each of the determination levels.

707 = Meets Requirements (57.8%)421 = Needs Assistance (34.4%) 65 = Needs Intervention (5.3%) 30 = Needs Substantial Intervention (2.5%)


LEA Determinations/ 2009 Determination Criteria

States Must Consider1. SPP Compliance (9, 10, 11, 12, and 13)2. Valid, Reliable, and Timely Data3. Status of Uncorrected Noncompliance4. Financial Audits

States May Consider5. Program Effectiveness


Here’s the most important

acronym you need to commit to memory

when it comes to compliance…


A S A P B N L T O Y


As Soon As PossibleBut No Later Than One

Year


The sooner evidence of correction

can be reviewed by the Agency, the better…


Significant Disproportionali

ty


Significant DisproportionalityData Source PBMAS Indicators 15 and

16SPP Indicators 9 and 10In July 2008, TEA conducted a detailed

analysis of the 300 LEAs identified as having disproportionate representation in order to refine the identification of disproportionality based on SPP indicators 9 and 10. The analysis was conducted in order to identify LEAs having significant disproportionality.


Significant DisproportionalityThe following steps were taken to

refine the determination. For a school district to be included in the analysis:

Each district must have at least 2 racial/ethnic groups.

Each racial/ethnic group in the district must have at least 10 students (both special education and regular education students).

A statistical logistic regression model was then used to determine a pair-wise, ODDS/RISK ratio of disproportionate representation among the racial/ethnic groups (e.g. Hispanic/Asian).


Significant DisproportionalityTo determine statistically significant over-

representation: For the first analysis, an ODDS/RISK ratio was set

at greater than 1 and a chi-square P-value <=0.0001 (statistically significant). This cut point yielded 95 districts identified as having significant disproportionality.

For a second analysis, which provided further refinement, the ODDS/RISK ratio was set at greater than 2.50 and a chi-square P-value <=0.0001 (statistically significant). This cut point yielded 41 districts identified as having significant disproportionality

As a result of this two level analysis, 41 LEAs (having at least 2 racial/ethnic groups with at least 10 students) were identified as having statistically significant disproportionality in special education


Early Intervening Services (EIS)

New Guidance on the Web page regarding the use of EIS funds

119 districts in 2007-2008


AssessmentUpdate


TAKS-AlternateTAKS-Alt


TAKS-Alt (Anticipated Changes) STANDARDIZED ESSENCE STATEMENTS

Change 6 to 4 State mandated

STANDARDIZED INSTRUCTIONAL ACTIVITIES Select one of the three standardized

instructional activities provided for each essence statement.

Pre-determined criteria for the activities are also now standardized.

TAKS–ALT TRAINING MODULES TAKS–Alt training modules will be mandatory

for all district personnel who are involved in the administration of TAKS–Alt.

Series of knowledge-check questions for each module that must be successfully completed


TAKS-Alt (Anticipated Changes) INTER-RATER RELIABILITY STUDY

Requires a second rater for certain students selected as part of the study sample.

Sample of student participants included in the study will be larger to provide additional reliability evidence required by USDE.

2008–09 TAKS–ALT TRAINING AND TESTING SCHEDULE Due to the extensive changes that will be

made to TAKS–Alt, training modules will be available later in the school year (November)

TAKS–Alt testing window will also open later in the school year (January – April)


TAKS-ModifiedTAKS-M


TAKS-M 2008-2009 TETN schedule for future

training has been finalized so contact your ESC for dates and times.

Sample items for social studies and the revising and editing portion of the writing test will be posted on the TAKS-M Resources page on the TEA Student Assessment website by August 2008.

The Webb Alignment Study will be held July 15-16 for reading/ELA, mathematics and social studies. Alignment is a tool for focusing instruction, curricula, and assessment and a federal requirement to ensure that assessments are aligned to content standards.


TAKS-M Standard setting for 3-8 reading, 10

ELA, 3-8 and 10 mathematics, and 5, 8, and 10 science will be August 6-8 and 13-15. Once standards have been set, districts will be sent new confidential student reports stating whether students passed or failed the assessment at these grades and subjects.

SSI will apply to students taking TAKS-M in 2008-2009 so retest opportunities for 3, 5, and 8 reading and 5 and 8 mathematics will be offered.


Accommodations Manual

Posted to TEA website in September

Printed and shipped along with District Coordinator Manual in November

Will include more examples and better explanations

TELPAS and LAT testing will be included


Accommodations Request Process

Greatly reduced, improved and online!


ARD Manual

Posted to TEA website (only – not printed) in September

No major changes


High CostFunds


High Cost Funds 2007-2008

130 Districts979 Students$8,979,026


High Cost Funds 2008-2009A little over $9M

The Agency will consider roll forward amounts in awarding High Cost Funds.

state of the state texas education agency tcase summer conference july 2008

Documents

exit data

entry data

campuses reporting data

annual iep goals

iep evaluation evaluations

iep content ieps

iep procedures ard membership

number of students