Visio-PBM flowchart.vsd

Performance-Based Monitoring
Intervention Process
District staged at a performance level 3 or 4
in any program area within the PerformanceBased Monitoring (PBM) system
District staged at a performance level (PL) 1
or 2 in any program area within the PBM
system
District rated
Improvement Required
(IR) in State
Accountability system
Targeted Improvement Plan* with
Quarterly Progress Reports
Districts staged at a performance level 2, 3,
or 4 in Residential Facility monitoring (RFM)
will be required to complete the RF
compliance review.
District not staged in PBM or RFM.
District staged at a performance level 3 or 4
in any program area within the PerformanceBased Monitoring (PBM) system
District rated Met
Standard in State
Accountability system
Reporting Required via ISAM:
Propose District Coordinator for School Improvement (DCSI) for PBM, if different from DCSI for
state accountability.
Add members to District Leadership Team (DLT), if necessary.
Analyze new PBM data.
Continue implementation of the Texas Accountability Intervention System (TAIS) that results in a
targeted Improvement Plan* that addresses low performing indicators and any missed safeguards, if
applicable.
Continue implementation of the Texas Accountability Intervention System (TAIS) due to
identification in the state accountability system.
Reporting Required via ISAM:
Propose District Coordinator for School Improvement (DCSI)
Establish District Leadership Team (DLT)
Engage in the Texas Accountability Intervention System (TAIS) that results in a targeted
Improvement Plan* that addresses low performing indicators and any missed safeguards, if
applicable.
Targeted Improvement Plan* with
Quarterly Progress Reports
Districts staged at a performance level 2, 3,
or 4 in Residential Facility monitoring (RFM)
will be required to complete the RF
compliance review.
District staged at a performance level (PL) 1
or 2 in PBM system or PL 1 in RFM.
District not staged in PBM or RFM.
Propose District Coordinator for School Improvement (DCSI)
Establish District Leadership Team (DLT)
Engage in the Texas Accountability Intervention System (TAIS) that results in a targeted
Improvement Plan* that addresses low performing indicators and any missed safeguards, if
applicable.
Reporting upon request
No required state intervention activities
* While TEC §11.252 requires all districts to develop a comprehensive district improvement plan, the targeted student achievement improvement plan required by TEC §39.102(a)(3) is specifically designed to address areas of low performance identified by the state
accountability rating system.
State Accountability District-Level Interventions
First year low
performance in
state
accountability
system
Engage in required campus-level interventions.
1st year singlecampus districts
1st year multiplecampus districts
Propose district coordinator for school improvement (DCSI).
Establish district leadership team (DLT).
Engage in the Texas Accountability Intervention System (TAIS) that results in a targeted improvement plan* that addresses indexes. Improvement Required (IR)
Multi-year low
performance in state
accountability system
Propose district coordinator for school
improvement (DCSI).
Establish district leadership team (DLT).
Engage in the Texas Accountability
Intervention System (TAIS) that results in a
targeted improvement plan* that addresses
indexes.
Additional requirements based on years of
low performance.
Missed one or more
system safeguards
2nd year, 3rd year, or 4th year
Lowered accreditation status
May be assigned Texas Education Agency
(TEA) monitor, conservator, management
team; order acquisition of professional
services; and/or possible special
accreditation investigation (SAI).
Establish district leadership team (DLT)
Engage in the Texas Accountability Intervention System
(TAIS) to develop activities that address missed system
safeguards in the TEC §11 district improvement plan* .
Reporting required via
Intervention, Stage, and
Activity Manager
(ISAM)1:
Targeted improvement
plan* with quarterly
progress reports
Reporting upon request
Met Standard/ Met Alternative Standard
Met all system safeguards
No required state
intervention activities
Please Note:
Performance-Based Monitoring intervention requirements will be released in early October.
This reflects requirements in Texas Education Code (TEC) §39.102 and/or §39.109.
1
Request access to Intervention, Stage, and Activity Manager (ISAM) via TEASE/TEAL.
* While TEC §11.252 requires all districts to develop a comprehensive district improvement plan, the targeted improvement plan required by TEC §39.102(a)(3) is specifically designed to
address areas of low performance identified by the state accountability system.
HC/LR, 08/14/14
2014-2015 How Was My Local Education Agency (LEA)
Selected for Bilingual Education/ESL Intervention?
Stage
1
Stage
2
Stage
3
Stage
4
One or two individual BE/ESL PBMAS indicator =3
Three or four individual BE/ESL PBMAS indicators =3
Five to Seven individual BE/ESL PBMAS indicators = 3
Eight or more individual BE/ESL PBMAS indicators =3
An on-site review also may occur, including a program access review, regardless of an otherwise
established stage of intervention, when other substantial, imminent, or ongoing risks related to
noncompliance identified in substantiated complaints, adverse due process hearing decisions,
previously determined areas of noncompliance, testing irregularities, performance or
effectiveness concerns, and/or other documented risks are identified.
2014-2015 How Was My Local Education Agency (LEA)
Selected for Career and Technical Education Interventions?
Stage
1
No individual CTE PBMAS indicator =3 and one or more individual CTE PBMAS indicators = 2
Stage
2
One individual CTE PBMAS indicator =3 and zero individual CTE PBMAS indicators = 2
Stage
3
One individual CTE PBMAS indicators =3 and one or more individual CTE PBMAS indicators = 2
Stage
4
Two or more individual CTE PBMAS indicators = 3
An on-site review also may occur, including a program access review, regardless of an otherwise
established stage of intervention, when other substantial, imminent, or ongoing risks related to
noncompliance identified in substantiated complaints, adverse due process hearing decisions,
previously determined areas of noncompliance, testing irregularities, performance or
effectiveness concerns, and/or other documented risks are identified.
2014-2015 How Was My Local Education Agency (LEA)
Selected for No Child Left Behind Interventions?
One individual NCLB PBMAS indicator =3 and zero individual NCLB PBMAS indicators =2
Stage
1
to
One individual NCLB PBMAS indicator =3 and one individual NCLB PBMAS indicators =2
and/or
At least two Initial Compliance Review (ICR) indicators that indicate high or moderate risk
Stage
2
Stage
3
Stage
4
One individual NCLB PBMAS indicator =3 and two or more individual NCLB PBMAS indicators = 2
to
Two individual NCLB PBMAS indicator = 3 and one individual NCLB PBMAS indicator = 2
Two individual NCLB PBMAS indicator = 3 and two individual NCLB PBMAS indicators = 2
to
Four individual NCLB PBMAS indicator = 3 and one individual NCLB PBMAS indicator = 2
Four individual NCLB PBMAS indicator =3 and two or more individual NCLB PBMAS indicators =2
to
Seven individual NCLB PBMAS indicators =3 and one individual NCLB PBMAS indicator =2
* 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.
An on-site review also may occur, including a program access review, regardless of an otherwise
established stage of intervention, when other substantial, imminent, or ongoing risks related to
noncompliance identified in substantiated complaints, adverse due process hearing decisions,
previously determined areas of noncompliance, testing irregularities, performance or
effectiveness concerns, and/or other documented risks are identified.
2014-2015 How Was My Local Education Agency (LEA)
Selected for Special Education Interventions?
Stage
1
Stage
2
One individual SPED PBMAS indicator = 3 and zero or more individual SPED PBMAS indicators = 2
to
Two individual SPED PBMAS indicator = 3 and up to two individual SPED PBMAS indicators = 2
Two individual SPED PBMAS indicators = 3 and three or more individual SPED PBMAS indicators = 2
to
Four individual SPED PBMAS indicators = 3 and zero to two individual SPED PBMAS indicators = 2
Stage
3
Stage
4
Four individual SPED PBMAS indicators = 3 and three or more individual SPED PBMAS indicators = 2
To
Five individual SPED PBMAS indicators = 3 and any individual SPED PBMAS indicators= 2
Six or more individual SPED PBMAS indicators =3
An on-site review also may occur, including a program access review, regardless of an otherwise
established stage of intervention, when other substantial, imminent, or ongoing risks related to
noncompliance identified in substantiated complaints, adverse due process hearing decisions,
previously determined areas of noncompliance, testing irregularities, performance or
effectiveness concerns, and/or other documented risks are identified.
RFM Staging Determinations 1
Minimum Criteria for Evaluation:
• At least 6 students in the LEA who reside in an RF more than 30 days
Stage 4
LEAs that earned less than 70.0% of available points
Stage 3
LEAs that earned 70.0% to 74.9% of available points
Stage 2
LEAs that earned 75.0% to 79.9% of available points
Stage 1
LEAs that earned 80.0% to 85.9% of available points
Not staged
LEAs that earned 86.0% or more of available points
Cyclical
LEAs that only have students who are not allowed to leave the RF in which
Monitoring
they reside
Not Evaluated
LEAs that do not meet the minimum criteria for evaluation
Rubric points earned from RF Tracker calculations on:
Least Restrictive Environment
• % of RF students in instructional arrangements of 86, 96, 01, 02, 30, 43, 44, 84,
85, 94, or 95 (Students who reside in facilities that are not allowed to leave due
to court order or medical order are removed from this calculation)
Commensurate School Day
• % of RF students receiving a full school day
• % of students receiving less than half of the full school day
Data Integrity
LEA completed the end of year 2013-2014 RF Tracker data entry by the closing
date and did not have to have the RF Tracker re-opened to make corrections.
1
As part of the Texas Education Agency’s (TEA) efforts to implement the provisions of Senate Bill 1, General
Appropriations Act, Rider 70, in 2015 TEA is proposing to convene a series of meetings on the RF monitoring
system. These meetings will include consideration of any recommendations for improving the RFM staging
determinations that can ensure TEA continues to meet its ongoing obligation to implement a monitoring system
that addresses the unique circumstances of students with disabilities residing in RFs and ensures that all students
with disabilities, including those who reside in RFs, are provided a free appropriate public education.
SPED Indicator #8: SPED Regular Early Childhood Program Rate
(Ages 3-5) (Report Only)
New! This indicator measures the percent of students ages 3-5 served in special education (SPED) who
were placed in a regular early childhood program.
Calculation
number of students ages 3-5 served in special education reported with PPCD service
location code 1 or 4 and placed in instructional settings 00, 40, 41, 81, 82, 91, and 92
number of students ages 3-5 served in special education
Data Source
The data for this indicator are based on the number of special education students reported by the district
on the PEIMS 110 Record and 163 Record (Element E0173) as enrolled in the district (denominator),
reported with PPCD service location code 1 or 4, and placed in instructional settings 00, 40, 41, 81, 82,
91, and 92.
Minimum Size Requirements, Special Analysis, and Other Criteria
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Minimum Size Requirements: Not Applicable
Year(s) of Data Available for Analysis: 1
Automated Special Analysis: No
Professional Judgment Special Analysis: No
Required Improvement: No
Accountability Subset: No
Applicable PEIMS Collections: Fall 2013
Section II of this manual includes detailed information on these and other PBMAS components.
Performance Level Assignment
This is a Report Only indicator for 2014. No performance levels are assigned in 2014. This indicator is
reported for district information and planning purposes.
Notes
•
•
•
Students whose PEIMS Average Daily Attendance (ADA) Code = 0 are included in the calculation of
this indicator in both the numerator and denominator.
The student’s age is determined as of September 1, 2013, for this indicator and is derived from the
101 Record (Element E0006).
A complete list and descriptions of all instructional settings can be found in the PEIMS Data
Standards available at: http://www.tea.state.tx.us/peims/.

Download Report