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/.
© Copyright 2024 ExpyDoc