YSLETA INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT Division of Academics Federal & State Programs May, 2013 State Compensatory Education VISION STATEMENT All students who enroll in our schools will graduate from high school, fluent in two or more languages, prepared and inspired to continue their education in a four year college, university or institution of higher education so that they become successful citizens in their community. State Compensatory Education YISD CONTACTS Gilbert Rodriguez [email protected] (915) 434-0792 Alice Garcia [email protected] (915) 434-0796 Jackie Saenz [email protected] (915) 434-0793 SCE References • Financial Accountability System Resource Guide (FASRG) Module 9 http://www.tea.state.tx.us/index4.aspx?id=1222 SCE References • Texas Education Code, Section 29.081 http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/ED/htm/ED.29.htm#29.081 SCE References • Q & A on State Compensatory Education http://www.tea.state.tx.us/index4.aspx?id=4082 State Compensatory Education Rules and Regulations SCE –State Mandated Program Programs and/or Services designed to supplement the regular education program for at-risk students. • Goal: Improve TAKS/STAAR scores • Purpose: Increase academic Achievement Decrease drop out rate Planning District/Campus Improvement Plans (D/CIP) Serves as the Primary Record, supporting expenditures • Comprehensive Needs Assessment • CIP/Goals, objectives, and strategies • Total SCE funds allocated for resources and staff • Actual dollar amounts for activities • Supplemental FTE’s for SCE • Timelines for monitoring strategies/activities • Formative and summative evaluation criteria Planning The district must design the State Compensatory Education Program based on the identified needs of students at risk of dropping out of school. The Comprehensive Needs Assessment is the Driving Force behind District/Campus Planning. Planning The District/Campus Improvement Plan must include the following: • Total amount of SCE funds allocated for resources & staff • Actual dollar amounts for the activities and SCE dollars that show 52% of the entitlement • Cumulative summary of program and entire budget in the DIP • Specific campus activities and campus budget in the CIPs Staff Development • School Personnel – Receive training designed to assist students at risk of dropping out of school -Training & training expense must be reasonable and necessary -Training must be aligned with the needs of at-risk students -District must ensure training is not a “one time” event • District must maintain documentation -Training was evaluated for effectiveness -District established written policies regarding attendance of staff development Evaluation of SCE • SCE program must be evaluated and documented by showing the effectiveness of reducing disparity in ₋ Assessments performed between at risk students and all district students ₋ Rates of high school completion ₋ Effectiveness of the SCE program ₋ Assure strategies have been implemented as designed ₋ SCE resources must be Redirected when programs/services are unsuccessful State Compensatory Education 13 @ Risk Indicators Texas Education Code §29.081 A student at risk of dropping out of school includes each student who is under 21 years of age and who… 1. Unsatisfactory performance on a readiness test (PK -3) 2. Did not maintain an average of 70 in two or more subjects 3. Not promoted for one or more school years (R) 4. Did not perform satisfactorily on an assessment instrument 5. Is pregnant or is a parent (R) http://www.tea.state.tx.us/PRS.html 6. Placed in an alternative education program (TEC37.006) 7. Expelled (TEC37.007) 8. Parole, probation, deferred prosecution, or other conditional release 9. Dropped out of school as reported PEIMS (R) 10. Is a student of Limited English Proficiency 11. Custody or care of the Department of Protective and Regulatory Services 12. Homeless 13. Resides in a residential placement facility. Local Student Eligibility Module 9, Section 184.108.40.206 o Local criteria must be adopted by the board of trustees o Adopted criteria must be clearly defined in the district improvement plan for districts or the instructional plan for charter schools o Number of students may not exceed 10% of the number of students who received services during the preceding school year o Students identified using local criteria - Not reported through PEIMS Local Student Eligibility (cont.) o LEA must maintain current auditable documentation regarding the locally identified at risk students o Documentation indicating the compliance with the 10 percent cap must be: -maintained at the LEA level -addressed in the district/charter improvement plan o SCE allotment may not be used to serve students on a particular campus if: -the LEA has not identified any students on the same campus that meet any of the state criteria SCE Funding Direct Cost: 52% may be used to meet the costs of (1) a supplemental compensatory, intensive, or accelerated instruction program under Section 29.081; or (2) an alternative education program established under Section 37.008; or (3) support to a program at a campus at which at least 40% of the students are low income; or (4) a program specifically designed to serve students at risk of dropping out of school as defined by TEC Section 29.081. SCE Funding (cont.) Indirect Cost : 48% may be attributed in the General Fund to the following expenditure function codes: • • • • 34-Student Transportation 41-General Administration 81- Facilities Acquisition and Construction Function 90 series of the General Fund, as defined in the TEA Financial Accountability System Resource Guide (FASRG). SCE Funding (cont.) Understanding Program Intent codes (PIC) • • • • • • • • • PIC 24 – Accelerated Instruction PIC 26 – SCE: Non-Disciplinary Alternative Ed (Basic) PIC 28 – SCE: Disciplinary Alternative Ed (Basic) PIC 29 – SCE: Disciplinary Alternative Ed (Supplemental) PIC 30 – Title I School-Wide Activities PIC 32 – Pre-Kindergarten (Basic) PIC 33 – Pre-Kindergarten (Special Education) PIC 34 – Pre-Kindergarten (State Compensatory Education) PIC 35 – Pre-Kindergarten (Bilingual Education) State Compensatory Education Ysleta ISD Model Ysleta ISD Model PEIMS SCE • • • • • • Identify-Students Enter/Exit-Students Interventions/RTI Goals/Benchmarks Reports/Evaluation Data Archiving @ Risk L E P ALPS CAMPUS Ysleta ISD Statistics • Total Enrollment: 43,504 • Total Campuses: 62 • School-wide Campuses: 61 • Total At-Risk Students 21,889 Criteria #1 Pre-K thru 3rd Grade Reading Assessments Pre-K: CIRCLE/C-PALLS+ (Center for Improving the Readiness of Children for Learning and Education) / (Phonological Awareness Language and Literacy Screener) K-2: TPRI/Tejas LEE (Texas Primary Reading Inventory) 3rd Grade: WRAP (Writing, Reading Assessment Protocol) Criteria #1 Pre-K thru 3rd Grade Math Assessments Pre-K: CIRCLE/C-PALLS+ (Center for Improving the Readiness of Children for Learning and Education) / (Phonological Awareness Language and Literacy Screener) + = Math Screener K-2: TCM (Teacher Created Materials) 3rd Grade: TCM (Teacher Created Materials) Criteria 4 TAKS 110% Calculation Excel Spreadsheet- Example of 110% Calculation 110% Rule: Student Needs to Pass Re-Test with 110% of Failed Score Step 1: Total Test Questions Quantity of Questions Answered Correctly Test Score Step 2: 110% Rule: 28 X .110 = 28 + 3 = Required Correct Answer 44 28 63.4% (Failed) 3 31 31 Procedures and Program Description • • • • • • • Program Overview Campus Committee Campus Contact Student Eligibility Student Identification Student Exit Program Evaluation Ysleta ISD –Funding SCE Funds for 2012-13 (Approx. $22 Million) • Compensatory Educational enrichment activities • Intensive Extended day, week, year E2020 •Accelerated TAKS/STAAR remediation Specialized Reading & Math Programs Individualized Computer-Assisted Instruction SCE Campus Trainings • • • • • • • • Area Learning Communities Counselors Professional Development One-on-One Campus Clerks Principals/Administrators PEIMS Data Quality Control Conferences YISD Data Quality, Policies, and Procedures Teachers – Holiday Exchange At-Risk Identification Process • Committee Reviews Student Cum Folders Identify At –Risk Students (13 At-Risk Criteria) Enter/Exit Students from At-Risk Criteria/Status • Administrators/Teachers Interventions- Strategies and Activities • Administrators/Clerks Data entry @ Risk students SCE Module Review/Monitoring Process August – September 30 Students transitioning from: - Pre-K to elementary - Elementary to middle & middle to high schools New Identified At-Risk Students (30-days) October-January Ongoing review of interventions/cum folders of all identified at-risk students March-May Final Updates –SCE module records and end of year student cum folders (Exit – Transition) Ysleta ISD Elementary Student Performance Comparison TAKS Subject Grade Tests 2009-10 Difference 2010-11 At Risk Other At Risk Other 3rd Reading 79% 79% 0% 90% 75% 3rd Math 70% 50% 20% 90% 80% 4th Reading 63% 93% -30% 86% 81% 4th Math 61% 100% -39% 78% 100% 5th Reading 79% 83% -4% 75% 86% 5th Math 74% 88% -14% 73% 86% 6th Reading 50% 92% -42% 72% 70% 6th Math 81% 92% -11% 83% 85% Total: Reading 67% 86% -19% 77% 78% Total: Math 71% 79% -8% 83% 87% • • Where are the concerns for the campus? Have gains or losses been analyzed? Difference 15% 10% 5% -22% -11% -13% 2% -2% -1% -4% State Compensatory Education TAKS Percent Passing Students At-Risk and All Other District Students 2009-2010 2010-2011 READING/ELA Number Number Percent Number Number Percent Tested Passing Passing Tested Passing Passing At-Risk 13,392 11,293 84% 13,748 11,323 82% All Others 13,846 13,371 97% 13,704 13,157 96% 14% MATHEMATICS At-Risk Number Number Percent Number Number Percent Tested Passing Passing Tested Passing Passing 13,212 9,838 74% 13,575 10,154 75% 17% All Others 13,821 12,956 94% 13,714 12,681 92% Ysleta Independent School District State Compensatory Education At-Risk Student Dropout Rate 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-11 9.9% 9.8% 8.7% At Risk Students/Interventions 30,000 25,000 23,927 24,389 23,431 21,761 19,743 20,000 20,290 # of At Risk Students 16,734 15,000 15,191 # of Students with Interventions 10,000 5,000 0 June 2010 June 2011 June 2012 April 2013 Electronic Student Data Entry System State Comp Ed – Content Screen Search Screen 56321 Arellano Mickey Avila Goofy Contreras Donald Davis Daffy 32547 Fernandez Bugs 69821 Garcia Porky 45873 Garcia Sylvester 63251 Hernandez Popeye 85691 Herrera Elmer 32687 Jacquez Daisy 19648 Martinez Petunia 98564 86524 96587 13 At-Risk Data Enter/Edit At-Risk Data 13 At-Risk Data Entry Date Withdraw Date 09/01/2008 09/01/2008 01/10/2009 06/06/2010 06/12/2012 09/04/2012 2nd Grade 2009-10 1 Pretest - Failed reading portion of TPRI Midtest – Passed reading portion of TPRI 09/20/2012 Intervention Screen Interventions – Drop Down Box Intervention Screen 20% Tutoring will take place Monday-Thursday from 3:00-4:00 in a small group setting. Student progress will be monitored every six weeks and will need to have gained 5%. If student does not meet progress within the 6 weeks, reevaluate intervention and possibly assign an alternate. Intervention Panel State Comp Ed – Content Screen Reports Screen Campus Summary Report Standard Student Report 12345 Avila, Joseph 85632 Campos, Ana 96587 Davis, Greg 23658 Garcia, Robert 12587 Garcia, Shawn 36521 Lopez, Jaime 32547 Murray, John 12547 Smith, Albert Questions?