Performance Based Monitoring. October 30, PDF Free Download

Performance Based Monitoring 101 October 30,2015

Agenda Introduction PBMAS Guiding Principles Background, General Changes and Updates Staging and RF Monitoring Changes Methods of Administration (MOA) Review PBMAS District Resources to Assist in Unlocking the Power Unlocking the Power of TAIS for PBMAS Wrap Up

PBM Outcomes Introduction What is PBM? Why? Does TEA, ESC, and ISD work in collaboration? Is the focus upon set Guiding Principles? What? Is Program Effectiveness? Will the visit look like? How? Why are we Staged? What can I (we) do to put effective interventions in place? Who? Is involved in the TAIS Process?

Who is here with you today? Who will carry out the work when you leave here today? District Leadership Team

PBMAS Introduction and Guiding Principles

PBM Introduction Special Education NCLB Title I Part A At Risk Program Performance & Bilingual ESL NCLB Title I Part C Migrant Program Effectiveness CTE

2015 PBMAS NEW 2015 PBM Timeline The manual is available on the TEA web site July 29, 2015 Districts PBMAS reports were posted to the TEASE Accountability application August 7, 2015 PBM Reports TEA Public on September 18, 2015 Cut points released on October 5, 2015 Regional Reports Posted October 16, 2015 Staging posted on ISAM October 23, 2015 Interventions (Stage 3 and 4) Due November 20, 2015 On-site visits scheduled in Region December 2015 and January 2016

October 23, 2015 Staging Release A district assigned a stage of intervention no higher than a stage 2 in program areas is required to retain documentation of the process and targeted improvement plan locally, except when requested otherwise by the agency. Districts assigned a stage 3 or 4 in any program area will submit the targeted improvement plan to TEA on or before November 20, 2015, which is later than what had been originally communicated. Refer to ISAM, PBMAS guidance, and/or the Intervention and Submission Requirements chart for further details.

PBM Guidance Introduction Intervention Process Intervention Type District Leadership Team TAIS Process Intervention Requirements

PBM Introduction Texas Education Agency Performance-Based Monitoring staff is responsible for developing the Performance-Based Monitoring Analysis System (PBMAS) which is an automated data system that reports annually on the performance of school districts and charter schools in selected program areas 1. bilingual education/english as a second language, 2. career and technical education, 3. special education, and certain Title programs under the 4. No Child Left Behind Act. From the data contained in the PBMAS, PBM staff designs and maintains the annual Performance-Based Monitoring Analysis System District Report. This report includes specific data for each performance indicator in the PBMAS. A statelevel PBMAS report was first produced in 2006 and regional reports in 2007. A technical resource for understanding the PBMAS reports is each monitoring year's corresponding PBMAS Manual.

Interventions Background and History Analysis and Intervention Systems PBMAS / PBMI Interventions (BE/ESL, CTE, NCLB, Special Education) ESEA/NCLB Flexibility Waiver: Title I (Priority/Focus/Reward) Schools State Accountability / Accountability interventions

PBM Guiding Principles

PBMAS Guiding Principles 1. Positive Results for Students: The PBMAS is intended to assist school districts in achieving positive results for students by providing districts with performance and program effectiveness information at the district, region, and state level that they can use to identify areas of strength as well as areas in need of improvement. 2. Annual Evaluation: Every district is monitored every year. 3. Maximum Inclusion: The PBMAS includes special types of analyses to ensure districts with small numbers of students are included in the system.

PBMAS Guiding Principles 4. Indicator-Level Accountability: The PBMAS is structured to ensure low performance on one indicator cannot be offset by high performance on other indicators since each indicator is assigned a unique result specific to that indicator. 5. High Standards: The PBMAS promotes high standards for all students. 6. Indicator Design: The PBMAS indicators reflect critical areas of student performance and program effectiveness. 7. Statutory Requirements: The PBMAS is designed to meet statutory requirements.

PBMAS Guiding Principles 8. Public Input and Accessibility: The PBMAS is continually informed by public input. The performance and program effectiveness information PBMAS generates is available to the public. 9. System Evolution: The PBMAS is a dynamic system that evolves over time to meet new requirements or changes that occur outside the system. 10.Coordination: PBMAS is part of a coordinated TEA approach to evaluating districts and ensuring positive results for students.

Putting it All Together

Data Sources for PBMAS Student assessment data Dropout and Graduation Data PEIMS Calculations are based on the most current data available.

Bil-ESL 1236 116354 Bil-ESL & CTE 191 113 Title I 108124 9407 Special ED 201 Title I & Special Ed 9667 14492 1650 23 Title I & Special Ed 9667 4584 4055 292 Bil-ESL & CTE 191 CTE 3379 2015 STAAR Administration: by Program Participation (Unduplicated Count)

Region One 2015 STAAR Administration: by Program Participation (Unduplicated Count)

PBM District Reports http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/pbm/distrpts.html

PBM Staging Process

Staging Process Each program staged separately. Special Education staging incorporated 4 federal requirements with PBMAS indicators to make staging determinations. Rank districts by the number of PL 4s, 3s, and 2s. Determine where natural cut points come for the different stages.

PBM Cut Points

Staging Process Cut points change based on results of PLs.

PBM Program Staging Staging Bilingual CTE NCLB SE Not Staged 11 38 24 7 Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 4 6 4 12 11 9 0 1 14 15 0 5 10 2 1 1 1

Determination of On-site Reviews

Criteria for Selection of Districts for 2015-2016 On-site Reviews Districts with one or more program areas staged at a level 4 Districts meeting the above criteria but also having received an-site review in 2014-2015 are exempted for an additional review this year, and will instead be provided post-visit interventions (PVI) 41 districts with at least one stage four 12 of these districts were visited last year and will be PVI Statewide: 29 on-site reviews Region One: Possible 2 on-site reviews

Review of Common Systemic Areas Evidence of Processes from recent on-site visits and Systems Communication and Common Language Curriculum Alignment Evaluating the effectiveness of district programs/interventions Transitions of students from year to year Placements in programs Progress monitoring of individual students Evidence of implementation and fidelity Evidence of compliance with program requirements Improvements in longitudinal data (Discipline, Dropout, Leaver, Etc.) Personal Graduation Plans/4 year Graduation Plans

PBM Guidance Document

Why Change EVERY Year? Why are you punishing Us?

2015 PBMAS Manual NEW 2015 PBM Manual Friday, August 7: Districts PBMAS reports were posted to the TEASE Accountability application. PBM Reports TEA Public on September 18, 2015 The manual is available on the TEA web site. Hard-copy versions are also available from TEA s Publications Office http://tea.texas.gov/pbm/pbmasmanuals.aspx

What Does Your Data Say? http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/pbm/distrpts.html

PBM Special Education Changes

Special Education (Indicators 1-19) Students with disabilities are advancing academically and performing satisfactorily on state assessments. Students are taking the appropriate state assessment, based on the instruction they are receiving. Students who have been exited from the program are advancing academically and performing satisfactorily on state assessments.

Special Education (cont d) Students are placed in the least restrictive environment and receiving the services they need. Students are graduating or staying until they age out of the program and not dropping out. Students with disabilities are not removed for discipline reasons more than other students.

Special Education (cont d) new PL structure for the discipline indicators: The original expectation was that focusing on percentage point differences (DIFF) would encourage districts, regardless of PL assignment, to address issues of disproportionality, but this has not typically been the case. Focusing on percentage point differences may have given some districts the impression they do not have disproportionate discipline placements, when they actually do.

Changes in Indicators Deleted: SPED STAAR Participation Rate SPED STAAR Modified Participation Rate Sped Placements in Instructional Settings 40/41 (Ages 3-5) Added as reported only, but will be transitioning to : + SPED Discretionary DAEP Placements + SPED Discretionary ISS Placements + SPED Discretionary OSS Placements Disproportionality of placements Instead of difference

2015 PBMAS Indicator Change: SPED Program Area and Indicator Number SPED #21 SPED #22 Indicator Name 2014 PBMAS 2015 PBMAS SPED Discretionary ISS Placements SPED Discretionary OSS Placements PLs were assigned with RI, SA, and PJSA. PLs were assigned with RI, SA, and PJSA. Begin transition to a new PL structure by reporting disproportionality rates (as Report Only) in addition to percentage point differences. Begin transition to a new PL structure by reporting disproportionality rates (as Report Only) in addition to percentage point differences. Indicator 17 DAEP Indicator 18 ISS Indicator 19 OSS

SPED Discretionary DAEP Placements Disproportionality 2017 Indicator 17 DAEP

Disproportionality Rate 1. Calculate the SPED Discretionary DAEP Placement Rate 36/280=12.9 2. Calculate the Overall Discretionary DAEP Placement Rate 221/2,730 = 8.1 3. Subtract the Overall Discretionary DAEP Placement Rate from the SPED Discretionary DAEP Placement Rate 12.9-8.1=4.8 4. Divide the difference (4.8) by the overall discretionary DAEP rate (8.1) and covert to a percentage: 4.8/8.1x100 = a disproportionality rate of 59.3%. (The district s SPED discretionary DAEP placement rate is 59.3% higher than its overall discretionary DAEP placement rate.)

2015 PBMAS Indicator Preview: SPED (continued) SPED Discretionary OSS Placements SPED OSS SPED Students SPED OSS Placements 12.2 170 1,388 OSS All Students All OSS Placements 6.0 672 11,224 Difference = 6.2 (12. 2 6.0 = 6.2) Question: How much higher is 12.2 than 6.0? 2017 Answer: Calculate the Disproportionality Rate percentage point difference (6.2) all students OSS placements rate (6.0) = 103% higher Indicator 19 OSS

2015 PBMAS Indicator Preview: SPED (continued) Each district s disproportionality rate will be reported based on the percentage ranges below: Report Only PL 0 (RO) PL 1 (RO) PL 2 (RO) PL 3 (RO) Disproportionality Rate MIN - 10.0% 10.1% - 29.9% 30.0% - 49.9% 50.0% - MAX

2015 PBMAS Indicator Preview: SPED (continued) 12 10 SPED OSS Rate Compared to All Students OSS Rate This district s special education OSS placement rate is 103% higher than its all students OSS placement rate. 8 High disproportionality rates indicate overrepresentation. This rate = PL 3 RO. 6 6.0 4 2 0 SPED OSS Rate All Students OSS Rate

PBMAS Disproportionality

2015 PBMAS Indicator: SPED (continued) Unlike other PBMAS indicators, the rate of progress for the three discipline indicators has been slower than expected considering the indicators have been in place for more than a decade. Percentage point differences can mask very high rates of disproportionality. Focusing on districts rate of disproportionality is a more meaningful and reliable way to evaluate disproportionality. Unlike percentage point differences, disproportionality rates will enable us to implement more consistent PL cut points across all three discipline indicators. Disproportionality rates are much easier to understand and will provide more transparent information. Disproportionality rates are not a significantly different methodology from what s currently used; they basically take the current calculations one step further and tell us how much higher the special education rate is compared to the all students rate, e.g., 50% higher, 10% higher, 200% higher.

2015 PBMAS Indicator: SPED (continued) This will, however, be a significant change for some districts who may not have undertaken a detailed enough data analysis to understand what their percentage point differences were actually telling them about the extent of disproportionality in their discipline placements. It is extremely important to begin to work with their districts now to help them understand what disproportionality means and how they can use their 2015 PBMAS reports and the Report Only information for those indicators to plan for improvements before the new PL structure is implemented. The new PL structure is scheduled to be implemented with the 2017 PBMAS.

STAAR A and STAAR Alt 2 Provisions

Performance Level Provisions to Address Inclusion of STAAR A and STAAR Alternate 2 For SPED STAAR 3-8, SPED EOC, and CTE SPED STAAR EOC passing rates, the performance level ranges have been expanded for the PL 1, 2, and 3. 2014 PL 2 50.0%- 59.9% 2015 PL 2 40.0%- 54.9%

Implemented a targeted hold harmless 3HH or 4HH provision for certain indicators For SPED STAAR 3-8, SPED EOC, and CTE SPED STAAR EOC passing rates---- if a district received a PL 0 or 0 RI on SPED STAAR Modified Participation indicator in 2014, but in the 2015 would receive a PL 3 or 4 on these indicator, the designated will be

Bilingual/ESL

2015 Bilingual/ESL Indicators 1-4: STAAR BE, ESL, LEP Not Served & Year-After-Exit Grades 3-8 Passing Rates 2014 PBMAS 2015 PBMAS PLs were assigned based on Phase-In 1 Level II performance. Added RI. No SA or PJSA. Two years of data available for analysis (except social studies). Social studies PL assignment was reinstated. Add STAAR A and STAAR Alternate 2 results. Assign math PL based on the performance standards from the previous STAAR math assessments. One year of data. No RI or SA.

2015 Bilingual/ESL Indicator 5(i-iv): LEP STAAR EOC Passing Rate 2014 PBMAS 2015 PBMAS PLs were assigned based on Phase-In 1 Level II performance for math (A1) and science (BI). A new combined reading/writing indicator (E1 and E2) and a new social studies indicator (US) were added as RO. One year of data. No RI, SA, or PJSA. Add STAAR A and STAAR Alternate 2 results. Change PL cut-point ranges for math and science. Add PL assignment for U.S. History and align cut-point ranges with math and science. Continue ELA indicator as RO. One year of data. No RI or SA.

2015 Bilingual/ESL Indicator 6: LEP Annual Dropout Rate (Grades 7-12) 2014 PBMAS 2015 PBMAS PLs were assigned with RI and SA. New PL 0 PL 3 cut points were implemented. No changes.

2015 Bilingual/ESL Indicator 7-8: LEP RHSP/DAP Diploma Rate & LEP Graduation Rate 2014 PBMAS 2015 PBMAS PLs were assigned with RI and SA. Add new RHSP/DAP Grad Types (31 and 32) to numerator. PLs were assigned with RI but no SA or PJSA. Implement new PL 1 PL 3 cut points: PL 0 = 75.0% to 100% PL 1 = 70.0% to 74.9% PL 2 = 50.0% to 69.9% PL 3 = 0% to 49.9% (2014 State Rate = 61.7%)

2015 Bilingual/ESL Indicator #9: TELPAS Reading Beginning Proficiency Level Rate 2014 PBMAS 2015 PBMAS PLs were assigned but no SA or PJSA. RI was added. Two years of data available for analysis. PLs were assigned based on 2013 TELPAS cut scores, but numerators and rates based on 2014 TELPAS cut scores were reported parenthetically. Implement new PL 0 PL 3 cut points: PL 0 = 0% to 7.5% PL 1 = 7.6% to 10.9% PL 2 = 11.0% to 13.9% PL 3 = 14.0% to 100% (2014 State Rate = 9.6%) One year of data. Continue RI. No SA.

2015 Bilingual/ESL Indicator 10: TELPAS Composite Rating Levels for Students in U.S. Schools Multiple Years (5 +) 2014 PBMAS 2015 PBMAS PLs were assigned with RI and SA but no PJSA. New PL 0 PL 3 cut points were implemented. No changes.

Bilingual Education/English as a Second Language Program Effectiveness ELLs are advancing academically and performing satisfactorily on STAAR ELLs Not Served are advancing academically and performing satisfactorily on state assessments ELLs are graduating and not dropping out ELLs graduate with a Recommended or Distinguished Achievement Program Diploma ELLs grades 2-12 are not scoring beginning proficiency level for two consecutive years on TELPAS Reading ELLs grades 5-12, 5 + years demonstrate progress based on the TELPAS Composite rating, and not rated B or I

Career Technology Education

Career Technology Education (CTE) (PBMAS - Indicators 1-9) Students being served by Career and Technical Education (CTE) are advancing academically and performing satisfactorily on state assessments and other areas: 1. All CTE Students EOC Passing Rate 2. CTE LEP STAAR EOC Passing Rate 3. CTE Economically Disadvantaged EOC Passing rate 4. CTE SPED EOC Passing Rate 5. CTE Annual Dropout Rate 6. CTE RHSP/DAP Diploma Rate 7. CTE Graduation Rate 8. CTE Nontraditional Course Completion Rate Males 9. CTE Nontraditional Course Completion Rate Females

CTE: PEIMS Coding 0: Not enrolled in CTE Course 1: enrolled in a CTE Course and the student s 4-year plan of study does not outline a coherent sequence of courses in CTE. 2: CTE coherent sequence taker. The student must have a 4-year plan of study to take 2 or more CTE courses for 3 or more credits 3: Tech Prep program participant. The student must have a 4-year plan of study to take 2 or more CTE courses for 3 or more credits. Code 3 s are being done away with.

2015 PBMAS Indicator 1: CTE Program Area and Indicator Number Indicator Name 2014 PBMAS 2015 PBMAS CTE #1(i-iv) Additional provisions pertaining to this indicator will be covered in the 2015 PBMAS Other System Components preview. CTE STAAR EOC Passing Rate (M, S, SS, ELA) PLs were assigned based on Phase-In 1 Level II performance for math (A1) and science (BI). A new combined reading/writing indicator (E1 and E2) and a new social studies indicator (US) were added as RO. One year of data. No RI, SA, or PJSA. Add STAAR A and STAAR Alternate 2 results. Change PL cutpoint ranges for math and science. Add PL assignment for U.S. History and align PL cut-point ranges with math and science. Continue ELA indicator as RO. One year of data. No RI or SA.

2015 PBMAS Indicator 2: CTE Program Area and Indicator Number Indicator Name 2014 PBMAS 2015 PBMAS CTE #2(i-iv) Additional provisions pertaining to this indicator will be covered in the 2015 PBMAS Other System Components preview. CTE LEP STAAR EOC Passing Rate (M, S, SS, ELA) PLs were assigned based on Phase-In I Level II performance for math (A1) and science (BI). A new combined reading/writing indicator (E1 and E2) and a new social studies indicator (US) were added as RO. One year of data. No RI, SA, or PJSA. Add STAAR A and STAAR Alternate 2 results. Change PL cutpoint ranges for math and science. Add PL assignment for U.S. History and align PL cut-point ranges with math and science. Continue ELA indicator as RO. One year of data. No RI or SA.

2015 PBMAS Indicator 3: CTE Program Area and Indicator Number Indicator Name 2014 PBMAS 2015 PBMAS CTE #3(i-iv) Additional provisions pertaining to this indicator will be covered in the 2015 PBMAS Other System Components preview. CTE Economically Disadvantaged STAAR EOC Passing Rate (M, S, SS, ELA) PLs were assigned based on Phase-In 1 Level II performance for math (A1) and science (BI). A new combined reading/writing indicator (E1 and E2) and a new social studies indicator (US) were added as RO. One year of data. No RI, SA, or PJSA. Add STAAR A and STAAR Alternate 2 results. Change PL cutpoint ranges for math and science. Add PL assignment for U.S. History and align PL cut-point ranges with math and science. Continue ELA indicator as RO. One year of data. No RI or SA.

2015 PBMAS Indicator 4: CTE Program Area and Indicator Number Indicator Name 2014 PBMAS 2015 PBMAS CTE #4(i-iv) Additional provisions pertaining to this indicator will be covered in the 2015 PBMAS Other System Components preview. CTE SPED STAAR EOC Passing Rate (M, S, SS, ELA) PLs were assigned based on Phase-In 1 Level II performance for math (A1) and science (BI). A new combined reading/writing indicator (E1 and E2) and a new social studies indicator (US) were added as RO. One year of data. No RI, SA, or PJSA. Add STAAR A and STAAR Alternate 2 results. Change PL cutpoint ranges for math and science. Add PL assignment for U.S. History and align PL cut-point ranges with math and science. Continue ELA indicator as RO. One year of data. No RI or SA.

2015 PBMAS Indicator 5: CTE Program Area and Indicator Number Indicator Name 2014 PBMAS 2015 PBMAS CTE #5 CTE Annual Dropout Rate (Grades 9-12) PLs were assigned with RI and SA. No changes. New PL 0 PL 3 cut points were implemented.

2015 PBMAS Indicator 6 & 7: CTE Program Area and Indicator Number Indicator Name 2014 PBMAS 2015 PBMAS CTE #6 CTE RHSP/DAP Diploma Rate PLs were assigned with RI and SA. Add new RHSP/DAP Grad Types (31 and 32) to numerator. CTE #7 CTE Graduation Rate PLs were assigned with RI but no SA or PJSA. Implement new PL 1 PL 3 cut points: PL 0 = 75.0% to 100% PL 1 = 70.0% to 74.9% PL 2 = 50.0% to 69.9% PL 3 = 0% to 49.9% (2014 State Rate = 94.9%)

2015 PBMAS Indicator 8: CTE Program Area and Indicator Number Indicator Name 2014 PBMAS 2015 PBMAS CTE #8 CTE Nontraditional Course Completion Rate- Males PLs were assigned with RI but no SA or PJSA. Two years of data available for analysis. Three years of data available for analysis. Add SA. New PL 0 PL 3 cut points were implemented to align with female nontraditional course completion indicator.

2015 PBMAS Indicator 9: CTE Program Area and Indicator Number Indicator Name 2014 PBMAS 2015 PBMAS CTE #9 CTE Nontraditional Course Completion Rate- Females PLs were assigned with RI but no SA or PJSA. Two years of data available for analysis. Three years of data available for analysis. Add SA.

No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Title I Part A & Title I Part C

No Child Left Behind (Indicators 1-10) Students being served by Title I Part A are advancing academically and performing satisfactorily on state assessments. On STAAR 3-8 (M,R,S,SS,W) On STAAR EOC (M,S,SS and ELA) Students being served by Title I Part A are graduating or staying until they age out of the program and not dropping out (Grades 7-12) Students being served by Title I Part A are eligible for and accessing the RHSP/ DAP Graduation Programs ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Students being served by MEP are advancing academically and performing satisfactorily on state assessments. On STAAR 3-8 (M,R,S,SS,W) On STAAR EOC (M,S,SS and ELA) Students being served by MEP are graduating or staying until they age out of the program and not dropping out (Grades 7-12) Students being served by MEP are eligible for and accessing the RHSP/ DAP Graduation Programs

2015 PBMAS Indicator 1: NCLB Program Area and Indicator Number Indicator Name 2014 PBMAS 2015 PBMAS NCLB #1(i-v) Additional provisions pertaining to this indicator will be covered in the 2015 PBMAS Other System Components preview. Title I, Part A STAAR 3-8 Passing Rate (M, R, S, SS, W) PLs were assigned based on Phase-In 1 Level II performance. Added RI. No SA or PJSA. Two years of data available for analysis (except social studies). Social studies PL assignment was reinstated. Add STAAR A and STAAR Alternate 2 and STAAR Spanish results. Assign math PL based on the performance standards from the previous STAAR math assessments. One year of data. No RI or SA.

2015 PBMAS Indicator 2 : NCLB Program Area and Indicator Number Indicator Name 2014 PBMAS 2015 PBMAS NCLB #2(i-iv) Additional provisions pertaining to this indicator will be covered in the 2015 PBMAS Other System Components preview. Title I, Part A STAAR EOC Passing Rate (M, S, SS, ELA) PLs were assigned based on Phase-In 1 Level II performance for math (A1) and science (BI). A new combined reading/writing indicator (E1 and E2) and a new social studies indicator (US) were added as RO. One year of data. No RI, SA, or PJSA. Add STAAR A and STAAR Alternate 2 results. Change PL cutpoint ranges for math and science. Add PL assignment for U.S. History and align PL cut-point ranges with math and science. Continue ELA indicator as RO. One year of data. No RI or SA.

2015 PBMAS Indicator 3: NCLB Program Area and Indicator Number Indicator Name 2014 PBMAS 2015 PBMAS NCLB #3 Title I, Part A Annual Dropout Rate PLs were assigned with RI and SA. No changes. (Grades 7-12) New PL 0 PL 3 cut points were implemented.

2015 PBMAS Indicator 4 & 5: NCLB Program Area and Indicator Number Indicator Name 2014 PBMAS 2015 PBMAS NCLB #4 Title I, Part A RHSP/DAP Diploma Rate PLs were assigned with RI and SA. Add new RHSP/DAP Grad Types (31 and 32) to numerator. NCLB #5 Title I, Part A Graduation Rate PLs were assigned with RI but no SA or PJSA. Implement new PL 1 PL 3 cut points: PL 0 = 75.0% to 100% PL 1 = 70.0% to 74.9% PL 2 = 50.0% to 69.9% PL 3 = 0% to 49.9% (2014 State Rate = 85.5%)

2015 PBMAS Indicator 6: NCLB Program Area and Indicator Number Indicator Name 2014 PBMAS 2015 PBMAS NCLB #6(i-v) Additional provisions pertaining to this indicator will be covered in the 2015 PBMAS Other System Components preview. Migrant STAAR 3-8 Passing Rate (M, R, S, SS, W) PLs were assigned based on Phase-In 1 Level II performance. Added RI. No SA or PJSA. Two years of data available for analysis (except social studies). Social studies PL assignment was reinstated. Add STAAR A, STAAR Alternate 2 results and STAAR Spanish. Assign math PL based on the performance standards from the previous STAAR math assessments. One year of data. No RI or SA.

2015 PBMAS Indicator 7: NCLB Program Area and Indicator Number Indicator Name 2014 PBMAS 2015 PBMAS NCLB #7(i-iv) Additional provisions pertaining to this indicator will be covered in the 2015 PBMAS Other System Components preview. Migrant STAAR EOC Passing Rate (M, S, SS, ELA) PLs were assigned based on Phase-In 1 Level II performance for math (A1) and science (BI). A new combined reading/writing indicator (E1 and E2) and a new social studies indicator (US) were added as RO. One year of data. No RI, SA, or PJSA. Add STAAR A and STAAR Alternate 2 results. Change PL cutpoint ranges for math and science. Add PL assignment for U.S. History and align PL cut-point ranges with math and science. Continue ELA indicator as RO. One year of data. No RI or SA.

2015 PBMAS Indicator 8: NCLB Program Area and Indicator Number Indicator Name 2014 PBMAS 2015 PBMAS NCLB #8 Migrant Annual Dropout Rate (Grades 7-12) PLs were assigned with RI and SA. No changes. New PL 0 PL 3 cut points were implemented.

2015 PBMAS Indicator 9 & 10: NCLB Program Area and Indicator Number Indicator Name 2014 PBMAS 2015 PBMAS NCLB #9 Migrant RHSP/DAP Diploma Rate PLs were assigned with RI and SA. Add new RHSP/DAP Grad Types (31 and 32) to numerator. NCLB #10 Migrant Graduation Rate PLs were assigned with RI but no SA or PJSA. Implement new PL 1 PL 3 cut points: PL 0 = 75.0% to 100% PL 1 = 70.0% to 74.9% PL 2 = 50.0% to 69.9% PL 3 = 0% to 49.9% (2014 State Rate = 82.5%)

No Child Left Behind Initial Compliance Review (ICR) Submitted August Initial Compliance Review (ICR) indicators are based on programmatic (i.e.: timely application and report submission), and student performance Initial Compliance Review (ICR) indicators are indicators that range from moderate to high risk An LEA in other stages of intervention that fails to meet two or more ICR indicators also will be required to engage in compliance-related intervention activities. 85% of LEAs not Staged for ICRs ICR Assignments: None (60%) or Low (40%)

Unlocking the Power of TAIS for PBMAS

Texas Accountability Intervention System (TAIS)

TCDSS Homepage www.tcdss.net

Data Process Reporting State Districts & Campuses IR or Met Standard Indexes & Safeguards Federal (ESEA Waiver) Districts & Campuses Priority and Focus Safeguards Data Analysis Implement & Monitor Needs Assessmen t Improvement Plan Targeted Improvement Plan with Progress Reports Performance-Based Monitoring (PBM) Districts PBMAS

Data Analysis WHAT Implement & Monitor Needs Assessment WHY Improvemen t Plan HOW Purpose Identify trends in your data Develop problem statements based on objective data findings

Problem Statement

Problem statements are Criteria Substantiated by facts/data Written objectively Uses concise language Includes specific details (who, what, when, where) Y/N Focuses on a single, manageable issue Has relevance to our campus Avoids causation or assigning solutions

Is this a quality Problem Statement? ELLs have a 50% pass rate in reading due to a lack of parental involvement

Problem Statement ELLs have a 50% pass rate in reading due to a lack of parental involvement REVISED Problem Statement ELLs have a 50% pass rate in reading

Problem Statement Non-Example African American student group science scores are 40% because lower grades are not teaching all of curriculum Avoids causation Example African American students have a 40% pass rate on STAAR science. Concise Gap in data Verified by data Written objectively Single manageable issue

Have 50% teacher turnover rate every year Reduce teacher turnover rate to 25%

Data Analysis Quality Check Has a thorough data analysis been conducted on the PBM indicators that are potential areas of concern? Have clear problem statements been identified and created? Do problem statements meet the criteria in the problem statement checklist?

Improvement Plan Template Section III

Improvement Plan Template Required Optional <Type your problem statement here.> Student Group Content Area African American Reading Writing Science Social Studies Mathematics Problem Statement 1: Which Index(es) does this problem statement address? Not Applicable Index 1: Student Achievement Hispanic White American Indian Reading Writing Science Social Studies Mathematics Reading Writing Science Social Studies Mathematics Reading Writing Science Social Studies Mathematics Asian Reading Writing Science Social Studies Mathematics Campuses may also connect this problem statement to missed/targeted system safeguard(s). Index 2: Student Progress Index 3: Closing Achievement Gaps Pacific Islander Two or More Races Economically Disadvantaged Special Education Reading Writing Science Social Studies Mathematics Reading Writing Science Social Studies Mathematics Reading Writing Science Social Studies Mathematics Reading Writing Science Social Studies Mathematics Index 4: Postsecondary Readiness English Language Learners Reading Writing Science Social Studies Mathematics

T I P S Ensure data has been COLLECTIVELY discussed and reviewed. Use of CONCISE and OBJECTIVE language. Ensure data are TARGETED and SPECIFIC to the gaps.

Data Analysis WHAT Implement & Monitor Needs Assessment WHY Improvemen t Plan HOW Purpose Conduct a Root Cause Analysis Determine why gaps exist Review additional data sources Identify root causes

Significance of the root cause It s a HYPOTHESIS If we drill down, we may be able to solve the problem

Problem Statement Root Cause ELLs have a 50% pass rate in reading Lack of teacher understanding for the instructional strategies needed to meet linguistic needs of ELLs

Problem Statement African American and Economically Disadvantaged student groups scored 10% or more below the Index 1 target of 60% in science. Root Cause Students not fully participating in science lessons and labs due to discipline consequences.

Problem Statement African American and Economically Disadvantaged student groups scored 10% or more below the Index 1 target of 60% in science. Root Cause - Stronger Lack of structured lab processes and classroom management systems results in students not fully participating in labs and science lessons.

Problem Statement Economically Disadvantaged student group pass rate was 49% in science. Root Cause 1/3 of staff were 1 st year teachers. (inexperience teachers, ineffective teachers)

Problem Statement Economically Disadvantaged student group pass rate was 49% in science. Root Cause - Stronger Staff lacks cultural understanding of poverty and its impact on student learning and achievement, and therefore, does not provide appropriate instructional supports and scaffolds in lessons.

Problem Statement Economically Disadvantaged student group pass rate was 49% in science. Root Cause - Stronger Staff s empathy for students and their environmental realities results in low expectations and allowed excuses for student achievement.

Root Cause

Problem Statement 7% of students are meeting Level II, Final Phase-In Standard for Index 4 performance. Root Cause Non-Example Staff needs to focus beyond just passing and intervene with higher performing students who could reach Level II, Final Phase-In or Level III standard.

Problem Statement 7% of students are meeting Level II, Final Phase-In Standard for Index 4 performance. Root Cause Better Example Lack of monitoring and analysis of data beyond passing standard that is resulting in lack of support and growth of higher performing students.

Needs Assessment Summary and Improvement Plan After your data analysis yields a summary of findings that results in a set of problem statements, the next step is to engage in the needs assessment process to identify root causes. The 5 steps of the root causes assessment include: Definition / Purpose: Step 1: Clarify and prioritize problem statements Step 2: Establish the purpose of assessing root causes and establish the team Step 3: Gather data Step 4: Review data analysis Step 5: Root cause analysis The needs assessment process is intended to safeguard against planning or implementing strategies before the root cause of a problem is understood. PS 1: Economically disadvantaged student group pass rate was 49% in science. is occurring because of Root Cause #1 Staff lacks cultural understanding and sensitivity of poverty and its impact on student learning and achievement; Root therefore does not provide appropriate instructional supports and scaffolding in lessons. Cause 1: PS 2: Economically disadvantaged student group pass rate was 49% in science. is occurring because of Root Cause #2 Staff's empathy for students and their environmental realities leads to low expectations and allowed excuses for Root student performance. Cause 2: Problem Statements (PS): PS 3: is occurring because of Root Cause #3 Root Cause 3: <Enter text> Problem statements are carried over from Section VI of the Campus Data Analysis tab OR Section VI of the District Data Analysis Summary tab. PS 4: PS 5: PS 6: PS 7: PS 8: is occurring because of Root Cause #4 is occurring because of Root Cause #5 is occurring because of Root Cause #6 is occurring because of Root Cause #7 is occurring because of Root Cause #8 Root Cause 4: Root Cause 5: Root Cause 6: Root Cause 7: Root Cause 8: <Enter text> <Enter text> <Enter text> <Enter text> <Enter text> PS 9: is occurring because of Root Cause #9 Root Cause 9: <Enter text> PS 10: Root <Enter text> Division of Instructional, School is occurring Improvement, because of Root & College Cause Readiness Support Cause #10 10:

Problem Statement 1: Economically disadvantaged student group pass rate was 49% in science. Annual Goal:? Economically disadvantaged student group will have a 63% pass rate in science. Root Cause 1: Staff lacks cultural understanding and sensitivity of poverty and its impact on student learning and achievement; therefore does not provide appropriate instructional supports and scaffolding in lessons. Strategy:? <Enter text> Problem Statement 2: Economically disadvantaged student group pass rate was 49% in science. Annual Goal:? Economically disadvantaged student group will have a 63% pass rate in science. Root Cause 2: Staff's empathy for students and their environmental realities leads to low expectations and allowed excuses for student performance. Strategy:? <Enter text>

Have 50% teacher turnover rate every year Reduce teacher turnover rate to 25%

The Root Cause Answers WHY the problem is occurring. Is validated by data. Does not contain solutions or suggest actions. Is focused on what the team can control.

2 Circles 5 Whys 10,5,5 Root Cause

10,5,5

10 5 5 Reasons More More

2 Circles 10,5,5 10, 5, 5

Control Influence

Have 50% teacher turnover rate every year District pay Lack of training and support Location Lack of discipline

Control School is boring Class schedule Have to wear uniforms Homeroom is first period Influence Lack of structure at home Education isn t valued at home No system in place for tracking attendance

Team Consensus

ACTIVITY: Control School is boring Class schedule Have to wear uniforms Homeroom is first period Influence Have children of their own Education isn t valued at home No system in place for tracking attendance 2013 TCDSS

2 Circles 5 Whys 10,5,5 10,5,5 Root Cause

Problem statement: ELLs have a 50% pass rate in reading Consensus: School is boring. 1. Why are the students bored at school? --because classes are boring for the students. 2. Why are students bored with their classes? --because students aren't connecting with the material.

2 Circles 5 Whys 10,5,5 10,5,5 Root Cause

CSF Data Sources

Root Cause Quality Check Answers WHY the problem is occurring. Is validated by data. Does not contain solutions or suggest actions. Is focused on what the team can control.

IP Template EXAMPLE ELLs have a 50% pass rate in reading Teachers lack of understanding the instructional strategies needed to meet the linguistic needs of ELLs There is a lack of a streamlined communication process and protocol with our external providers

2015-2016 Template

T I P S Ensure a ROOT CAUSE ANALYSIS was completed. Determine the analysis was COLLABORATIVE and VETTED by the team. Determine if the root cause ANSWERs WHY the gap is occurring.

Purpose Data Analysis Implement & Monitor Needs Assessment Improvement Plan Set annual goals Identify a strategy Set quarterly goals Determine interventions

Making Connections

Problem Statement Annual Goal Root Cause Strategy

ELLs have a 50% pass rate in reading Problem Statement Annual Goal ELL student group will have 60% pass rate on 2016 STAAR reading Root Cause Does the annual goal resolve the problem statement? YES Strategy

S.M.A.R.T. Specific Measurable Attainable Based Results- Time- Bound

Let s Kahoot Select one person at your table to be your team representative Go to https://kahoot.it/ on your laptop or smart phone Enter Game Pin: Get ready to have some fun!

ANNUAL GOAL PROBLEM STATEMEN

T I P S Ensure the annual goal is aligned to the PROBLEM STATEMENT Check to see the goal is written in a S.M.A.R.T way

Purpose Data Analysis Implement & Monitor Needs Assessment Improvement Plan Set annual goals Identify a strategy Set quarterly goals Determine interventions

Problem Statement Annual Goal Root Cause Strategy

ELLs have a 50% pass rate in reading 1. Problem Statement 3. Annual Goal ELL student group will have 60% pass rate on 2016 STAAR reading Lack of teacher understanding for the instructional strategies needed to meet linguistic needs of ELLs 2. Root Cause 4. Strategy Implement sheltered instruction campus-wide

Strategy HOW to get from this to this to THIS!

IS broad and over-arching Structures Strategy Processes Systems Models

IS NOT narrow and specific

IS NOT Use of Education Buzzwords Sheltered Instruction Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports (PBIS) Implementing PLCs No Excuses Campus

Does the strategy directly address the root cause? Problem Statement Annual Goal Lack of teacher understanding for the instructional strategies needed to meet linguistic needs of ELLs Root Cause Strategy Implement sheltered instruction campus-wide

Quality Check Focuses on broad, over-arching approaches such as systems, structures, models, processes. Customize to address identified root cause on your campus. Ensure that you have the capacity and resources to implement strategy with fidelity.

2015-2016 Template Problem Statement 1: 0 Annual Goal:? <enter text> Root Cause 1: <enter text> Strategy:? <enter text> Index Number: Not Applicable Index 1: Student Achievement Index 2: Student Progress Index 3: Closing Achievement Gaps Index 4: Postsecond CSF 1-Improve Academic Performance/ESEA TP: Strengthen the School s Instruction? CSF 2-Quality Data to Drive Instruction/ESEA TP: Use of Data to Inform Instruction Critical Success Factors (CSFs)/ CSF 3-Leadership Effectiveness/ESEA TP: Provide Strong Leadership ESEA Turnaround Principles (TPs)/ CSF 4-Increased Learning Time/ESEA TP: Redesigned School Calendar How will addressing this root cause impact the index/indicator/csf? <enter text> Major Systems CSF 5-Family/Community Engagement/ESEA TP: Ongoing Family and Community Engagement CSF 6-School Climate/ESEA TP: Improve School Environment CSF 7-Teacher Quality/ESEA TP: Ensure Effective Teachers Interventions by Quarter Q1 (Aug, Sept, Oct) Q2 (Nov, Dec, Jan) Q3 (Feb, Mar)

T I P S Strategies are a BROAD way to close the gap and achieve the annual goal.

Purpose Data Analysis Implement & Monitor Needs Assessment Improvement Plan Set annual goals Identify a strategy Set quarterly goals Determine interventions

A Quarterly Goal IS a target for the implementation of the strategy IS NOT breakdown of annual goal

Quarter 2 Goal= 10% Annual Goal = Increase Scores by 10% Quarter 3 Goal= 10% Quarter 4 Goal= 10%

Q 1 Goal= 2.5% Q 3 Goal= 2.5% Q 2 Goal= 2.5% Q 4 Goal= 2.5%

A Quarterly Goal IS a focus on stakeholder behaviors IS NOT equal to annual goal Problem Problem Statement 1: 0 Statement Annual Goal Problem Statement 1: 0 Increase performance of students served through special education by 8% Q4 (April, May, June)? Q4 Goal: Increase performance of students served through special education by 8%

A Quarterly Goal IS focused on results IS NOT focused on process

A Quarterly Goal IS Specific S SMART Sense of urgency Point for celebration

A Quarterly Goal IS A target for strategy implementation A focus on a change in stakeholder behavior Results-based (Outcome of implementation) SMART A Quarterly Goal IS NOT A breakdown of annual goal Equal to annual goal (4 th quarter) Process-based (Summary of completed tasks) Urgent Point for celebration

Strategy Implementation = Stakeholder Behaviors

Annual Goal: ELL student group will have 60% pass rate on STAAR reading assessment in spring 2016 Root Cause: Lack of teacher understanding for appropriate instructional strategies to meet ELL needs. Strategy: Implement sheltered instruction strategies district-wide Administrative Team Teacher-Learning Teacher-Practice Student-Learning Instructional Coaches District BE/ESL Department Design training plan and calendar Teachers will understand how to incorporate all four language domains into lessons Teachers will incorporate language objectives into lesson plans Students are making growth in language proficiency levels Conduct walkthroughs Provide training Design walkthrough protocol Teachers will understand linguistic instructional strategies Teacher will incorporate multiple language domains into daily lessons Students academic vocabulary increases Provide feedback Do walkthrough to monitor implementation and calibrate with campus admin Conduct walkthroughs Teachers will incorporate linguistic instructional strategies Provide follow-up support training Provide feedback to campus leadership team Provide feedback to teachers on walkthroughs Evaluate strategy implementation Provide coaching and resources Assist admin team in designing training plan and calendar Attend training Attend training Evaluate strategy implementation Evaluate strategy implementation

Annual Goal: ELL student group will have 60% pass rate on STAAR reading assessment in spring 2016 Root Cause: Lack of teacher understanding for appropriate instructional strategies to meet ELL needs. Strategy: Implement sheltered instruction strategies district-wide Administrative Team Teacher-Learning Teacher-Practice Student-Learning Instructional Coaches District BE/ESL Department Design training plan and calendar Design walkthrough protocol 3 Conduct walkthroughs Provide feedback to teachers on walkthroughs Attend training 2 8 Teachers will understand how to incorporate all four language domains into lessons Teachers will understand 13 linguistic instructional strategies Teachers will incorporate language objectives into lesson plans 5 6 Teacher will incorporate multiple 7 language domains into daily lessons Teachers will 14 incorporate linguistic instructional strategies Evaluate strategy implementation Students are making growth in language proficiency levels Students academic vocabulary increases 10 17 11 1 1 15 16 Conduct walkthroughs 8 Provide feedback Provide follow-up support training 12 10 Provide coaching and resources Attend training Provide training 4 Do walkthrough to monitor implementation and 8 calibrate with campus admin Provide feedback to 9 campus leadership team Assist admin team in 2 designing training plan and calendar Evaluate strategy implementation 17 17 Evaluate strategy implementation

Grouped Stakeholder Behavior Quarter Goals and Interventions

JUNE/ JULY Q1 Aug Sept Oct Q2 Nov Dec Jan Admin and ICs attend training Design training plan and calendar with assistance from BE/ESL dept. Design walkthrough protocol BE/ESL dept. delivers training to staff Teachers will learn how to incorporate all four language domains into lessons. Teachers will incorporate language objectives into lesson plans. Teachers will incorporate all four language domains into lessons. Admin and ICs will conduct walkthroughs with BE/ESL dept BE/ESL department will provide feedback to admin team Admin and ICs provide feedback to teachers ICs provide coaching and support ICs provide follow-up training Teachers will understand linguistic instructional strategies and how to incorporate into lessons. Teachers will incorporate linguistic instructional strategies into lessons. Students academic vocabulary increases. Intervention groups based on assessment results The language proficiency levels of ELLs will increase. Evaluate strategy implementation. Staff survey Data review Identify training needs for 16-17 Q3 Feb Mar Q4 April May June

JUNE/ JULY Q1 Aug Sept Oct Q2 Nov Dec Jan Admin and ICs attend training Design training plan and calendar with assistance from BE/ESL dept. Design walkthrough protocol By the end of the 1 st nine weeks, 100% of teachers BE/ESL dept. delivers training to staff Teachers will learn how to incorporate are including appropriate all four language domains into lessons. language objectives in their Teachers will incorporate language objectives lesson into plans lesson to plans. provide students the opportunity to work in multiple language Teachers will incorporate all four language domains into lessons. Admin and ICs will conduct domains. walkthroughs with BE/ESL dept BE/ESL department will provide feedback to admin team Admin and ICs provide feedback to teachers ICs provide coaching and support ICs provide follow-up training Teachers will understand linguistic instructional strategies and how to incorporate into lessons. Teachers will incorporate linguistic instructional strategies into lessons. Students academic vocabulary increases. Intervention groups based on assessment results The language proficiency levels of ELLs will increase. Evaluate strategy implementation. Staff survey Data review Identify training needs for 16-17 Q3 Feb Mar Q4 April May June

A Quarterly Goal Is Focused on Results Resultsfocused Processfocused 100% of teachers received training in sheltered instruction. By the end of the 1 st nine weeks, 100% of teachers are including appropriate language objectives in their lesson plans. By the end of the 1 st nine weeks, 100% of teachers are including appropriate language objectives in their lesson plans to provide students the opportunity to work in multiple language domains. Resultsfocused with student impact

JUNE/ JULY Q1 Aug Sept Oct Q2 Nov Dec Jan Admin and ICs attend training Design training plan and calendar with assistance from BE/ESL dept. Design walkthrough protocol By the end of the 1 st nine weeks, 100% of teachers BE/ESL dept. delivers training to staff Teachers will learn how to incorporate are including appropriate all four language domains into lessons. language objectives in their Teachers will incorporate language objectives lesson into plans lesson to plans. provide students the opportunity to work in multiple language Teachers will incorporate all four language domains into lessons. Admin and ICs will conduct domains. walkthroughs with BE/ESL dept BE/ESL department will provide feedback to admin team By the end of the 1 st semester, students are working in at least two language domains in 80% of classes observed. Admin and ICs provide feedback to teachers ICs provide coaching and support ICs provide follow-up training By the end of March, 80% of teachers are Teachers will understand linguistic instructional strategies and how to incorporating incorporate into lessons. vocabulary strategies into lessons to improve students academic vocabulary. Teachers will incorporate linguistic instructional strategies into lessons. Students academic vocabulary increases. Intervention groups based on assessment results The language proficiency levels of ELLs will increase. Evaluate strategy implementation. Staff survey Data review Identify training needs for 16-17 Q3 Feb Mar Q4 April May June

Key Points to Remember Developing Quarterly Goal Consider the timing of the quarter Ensure you have identified the data source you will use to measure Quarterly goals are checkpoints toward implementation Ensure quarterly goals are following the Is column

JUNE/ JULY Q1 Aug Sept Oct Q2 Nov Dec Jan Admin and ICs attend training Design training plan and calendar with assistance from BE/ESL dept. Design walkthrough protocol By the end of the 1 st nine weeks, 100% of teachers BE/ESL dept. delivers training to staff Teachers will learn how to incorporate are including appropriate all four language domains into lessons. language objectives in their Teachers will incorporate language objectives lesson into plans lesson to plans. provide students the opportunity to work in multiple language Teachers will incorporate all four language domains into lessons. Admin and ICs will conduct domains. walkthroughs with BE/ESL dept BE/ESL department will provide feedback to admin team By the end of the 1 st semester, students are working in at least two language domains in 80% of classes observed. Admin and ICs provide feedback to teachers ICs provide coaching and support By the end of March, 80% of teachers are ICs provide follow-up training Teachers will understand linguistic incorporating instructional strategies vocabulary and how to incorporate into lessons. strategies into lessons to Teachers will incorporate linguistic improve students instructional strategies into lessons. academic vocabulary as reflected by walkthroughs. Students academic vocabulary increases. Intervention groups based on assessment results The language proficiency levels of ELLs will increase. Evaluate strategy implementation. of strategy and to identify barriers Staff to survey address through Data 16-17 review planning. Identify training needs for 16-17 By mid-june, campus leadership will review multiple data sources to determine the effectiveness Q3 Feb Mar Q4 April May June

Key Points to Remember Fourth Quarter The fourth quarter has both implementation and evaluative components. Fourth quarter goals could have either an implementation focus (PBIS example) or an evaluative focus (sheltered instruction example). Regardless of the focus of the goal, you may have implementation intervention activities and evaluative implementation activities.

T I P S Quarterly goals are CHECKPOINTS for your STRATEGY IMPLEMENTATION Quarterly goals should be RESULTS-BASED goals REMEMBER quarterly goals will be different based on quarterly interventions and targets.

Data Analysis Implement & Monitor Needs Assessment Improvement Plan Purpose Set annual goals Identify a strategy Set quarterly goals Determine interventions

Potential Challenges in Interventions and Data Sources Remember to: Align interventions in order to accomplish quarterly goal; Use data components to measure implementation of interventions; Align data sources to the interventions; and Be aware of interventions vs. strategies.

Stakeholder Actions Interventions

Stakeholder Actions Interventions Design walkthrough protocol BE/ESL dept. delivers training to staff Teachers will learn how to incorporate all four language domains into lessons. Teachers will incorporate language objectives into lesson plans. Teachers will incorporate all four language domains into lessons. Admin and ICs will conduct walkthroughs with BE/ESL dept. Design walkthrough protocol BE/ESL staff delivers training to staff and administrative team sets expectation for language objective to be included in lesson plans Teachers work on language objectives during planning in PLCs and include in lesson plans and lesson plans reviewed and feedback given individually and through PLCs Admin team and IC conduct walkthroughs with BE/ESL district support to provide feedback on implementation and to ensure inter-rater reliability

Stakeholder actions Interventions

Data Sources Must connect to your interventions

Interventions by Quarter Q1 (Aug, Sept, Oct) Q2 (Nov, Dec, Jan) Q3 (Feb, Mar) Q4 (April, May, June)? By end of 1st 9 weeks, 100% of teachers are? By end of 1st semester, students are working in at least? By the end of March, 80% of teachers are? By mid-june, campus leadership will review multiple data including appropriate language objectives in lesson two language domains in 80% of classes. incorporating vocabulary strategies into their lessons source to determine the effectiveness of strategy and to Q1 Goal: plans to provide students with opportunity to work in Q2 Goal: Q3 Goal: to improve students' academic vocabulary. Q4 Goal: identify barriers to address through 16-17 planning. multiple language domains. Q1 Interventions Districts and 1st Year IR campuses are required to provide, at a minimum, the interventions accomplished for quarter 1 (Q1). Q2 Interventions Q3 Interventions Q4 Interventions Design walkthrough protocol Provide feedback to teachers Provide refresher training on vocabulary strategies Campus leadership team will review TELPAS data to 1) 1) 1) 1) determine student growth in composite language proficiency BE/ESL staff delivers training to staff and IC provide follow-up support to teachers through model Teachers plan and implement vocabulary strategies in Create and administer staff survey regarding administrative team sets expectation for language lessons lessons implementation of sheltered instruction to determine staff 2) objective to be included in lesson plans 2) 2) 2) successes and needs Teachers work on language objectives during Follow-up walk throughs to determine the implementtion ICs and admin conduct walkthroughs to determine CLT will review new assessment data to deterine impact planning in PLCs and include in lesson plans and of multiple language domains during instruction implementation and effectiveness of vocabulary of sheltered instruction strategies on ELL performance 3) 3) 3) 3) lesson plans reviewed and feedback given strategies. Feedback is provided to teachers through individually and through PLCs walk-through forms, coaching conf., and PLCs Admin team and IC conduct walkthroughs with Department common assessments include authentic Design intervention groups for ELLs based on results of BE/ESL district support to provide feedback on academic vocabulary component and results are vocabulary assessment component 4) implementation and to ensure inter-rater reliability 4) 4) discussed in PLC 4) What data will be collected to monitor interventions in Q1? What data will be collected to monitor interventions in Q2? What data will be collected to monitor interventions in Q3? What data was collected to monitor interventions in Q4? Walkthrough form Coaching conference schedule Sign sheets and end-of-training feedback including TELPAS composite scores "What questions are still rolling around?" to help guide 1) 1) 1) feedback and support for teachers 1) Sign sheets and end-of-training feedback including PLC agenda, training materials Lesson plans and lesson plan feedback Staff survey and results "What questions are still rolling around?" to help guide 2) feedback and support for teachers 2) 2) 2) Lesson plans, PLC agendas, admin team agendas, Implementation data from walk-throughs Implementation data from walkthroughs, feedback Assessment data disaggregated by ELL student group, 3) coaching conversations, and IC reports 3) 3) forms, coaching conference schedule/notes, PLC 3) grade, and subject agendas Inter-rater feedback from BE/ESL department and Results from common assessment, team data analysis Student intervention group assignments and intervention 4) implementation data from walk-throughs 4) 4) notes. 4) class lesson plans

Key Points to Remember Interventions No magic in 4 interventions Multiple behaviors could be combined to develop one intervention One behavior could result in multiple interventions Sometimes additional details will need to be added to a behavior in order to develop an intervention Multiple data sources could be used to measure the impact of an intervention

T I P S Determine the SPECIFIC ACTIONS that will be taken to accomplish quarterly goals.

Data Analysis Implement & Monitor Needs Assessment Improvement Plan Purpose Review data by quarter Determine level of impact Ensure quarterly reporting Adjustments to the plan ensure success

Quarterly Check-In Expectations Set inter-quarter dates to discuss progress Don t wait until mid-year submission to reflect and make adjustments Presenter Talking Points:

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Initial Submission (Nov 10) Mid-Year (Feb 10) TEA Determined End-of-Year (June 10)

T I P S Determine what kind of data will be collected to reflect levels of IMPLEMENTATION and IMPACT. Quarterly reporting is based on COLLABORATIVE data collection and analysis.

T I P S The monitoring plan can serve as an EARLY WARNING to inform adjustments and corrections.

Resources Quarterly planning video at www.tcdss.net Guidance documents at www.taisresources.net

PMI Homepage http://tea.texas.gov/pmi/accountabilitymonitoring/

Focus Data Analysis

What needs to happen? The data from a campus must be analyzed to calculate the PL for this indicator. The central office can influence what happens, but the campus has to make the change happen because they work with the students!

A district can not fix its program issues unless it knows which campuses are contributing to the issues!

Probes Who are the specific staff involved in the removal from the classroom and the assignment to DAEP (e.g., teachers, administrators, etc.)? What specific students are contributing to this indicator and what are their disabilities? Are there patterns and trends that can be identified? What does the overall discipline look like at the campus? Has the campus had discipline concerns prior to this year? What interventions has the campus engaged in and what were the results? Have there been significant changes on the campus that could have contributed to these concerns? What type of infractions are students committing that result in removals to DAEP? Are there any patterns and trends that can be identified?

Probes Compare the reasons students with disabilities and without disabilities are removed to DAEP. Analyze the root causes (causal factors) for the rate of placing students with disabilities being disproportionately higher than all student removals. What positive behavioral interventions and supports or restorative discipline supports are in place at this campus? Are there districtwide PBIS expectations in place? Is PBIS used at each campus with fidelity? How long has PBIS been used? What training and retraining has occurred for campus staff in the area of classroom management and discipline? Evaluate the effectiveness of the special education services that students receive in this setting. Does the student receive the same quality of services as in their placements from which they have been removed?

Probes Identify barriers and the root causes (causal factors) of these barriers to increased inclusion placements for students who are currently in more restrictive settings. Evaluate the academic progress of students in the regular classroom >80% of the time and the amount of special education services that each student is receiving. Who provides inclusion support? Analyze longitudinal placement trends across areas of disability, instructional settings, campuses, and instructional levels for students, ages 6-11. What patterns and trends are identified? Evaluate the correlation between instructional setting codes and success on state assessments.

Where are Support Specialists Located in ISAM?

Thank you for your attention and have a great year!

Review of Common Systemic Areas Evidence Communication and Common Language Curriculum Alignment Evaluating the effectiveness of district programs/interventions Transitions of students from year to year Placements in programs Progress monitoring of individual students Evidence of implementation and fidelity Evidence of compliance with program requirements Improvements in longitudinal data (Discipline, Dropout, Leaver, Etc.) Personal Graduation Plans/4 year Graduation Plans

Performance Based Monitoring. October 30,2015