34p. · DOCUMENT RESUME. EA 029 437. Expanding the Scope of the Texas Public School Accountability...

ED 424 666

TITLE

INSTITUTION

REPORT NOPUB DATENOTEAVAILABLE FROM

PUB TYPEEDRS PRICEDESCRIPTORS

IDENTIFIERS

ABSTRACT

DOCUMENT RESUME

EA 029 437

Expanding the Scope of the Texas Public SchoolAccountability System. Policy Research Report Number 9.Texas Education Agency, Austin. Office of Policy Planningand Research.GE7-601-71997-06-0034p.

Texas Education Agency, Publications Distribution, P.O. Box13817, Austin, TX 78711-3817 ($5).Reports Research (143)MF01/PCO2 Plus Postage.*Accountability; Elementary Secondary Education; *EvaluationCriteria; *Outcomes of Education; Performance Factors;*Public Schools; School Effectiveness; *Special NeedsStudents; *Student EvaluationAcademic Excellence Indicator System; *Texas; TexasAssessment of Academic Skills

With the re-adoption of the Texas Education Code (TEC) in1995, the Texas commissioner of education was required to develop and proposean assessment system for students with disabilities and for students oflimited English proficiency. The evolution of the Texas Assessment ofAcademic Skills (TAAS) program and the development of the accountabilityrating system for Texas's public schools and districts, with an emphasis onthe Spanish TAAS, is described. The report provides background informationfor including more students in the statewide assessment program and discussesways in which the Academic Excellence Indicator System (AEIS) can beevaluated. The report suggests that expanding the assessment program and AEISis contingent upon resolving measurement and policy issues related toappropriate testing of students, appropriate use of test results, and theimpact on the accountability rating system for Texas schools. Issuesdiscussed include the appropriate testing of students with disabilities, testaccommodations for students with disabilities, preparation of students withlimited English proficiency for the English TAAS, number and consistency ofexemptions, appropriate use of Spanish TAAS results, impact on theaccountability system, and attributing students to dual campuses. The textconcludes with an update of changes in state statutes related to studentassessment and school accountability. (RJM)

********************************************************************************* Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made *

* from the original document. *

********************************************************************************

coy -L 1111/11101L clPublished by the Texas Education Agency Office of Policy Planning and Research

Expanding the Scope of theTexas Public School Accountability System

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONOffice of Educational Research and Improvement

EDUcATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATIONCENTER (ERIC)

his document has been reproduced asreceived from the person or organizationoriginating it.

o Minor changes have been made toimprove reproduction quality.

Points of view or opinions stated in thisdocument do not necessarily representofficial OERI position or policy.

With readoption of the Texas Education Code in 1995, statute expanded thefocus of state policy regarding special programs beyond compliance and pro-gram quality to also include accountability for student performance. This reportprovides background information against which issues related to including morestudents in the statewide assessment program and Academic Excellence Indica-tor System (AEIS) can be evaluated. Expanding the assessment program andAEIS is contingent upon resolving measurement and policy issues related toappropriate testing of students, appropriate use of test results, and impact on theaccountability rating system for Texas public schools and school districts. At thecenter of the debate are questions about standardizing treatment of students forwhom there has previously been a high level of recognition of individualcircumstances, such as students with disabilities and students of limited Englishproficiency. Since the report was prepared during the state legislative session, itconcludes with an update of changes in state statute related to student assessmentand school accountability.

Report Number 9, June 1997

21

PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE ANDDISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL HAS

BEEN GRANTED BY

L.TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES

INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)

Project Staff

Mike MosesCommissioner of Education

Joe NeelyDeputy Commissioner

Department of Finance and Accountability

Criss CloudtAssociate Commissioner

Office of Policy Planning and Research

Nancy Stevens, Project DirectorJohn HaetingerRichard Kallus

Maureen Moore Scheevel

Vicky A. KillgoreGraphics, Layout, and Design

Research and Editorial Assistance

Performance ReportingCherry KugleCathy E. Long

Betty Weed

Research and EvaluationLynn T. MellorMaria Whitsett

Office of Curriculum, Assessment and TechnologyJanice BoydAnn Smisko

Curriculum and Professional DevelopmentMaria Seidner

Student AssessmentLaura Ayala

Shannon HoussonPatricia Porter

Ellsworth Schave

Office of Accountability and School AccreditationLinda Mora

Material in this publication is not copyrighted andmay be reproduced. The Texas Education Agencywould appreciate credit for the material used and acopy of the reprint.

Additional copies of this document may be purchasedby using the order form found in the back of thispublication.

Additional information about the Policy ResearchReport series may be obtained by contacting theTexas Education Agency Research and EvaluationDivision at (512) 463-9701.

3

Expanding the Scope of theTexas Public School Accountability System

Introduction

With readoption of the Texas Educa-tion Code (TEC) in 1995, the commis-sioner of education was required todevelop and propose an assessmentsystem for students with disabilitiesand students of limited Englishproficiency (LEP) who are exemptfrom the Texas Assessment of Aca-demic Skills (TAAS) statewide testingprogram. By 1998-99, the perfor-mance of these students is to beincluded in the Academic ExcellenceIndicator System (AEIS). Neither thenature of the assessment system norhow results are to be included in theAEIS are specified in law currently.Decisions about use of test results forreporting or rating purposes are theprerogative of the commissioner ofeducation. The statute potentiallyexpands the focus of state policyregarding special programs beyondcompliance and program quality toalso include accountability for perfor-mance of students. In December1996, the commissioner submittedreports to the legislature outliningproposed changes to the assessmentand accountability systems that wouldincrease participation for students withdisabilities and LEP students. Theseproposals are currently under review.

Also being explored are options forintegrating the performance of cam-puses that are excluded from thestandard accountability rating systemdue to the special nature of their

programs. In certain situations,campuses are not rated under thestandard accountability rating system,or the performance of their students isnot included in district ratings. Typi-cally, campuses that fall in thiscategory provide special programs forstudents from across a single districtor from more than one district.

This report describes the evolution ofthe statewide assessment program anddevelopment of the accountabilityrating system for Texas public schoolsand school districts. (For a morecomprehensive discussion of thedevelopment of the Texas publicschool accountability system see TEA(1996) The Development of Account-ability Systems Nationwide and inTexas.) State policy related to exemp-tions from the assessment and ac-countability systems is reviewed, anddata are used to profile the currentsystems and various proposals. Takentogether, this information provides abackground against which issuesrelated to proposed changes in theaccountability system can be evalu-ated. Issues discussed are (1) appro-priate testing of students with disabili-ties, (2) test accommodations forstudents with disabilities, (3) prepara-tion of LEP students for the EnglishTAAS, (4) number and consistency ofexemptions, (5) appropriate use ofSpanish TAAS results, (6) impact onthe accountability system, and (7)attributing students to dual campuses.

Evolution of the TAAS

Statewide testing of students inselected grades was implemented inTexas in 1980-81. The latest versionof the testing program, the TexasAssessment of Academic Skills(TAAS), has been in place since the1990-91 school year. Unlike itspredecessors, the TAAS is designed tomeasure problem-solving and criticalthinking skills required in the essentialelements of the state-mandatedcurriculum, rather than minimumskills. The primary purpose of theTAAS program has evolved fromschool-level diagnosis of individualstudent performance only to includestate-level evaluation of schoolaccountability for student perfor-mance. Since its inception, the TAAShas undergone a number of changesrelated to the grades and subject areastested, as well as the time of year oftest administration.

The 1992-93 school year was atransition period for the TAAS pro-gram because the timing of the testand the grades tested changed, asTable 1 on page 2 illustrates. Beforethat year, students in Grades 3, 5, 7, 9and 11 (exit level) were tested inreading, mathematics, and writing inthe fall. Since 1992-93, the TAAS hasbeen administered in the spring of theschool year. Since 1993-94, studentsin Grades 3-8 and 10 (exit level) aretested in reading and mathematics, and

Policy Research Report Page 1

4

students in Grades 4, 8, and 10 (exitlevel) are tested in writing. The testwas moved from fall to spring toprovide a more accurate gauge ofstudent learning for the school year.The move also modified the timing ofresults for state evaluation of districtand campus performance, allowingrelease of ratings before the start of thenext school year.

Increasing the number of grades testedalso brought more students into theassessment and accountability sys-tems. In addition, testing at each ofGrades 3-8 provides a sequence oftests, allowing measurement of annualchanges in student achievement aswell as measuring performance againsta standard. Assessing writing perfor-mance only at Grades 4, 8, and 10reflects the dual goals of assessingstudents at strategic points that aredevelopmentally appropriate andimplementing the assessment programin an efficient manner. The TAAS

administration schedule strives tomaximize the number of studentsincluded in the assessment programwhile minimizing the number of hoursschools spend administering statewidetests.

With new tests being phased into theprogram, the TAAS is expanding tocover a fuller range of the essentialelements. Science and social studiestests were added to the originalprogram of tests in reading, mathemat-ics, and writing. New tests alsoinclude end-of-course examinationsfor students who have completedAlgebra I, Biology I, English II, andUnited States History (TEC §39.023(c)), which are currently being phasedin. Spanish versions of the TAAS,discussed in more detail in the nextsection, are also being developed forGrades 3-6 to test the significantpopulation of LEP students whosenative language is Spanish. TheTAAS will continue to evolve as new

essential knowledge and skills adoptedby the State Board of Education(SBOE) in 1997 replace the essentialelements of the state-mandatedcurriculum.

Spanish TAAS

The Spanish version of the TAAS isthe only component of the criterion-referenced assessment program notspecifically mandated in statute. In1994, the SBOE adopted a plan todevelop Spanish TAAS tests forGrades 3-6 to assess the large numbersof Texas students who participate inSpanish bilingual programs in thosegrades. Over 90 percent of identifiedLEP students speak Spanish as theirnative language. The SBOE planemphasizes the importance of evaluat-ing the extent to which students aremastering the state-mandated aca-demic skills in Spanish while they arelearning English.

Table 1. TAAS Testing Schedule from 1990-91 to 1996-97

Grade

1990-91School Year:

Fall 1990

1991-92School Year:

Fall 1991

1992-93School Year:

Fall 1992 Spring 1993

1993-94School Year:Spring 1994




3

R, R(S),W, W(S), M,

M(S)

R, R(S),W, W(S), M,

M(S)

R, R(S),W, W(S), M,

M(S) R, M R, MR, R(S),M, M(S)

R, R(S),M, M(S)

4 R, W, M R, W, M,Sc, So

R, W, M R, R(S), W,M, M(S)

R, R(S), W,W(S), M,

M(S)

5 R, W, M R, W, M R, M R, M R, MR, R(S), M,

M(S)

6 R, M R, M R, MR, R(S), M,

M(S)7 R, W, M R, W, M R, W, M R, M R, M R, M R, M

8 R, W, MR, W, M,

Sc, SoR, W, M,

Sc, SoR, W, M,

Sc, SoR, W, M,

Sc, So9 R, W, M R, W, M10 R, W, M* R, W, M* R, W, M* R, W, M* R, W, M*11 R, W, M* R, W, M* R, W, M

Source: Adapted from TEA (1996), The Development of Accountability Systems Nationwide and in Texas.R = Reading; W = Writing; M = Mathematics; Sc = Science; So = Social Studies; R(S) = Spanish Reading; M(S) = Spanish Mathematics; W(S)= Spanish Writing* Students may be retested at subsequent grade levels.

In addition to testing at more grades, the TAAS has expanded to cover more subject areas and to include studentsreceiving instruction in Spanish.

Page 2 Policy Research Report

The current Spanish TAAS tests werecreated by a team of educators, testdevelopment specialists, and nativeSpanish speakers for a wide range ofSpanish-speaking areas. Using anadaptive translation process called"transadaptation," the team worked todevelop Spanish test items that arelinguistically appropriate, free frombias, and comparable in content andcomplexity to the English versions.Translators relied on state-adoptedtextbooks in Spanish, current bilingualeducation methodologies, and inputfrom Texas bilingual educators. Oncecompleted, each Spanish TAASassessment undergoes a rigorousreview from committees of Texasbilingual educators, and the assess-ment is field-tested statewide.

The Grades 3 and 4 Spanish readingand mathematics assessments werefield tested during the 1994-95 schoolyear. The Spanish version of theGrade 4 writing assessment andGrades 5 and 6 reading and mathemat-ics assessments were field tested in1995-96. During the benchmarkadministration of an assessment (theyear following the field test), bilingualeducators are asked to completesurveys to evaluate each test item toindicate whether their students hadreceived sufficient instruction by thetime of testing to enable them toanswer the test item correctly.

Exemption of StudentsFrom the TAAS

LEP Students

There were 514,139 LEP students inTexas public schools in 1996-97, anincrease of 29 percent over the pastfive years. As Figure 1 shows, thenext most common native languagesof LEP students after Spanish areVietnamese, Chinese, and Korean.Early childhood, prekindergarten, andkindergarten students make up 20percent of the LEP population, but thehighest increase in number of LEPstudents is at Grades 3 and 4.

Policy Research Report

The increase in numbers of LEPstudents can be attributed to changingdemographics of the Texas population.In recent years, increases in theHispanic population have drivenstatewide growth in the public schools;the Asian American population is alsofast growing.

High school students (Grades 9-12)make up 14 percent of all LEP stu-dents. This growing populationpresents a particular challenge toeducators because these students mustachieve English proficiency in order topass the exit-level TAAS, which statelaw requires for graduation. StateBoard of Education rules (19 TAC§101.3) do allow one postponement ofthe exit-level test for recent immi-grants (students who have entered thecountry within 12 months of the datethe test is administered).

Before 1995, statute directed theSBOE to adopt rules relating toexemptions from the assessmentprogram, but did not specify exemp-tions for LEP students (TEC §35.027,1994). With readoption of the TEC in1995, exemptions for LEP students

were specifically included in statutefor the first time (TEC §39.027).

State Board of Education rulesimplementing the state assessmentprogram have included languageregarding exemptions for LEP stu-dents since 1986 (19 TAC §101.3).Currently, a LEP student in Grades3-8 may be (1) exempted from theTAAS and administered an alternativeassessment, (2) administered theSpanish version of the TAAS, or(3) administered the English TAAS.No combination of options one andtwo may be used for more than threeadministrations of the TAAS. Afterthat time, the student must be adminis-tered the English version of the test.Districts are discouraged from ex-empting students or administering theSpanish test more than twice tostudents who enter Texas publicschools by first grade, since thesestudents will have received two fullyears of instruction before the firstTAAS test is offered in Grade 3.

The local language proficiencyassessment committee (LPAC) hasprimary responsibility for determining

Figure 1.LEP Enrollment by Language, 1996-97 Sqhool Year

El Spanish

Vietnamese

ElChinese

IIIKoreanEOther Languages

..... ....... ............................................ .............................................................................................................................................................................................

. . . .......... .................................... ...... ........................... ......... .................................................................................. *.V.V.V.V.V..*:::::.V..................................

Source: TEA PEIMS 1996-97.

Over 90 percent of LEP students speak Spanish. The next three most commonnative languages are Vietnamese, Chinese, and Korean.

Page 3

the eligibility of LEP students forparticipation in the statewide assess-ment program and identifying theappropriate alternative assessment forstudents who are exempted from theTAAS. Alternative assessments mustbe selected from a list of commercialinstruments approved by the TexasEducation Agency (TEA). The TexasEducation Agency receives aggregateinformation concerning the number ofstudents at each grade level who areadministered each form of alternativeassessment, and the number demon-strating improvement in reading,writing, and mathematics.

The responsibilities of the LPAC areset out in statute (MC §§29.051-29.064) and the commissioner's stateplan for educating LEP students (19TAC §§89.1201-89.1265). Alsocovered are criteria for identificationof LEP students, district responsibili-ties for providing bilingual educationand English as a second language(ESL) programs, and criteria forexiting students from programs.Students in bilingual educationprograms receive instruction in bothEnglish and their native language.

Table 2.Special EducationEnrollment Trends

School Year

SpecialEducationStudents

Percent ofTotal

Students

1996-97 451,764 12

1995-96 429,115 12

1994-95 408,031 11

1993-94 385,126 11

1992-93 365,292 10

1991-92 340,919 10

1981-82 243,215 8

Source: TEA PEIMS 1991-92 1996-97; TEAFall Survey 1981-82.

Special education enrollment trendsshow consistent growth in studentsserved.

Page 4'

The programs are designed to ensurethat students master the content of theessential elements in their first lan-guage while learning English. Dis-tricts are required to offer bilingualeducation programs at the elementarygrades if 20 or more students in anylanguage group are enrolled in thesame grade.

English as a second language pro-grams are intensive programs ofinstruction designed to developstudent proficiency in English and incontent areas using second languagemethodologies. These programs aregenerally offered under the followingcircumstances: when there are too fewstudents with the same languageenrolled at the same grade level tooffer a bilingual program; for studentsin the higher grades; and where thereare not sufficient numbers of teachersat the school fluent in the nativelanguage of the students.

About half of Spanish-speaking LEPstudents (53 percent) are enrolled inbilingual education programs. Stu-dents with native languages other thanSpanish are more likely to be served inESL programs; 17 percent are notserved in either bilingual education orESL programs. Older students aremore likely to be served in ESLprograms regardless of their nativelanguage.

Students with Disabilities

There were 451,764 students in Texaspublic schools receiving specialeducation services in 1996-97. AsTable 2 shows, students receivingspecial education services increasedby 33 percent from 1991-92 to 1996-97, and now make up 12 percent of allstudents. Total enrollment increasedby 11 percent during the same period.Peak enrollment of students withdisabilities is in the upper elementarygrades (and at Grade 9 where enroll-ment increases for all students due toretentions), as illustrated by Figure 2.

Students identified as learning dis-abled account for over half of studentsreceiving special education servicesfrom Grade 4 on and over two-thirdsof students from Grade 6 on. Aboutone-fourth of students receivingspecial education services havespeech handicaps, a condition that isaddressed for most students by thetime they leave elementary school.

As with past statewide testing pro-grams, Texas statute specificallyallows for exemption of studentsreceiving special education servicesfrom taking the TAAS (TEC§39.027). Beginning in 1996-97,students with disabilities exempt fromthe TAAS must be administered analternative assessment. The TexasEducation Agency does not provide alist of approved tests from whichdistricts must select an alternativeassessment, and performance resultsfrom these alternative assessments arenot reported to the agency. UnderSBOE rules implementing the assess-ment program, the local admission,review, and dismissal (ARD) commit-tee determines whether a studentreceiving special education serviceswill participate in the TAAS or analternative assessment and specifiesany modifications or accommodationsto be provided during testing (19 TAC§101.3). Students may take one ormore TAAS subject tests, or none,depending on the determination of theARD committee. This informationmust be documented in the student'sindividual education plan (IEP).Modifications or accommodations ofregular classroom procedures that areprovided for a student are permittedduring testing, unless those accommo-dations would invalidate the testresults (19 TAC §89.1055).

Accountability System

The AEIS serves as the basis of anintegrated accountability system thatincludes a mechanism for ratingcampuses and accrediting school


districts, as well as for reportingperformance results to districts,schools, and parents. As Table 3 onpage 6 illustrates, data collected fromschool districts through the PublicEducation Information ManagementSystem (PEIMS) or provided by testcontractors are compiled for eachschool year. These AEIS data are theprimary source for accountabilityevaluations and reports. Besidesprofile information, AEIS reportsinclude various performance indica-tors, which measure the educationalprogress of campuses and districts.Since 1994, the accountability systemhas distinguished between three typesof performance indicators: base,additional, and report-only. (For adetailed description of components ofthe AEIS see TEA (1997) Account-ability Manual.) Base indicators

(TAAS performance, dropout rates,and attendance rates) are used todetermine district accreditation statusand campus performance ratings. TheTAAS performance indicator thepercentage of students passing eachtest (reading, writing, and mathemat-ics) summed across grades isevaluated for individual studentgroups (African American, Hispanic,white, and economically disadvan-taged), as well as for all studentstested.

Additional indicators, althoughmeasured against standards, do notaffect accountability ratings. Instead,districts and campuses may receiveacknowledgment for high levels ofperformance on these indicators.Report-only indicators are included inAEIS reports, but standards for these

indicators are not set. The AEISreports also include profile data, suchas student and teacher demographicinformation, that provide a context forinterpreting the performance data.

Typically, when a new base oradditional indicator is added to theAEIS, it is phased in over 3 years. Inthe first year, data are collected andreported to establish benchmarks,which are then used to set standardsfor the future. For the next 2 years,the data are reported back to schooldistricts and campuses to provideopportunities for familiarization withthe indicator, for refinements that mayneed to occur, and for advance localplanning. In the fourth year, theindicator is used for ratings or ac-knowledgment.

Figure 2.Students Receiving Special Education Services by Grade and Disability, 1996-97 School Year

45,000

40,000

35,000

30,000

25,000

20,000

15,000

10,000

5,000

Ejil Other Condition

Speech Impairment

LiLearning Disability

Grade Grade1 2

Grade Grade3 4

Grade Grade5 6

Grade Grade Grade Grade7 8 9 10

Grade Grade11 12

Source: TEA PEIMS 1996-97.

Learning disabilities and speech handicaps are the two most common disabilities of students receiving special educationservices. Other conditions include emotional disturbances, mental retardation, auditory and visual impairments, orthope-dic impairments, and autism.


8Page 5

For each district and campus ratinglevel, standards for performance onthe base indicators are also beingphased in over time. For example, thestandard on the TAAS indicator for acampus rating of Acceptable or adistrict rating of AcademicallyAcceptable increases from 25 percentof students passing for the 1994ratings to 50 percent passing in theyear 2000. This schedule allowsdistricts and schools time to anticipateand prepare to meet the performancestandards needed to earn ratings ateach level.

Including Test Results in the AEIS

In the spring of 1996, there were1,996,632 students enrolled in Texaspublic schools in grades at which theTAAS is administered. As Figure 3shows, test results for about 74percent of these students were used torate campuses and accredit districts.The other 518,018 students wereexempted from participating in theTAAS or were tested but their results

not used in the accountability ratingsystem. Policies guiding the exemp-tion of students with disabilities andLEP students from the TAAS in 1995-96 were discussed in the last section.This section focuses on the 309,524students whose test results are ex-cluded from the accountability ratingsystem for policy reasons. Alsoincluded at the end of the section is adescription of campuses that are notrated, the optional evaluation systemfor alternative education campuses,and campuses that receive ratings butare not included in district ratings.

Mobile Students

Districts have limited opportunity toinfluence the learning of students whomove into the district late in theschool year. For this reason, TAASresults used in the accountabilityrating system and AEIS reports arecomputed only for that subset ofstudents who are enrolled in thedistrict by the last Friday in Octoberof the school year. This avoids placing

Table 3.Academic Excellence Indicator System (AEIS)

DATA SOURCES:PEIMS Collections: Students, Staff and FinancesNational Computer Systems: Texas Assessment of

Academic Skills (TAAS) ResultsCollege Board / American Testing Service:

College Admissions Test Results; AP ResultsInternational Baccaleaureate: IB Test ResultsComptroller of Public Accounts: School District

Property Values & Taxes

1

POLICY INPUT:District and Campus AdministratorsFocus Groups: Educators, Education

Policymakers, Business LeadersLegislatureState Board of EducationCommissioner of Education

ACADEMIC EXCELLENCE INDICATOR SYSTEM

ACCOUNTABILITY PROCEDURES

District / Campus RatingsStatutory Reward ProgramsSanctions for Poor PerformanceSystem Safeguards

ACCOUNTABILITY REPORTS

District / Campus AEIS ReportsSchool Report CardSnapshotPocket Edition

Page 6

districts with high in-mobility at anunfair disadvantage by holding alldistricts and campuses accountable foronly those students who were enrolledin the district for most of the schoolyear.

The October date chosen for thispurpose is the PEIMS fall data collec-tion "as of" date for statewide enroll-ment reporting, which is always thelast Friday in October. The Octoberaccountability subset is based onenrollment in the district rather thanthe campus. Students who changecampuses within the same district areincluded in the accountability ratingsystem and AEIS reports.

The TAAS results of 123,156 studentswere excluded from the accountabilityrating system in 1996 because thestudents moved into the district inwhich they were tested after theOctober cutoff date. As Figure 3shows, mobile students who areexcluded from the accountabilitysubset of test results represent about6 percent of students enrolled in thegrades tested. TAAS results for allstudents are reported by the testcontractor to the school and districtwhere they were tested.

LEP Students

Test results for LEP students who areenrolled in the district by the end ofOctober and take the English TAASare included in the accountabilityrating system. Results for LEPstudents are included in the baseTAAS indicator; the English TAASresults are not disaggregated based onnative language or level of Englishproficiency.

The Spanish TAAS reading andmathematics tests were administeredstatewide at Grades 3 and 4 in spring1996, and benchmark results wereprovided to districts by the testcontractor. The Spanish version of theGrade 4 writing test and Grades 5 and


6 reading and mathematics tests willbe administered statewide in 1996-97,and benchmark results provided todistricts by the test contractor. Span-ish Grade 3 and 4 results for 1996-97will be reported in the 1996-97 AEISreports. Aggregate TAAS results forall students tested (including SpanishTAAS results) will be previewed inthe 1996-97 AEIS reports. Decisionsregarding use of the Spanish TAAS inthe accountability rating system havenot been finalized. Performance onthe alternative assessments requiredfor LEP students exempt from theTAAS is not included in the account-ability rating system because there isnot a consistent basis on which tocompare results of the different tests.

The Spanish TAAS results of 32,196students were excluded from theaccountability rating system in 1996.As Figure 3 shows, this representsalmost 2 percent of the studentsenrolled in the grades tested. Morethan twice that many LEP students inGrades 3-8 and 10 (65,231) did nottake either the English or SpanishTAAS. Over 97,000 LEP studentstook the English TAAS, and results for83,590 were included in the baseTAAS indicator used to rate campusesand accredit districts.

Table 4 on page 8 summarizes howdata on LEP students are included inthe AEIS. The performance of LEPstudents is not reported as a separatestudent group. In addition to EnglishTAAS results, LEP students areincluded in the dropout rate andattendance rate base indicators. Theyare also included in all of the addi-tional indicators if they participate inthe programs or tests on which themeasures are based. The percentageof LEP students exempted from theTAAS is a report-only indicator, andLEP students are included in all otherreport-only indicators if they partici-pate in the applicable courses or tests.Profile data reported on the campusand district AEIS reports also include


the number and percentage of LEPstudents enrolled for the current schoolyear. Program information on bilin-gual/ESL programs reported in theAEIS reports includes participation,staffing, and budget data.

The percentage of LEP studentsenrolled is also one of the variablesused to assign campuses to demo-graphic comparison groups. Perfor-mance and profile data for the campuscomparison group are included oneach campus AEIS report, and thecomparison groups are an integral partof the Comparable Improvementcomponent of the accountabilitysystem. (Campus comparison groupsand Comparable Improvement aredescribed in detail in TEA (1997)Accountability Manual.)


TAAS results for students in specialeducation programs are not included inthe accountability rating system;however, students receiving special

education services are included in thedropout rate and attendance rate baseindicators. Separate results forstudents receiving special educationservices are reported in the AEIScampus and district reports for allbase and additional indicators forwhich they are available, along withthe percentage of students exemptedfrom the TAAS by the ARD commit-tee. Performance on the alternativeassessments is not included in theAEIS because there is no consistentbasis on which to compare results ofdifferent tests. Profile information onstudents receiving special educationservices presented in the AEIS reportsalso includes retention rates by gradeand number of graduates. Programinformation includes participation,staffing, and budget data. Beginningwith the 1996-97 AEIS reports,aggregate TAAS results for allstudents tested (including studentswith disabilities) will be previewed.

In 1996, there were 109,999 studentswith disabilities exempt from the

Figure 3.1996 TAAS and Accountability Exclusions

Iiail

Not Tested - Absent and Others

Not Tested Special Education Exempt

Not Tested - LEP Exempt

NITested - Special Education

El Tested - Spanish TAAS (non Spec Ed)

EiTested - Not Enrolled in Same District

ElTested - Used for Accountability Ratings

Source: TEA PEIMS 1995-96; TAAS 1995-96 Spring, Year-round, and Spanish Tests.

About 11 percent of students in grades tested did not participate in the 1995-96administration of the TAAS; 16 percent of students were tested but not includedin the accountability rating system for policy reasons.

Page 7

Table 4.Students Receiving Special Education Services and LEP

Students in 1996-97 AEIS Performance Ratings and ReportsIncluded in district accreditation and campus performance ratings and additionalacknowled ments all students and each student rou ?

I LEP [ Special Education

Base Indicators

TAAS reading / mathematics, Gr. 3-8, 10 Yes, if tested in English No

TAAS writing, Gr. 4, 8, 10 Yes, if tested in English No

Annual Dropout Rate Yes Yes

Attendance Rate Yes Yes

Additional IndicatorsCollege Admissions Testing

Number of ExamineesNumber of Graduates

YesYes

YesNo

TAAS / TASP Equivalency Yes No

Re orted as a se arate voun on AEIS?

I LEP I Special Education

Base Indicators

TAAS reading / mathematics, Gr. 3-8, 10 No Yes

TAAS writing, Gr. 4, 8, 10 No Yes

Annual Dropout Rate No Yes

Attendance Rate No Yes

Additional IndicatorsCollege Admissions Testing

Number of ExamineesNumber of Graduates

NoNo

NoNo

TAAS / TASP Equivalency No No

Report Only Indicators

TAAS science / social studies, Gr. 8 No Yes

TAAS end-of-course exams No Yes

TAAS reading / mathematics (Spanish), Gr. 3-6 Yes No

TAAS writing (Spanish), Gr. 4 Yes No

TAAS Cumulative Exit-level Passing Rate No YesTAAS Exemptions

LEPARD

Yes

Yes

Advanced Academic Courses No Yes

Advanced Placement Exams No No

AEIS Profile Data*

Retention Rates No Yes

Graduates No Yes

LEP Enrolllment YesBilingual / ESL Program Information

EnrollmentTeachersExpenditures

YesYesYes

Special Education Program InformationEnrollmentTeachersExpenditures

YesYesYes

* Students receiving special education services and LEP students are included in profile datareported for all students on the AEIS district and campus reports. This table reflects profile datareported for students receiving special education services and LEP students as separate groups.

Page 8 U.

TAAS, and 154,172 who took the testbut were not included in the baseTAAS indicator used to rate campusesand accredit districts. Together thisaccounts for almost 14 percent of allstudents enrolled in the grades tested.

Campuses Not Rated or Not Includedin District Ratings

Most campuses receive accountabilityratings, and their students are includedin the data used to accredit the districtin which they are located. Exceptionsto this rule are made for two reasons:(1) the campus does not have data onwhich it can be rated; or (2) includingthe campus data in the district ratingwould result in inequitable districtevaluations. Following is a briefdiscussion of some of the situations inwhich campuses are not rated or theirdata are not included in the districtrating.

No Campus Rating

Prekindergarten/Kindergarten Cam-puses. The AEIS indicators are basedon data for students in Grades 1-12,the grades covered by the state com-pulsory attendance law. Conse-quently, campuses that enroll onlyprekindergarten and kindergartenstudents do not have data on which tobe rated, nor do they have any dataincluded in the district rating. (Cam-puses with higher grades that haveno TAAS data, such as ninth gradecenters, are paired with a campus withwhom they have a feeder relationshipfor rating purposes.)

Special Education Campuses. Asdiscussed above, TAAS results used toaccredit districts and rate campuses do

Performance of LEP students isincluded in results for all base,additional, and report-only indicatorsin which they participate. Petfor-mance of students receiving specialeducation services is typically notincluded in results for all students butis reported separately.


not include performance of studentsreceiving special education services.

For-this reason, campuses that enrollonly students receiving special educa-tion services do not have sufficientdata on which to be rated. Attendanceand dropout data from special educa-tion campuses are included in thedistrict ratings for the districts inwhich the campuses are located.

Campuses Opening Midyear. Cam-puses opening midyear are not ratedthe year they open. In practice, thismeans that an accountability rating isissued only for campuses that havestudents enrolled by the last Friday inOctober, as reported in the PEIMS fallenrollment data collection. Data forstudents on campuses opening mid-year are included in the district ratings.

Juvenile Justice Alternative EducationPrograms. Juvenile justice alternativeeducation programs (JJAEP) havebeen created to provide educationalservices to students who have beenexpelled from school for committingserious offenses on school property orat school-sponsored or school-relatedevents, and found by the juvenile courtto have engaged in delinquent conduct(TEC §37.01I). Statute requires thatstudents enrolled in the programs bereported as if they were at the sendingcampuses. The performance results ofstudents served in JJAEPs are includedin campus and district accreditationratings for the sending campus anddistrict. JJAEPs do not receive aseparate campus accountability ratingunder the standard accountabilitysystem. They may request to receive arating under the optional evaluationprocedures for alternative educationcampuses, but are not required to doso.

Optional Evaluation for AlternativeEducation Campuses

Alternative education campuses havebeen established to provide specialized


programs for dropouts, students at riskof school failure or dropping out,pregnant and parenting students, andstudents who have been removed fromthe regular campus for disciplinaryreasons. Because the nature of thepopulations attending alternativecampuses often works against theratings such campuses can earn in theaccountability rating system, theseschools are given two options. Theymay opt to be assessed either under thestandard criteria for accountabilityratings or under different criteriadeveloped specifically for alternativeeducation schools.

Under the optional procedures, thealternative campuses participate inselecting the indicators on which theywill be rated. The campuses mustchoose at least one academic achieve-ment indicator appropriate to thestudent population in attendance, aswell as other performance indicatorsupon which they can be rated. Begin-ning with the 1997 ratings, campusesrated under the alternative account-ability procedures will be notified oftheir ratings concurrent with thoseevaluated under the standard account-ability system. The standard baseindicator data for campuses ratedunder the optional evaluation proce-dures are included in the districtaccreditation rating, with one excep-tion: alternative education programsthat serve students from multipledistricts through shared servicesarrangements.

Non-Traditional CampusesThat Receive Ratings

Multidistrict Shared Services Arrange-ments. Under the standard account-ability system, performance results forstudents served through multidistrictshared services arrangements areattributed to the district in which theschool is located, even if some ofthose students come from otherdistricts. Campuses operating undershared services arrangements receive a

1 2

campus rating, and student perfor-mance is included in the evaluation todetermine the district accreditationrating for the district in which they arelocated. The exception, as notedabove, is alternative educationmultidistrict shared services arrange-ments. These schools receive campusratings through either the standardaccountability system or optionalprocedures. However, to avoidpenalizing districts in which alterna-tive education schools operated byshared services arrangements arelocated, the performance of students atthose schools is not included in thedistrict rating.

Privately Operated Residential Treat-ment Facilities. Because privatelyoperated residential treatment facilitiescan accept students from outside thedistrict in which they are located, theyare treated like alternative educationmultidistrict shared services arrange-ments for accountability rating pur-poses. Performance results undereither the standard accountabilityrating system or optional evaluationprocedures for alternative campusesare used to determine a campus rating.However, if the school is evaluatedunder the optional procedures thenresults are not included in the districtrating for the district in which thefacility is located.

Charter Schools. The SBOE hasauthorized 20 open-enrollment charterschools, most of which are in operationfor the 1996-97 school year. Thosewith students enrolled by the end ofOctober will be rated under the stan-dard accountability rating system,unless they have applied for evaluationunder the optional procedures. How-ever, since these schools are not part ofany district, their performance resultswill not be included in the results ofthe district in which they are geo-graphically located.

Continued on

Page 9

TAAS Participation and PerformanceTexas Assessment of Academic Skills (TAAS) resultsfor students receiving special education services are notincluded in the performance indicators used to ratecampuses and accredit school districts, and results arereported separately in AEIS reports. This practice wasestablished to provide districts an incentive to includemore students with disabilities in the statewideassessment program, which is associated with highexpectations for students. It may also provide aninadvertent incentive to identify students to receivespecial education services and may partially explainrecent growth in special education programs. However,enrollment in special education programs has beengrowing for at least 15 years, not just the past three.

In 1995-96, about 56 percent of students receivingspecial education services took at least one TAAS test(reading, writing, or mathematics), a noticeableincrease from 46 percent the prior year. TAASexemptions reported on the AEIS reports for the firsttime in 1995-96 were intended to provide districts and

campuses with a further incentive to include students inthe statewide assessment program. Also, for the firsttime following administration of the 1994-95 TAAS,the tests were released to comply with a new state law,which may have provided districts and campuses withbetter information on which to base exemptiondecisions.

Exemptions vary by subject. Mathematics has thefewest exemptions, with 58 percent of students tested.Some accommodations, such as oral administration, areallowed on mathematics that would invalidate othertests.

Overall performance on the TAAS by studentsreceiving special education services did not changefrom 1994-95 to 1995-96, with 28 percent of studentspassing all tests taken in both years. Performance onthe reading and writing tests declined slightly, from 47to 44 percent passing reading and 45 to 43 percentpassing writing. Lower scores are sometimes

Students300,000

200,000

100,000

0

TAAS Participation by Students With Disabilities

::-:-:-::.

ElSpecial EducationStudents in GradesTested

Students Tested

IIIStudents PassingAll Tests Taken

1994-95

School Year

1995-96

Source: TAAS 1995-96 Spring and Year-round Tests.

Page 10 Policy Research Report1 0-L

of Students With Disabilitiesassociated with an increase in the number of studentstested because more students of varying abilities aretested. Performance on the mathematics test improvedfrom 34 percent passing in 1994-95 to 37 percent in1995-96. Statewide, there were higher gains on themathematics test for nondisabled students as well.Performance of students with disabilities isconsiderably lower than that of their nondisabled peerson all tests.

It has been proposed that TAAS results for studentsreceiving special education services be included in the

,base indicators used to rate campuses and accreditdistricts. Based on analysis of 1995-96 TAAS resultsfor special education participants enrolled as of the lastFriday in October, ratings of 789 campuses would havebeen lowered by including results of students receivingspecial education services, and ratings of 19 campuseswould have been raised. Campuses with Recognizedand Exemplary ratings are most adversely affected byincluding TAAS results of special education partici-pants. The small range of performance for these ratinglevels allows less room for declines before the rating is

lowered than is the case for campuses with Acceptableratings. Also, Exemplary and Recognized campuses asa group test larger percentages of their students withdisabilities. The number of campuses rated LowPerforming would have increased in 1996 from 119to 150, and the number of districts rated AcademicallyUnacceptable would have increased from 11 to 13.

1995-96 TAAS Performance

Percent PassingSpecial

EducationParticipants

SpecialEducation

Non-Participants

Reading 44 80

Writing 43 83

Mathematics 37 74

All Tests Taken 28 67

Source: TAAS 1995-96 Spring and Year-round Tests.

1996 Accountability Ratings

1996Actual*

With SpecialEducation

Participants ChangeRatingsLowered

RatingsRaised

Campus Rating

Exemplary 394 218 176 179

Recognized 1,299 885 414 578 3

Acceptable 4,125 4,684 559 32 15

Low-perforating 119 150 31 1

5,937 789 19

District Rating

Exemplary 37 16 21 21

Recognized 209 96 113 129 0Academically Acceptable 787 919 132 2 1

Academically Unacceptable 11 13 2 0

1,044 152 1

Source: TEA AEIS 1996; TAAS 1995-96 Spring and Year-round Tests.* 1996 ratings before appeals.

Policy Research Report4

4,4 Page 11

Continued from Page 9

Compliance Monitoring

Although TAAS performance ofstudents with disabilities and manyLEP students is not included in theaccountability rating system, theprograms in which they are served arereviewed under a separate compliancemonitoring system. Statute requiresTEA to conduct on-site compliancemonitoring visits of special educationand bilingual/ESL programs, as well asfinancial audits of the special programallotments under the state foundationschool program funding formulas. Thedistrict effectiveness and compliance(DEC) monitoring system employs apeer review process and combinesstate and federal monitoring require-ments for special education, bilingual/ESL, and other state and federallyfunded programs. Campus-level stafffrom the district are included in themonitoring visit; however, the DEC isa district-level monitoring system.

Comprehensive program reviews(rather than separate reviews for eachspecial program) incorporate qualityand effectiveness indicators as well ascompliance factors. Although moni-tors review special program perfor-mance data before each visit, studentperformance on the TAAS or alterna-tive assessments is not among theareas required by law to be coveredthrough compliance monitoring.

Including More Studentsin the Assessment andAccountability Systems

Statute requires the commissioner ofeducation to develop and propose anassessment system for students receiv-ing special education services and LEPstudents currently exempt from theTAAS and, by 1998-99, to include theperformance of those students in theAEIS. Neither the nature of theassessment system nor how results areto be included in the AEIS are cur-

rently specified in law. In.December1996, the commissioner submittedreports to the legislature outliningproposals to include more studentswith disabilities and LEP students inthe statewide assessment program andintegrate those assessment results intothe AEIS. The proposals, which arecurrently under review, include thefollowing elements.

LEP Students

Include students in the EnglishTAAS based on the number ofyears they have received instructionin U.S. schools (rather than numberof TAAS administrations) and typeof special language services theyare receiving.

For students receiving instruc-tion in Spanish, those entering U.S.schools by Grade 2 would berequired to take the English TAASafter four years of instruction; thoseentering in Grade 3 or later wouldbe required to take the EnglishTAAS after three years of instruc-tion.

All other LEP students would berequired to take the English TAASafter two years of instruction.

Require each student receivinginstruction in Spanish who does nottake the English TAAS to take theSpanish TAAS if the test is offeredat the student's grade level.

Revise district and campus ratingcriteria to include Spanish TAASresults.

Introduce a new statewide readingproficiency test in English (RPTE).All LEP students who do not takethe English TAAS would beadministered the RPTE to monitortheir growth in English proficiency.

Report RPTE results on the districtand campus AEIS reports.


Require ARD committees to specifyhow students with disabilities willparticipate in a revised assessmentprogram.

Require that students participatein TAAS or end-of-course examina-tions if they are receiving on-grade-level instruction based on theessential elements in the subjecttested. Accommodations routinelyused in classroom instruction wouldbe allowable and would be providedduring testing.

Introduce a standardized multi-grade level alternative assessmentfor students receiving instruction inthe essential elements that is not ongrade level.

Continue to study the feasibilityof developing an assessment basedon curriculum domains appropriatefor students not receiving instructionin the essential elements at anygrade level.

Revise district and campus ratingcriteria to include the results ofstudents receiving special educationservices tested on TAAS.

Report on AEIS:combined TAAS performance

results for students with disabilitiesand nondisabled students in campus,district, and state reports;

the percentage of studentsreceiving special education servicestested on TAAS/end-of-courseassessments; and

the performance results ofstudents with disabilities takingalternative assessments.

Widely disseminate a comprehen-sive list of allowable test modifica-tions for students with disabilitiesand train educators to use them.

Continued on

3_


TAAS Participation and Performance by Studentsof Limited English Proficiency

In 1995-96, about 44 percent of LEP students took theEnglish TAAS. An additional 15 percent of studentstook the Spanish TAAS, which was administered atGrades 3-6 as part of either the field test or benchmarkadministration in 1995-96. Texas Assessment ofAcademic Skills (TAAS) participation patterns varyconsiderably, even among the regions with the largestLEP populations. Fewer than 30 percent of LEPstudents were exempt from both the English andSpanish TAAS in the El Paso region (Region 19) andSan Antonio region (Region 20). However, themajority of LEP students tested in the San Antonioregion took the English test, while 27 percent of LEPstudents in the El Paso region took the Spanish test. Incontrast, almost 60 percent of students in theRichardson region (Region 10) were exempt from bothtests. These differences may reflect variation in thenative languages of LEP students and the types ofprograms that are offered in the districts, as well aslocal test administration practices.

Performance of LEP students on the English TAAS islower than that of the state as a whole, with a noticeabledrop in performance at Grade 6. Under current SBOErules, students can be exempt from up to threeadministrations of the TAAS. Therefore, Grade 6 maybe the first year many LEP students participate inTAAS. Analyzing the TAAS performance of LEPstudents is difficult because, once students achieveproficiency in English, they are exited from thebilingual education or ESL programs and no longeridentified by districts as LEP. Consequently, test resultsrepresent only those students taking the English TAASwho are not performing well enough to exit bilingual orESL programs.

The passing standards for the Spanish TAAS Grades 3and 4 reading and mathematics tests were set at 70percent, based on 1995-96 benchmark data. TheSpanish TAAS for Grade 4 writing and Grades 5 and 6reading and mathematics were field tested in 1995-96;

LEP Student TAAS Participation by Region% of LEP

Students100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0% I 1411111411 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1

ilf 11111112 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Education Service Center Region

Ljjj Exempt

Spanish TAAS

III English TAAS

Source: TAAS 1995-96 Spring, Year-round, and Spanish Tests.

Policy Research Report0:..1 Page 13

LEP Student Performance on the1995-96 English TAAS

% Passing ABTests Taken100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

All Students

0% 4 4 i 4

3 4 5 6 7

Grade Tested

1

8 exit

Source: TAAS 1995-96 Spring, Year-round, and Spanish Tests.

standards will be set following the 1996-97 adminis-tration. Spanish TAAS results are lower than theEnglish TAAS results for LEP students at a 70 percentpassing standard, which is the passing standard for theEnglish TAAS.

It has been proposed that Spanish TAAS results beincluded in the base AEIS indicators used to ratecampuses and accredit districts. Based on analysis of1995-96 Grades 3 and 4 reading and mathematicsSpanish TAAS results for all students not receiving

Page 14

LEP Student Performance (Percent Passing),1995-96 Spanish TAAS

Possible Passing Standards60% I 65% I 70% I 75%

Reading

Grade 3 44

Grade 4 33

Grade 5 47 38 29 20

Grade 6 28 20 13 8

Mathematics

Grade 3 42

Grade 4 33

Grade 5 37 31 23 18

Grade 6 34 26 18 14Source: TAAS 1995-96 Spanish Tests, Grades 3-4 BenchmarkResults and Grades 5-6 Field Test Results.

special education services, 1996 ratings of 136campuses would have been lowered by includingSpanish TAAS results, and the rating of one campuswould have been raised. The number of campuses ratedLow-petforming would have increased from 119 to 127.Needless to say, elementary campuses would be mostadversely affected by this change. Ratings of fourdistricts would have been lowered. Including results forGrade 4 writing and Grades 5 and 6 reading andmathematics could be expected to further impact theaccountability rating system.


1996Actual*

With Gr. 3-4SpanishTAAS Change

RatingsLowered

RatingsRaised

Campus Rating

Exemplary 394 371 23 23

Recognized 1,299 1,207 92 106 0

Acceptable 4,125 4,232 107 7 1

Low-performing 119 127 8 0

5,937 136 1

District Rating

Exemplary 37 37 0 0

Recognized 209 205 4 4 0

Academically Acceptable 787 791 4 0 0

Academically Unacceptable 11 11 0 0

1,044 4 0Source: TEA AEIS 1996; TAAS 1995-96 Spring, Year-round, and Spanish Tests.* 1996 ratings before appeals.

17 Policy Research Report


Commissioner's Proposals

The commissioner's proposals wouldachieve the goals of including all LEPstudents in the statewide assessmentprogram, and of including all studentswith disabilities who are receivinginstruction in the essential elementswhile TEA explores the feasibility ofstandardized tests for students notreceiving such instruction. The TAASresults for more LEP students andmany students with disabilities wouldbe included in the accountability ratingsystem.

A number of considerations must beexplored before these proposals couldbe implemented, including the needfor more data on the impact of therecommendations, availability offunding for test development, andapplication of statute regarding publicrelease of test items for the proposednew assessments. In the meantime,these proposals will be reviewed byeducators and policymakers in relationto a number of assessment and ac-countability issues. Following is abrief discussion of the major issuesregarding expansion of AEIS. Inaddition, the commissioner is explor-ing options for integrating perfor-mance of as many campuses aspossible that have been excluded fromsome part of the standard accountabil-ity system due to the special nature oftheir programs.

Current Issues

The issues discussed in the followingsections are at the center of debatesabout expanding the statewide assess-ment program to test more studentswith disabilities and LEP students, andincluding more test results in the AEISaccountability rating system andperformance reports. The issues areconcerned with the three broad areasof appropriate testing of students,appropriate use of test results andimpact on the accountability rating


system, and data reporting needs inrelation to school and district account-ability.

Appropriate Testing of Students

Appropriate Testing of Studentswith Disabilities

Assessment in special education hastraditionally been for eligibility forservices rather than for performanceand accountability. As this focuschanges, two contradictory concernsare voiced repeatedly: the need to linkassessment to classroom instructionand the possible unintended effects onclassroom instruction if test results forstudents with disabilities are used inthe accountability rating system.Under the commissioner's proposal,instruction in the essential elements ofthe curriculum is the key factor indetermining if students receivingspecial education services will berequired to take the TAAS and beincluded in the accountability ratingsystem. This recommendation linksassessment directly with classroominstruction, with the goal of improvingeducational results for students withdisabilities.

TAAS participation by studentsreceiving special education serviceshas increased in recent years. How-ever, including TAAS results in theaccountability rating system couldreverse this trend. If instruction in theessential elements is a key factor indetermining TAAS participation, thereare concerns that reduced TAASparticipation could be achieved byteaching the essential elements tofewer students with disabilities. Otherfactors on which this decision could bebased include the student's disabilitycategory, the amount of time spent inspecial education instructional set-tings, the instructional arrangement,the student's reading level, behavioralconsiderations, or results of a stan-dardized pretest or developmentalskills pretest. Each of these factors

has shortcomings as a possible key fordetermining TAAS participation ofstudents with disabilities.

Beginning in 1996-97, districts arerequired for the first time to administera locally selected alternative assess-ment to students with disabilities whodo not participate in the TAAS. Anystandardized statewide alternativeassessment for students who arereceiving instruction in the essentialelements, but not at grade level, wouldneed to meet the following criteria:(a) provide a good match between testitems and the essential elements, (b)be appropriate for various instructionallevels and grade levels, and (c)provide valid results with a variety oftest modifications or accommodations.Recommendations that such anassessment be developed or purchasedfor use statewide meet with theargument that standardization is notpossible due to the individualizednature of disabilities and classroominstruction. At the same time, indi-vidualized evaluations such as portfo-lios and performance-based processesare seen as cumbersome and subject tovariability in implementation.

Two approaches to developing astandardized alternative assessmenthave been proposed. One suggestionis to develop a multigrade-levelTAAS. Test development couldrequire several years, but this alterna-tive would assure a match between thecontent assessed and the essentialelements. Alternatively, a commer-cially available test could be selectedfor statewide use. These tests havealready been evaluated for reliability,validity, and psychometric soundness,and school districts are familiar withtheir use. However, they are notdesigned specifically to test thecontent of the essential elements andthe level of match would have to beevaluated. With either approach to astandardized alternative assessment,there are questions regarding interpre-tation of the results and how theyshould be reported.

Page 15

It is estimated that 5 to 10 percent ofstudents with disabilities do notreceive instruction in the essentialelements at any grade level. Thesestudents with severe disabilitiesreceive instruction in a functional orlife skills curriculum. Performancegoals are articulated in the IEP.Development of a standardizedassessment for these students must bepreceded by establishment of state-wide goals and identification ofappropriate curriculum domains.

Test Accommodations for Studentswith Disabilities

Braille and large-print versions of theTAAS and end-of-course examina-tions are made available to districtsfor testing students with visualimpairments. Students may also use amagnifying glass, colored transpar-ency, or place marker with the test.Students with disabilities may beallowed to use a variety of methods torecord responses to test items, includ-ing handwriting, typewriting, com-puter keyboard entry, verbal response,and marking responses in the testbooklet rather than the answer sheet.Students with disabilities may receivean individual administration of thetest, and the test administrator mayread aloud the mathematics, socialstudies, and science test questions.Districts may contact TEA aboutaccommodations not addressed in thetesting manuals. The primary deter-minant for use of an accommodationis whether it would invalidate testresults. Test accommodations forstudents with disabilities are deter-mined based on accommodations thestudent routinely receives in class-room instruction (as identified by theARD), the needs of the student, andaccommodations allowed for the test.

The commissioner's proposal recom-mends providing districts with morecomprehensive information about testaccommodations and training educa-tors to use them. The recommenda-

Page 16

tion focuses on clarifying and dissemi-nating information about currentpolicy. By promoting wider use ofallowable accommodations, it isargued, not only will participationincrease but student performance willalso improve. This proposal preservesthe primary role of the ARD commit-tee in identifying classroom and testaccommodations based on individualstudent needs, and strengthens the linkbetween assessment, the IEP, andclassroom instruction.

Preparation of LEP Students for theEnglish TAAS

There is debate about the amount ofpreparation needed by LEP studentsbefore it is appropriate for them totake the English TAAS. Allowingthree years in a Texas public school tolearn English may be sufficient formost students. However, for olderstudents entering Texas public schoolswho are non-literate in their nativelanguages, three years may not besufficient time to master the essentialelements of the curriculum in English.

The commissioner's proposal wouldmodify current procedures by basingassessment decisions in part on thetype of instructional program thestudent is receiving. Students receiv-ing instruction in Spanish would nottake the English TAAS for up to threeor four years. All other students(including all students with nativelanguages other than Spanish) wouldbe required to take the English TAASafter two years of instruction, regard-less of when they enter school.

There is concern that this proposalestablishes different expectations forstudents based on their native lan-guage. Availability of the SpanishTAAS provides an option for includ-ing performance of Spanish-speakingstudents in the assessment and ac-countability rating systems before theyachieve English proficiency. Cur-rently there is not a sufficient mecha-

nism in place or being developed tohold campuses and districts account-able for the performance of studentswith native languages other thanSpanish in special language programs.

Ninety percent of those with nativelanguages other than Spanish are ineither ESL programs, which areintensive programs to develop Englishproficiency, or are not receivingspecial language services. In bothcases, two years of instruction beforetaking the English TAAS would beconsistent with the time allowed underthe commissioner's proposal forSpanish-speaking students who do notparticipate in the Spanish TAAS. Theinequity exists for the few remainingstudents with native languages otherthan Spanish who are receivinginstruction in their native language,but must take the English TAAS aftertwo years of instruction under thisproposal. Although they representless than 1 percent of all LEP stu-dents, this inherent inequity couldresult in unintended changes in thoseprograms.

One alternative accountability mea-sure might be presented by the pro-posed RPTE, which would be admin-istered to all LEP students who do nottake the English TAAS. Gains on aRPTE would reflect progress towardthe goal of English reading profi-ciency, an appropriate goal for all LEPstudents regardless of native languageor type of special program in whichthey are participating. How gainswould be evaluated as an indicator,and whether gains could be comparedacross programs and grade levelswould have to be determined.

Test Accommodations for LEPStudents. For some LEP students,especially those taking the EnglishTAAS for the first time, accommoda-tions to the way the test is adminis-tered may be appropriate. State Boardof Education rules permit test accom-

Continued on


Student MobilityIn 1995-96, there were 123,156 students who movedinto the district in which they took the TAAS after thelast Friday in October of the school year. Test resultsfor these students are neither included in the AEIS baseindicators used to rate campuses and accredit districtsnor reported on AEIS reports. Mobile students who areexcluded from the accountability subset of test resultsrepresent about 6 percent of students in grades tested.

Districts and campuses vary from no students excludedfrom the accountability subset to as many as one-thirdof students excluded. However, the variation is notconsistently associated with any set of district orcampus characteristics. Not unexpectedly, specialdistricts, which include districts on military bases, havea higher than average percentage (9 percent) of studentsexcluded from the accountability subset, as do alterna-tive education campuses (17 percent). Regionally, thepercentage of students excluded from the accountabilitysubset ranges from a low of 5 percent to a high of 7percent.

A Study of Student Mobility in Texas Public Schools(TEA, 1997) reports that mobility rates are higher foreconomically disadvantaged students, students identi-fied as being at risk of dropping out, and ethnic minor-ity students. These are groups of students that histori-cally demonstrate lower performance on the TAAS,regardless of their mobility. However, even aftercontrolling for their previous test performance andsocioeconomic status, mobile students performed worseon the TAAS than stable students. Furthermore, theperformance gap between mobile andstable students is higher on campuseswith high student turnover rates.

The same study found that the laterin the school year students move, thelower their academic performance.It can be estimated that about 42percent of the 123,156 studentsexcluded from the accountabilitysubset moved into the district afterthe start of the spring semester, and19 percent moved into the districtafter the beginning of the fifth6-week period.

Districts have little opportunity toinfluence the learning of studentswho move into the district late inthe school year. Holding them


accountable for the academic performance of thesestudents might undermine the credibility of the ratingsystem. On the other hand, it can be argued that theexistence of a state-mandated curriculum supportsinterdistrict consistency in instruction for studentstransferring between Texas school districts.

Based on analysis of 1995-96 English TAAS results fornon-special education mobile students, 1996 account-ability ratings of 262 campuses would have beenlowered by including these results, and ratings of 62campuses would have been raised. The number ofcampuses rated Low-performing would have increasedfrom 119 to 125. As a group, the campuses mostadversely affected by this change are small campuseswith few minority or disadvantaged students and highTAAS performance. They are most often located infast growing suburban or rural districts with few eco-nomically disadvantaged students and high TAASperformance. Campuses with Exemplary and Recog-nized ratings are most adversely affected. Although 15campuses would have had their 1996 ratings loweredfrom Acceptable to Low-performing, 9 campuses wouldhave had their ratings raised from Low-performing toAcceptable. Two-thirds of the campuses whose ratingswould have been raised moved from Acceptable toRecognized. The number of districts rated Academi-cally Unacceptable would have increased from 11 to12, and a total of 49 districts would have had theirratings lowered.


1996Actual*

WithExcludedStudents Change

RatingsLowered

RatingsRaised

Campus Rating

Exemplary 394 335 59 71

Recognized 1,299 1,222 77 176 12

Acceptable 4,125 4,255 130 15 41

Low-performing 119 125 6 95,937 262 62

District Rating

Exemplary 37 26 II 12

Recognized 209 193 16 35 I

Academically Acceptable 787 813 26 2 8

Academically Unacceptable 11 12 1 I

1,044 49 10

Source: TEA AEIS 1996; TAAS 1995-96 Spring, Year-round, and Spanish Tests.* 1996 ratings before appeals.

0Page 17

Assessment of Students with Disabilities and LEP StudentsNationally and in Other States

Examination of issues surrounding the assessment of students with disabilities and students of limitedEnglish proficiency (LEP) is taking place nationally and in many states, as well as in Texas. TheNational Center for Education Statistics (NCES) is exploring ways to increase participation of studentswith disabilities and LEP students in the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) as wellas other major national data collection programs. This trend is also reflected in the authorization ofGoals 2000: Educate America Act and Improving America's Schools Act, which calls forassessmentsthat are meaningful, challenging, and appropriate for all students.

Interest in inclusion of students in assessment programs has grown in the current decade with theincreased emphasis nationally and at the state level in the development of accountability systems totrack educational progress. Accountability systems rely heavily, if not exclusively, on assessmentprograms. The primary concern nationally about exclusion of students from assessment programs isthat the resulting indicators do not provide an accurate measure of educational performance orprogress. At the same time, the appropriateness of state and national assessments for all students isquestioned. The primary challenge is to preserve the validity and reliability of the tests, as well as theability to analyze performance trends when there are changes in the way the tests are administered.

A central issue at the state level is not only whether students are tested, but also how those results areincorporated into accountability systems. Texas is one of few states that use an accountability systembased primarily on assessment results to accredit districts. In contrast, some states do not even reportaggregate results for districts or campuses from their statewide testing programs.

In 1996 the Council of Chief State School Officers reported results of a survey regarding systemicreform and LEP students. Of the 43 states responding, 35 exempt LEP students from statewideassessment, often basing the decision to test on the number of years the student has been in the UnitedStates or enrolled in a special language program. Eleven states have some assessment in languagesother than English, but these tests are not part of statewide assessment programs.

Results of a similar survey on assessment of students with disabilities were published in 1995 by theNational Center on Educational Outcomes. They found that 32 of the 42 states with statewideassessment programs emphasize the role of the IEP in assessment decisions for students withdisabilities. Sixteen states also identify a role for parents. In 15 states assessment decisions are basedin part on the category of disability or type of instructional program. Nine states permit partial testing,allowing students to take only part of the test as a way to increase participation by students withdisabilities. Six states have standardized alternative assessments and four include out-of-level testingfor students who are not receiving instruction on grade level. Reporting practices vary with statesincluding none, some, or all students with disabilities in results reported.

The NAEP is a nationally standardized test administered at Grades 4, 8, and 12 to assess reading,writing, mathematics, and science. The NAEP criteria for excluding students with disabilities and LEPstudents from the tests rely primarily on state and local policy. For example, the IEP is typically usedto determine whether a special education student will participate in the NAEP. Although testaccommodations (including bilingual tests) are being field tested, none are currently available. Basedon eligibility criteria currently in place, nationally 58 percent of Grade 4 students with disabilities and61 percent of Grade 4 LEP students were included in the NAEP mathematics assessment in 1996.



modations as long as they do notinvalidate the test results. For ex-ample, test administrators mayprovide oral instructions to LEPstudents in their native language. Testitems may not be translated or readaloud in English, and students may notuse dictionaries or other referencematerials.

Proposals for expanding the types oftest accommodations allowed for LEPstudents have ranged from use ofdictionaries or lexicons created for thespecific TAAS test, to development ofcomputer-administered tests, to oraladministration of tests (which iscurrently allowed with some tests forstudents with disabilities). With anynew accommodation, concerns aboutcompromising the validity of the testmust be overcome. Equity concernsalso arise if accommodations areproposed for some LEP students thatcould not be provided to all LEPstudents, or if the accommodationswould also benefit students who donot have limited English proficiency.Some proposed accommodations,such as special lexicons and com-puter-administered tests, wouldrequire considerable developmenttime.

Number and Consistencyof Exemptions

Under current SBOE and commis-sioner rules, there is wide variabilitywithin and across districts in participa-tion rates on the English and Spanishversions of the TAAS for both LEPstudents and students receiving specialeducation services. District decisionsto administer the English TAAS toLEP students potentially have asignificant impact on their overallTAAS results and, therefore, theiraccountability ratings. Introduction ofthe Spanish TAAS provides anotheroption for testing many LEP students,but also brings another level of


complexity to the issue of participa-tion in the English TAAS.

Identification of students as needingspecial education services potentiallyhas an impact on accountabilityratings. Although, currently, TAASresults for students receiving specialeducation services are reportedseparately and are not used to accreditdistricts and rate campuses, this couldchange under recent proposals. Thefollowing strategies could be used,alone or in combination, to reduce thenumber of exemptions of studentswith disabilities and LEP students andbring greater consistency to districtexemption practices: (1) expandaccountability system safeguards,(2) standardize procedures for exemp-tions, (3) reduce or eliminate testingexemptions, and (4) add an exemptionstandard as a base indicator in theaccountability rating system. A briefdiscussion of the four strategiesfollows.

Expand accountability system safe-guards. Currently, analyses under-taken after release of the accountabil-ity ratings compare the number ofstudents with disabilities exemptedfrom TAAS by the local ARD com-mittee with the number of studentsreported through PEIMS as receivingspecial education services. Also, thenumber of TAAS answer documentscoded as LEP-exempted is comparedto the number of students reported asreceiving bilingual or ESL services.Discrepancies are investigated and canresult in recommendations for correc-tive actions and/or sanctions. Incorpo-rating the Spanish TAAS results andresults for students receiving specialeducation services in the accountabil-ity rating system may necessitateadditional safeguards. Such safe-guards are designed to validate dataintegrity. However, timing of thereceipt of test results prohibits con-ducting thorough audits of the testdata before the accountability ratingsare released. One result is that any

2

irregularities are discovered afterrelease of the ratings they may havecompromised.

Compliance monitoring, conducted toassure compliance with state andfederal program and funding laws,could also be expanded to moreclosely monitor compliance with newassessment requirements. Regardlessof the direction of changes to theassessment and accountability ratingsystems, some audit of the data will benecessary. The greater the flexibilitydistricts have to determine whichstudents are included in the assess-ment and accountability ratingsystems, the more critical systemsafeguards are.

Standardize procedures for exemp-tion. One way to standardize policiesfor administering LEP students theEnglish TAAS would be to require alldistricts to use a single Englishreading proficiency test with a profi-ciency standard set by the state todetermine whether a student will takethe English TAAS. Such a test wouldimpose greater consistency on thetesting decisions made by LPACsstatewide. One disadvantage to thisstrategy may be that it could create aninconsistency between program goalsand accountability goals. The pro-gram goal for LEP students is not onlyEnglish language proficiency but alsoacademic achievement. Under thisproposal, students could be required totake the English TAAS before theyhave reached the level of academicperformance that represents theproficiency required for exit from thespecial language program. Also, thisstrategy could reduce the authority ofthe LPAC to make individual exemp-tion decisions based on a variety offactors related to each student.

Proposals for standardizing proce-dures for exempting students withdisabilities from the TAAS focus onclarifying guidelines for participation,and more closely linking the IEP,

Page 19

instruction in the essential elements,and assessment. The goal of theseproposals is not only to reducevariability in district decision makingand increase the number of studentstested, but also to promote greater useof student- and subject-specificdecisions about participation.

Reduce or eliminate testing exemp-tions. Commissioner rules (19 TAC§89.1220) give the local LPACs theauthority to make exemption decisionsbased on a number of factors. Requir-ing all LEP students to participate in astatewide assessment (such as theEnglish TAAS, Spanish TAAS, orRPTE proposal), or to participatesooner, could reduce significantly thenumber of LEP exemptions from thestatewide assessment system. (Suchchanges would require amendments toSBOE rules.) Changing the criteriafor participation in the English TAASfrom number of TAAS administra-

tions to years of instruction., as pro-posed, would alone increase thenumber tested because studentsentering Texas public schools byGrade 1 would be tested in English byGrade 5 rather than Grade 6.

Commissioner rules (19 TAC§89.1055) and SBOE rules (19 TAC§101.3) give the local ARD committeeprimary responsibility for determiningif students receiving special educationservices will participate in the TAAStesting program. Appropriately,TAAS participation rates for studentsreceiving special education servicesvary by disability. Most students withspeech handicaps participate in TAAS,for example, while few students withmental retardation participate. Requir-ing all or most students with disabili-ties to participate in a statewideassessment (such as the TAAS orstandardized alternative assessmentproposal), or testing of all students

PercentTested100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

Figure 4.Participation in the English TAAS by1996 Campus Accountability Rating

Students Receiving 1-1 LEPIII Special Education LJ Students

Services

Exemplary Recognized'HIAcceptable

1996 Campus Accountability Rating

Low-performing

Source: TEA AEIS 1996; TAAS 1995-96 Spring and Year-round Tests.

Differences in TAAS participation may reflect variations in disabilities ofstudents receiving special education services and native languages of LEPstudents, and types of programs offered, as well as local test administrationpractices.

Page 20

with certain disabilities or receivingservices in certain instructionalarrangements, would initially reducethe number of exemptions from thestatewide assessment system. Thelonger term impact of changes such asthese on the identification and instruc-tion of students with disabilities is notknown.

Add an exemption standard. TAASexemptions for students with disabili-ties and LEP students are report-onlyindicators they are reported inAEIS district and campus reports butare not used to accredit districts andrate campuses. Setting a standardrepresenting a minimum percentageof students who can be exempted fromtesting for districts and campuses tobe eligible for Exemplary andRecognized ratings, for example,would provide an incentive for high-performing campuses and districts totest more students. As Figure 4shows, Exemplary and Recognizedcampuses already test a larger percent-age of their students receiving specialeducation services than campusesreceiving Acceptable or Low-peiform-ing ratings. These results are notincluded in the base indicator used todetermine ratings. However, a smallerpercentage of LEP students on high-performing campuses take the EnglishTAAS than on Acceptable and Low-petforming campuses; these results areincluded in the base indicator used todetermine ratings. The primarydifficulty in implementing such anoption would be in setting standardsfor percent of students tested that arehigh enough to provide the desiredincentive without penalizing campuseswhose unique student populationswarrant exempting higher percentagesof students.

Appropriate Use of Test Results

Decisions about how the test resultsare incorporated into the AEIS wouldundoubtedly influence district imple-mentation of any assessment system.

For example, using Spanish TAASresults for determining district andcampus ratings would make these testresults much higher stakes than RPTEresults used as report-only indicators.Spanish-speaking students in bilingualprograms typically receive instructionin a combination of English andSpanish. Therefore, requiring districtsto administer the Spanish TAAS tostudents receiving instruction inSpanish, as proposed, would leaveconsiderable discretion to the LPAC indetermining whether students shouldbe administered the Spanish TAAS ortake only the RPTE until they arerequired to take the English TAAS.As with the Spanish TAAS, decisionsabout how test results for studentswith disabilities are incorporated intothe AEIS would undoubtedly influ-ence district implementation ofchanges to the assessment system.

Appropriate Use of SpanishTAAS Results

In developing any new performanceindicator for the AEIS, the desiredbehavior at the district and campuslevels should be identified. A criticalconcern is that use of the indicatorpromote this desired behavior. Includ-ing Spanish TAAS results in the AEISwould help ensure that the educationalneeds of all LEP students are ad-dressed and high standards of learningfor all students are upheld. It is arguedthat the academic progress of studentsis important, regardless of the primarylanguage of instruction during theearly grades, and that a student with astrong foundation in his or her nativelanguage is able to successfullytransfer that knowledge to a secondlanguage. Consequently, manyeducators consider the Spanish TAASto be as important as the EnglishTAAS in interpreting campus anddistrict performance. Some areconcerned that if Spanish TAASperformance is not included as a baseindicator of the accountability ratingsystem, the test will lack credibility.

However, there are also concernsabout the appropriateness of usingSpanish TAAS results in the account-ability rating system. It is argued thattesting students in their native lan-guage does not help them reachgreater proficiency in English, whichis what they ultimately need to masterthe exit-level TAAS. IncludingSpanish TAAS results in the account-ability rating system could change theemphasis of bilingual educationprograms by focusing on greaterproficiency in the native language toimprove Spanish TAAS scores.

In 1995-96, about 15 percent of allLEP students in Grades 3-6 took theSpanish TAAS as part of the bench-mark administration of the Grades 3and 4 mathematics and reading tests orthe field test of the Grade 4 writingand Grades 5 and 6 mathematics andreading tests. If Spanish TAAS resultsare included in the accountabilityrating system, districts may choose totest fewer students.

Another concern is whether it isappropriate to compare Spanish TAASresults with English TAAS results.Although the Spanish and EnglishTAAS tests are designed to measurecomparable academic content, the testshave not been statistically equated.Therefore, performance on the Englishand Spanish tests are not directlycomparable.

Impact on the Accountability System

Ratings. Including TAAS results formobile students or students withdisabilities, or Spanish TAAS resultsin the base TAAS indicator used toaccredit districts and rate campuseswould have an impact on the ratingsproduced through the accountabilityrating system. An analysis of 1995-96special education results, Spanishmathematics and reading results forGrades 3 and 4, and results for mobilestudents not included in the account-ability subset was conducted. Al-

though ratings for some campuses anddistricts would have been raised, ingeneral, accountability ratings wouldhave been lowered by including thoseTAAS results in the existing TAASbase indicator. The 1996 ratings of789 campuses would have beenlowered if TAAS results of studentswith disabilities enrolled in the districtas of the last Friday in October hadbeen included in the base TAASindicator. Ratings of 136 campuseswould have been lowered by includingSpanish TAAS reading and mathemat-ics results for all non-special educa-tion students tested in Grades 3 and 4.Ratings of 262 campuses would havebeen lowered by including TAASresults for students who moved intothe district after the last Friday inOctober. Ratings of 1,000 campuses

17 percent of all campuseswould have been lowered by includingall TAAS results. Even with advancepublicity about changes to the ac-countability rating system, changes ofthis magnitude might lead to themisperception that academic perfor-mance in Texas public schools isdeclining.

By 1999, when implementation ofchanges to the accountability ratingsystem is proposed, the phase-in ofstandards for the accountability ratingsystem will be in its sixth year. TheTAAS passing standard for theAcceptable rating will be 45 percentpassing each subject test for allstudents and each student group,compared to 30 percent in 1996.Districts and campuses will not havethe time advantage provided in theearly years of the accountability ratingsystem to phase in standards forTAAS results added to the system.

Campuses with Exemplary andRecognized ratings would be mostadversely affected by including TAASresults for mobile students andstudents with disabilities, and SpanishTAAS results. The small range ofperformance specified for these rating


2 4

levels allows less room for declinesbefore the rating is lowered than is thecase for campuses with Acceptableratings. As Table 5 shows, campusesreceiving the Acceptable rating, whichalready represent 69 percent of allcampuses, would increase in number.Such a change would reduce furtherthe distinction in overall ratingsproduced by the accountability ratingsystem, a feature of the system that isalready criticized.

Including TAAS scores for studentsreceiving special education services orstudents who move into the districtafter the last Friday in October in theaccountability rating system could beexpected to impact districts andcampuses statewide in a fairly uniformmanner. Including Spanish TAASresults would disproportionatelyimpact elementary campuses, andcampuses in the Edinburg (Region 1)and El Paso (Region 19) regions. Atpresent, more base indicators areapplicable to middle and high schools

than to elementary schools, thusmaking it easier on average for anelementary school to achieve a higherrating. The impact of the SpanishTAAS results on ratings could bemoderated to some extent by incorpo-rating results for Grades 3-6 in oneyear, so that all the declines due to thechange are experienced at one time.However, this would shorten thephase-in period for the Grade 4writing test and the Grades 5 and 6reading and mathematics tests from 3years to 2 years, or delay making thechange for one additional year.

Use of indicators. Creating separateindicators would provide moreflexibility in incorporating additionalTAAS results into the AEIS. Forexample, use of TAAS results forstudents receiving special educationservices and Spanish test results asadditional indicators or retaining themas report-only indicators, rather than abase indicator, could be explored.However, there is opposition from

Table 5. 1996 Accountability Ratings

1996Actual*

Change

WithSpecial

Education

WithSpanish

TAAS

WithMobileStudents

With AllTAASResults

Campus Rating

Exemplary 394 176 23 59 211Recognized 1,299 414 92 77 550Acceptable 4,125 559 107 130 713Low-performing 119 31 8 6 48

5,937

District Rating

Exemplary 37 21 0 11 24Recognized 209 113 4 16 122Academically Acceptable 787 132 4 26 144

Academically Unacceptable 11 2 0 1 2

1,044

Source: TEA AEIS 1996; TAAS 1995-96 Spring, Year-round, and Spanish Tests.

* 1996 ratings before appeals.

Although some 1996 campus ratings would have been raised by includingadditional TAAS results in the accountability rating system, the overall impactwould have been to lower ratings.

Page 22

some advocates for students withdisabilities to even reporting TAASresults of students receiving specialeducation services separately ratherthan combined with other campus anddistrict TAAS results. This is coupledwith a more general concern thatfewer incentives exist to ensure thatstudents excluded from the account-ability rating system are assuredresources devoted to improved instruc-tion.

Two options have been discussed aspossible answers to the growingnumber of indicators in the account-ability rating system. One is todevelop a weighted system that doesnot require each district or campus tomeet standards on all indicators. Theother option, which would require achange in statute, is to use differentindicators to rate districts than areused to rate campuses. As indicatorsare added to the AEIS, it will benecessary to explore these proposals ingreater detail.

Improvement. Statute now definestwo improvement measures, RequiredImprovement and Comparable Im-provement, as components of theaccountability rating system fordistricts and campuses. It also speci-fies the ratings to which RequiredImprovement will be applied. Ifadditional TAAS results are added tothe base TAAS indicator, it will benecessary to redefine the methodologyfor computing Required Improvementand Comparable Improvement becausemeasures of gain would be distortedby changes in the indicator definitionacross the two years used in thecalculation.

Alternative assessment results. It hasbeen proposed that either performanceor gain on a proposed reading profi-ciency test in English be reported onthe district and campus AEIS reports.Such an instrument would measure theemerging ability of LEP students toread and comprehend English. An


aggregate measure of performance ona RPTE would represent the range ofproficiency levels of LEP students.A measure of gain on a RPTE wouldreflect the progress of LEP studentstoward proficiency in English, whichis the goal of both bilingual and ESLprograms. Either acquiring or devel-oping such a test would have afmancial impact. Furthermore, it maynot be possible to incorporate RPTEresults into the AEIS by 1998-99. Asuggestion mentioned earlier is thatstudents performing at a certain levelon a RPTE could be required to takethe English TAAS. Another proposalis that a measure of required growthon a RPTE be established and incor-porated into the accountability ratingsystem as a base indicator used toaccredit districts and rate campuses.

Reporting results on a proposedalternative assessment for studentswith disabilities who receive instruc-tion on the essential elements but noton grade level has also been sug-gested. Options for this reportingwould have to be explored as anassessment instrument is developed.

Data Reporting Considerations

Attributing Studentsto Dual Campuses

As discussed earlier, there are anumber of situations in which cam-puses are not rated under the standardaccountability system, or performanceof their students is not included in therating for the district. These aretypically campuses serving specialpopulations from across a singledistrict, or from more than onedistrict. Holding the district with thespecial program accountable for theperformance of high-risk studentsfrom neighboring districts mayunfairly impact districts willing tohouse such programs. The same istrue of campuses that serve specialpopulations from across one district.One solution to bringing some of

these students into the standardaccountability system may be toattribute their performance to thesending campus and/or district. Doingso requires a mechanism to allowdistricts, under certain circumstances,to attribute students to a differentcampus and/or district than the one onwhich they are receiving services onthe PELMS data submission or TAASanswer document. Thus, districts withcampuses that enroll students fromoutside the district would indicatewhere the student is receiving instruc-tion and where the student would bereceiving instruction if she or he werenot in the special program. This couldinclude campuses operated by multi-district shared services agreements andJJAEPs. An advantage to this type ofreporting is that it promotes jointresponsibility between the sending andreceiving districts for the education ofthe student.

A similar mechanism could be used toattribute students to two differentcampuses within a district. Thiswould allow districts with alternativeeducation campuses currently ratedunder the optional evaluation proce-dure to code students to both thealternative campuses and the sendingcampuses. The commissioner isconsidering a Legislative BudgetBoard recommendation that optionalevaluation be discontinued and allschools be rated under the standardaccountability system methodology.Currently performance of students onmost alternative education campuses isincluded in the district accreditationrating. Dual attribution of studentswould provide another option forbringing students in alternativeeducation programs into the standardaccountability system at the campuslevel. If proposed changes to includeTAAS results of students receivingspecial education services in the baseindicators are adopted, students onspecial education campuses might alsobe coded back to their home cam-puses. However, districts would

undoubtedly encounter difficultiesidentifying the appropriate homecampus for many students, andtechnical difficulties in reporting thatinformation throught current datacollections. Some students may movebetween campuses throughout theschool year; others may never haveattended school outside the specialcampus.

Beginning in 1997-98, PEIMS datastandards allow dual student attribu-tion information to be reported inspecific circumstances. The goal is tobe able to attribute performance ofstudents to the appropriate schooldistrict for funding purposes. Theinformation may not be appropriatefor accountability rating purposes.There are currently no plans to allowdistricts to code students within asingle district to dual campuses.

Conclusion

Including more students in the AEISperformance reports or accountabilityrating system is contingent uponresolving both measurement andpolicy issues. First and foremost,measurement issues must be resolvedin ways that maintain the validity ofthe assessment because there must beconfidence in the test if it is to be usedin a high-stakes accountability system.For students with disabilities thisincludes difficult issues such as settingstandards for determining when astudent is capable of participatingmeaningfully in the assessment, andwhether results for students testedwith accommodations and adaptationsare comparable to those of otherstudents. For LEP students the issuesare equally difficult: determining themost appropriate point to begin testingnon-native speakers in English, theimpact of language adaptations on testresults, and equating results of testsadministered in different languages.

Several proposals discussed in thisreport include development of new


2 a

assessment instruments designedspecifically for special populations,such as students with disabilities notreceiving instruction in the essentialelements on grade level, or LEPstudents who have not yet achievedproficiency in English. The overrid-ing issue in standardizing alternativeassessments is whether a singleassessment can fulfill the testingrequirements for most students withdisabilities who are exempt from theTAAS, or a single English proficiencytest can fulfill the testing requirementsof all LEP students who do notparticipate in the English TAAS. Inaddition to the conventional measure-ment concerns of validity and reliabil-ity, there will be questions aboutinterpretation of the results of newspecialized tests, including what thoseresults mean in relation to the existingassessments. How the test resultsmight be used in the AEIS account-ability ratings or reports must beconsidered at the time any new test isdeveloped or selected.

Policy issues must be resolved in away that is true to the guiding prin-ciples on which the AEIS was based.Following is a summary of policyissues related to each of the eightprinciples.

Student Performance: State instruc-tional goals associated with includingmore students in the accountabilityrating system must be delineated and adetermination made regarding howdecisions made at the state level willimprove the quality of education forstudents. A major concern is thatstate-level policy decisions promotethe desired behavior at the school anddistrict levels. Base indicators used toaccredit districts and rate campusesare high-stakes performance mea-sures. It is less clear how schools anddistricts respond to standards set foradditional indicators or inclusion ofreport-only indicators in AEIS reports.Decisions about how test results areincorporated into the AEIS would

Page 24

undoubtedly influence implementationof any changes to the assessmentprogram.

Policy decisions can also have bothintended and unintended long-termconsequences for instruction and mayresult in reconsideration of policiesunrelated to state accountability. Forexample, including students withdisabilities in the accountability ratingsystem may raise the question ofwhether those students should berequired to pass the exit-level TAASin order to graduate, given all otherstudents currently included in theaccountability rating system arerequired to do so.

Recognition of Diversity: Assessmentdecisions for students with disabilitiesmust take into consideration theindividualized nature of disabilitiesand classroom instruction of studentsreceiving special education services.Policies standardizing assessmentdecisions (whether they were based oninstruction in the essential elements,disability, instructional arrangement,or other factors) would by definitionsacrifice to some degree recognition ofindividual circumstances. Likewise,policies regarding participation in theEnglish TAAS of LEP students musttake into account the variety of nativelanguages spoken and types of speciallanguage programs being offered, andhow these vary based on age or grade-level of the students and literacy intheir native language at the time theyenter Texas public schools.

System Stability: It may be difficult toadd TAAS results for students withdisabilities or mobile students, orSpanish TAAS results, to the account-ability rating system without makingchanges in major system componentssuch as the criteria and standards formeeting each of the rating levels.

Appropriate Consequences: Imple-menting changes to the accountabilityrating system that local educators and

27

policymakers perceive as punitive innature could undermine the credibilityof the system.

Statutory Compliance: As newpolicies related to TAAS exemptionsare implemented, it may be necessaryto place more emphasis on account-ability system safeguards designed tovalidate data integrity, includingdeveloping additional safeguards andexpanding the role of the specialprograms compliance monitoringsystem.

Local Program Flexibility:Policymakers must determine howmuch weight should be given tostandardizing TAAS exemptions andassessments for students with disabili-ties and LEP students across districtsthrough state policy changes, versusproviding ARD and LPAC commit-tees the authority to make assessmentdecisions based on individual studentneeds.

Local Responsibility: The AEIS hasalways relied on local school districtsto develop and implement localaccountability systems that comple-ment the state system.

Public's Right to Know: Policyissues must be resolved in a way thatretains the ability of educators,parents, and policymakers to interpretAEIS reports in a meaningful way.Avoiding the misperception thatacademic performance of Texas publicschools has declined will be critical ifTAAS performance or accountabilityratings drop solely as a consequenceof including results for students withdisabilities or mobile students, orSpanish TAAS results.


Legislative Update

Legislation passed in May 1997 by the 75th Texas Legislature implements changes to theassessment program and accountability rating system. House Bill 1800 amends TECChapter 39 related to assessment academic skills and performance indicators for studentsin special education programs. Senate Bill 133 amends TEC Chapter 37 related to theaccountability rating procedures for alternative education campuses. Timelines forimplementing the new legislation and integrating changes into the statewide assessmentprogram and AEIS will be developed in the coming months.

House Bill 1800

Alternative Assessment. Under the new legislation, the TEA will develop or adopt as-sessment instruments to be administered to students in special education programs inGrades 3-8 who receive instruction in the essential knowledge and skills but for whomthe TAAS, even with allowable modifications, does not provide an appropriate measureof achievement. The new alternative assessment will assess competencies and growth inreading, mathematics, and writing. The tests will be administered on the same scheduleas the TAAS. The questions and answer keys to the new instruments will initially bereleased after the last administration of the instruments in the third school year duringwhich they are administered.

ARD. The local ARD committee will continue to determine whether allowable modifica-tions are necessary in administering an assessment to a student in a special educationprogram, or the student should be exempt from the assessment. In addition, the ARDwill determine the level of performance on the new alternative assessment considered tobe satisfactory for each student tested, based on criteria established by the commissionerof education. For students in special education programs who do not perform satisfacto-rily on the alternative assessment, the ARD must design an intensive program of instruc-tion to enable the student to attain the standard of growth described in the IEP.

Exemptions. Only students in special education programs who are not receiving instruc-tion in the essential knowledge and skills at any grade level can be exempt from both theTAAS and the new alternative assessment in Grades 3-8. Students in special educationprograms can be exempt from the exit-level TAAS or end-of-course examinations if theyare not receiving instruction in the essential knowledge and skills at any grade level orthe local ARD committee determines that, even with allowable modifications, these testswould not provide an appropriate measure of the student's academic achievement.


System Safeguards. The commissioner of education must develop additional account-ability system safeguards to review the exemption practices of districts and sharedservices arrangements in which more than a specified number or percentage of theGrade 3-8 students in special education programs are exempt from the statewide testingprogram (both TAAS and the new alternative assessment). The number of exemptionsthat would trigger an investigation varies based on average daily attendance of the dis-trict or shared services arrangement.

AEIS. Beginning with the 2002-2003 school year, performance on the new alternativeassessment must be included in the AEIS. Results cannot be aggregated by grade levelor subject area, which effectively prevents use of the new alternative assessment inaccrediting districts and rating campuses. The TAAS results of students in special edu-cation programs will be included in the AEIS TAAS performance indicators, includingthe base indicator used to accredit districts and rate campuses. The timeline and mecha-nism for implementing this change in conjunction with development and administrationof the new alternative assessment instruments must be determined.

Senate Bill 133

Senate Bill 133 requires the commissioner of education to adopt rules to administer theaccountability rating procedures for alternative education campuses. The mission ofalternative education programs is stated to enable students to perform at grade level.Campus performance standards must be defined by the commissioner to measure aca-demic progress of students toward grade level while attending alternative educationprograms. Alternative education programs will continue to receive annual ratings ofAcceptable or Needs Peer Review.

Under this legislation, school districts will continue to report students enrolled in JJAEPprograms as if they were enrolled at the sending campuses, and performance of thosestudents will be included when determining the performance rating for the sendingcampus. In addition, the Texas Juvenile Probation Commission (with the agreement ofthe commissioner of education) will develop and implement an accountability system forJJAEPs. The JJAEP accountability system must be consistent with the accountabilityrating system for Texas public schools and school districts, where appropriate. Thepurpose of the JJAEP accountability system is to assure that students make progresstoward grade level while attending a JJAEP.


Selected References

Assessment System for Special Education Students Exempted from the Texas Student AssessmentProgram. (1996). Rockville, Maryland: Westat, Inc.

Council of Chief State School Officers. (1996). Systemic Reform and Limited English ProficientStudents. Washington, DC: Author.

Including Students with Disabilities in Statewide Assessment and Accountability Systems: A Study of theIssues. (1995). Houston, TX: Region IV Education Service Center.

Olson, J.F. & Goldstein, A.A. (1996). "Increasing the Inclusion of Students with Disabilities and LimitedEnglish Proficient Students in NAEP." Focus on NAEP, 2(1). Washington, DC: National Center forEducation Statistics.

Olson, J.F. & Goldstein, A.A. (1997). The Inclusion of Students with Disabilities and Limited EnglishProficient Students in Large-Scale Assessments: A Summary of Recent Progress. Paper presented atthe meeting of the American Education Research Association, Chicago, IL.

Recommendations for Including All Limited English Proficient Students in the State Assessment andAccountability Systems. (1996). Rockville, Maryland: Westat, Inc.

Reese, Clyde M., Miller, K.E., Mazzeo, J., & Dossey, J.A. (1997). NAEP 1996 Mathematics ReportCard for the Nation and the States. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

State Board of Education. (1997, January.) "Continued Discussion of Policies for Exempting LimitedEnglish Proficient Students from the Texas Assessment of Academic Skills." Minutes: January 9,1997. Austin, TX: Texas Education Agency.

State Board of Education. (1997, February). "Discussion of a Report Concerning a Proposed AssessmentSystem for Limited English Proficient Students Exempted from the Texas Assessment Program atGrades 3-8." Minutes: February 6, 1997. Austin, TX: Texas Education Agency.

State Board of Education. (1995, July). "Approval of Plan for Student Assessment." Agenda: July 7,1995. Austin, TX: Texas Education Agency.

State Board of Education. (1993). Task Force on the Education of Students with Disabilities BriefingBook Austin, TX: Texas Education Agency.

State Board of Education. (1993, November). "Proposed Amendments to 19 TAC Chapter 101,Assessment." Agenda: November 12, 1993. Austin, TX: Texas Education Agency.

Texas Administrative Code. (1996). Austin, TX: Texas Education Agency.

Texas Administrative Code. (1995). Austin, TX: West Publishing Co.

Texas Education Agency. (1997). Accountability Manual (Pub. No. GE7 602 03). Austin, TX: Author.

Policy Research Report 30 Page 27

Texas Education Agency. (1997). Issues Related to the Texas Public School Accountability System.Discussion paper prepared by the Texas Education Agency Office of Policy Planning and Researchfor the Commissioner's Midwinter Conference, Austin, TX.

Texas Education Agency. (1996). Accountability Manual (Pub. No. GE6 602 02). Austin, TX: Author.

Texas Education Agency. (1996). Assessment System for Limited English Proficient Students Exemptedfrom the Texas Assessment Program at Grades 3-8. Austin, TX: Author.

Texas Education Agency. (1996). Assessment System for Special Education Students Exempted from theTexas Assessment Program. Austin, TX: Author.

Texas Education Agency. (1996). The Development of Accountability SystemsNationwide and in Texas(Pub. No. GE6 601 07). Austin, TX: Author.

Texas Education Agency. (1996). Draft Issues Related to Accountability, 1997-2000. AccountabilityAdvisory Group, November 19, 1996. Unpublished document. Austin, TX: Author.

Texas Education Agency. (1992). Briefing Materials Prepared for the State Board of Education.Unpublished document. Austin, TX: Author.

Texas Education Agency. (undated). Spanish TAAS Test Development Process. Unpublished documentprepared by the Student Assessment Division. Austin, TX: Author.

Texas Education Code. (1996). Texas School Law Bulletin. Austin, TX: West Publishing Co.

Texas Education Code. (1994). Texas School Law Bulletin. Austin, TX: West Publishing Co.

Texas Legislature. (1997). 75th Regular Session. House Bill 1800. Austin, TX.

Texas Legislature. (1997). 75th Regular Session. Senate Bill 133. Austin, TX.

Thurlow, M.L., Scott, D.L., & Ysseldyke, J.E. (1995). A Compilation of State's Guidelines for IncludingStudents with Disabilities in Assessments (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 385 059).Minneapolis, MN: National Center on Educational Outcomes.


PUBLICATION ORDER FORM

Purchaser Name Date

Send to (name, if different)

Address

City State Zip

To place an order for a publication, fill out information below and make check or money order payable to:Texas Education Agency

Price includes postage, handling, and state tax.

PublicationNumber

GE7 601 07

Title of Publication

Expanding the Scope of the TexasPublic School Accountability System

Price TotalQuantity Per Copy Price

$5.00

For Tax Exempt Orders Only

To place an order for a publication, fill out information below and make check or money order payable to:Texas Education Agency

Price includes postage, handling.

PublicationNumber

GE7 601 07

Title of Publication

Expanding the Scope of the TexasPublic School Accountability System

Price TotalQuantity Per Copy Price

$4.00

FOR PUBLICATION INQUIRIES ANDPURCHASE ORDERS*, SEND TO:

Texas Education AgencyPublications Distribution1701 North Congress AvenueAustin, Texas 78701-1494

*Purchase orders are accepted only from Texaseducational institutions and government agencies.

OA.

IF YOU ARE MAILING A CHECK ORMONEY ORDER, REMIT THIS FORMWITH PAYMENT TO :

Texas Education AgencyPublications DistributionP. O. Box 13817Austin, Texas 78711-3817

Make check or money order payable to:Texas Education Agency

COMPLIANCE STATEMENT

TITLE VI, CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964; THE MODIFIED COURT ORDER, CIVIL ACTION 5281,FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT, EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS, TYLER DIVISIONReviews of local education agencies pertaining to compliance with Title VI Civil Rights Act of 1964 and withspecific requirements of the Modified Court Order, Civil Action No. 5281, Federal District Court, EasternDistrict of Texas, Tyler Division are conducted periodically by staff representatives of the Texas EducationAgency. These reviews cover at least the following policies and practices:

(5)

(6)

(7)

acceptance policies on student transfers from other school districts;

operation of school bus routes or runs on a nonsegregated basis;

nondiscrimination in extracurricular activities and the use of school facilities;

nondiscriminatory practices in the hiring, assigning, promoting, paying, demoting, reassigning, ordismissing of faculty and staff members who work with children;

enrollment and assignment of students without discrimination on the basis of race, color, or nationalorigin;

nondiscriminatory practices relating to the use of a student's first language; and

evidence of published procedures for hearing complaints and grievances.

In addition to conducting reviews, the Texas Education Agency staff representatives check complaints ofdiscrimination made by a citizen or citizens residing in a school district where it is alleged discriminatorypractices have occurred or are occurring.

Where a violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act is found, the findings are reported to the Office for CivilRights, U.S. Department of Education.

If there is a direct violation of the Court Order in Civil Action No. 5281 that cannot be cleared through negotia-tion, the sanctions required by the Court Order are applied.

TITLE VII, CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964 AS AMENDED BY THE EQUAL EMPLOYMENTOPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1972; EXECUTIVE ORDERS 11246 AND 11375; EQUAL PAY ACTOF 1964; TITLE IX, EDUCATION AMENDMENTS; REHABILITATION ACT OF 1973 ASAMENDED; 1974 AMENDMENTS TO THE WAGE-HOUR LAW EXPANDING THE AGEDISCRIMINATION IN EMPLOYMENT ACT OF 1967; VIETNAM ERA VETERANS READJUST-MENT ASSISTANCE ACT OF 1972 AS AMENDED; IMMIGRATION REFORM AND CONTROLACT OF 1986; AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT OF 1990; AND THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACTOF 1991.The Texas Education Agency shall comply fully with the nondiscrimination provisions of all federal and statelaws, rules, and regulations by assuring that no person shall be excluded from consideration for recruitment,selection, appointment, training, promotion, retention, or any other personnel action, or be denied any benefitsor participation in any educational programs or activities which it operates on the grounds of race, religion,color, national origin, sex, disability, age, or veteran status (except where age, sex, or disability constitutesa bona fide occupational qualification necessary to proper and efficient administration). The Texas Educa-tion Agency is an Equal Employment Opportunity/Affirmative Action employer.

BEST COPY AVAIIABLE0 nUi

Texas Education Agency1701 North Congress Avenue

Austin, Texas 78701-1494

Document Number GE7 601 07June 1997

3 4

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONOffice ol Educational Research and improvement (OERI)

Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC)

REPRODUCTION RELEASE(Specific Document)

I. DOCUMENT IDENTIFICATION:

ERIC

NOTE: Two copies are provided-'arm TEA Publication No. = GE760107

Title:

Expanding the Scope of the Texas Public School Accountability System(Policy Research Report No.9, JUne, 1997)

Author(s): Use corporate entry

Corporate Source:

Texas Education AgencyAustin*Publication Date:

6-97

REPRODUCTION RELEASE: *This is the State Department of Education for Texas. Please use thiscorporate entry without personal author.

In order to disseminate as widely as possible timely and significant materials of interest to the educational community, documentsannounced in the monthly abstract journal of the ERIC system, Resources in Education (RIE), are usually made available to usersin microfiche, reproduced paper copy, and electronic/optical media, and sold through the ERIC Document Reproduction Service(EDRS) or other ERIC vendors. Credit is given to the source of each document, and, if reproduction release is granted, one ofthe following notices is affixed to the document.

If permission is granted to reproduce the identified document, please CHECK ONE of the following options and sign the releasebelow.

0 Sample sticker to be affixed to document Sample sticker to be af fixed to document riCheck herePermittingmicrofiche(4"x 6" film),paper copy,electronic,and optical mediareproduction

"PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THISMATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED 13Y

so'vleTO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES

INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)."

Level 1

"PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THISMATERIAL IN OTHER THAN PAPER

COPY HAS BEEN GRANTED BY

aeSW1"

TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES

INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)."

Level 2

or here

Permittingreproductionin other thanpaper copy.

Sign Here, PleaseDocuments will be processed as indicated provided reproduction quality permits. If permission to reproduce is granted, but

neither box is checked, documents will be processed at Level 1.

"I hereby grant to the Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC) nonexclusive permission to reproduce this document asindicated above. Reproduction from the ERIC microfiche or electronic/optIcal media by persons other than ERIC employees and itssystem contractors requires permission from the copyright holder. Exception Is made for non-profit reproduction by libraries and otherservice agencies to satisfy information needs of educators in response to discrete Inquiries."

Signature: . Position:Librarian

Printed Name:Linda Kemp Organization:

Texas Education Agency

Address:1701 N. Congress AvenueAustin, TX 78701

Telephone Number:(512) 463-9050

Date:8-18-98

Document sent to ERIC Processing and Reference Facility unless so noted.

III. DOCUMENT AVAILABILITY INFORMATION (FROM NON-ERIC SOURCE):

If permission to reproduce Is not granted to ERIC , or, If you wish ERIC to cite the availability of this document from anothersource, please provide the following information regarding the availability of the document. (ERIC will not announce a documentunless It is publicly available, and a dependable source can be specified. Contributors should also be aware that ERIC selectioncriteria are significantly more stringent for documents which cannot be made available through EDRS).

Publisher/Distributor:

Address:

Price Per Copy: Quantity Price:

IV. REFERRAL OF ERIC TO COPYRIGHT/REPRODUCTION RIGHTS HOLDER:

II the right to grant reproduction release is held by someone other than the addressee, please provide the appropriatename and address:

Name and address of current copyright/reproduction rights holder:

Name:

Address:

V. WHERE TO SEND THIS FORM:

Send this form to the following ERIC Clearinghouse:

If you are making an unsolicited contribution to ERIC, you may return this form (and the document being contributed) to:

ERIC Facility1301 Piccard Drive, Suite 300

Rockville, Maryland 20850-4305Tlephone: (301) 258.5500

(Rev. 9/91)

34p. · DOCUMENT RESUME. EA 029 437. Expanding the Scope of the Texas Public School Accountability...

Documents

Transcript of 34p. · DOCUMENT RESUME. EA 029 437. Expanding the Scope of the Texas Public School Accountability...