Implementation of certain STAAR Grades 3-8 indicators, as appropriate and contingent on data...

Implementation of certain STAAR Grades 3-8 indicators, as appropriate and contingent on data availability.

Use of the Met Standard performance standard for TAKS on these STAAR Grades 3-8 indicators.

Students who meet the TAKS Met Standard performance standard on the relevant STAAR assessments will be counted in the indicators’ numerators as performing on the STAAR subject test at the TAKS equivalency performance standard.

Detailed information about the process to identify the Met Standard performance on TAKS for the STAAR assessments is available at http://www.tea.state.tx.us/student.assessment/reports/.

Copyright © Texas Education Agency 2012. All rights reserved.

1

Transition to the new State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness (STAAR)

http://www.tea.state.tx.us/student.assessment/reports/

2012 PBM Data Validation Indicator Preview: Leavers

Leaver Records Data Validation

Indicator Name 2011 2012

Indicator #1 Dropout Rate Trend Analysis

2009-2010 dropout rates compared to 2008-2009 dropout rates And~2009-2010 dropout rates compared to 2007-2008 dropout rates

Rename the indicator: Leaver Data Analysis Clarify the more comprehensive analysis that actually occurs with this indicator.Modify district report format to provide more comprehensive information on this indicator.

Copyright © Texas Education Agency 2012 All rights reserved.

2

Traditionally presented as an indicator that simply identifies districts with significant decreases in dropout rates.

“But…aren’t decreases in dropout rates a good thing?”• It depends…on what contributed to those decreases.• This requires a more detailed understanding of the

data that could affect a district’s dropout rate.• There are several components that are important to

consider.

Copyright © Texas Education Agency 2012. All rights reserved.3

Indicator 1: Leaver Data Analysis

A district’s dropout rate is calculated as follows:Number of students (G 7-12) who dropped out during a school yearNumber of students (G 7-12 in attendance during a school year

If we start with an example where there were 4,000 students in attendance and 200 dropouts, the calculation yields a 5% dropout rate.

The ways different categories of leaver data change the following year could have a profound effect on the change in rates.

The analysis conducted under Indicator 1 analyzes the different factors that can contribute to decreased dropout rates.


Indicator 1: Leaver Data Analysis (continued)


Year 1 Year 2

200 4,000 = 5.0%

1004,000 = 2.5% Looks good, but… There may be other factors that

contributed to the reduced numerator.

We know that 100 fewer students were coded as dropouts.

But, what else might have changed from Year 1 to Year 2?

What other leaver data might have changed, thus contributing to a smaller number of dropouts being reported?

Copyright © Texas Education Agency 2012. All rights reserved. 5


Year 1 Year 2

200 4,000 = 5.0%

• 200 students were reported as dropouts. (NUMERATOR)

• Here’s how some of the other students who aren’t in the numerator were reported:• 600 students were reported as

graduates.• 100 students reported with other

leaver reason codes.• 0 students were reported as

underreported.

1004,000 = 2.5%

• 100 students were reported as dropouts. (NUMERATOR)

• Here’s how some of the other students who aren’t in the numerator were reported:• 500 students were reported as

graduates.• 220 students were reported with other

leaver reason codes.• 70 students were reported as

underreported.


Simplified Example Below is for Illustrative Purposes Only

Under Indicator 1, a comprehensive analysis of leaver data is conducted for all districts with reported decreases in dropout rates.

Districts with dropout rate decreases that are accompanied primarily by increases in other leavers, underreported students, or other anomalous data may be identified by this indicator.

Review of updated manual page and sample report.


7


2012 PBM Data Validation Indicator Preview: Leavers (continued)



Indicator #2 Underreported Students (Grades 7-12)

Implemented with these criteria:Count = fewer than or equal to 150Percent = less than or equal to 3.0%MSR of at least 5 UR students (count) and at least 1.0% (rate)

2012 criteria:

Count = fewer than or equal to 150Percent = less than or equal to 2.0%MSR of at least 5 UR students (count) and at least 1.0% (rate)


8




Indicator #3 Use of Leaver Reason Codes by Districts with No Dropouts

An analysis of districts with no dropouts and their use of Leaver Reason Codes 16, 24, 60, 81, and 82 collectively

No changes


9




Indicator #4 Use of One or More Leaver Reason Codes

An analysis of the use of one or more individual leaver reason codes (03, 16, 24, 60, 66, 78, 81, 82, 83, 85, 86, and 87)

Leaver Reason Code 90 will be added to the analysis.

Code 90 = Graduated from another state under provisions of the Interstate Compact on Educational Opportunity for Military Children


10




Indicator #5 Use of Certain Dropout Reason Codes

N/A This indicator will analyze districts’ use of two new dropout codes: 88 and 89.

Code 88 = Court-ordered to a GED program, has not earned a GEDCode 89 = Incarcerated in state jail or federal penitentiary as an adult


11

New Indicator 5: Use of Certain Dropout Reason Codes

Example 1 Example 2 Last year = 200 dropouts (Code 98)

This year = 180 dropouts (Code 98, 88, 89)

◦ 150 dropouts (Code 98)



Generally, the district’s dropout numbers remained stable between the two years.

The new codes provided a differentiated break-down of the types of dropouts, but significant numbers of additional dropouts weren’t reported.

Last year = 200 dropouts (Code 98) This year = 300 dropouts (Code 98, 88, 89)



◦ 50 dropouts (Code 89) The district’s dropout numbers were not

stable between the two years. The new codes may have been used

inappropriately. Remember, the new codes simply

describe in more detail students who have been reported as dropouts.

In and of themselves, they shouldn’t cause districts to report significantly more dropouts.


Simplified Example Below is for Illustrative Purposes Only

Under Indicator 5, a comprehensive analysis of dropout reason codes is conducted for all districts.

Districts with dropout rate increases that are primarily attributable to increases in code 88 or 89 may be identified by this indicator.

Other anomalous data trends may cause a district to be identified by this indicator, including overall high use/rate of code 88 or 89 irrespective of any other increases or decreases in dropout numbers.


13

New Indicator 5: Use of Certain Dropout Reason Codes (continued)




Indicator #6 Missing PET Submission (Start of School Year)

Identified districts that did not complete at least one PET submission between August 22, 2011 and September 16, 2011.

Date range will be August 20, 2012 through September 21, 2012.


14




Indicator #7 Missing PET Submission(School Year)

Identified districts that did not complete at least one PET submission between August 23, 2010 and June 30, 2011.

Date range will be August 22, 2011 through June 30, 2012.


15




Indicator #8 Continuing Students’ Dropout Rate

Implemented as a “live” indicator, identifying districts with a continuing students’ dropout rate of 35% or higher.

Standard may change, based on review of data and rates. Updated information will be provided during September’s TETN session.


16

This year’s PBM Discipline Data Validation will be unique in that districts’ 2011 and 2012 discipline data will be evaluated.

We anticipate that all nine indicators used in 2010 PBM Discipline Data Validation will continue to be used this year.

A district will be identified for 2012 PBM Discipline Data Validation if it triggers:◦ One or more of the indicators for both 2011 and

2012.◦ One or more of the indicators for 2012 only.


2012 PBM Discipline Data Validation Preview

2012 PBM Data Validation Indicator Preview: Discipline

Discipline Data Validation

Indicator Name 2010 2011/2012

Indicator #1 Length of Out-of-School Suspension

Identified districts with one or more students reported as suspended out-of-school (OSS) for more than the 3 school days allowed.

No changes


18

2012 PBM Data Validation Indicator Preview: Discipline (continued)



Indicator #2 Length of In-School Suspension (ISS)

Report Only indicator that identified districts with one or more students placed in in-school suspension for 30 or more days during the school year.

No changes


19




Indicator #3 Unauthorized Expulsion: Students Age 10 and Older

Identified districts with one or more students age 10 or older reported as expelled from their regular education setting based on a disciplinary reason not allowed.

No changes


20




Indicator #4 Unauthorized Expulsion: Students Under Age 10

Identified districts with one or more students under age 10 reported as expelled from their regular education setting for anything other than being expelled to a DAEP for bringing a firearm to school, as defined by 18 U.S.C. Section 921.

No changes


21




Indicator #5 Unauthorized DAEP Placement: Students Under Age 6

Identified districts with one or more students under age 6 reported as placed in a DAEP for anything other than being expelled to a DAEP for bringing a firearm to school, as defined by 18 U.S.C. Section 921.

No changes


22




Indicator #6 High Number of Discretionary DAEP Placements

Identified districts with a discretionary DAEP placement rate (all students) of 5.0 or higher.

Identifies districts with a discretionary DAEP placement rate (all students) of 4.5 or higher.


23




Indicator #7 African American Discretionary DAEP Placements

Identified districts with a discretionary DAEP placement rate for African American students that is double (or more) its discretionary DAEP placement rate for all students.

“New” race/ethnicity definitions will apply.Rename the indicator: African American (Not Hispanic/Latino) Discretionary DAEP Placements.


24

25


African American (Not Hispanic/Latino) Definition:

◦ Any student who does not identify himself/herself as Hispanic but does identify his/her sole race as African American; and

◦ Any student who does not identify himself/herself as Hispanic but does identify African American as one of his/her races.





Indicator #8 Hispanic Discretionary DAEP Placements

Second year Report Only indicator

“Live” indicator that will identify districts with a discretionary DAEP placement rate for Hispanic students that is double (or more) its discretionary DAEP placement rate for all students. “New” race/ethnicity definitions will apply.


26

27


Hispanic Definition:

◦ All students who identify themselves as being of Hispanic ethnicity, regardless of how they subsequently identify their race.





Indicator #9 No Mandatory Expellable Incidents Reported for Multiple Years

Identified districts that have one or more campuses with no mandatory expellable incidents reported for three years.

No changes


28

Implementation of certain STAAR Grades 3-8 indicators, as appropriate and contingent on data...

Documents

Transcript of Implementation of certain STAAR Grades 3-8 indicators, as appropriate and contingent on data...