YSLETA INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICTDivision of Academics

Federal & State Programs

VISION STATEMENTAll students who enroll in our schools will graduate from high school, fluent in two or more languages, prepared and inspired to continue their

education in a four year college, university or institution of higher education so that they become successful citizens in their community.

State Compensatory Education

May, 2013

State Compensatory Education

YISD CONTACTS

Gilbert Rodriguez grodriguez@yisd.net (915) 434-0792

Alice Garcia agarcia3@yisd.net (915) 434-0796

Jackie Saenz jsaenz18@yisd.net (915) 434-0793

SCE References• Financial Accountability System Resource Guide (FASRG) Module 9

http://www.tea.state.tx.us/index4.aspx?id=1222

SCE References• Texas Education Code, Section 29.081

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/ED/htm/ED.29.htm#29.081

SCE References• Q & A on State Compensatory Education

http://www.tea.state.tx.us/index4.aspx?id=4082

State Compensatory EducationRules and Regulations

SCE –State Mandated Program

Programs and/or Services designed to supplement the regular education program for at-risk students.

• Goal: Improve TAKS/STAAR scores

• Purpose: Increase academic Achievement

Decrease drop out rate

Planning District/Campus Improvement Plans (D/CIP)

Serves as the Primary Record, supporting expenditures• Comprehensive Needs Assessment• CIP/Goals, objectives, and strategies• Total SCE funds allocated for resources and staff• Actual dollar amounts for activities • Supplemental FTE’s for SCE• Timelines for monitoring strategies/activities• Formative and summative evaluation criteria

Planning

The district must design the State Compensatory Education Program based on the identified needs of

students at risk of dropping out of school.

The Comprehensive Needs Assessment is the Driving Force behind District/Campus Planning.

Planning

The District/Campus Improvement Plan must include the following:

• Total amount of SCE funds allocated for resources & staff

• Actual dollar amounts for the activities and SCE dollars that show 52% of the entitlement

• Cumulative summary of program and entire budget in the DIP

• Specific campus activities and campus budget in the CIPs

Staff Development • School Personnel – Receive training designed to

assist students at risk of dropping out of school-Training & training expense must be reasonable and

necessary

-Training must be aligned with the needs of at-risk students

-District must ensure training is not a “one time” event

• District must maintain documentation -Training was evaluated for effectiveness

-District established written policies regarding attendance of staff development

Evaluation of SCE

• SCE program must be evaluated and documented by showing the effectiveness of reducing disparity in

₋ Assessments performed between at risk students and all district students

₋ Rates of high school completion

₋ Effectiveness of the SCE program

₋ Assure strategies have been implemented as designed

₋ SCE resources must be Redirected when programs/services are unsuccessful

State Compensatory Education13 @ Risk Indicators

Texas Education Code §29.081A student at risk of dropping out of school includes each student who is under 21 years of age and who… 1. Unsatisfactory performance on a readiness test (PK -3)2. Did not maintain an average of 70 in two or more subjects3. Not promoted for one or more school years (R)

4. Did not perform satisfactorily on an assessment instrument

5. Is pregnant or is a parent (R) http://www.tea.state.tx.us/PRS.html

6. Placed in an alternative education program (TEC37.006)

7. Expelled (TEC37.007)

8. Parole, probation, deferred prosecution, or other conditional release

9. Dropped out of school as reported PEIMS (R)

10. Is a student of Limited English Proficiency

11. Custody or care of the Department of Protective and Regulatory Services

12. Homeless

13. Resides in a residential placement facility.

Local Student EligibilityModule 9, Section 9.2.3.2

o Local criteria must be adopted by the board of trustees

oAdopted criteria must be clearly defined in the district improvement plan for districts or the instructional plan for charter schools

oNumber of students may not exceed 10% of the number of students who received services during the preceding school year

o Students identified using local criteria - Not reported through PEIMS

Local Student Eligibility (cont.)

o LEA must maintain current auditable documentation regarding the locally identified at risk students

o Documentation indicating the compliance with the 10 percent cap must be:

-maintained at the LEA level

-addressed in the district/charter improvement plan

o SCE allotment may not be used to serve students on a particular campus if:

-the LEA has not identified any students on the same campus that meet any of the state criteria

SCE Funding

Direct Cost: 52% may be used to meet the costs of

(1) a supplemental compensatory, intensive, or accelerated instruction program under Section 29.081; or

(2) an alternative education program established under Section 37.008; or

(3) support to a program at a campus at which at least 40% of the students are low income; or

(4) a program specifically designed to serve students at risk of dropping out of school as defined by TEC Section 29.081.

SCE Funding (cont.)

Indirect Cost : 48% may be attributed in the General Fund to the following expenditure function codes:

• 34-Student Transportation • 41-General Administration• 81- Facilities Acquisition and Construction• Function 90 series of the General Fund, as defined in the

TEA Financial Accountability System Resource Guide (FASRG).

SCE Funding (cont.)

Understanding Program Intent codes (PIC)

• PIC 24 – Accelerated Instruction • PIC 26 – SCE: Non-Disciplinary Alternative Ed (Basic)• PIC 28 – SCE: Disciplinary Alternative Ed (Basic)• PIC 29 – SCE: Disciplinary Alternative Ed (Supplemental)• PIC 30 – Title I School-Wide Activities• PIC 32 – Pre-Kindergarten (Basic)• PIC 33 – Pre-Kindergarten (Special Education)• PIC 34 – Pre-Kindergarten (State Compensatory Education)• PIC 35 – Pre-Kindergarten (Bilingual Education)

State Compensatory EducationYsleta ISD Model

• Identify-Students• Enter/Exit-Students• Interventions/RTI• Goals/Benchmarks• Reports/Evaluation• Data Archiving

Enrollment Data

Homeless • Teen Parent

PEIMS

SCE

ALPS

CAMPUS@ Risk

LEP

Enrollment D

ata

Homeless • LEP • T

een Parent

@ Risk

Ysleta ISD Model

Ysleta ISD Statistics

• Total Enrollment:

43,504

• Total Campuses:62

• School-wide Campuses:

61

• Total At-Risk Students

21,889

Criteria #1 Pre-K thru 3rd Grade Reading Assessments

Pre-K: CIRCLE/C-PALLS+ (Center for Improving the Readiness of Children for

Learning and Education) / (Phonological Awareness Language and Literacy Screener)

K-2: TPRI/Tejas LEE (Texas Primary Reading Inventory)

3rd Grade: WRAP (Writing, Reading Assessment Protocol)

Criteria #1 Pre-K thru 3rd Grade Math Assessments

Pre-K: CIRCLE/C-PALLS+ (Center for Improving the Readiness of Children for Learning and Education) / (Phonological Awareness Language and Literacy Screener) + = Math Screener

K-2: TCM (Teacher Created Materials)

3rd Grade: TCM (Teacher Created Materials)

Criteria 4 TAKS 110% Calculation

Excel Spreadsheet- Example of 110%Calculation

110% Rule:Student Needs to Pass Re-Test with 110% of Failed Score

   

Step 1: Total Test Questions Quantity of Questions Answered Correctly

4428

 

   Test Score 63.4%

(Failed)

 

     Step 2: 110% Rule: 28 X .110 = 3  28 + 3 = 31 

 Required Correct Answer  31

Procedures and Program Description

• Program Overview• Campus Committee• Campus Contact• Student Eligibility • Student Identification • Student Exit • Program Evaluation

Ysleta ISD –Funding

SCE Funds for 2012-13 (Approx. $22 Million)

• Compensatory Educational enrichment activities

• IntensiveExtended day, week, year E2020

•Accelerated TAKS/STAAR remediation Specialized Reading & Math ProgramsIndividualized Computer-Assisted Instruction

SCE Campus Trainings

• Area Learning Communities• Counselors Professional Development • One-on-One Campus• Clerks• Principals/Administrators• PEIMS Data Quality Control Conferences• YISD Data Quality, Policies, and Procedures• Teachers – Holiday Exchange

At-Risk Identification Process

• Committee

Reviews Student Cum Folders

Identify At –Risk Students (13 At-Risk Criteria)

Enter/Exit Students from At-Risk Criteria/Status

• Administrators/Teachers

Interventions- Strategies and Activities

• Administrators/Clerks

Data entry @ Risk students SCE Module

Review/Monitoring Process

August – September 30 Students transitioning from:

- Pre-K to elementary

- Elementary to middle & middle to high schools New Identified At-Risk Students (30-days)

October-January Ongoing review of interventions/cum folders of all identified

at-risk students

March-May Final Updates –SCE module records and end of year student

cum folders (Exit – Transition)

Ysleta ISD ElementaryStudent Performance Comparison

Grade

TAKS Subject

Tests Difference Difference At Risk Other At Risk Other

3rd Reading 79% 79% 0% 90% 75% 15%3rd Math 70% 50% 20% 90% 80% 10%4th Reading 63% 93% -30% 86% 81% 5%4th Math 61% 100% -39% 78% 100% -22%5th Reading 79% 83% -4% 75% 86% -11%5th Math 74% 88% -14% 73% 86% -13%6th Reading 50% 92% -42% 72% 70% 2%6th Math 81% 92% -11% 83% 85% -2%Total: Reading 67% 86% -19% 77% 78% -1%Total: Math 71% 79% -8% 83% 87% -4%

2009-10 2010-11

• Where are the concerns for the campus?• Have gains or losses been analyzed?

State Compensatory EducationTAKS Percent Passing

Students At-Risk and All Other District Students

  2009-2010 2010-2011

  READING/ELA

Number Number Percent Number Number Percent

Tested Passing Passing Tested Passing Passing

  At-Risk 13,392 11,293 84% 13,748 11,323 82%

  All Others 13,846 13,371 97% 13,704 13,157 96%

  MATHEMATICS

Number Number Percent Number Number Percent

Tested Passing Passing Tested Passing Passing

  At-Risk 13,212 9,838 74% 13,575 10,154 75%

  All Others 13,821 12,956 94% 13,714 12,681 92%

14%

17%

Ysleta Independent School DistrictState Compensatory EducationAt-Risk Student Dropout Rate

2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-11

9.9% 9.8% 8.7%

     

     

     

     

At Risk Students/Interventions

June 2010 June 2011 June 2012 April 20130

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

23,927 24,389

20,29021,761

15,191

19,743

16,734

23,431

# of At Risk Students

# of Students with Interven-tions

Electronic Student Data Entry System

State Comp Ed – Content Screen

Search Screen

56321

32547

69821

45873

63251

85691

32687

19648

98564

86524

96587

Arellano

Fernandez

Garcia

Garcia

Hernandez

Herrera

Jacquez

Martinez

Avila

Contreras

Davis

Mickey

Bugs

Porky

Sylvester

Popeye

Elmer

Petunia

Goofy

Donald

Daffy

Daisy

13 At-Risk Data

Enter/Edit At-Risk Data13 At-Risk Data

Entry Date Withdraw Date

09/01/2008  

09/01/2008 01/10/2009

09/04/2012

06/06/2010

2nd Grade

2009-10

1

Pretest - Failed reading portion of TPRI Midtest – Passed reading portion of TPRI

06/12/2012

09/20/2012

Intervention Screen

Interventions – Drop Down Box

Intervention Screen

Tutoring will take place Monday-Thursday from 3:00-4:00 in a small group setting. Student progress will be monitored every six weeks and will need to have gained 5%. If student does not meet progress within the 6 weeks, reevaluate intervention and possibly assign an alternate.

20%

Intervention Panel

State Comp Ed – Content Screen

Reports Screen

Campus Summary Report

Standard Student Report

12345

85632

96587

23658

12587

36521

32547

12547

Avila, Joseph

Campos, Ana

Davis, Greg

Garcia, Robert

Garcia, Shawn

Lopez, Jaime

Murray, John

Smith, Albert

Questions?