PERFORMANCE – BASED
MONITORING ANALYSIS
SYSTEM(PBMAS)
FOCUS: No Child Left Behind
PERFORMANCEINDICATORS
Economic AYP, Migrant,
Highly Qualified Teachers, LEP
2005-2007
Indicator #1 (i-ii)ADEQUATE YEARLY PROGRESS (ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGE)Indicator / Subject
Test / Grade
Levels / State
Academically
Acceptable
Standard
2005 / AYP (ECON) District
Rating
2005 / State Academically
Acceptable
Standard
2006 / AYP (ECON) District
Rating
2006 / State
Academically
Acceptable
Standard
2007 / AYP
(ECON) District
Rating
2007 / Indicator
Performance
Level
1(i) / Mathematics / 9-11 / 42.0% / 65.2% / 42.0% / 69.5% / 50% / 76.9% / 0
1(ii) / Reading/ELA / 9-11 / 53.0% / 74.8% / 53.0% / 76.9% / 60% / 83.4% / 0
This indicator evaluates the Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) performance of districts’ economically disadvantaged students in Reading and Mathematics, and performance indicators are assigned as follows:
District Performance Level Criterion: Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)
Performance Level (PL) Assignments
Performance
Level = Not
Assigned / Performance
Level = 0
(met standard) / Performance
Level = 1 / Performance
Level = 2 / Performance
Level = 3
The district was Not Assigned for its economically disadvantaged population in 2006. (Refer to AYP Guide for more
information) / The district’s economically disadvantaged reading
or mathematics performance is at or above the federal accountability standard for the subject. / The district’s
economically
disadvantaged reading
or mathematics
performance is 0.1 to 5.0 percentage points
below the federal accountability standard
for the subject. / The district’s
economically disadvantaged reading
or mathematics performance is 5.1 to 10.0 percentage points below the federal accountability standard for the subject. / The district’s economically disadvantaged reading
or mathematics
performanceis at least 10.1 percentage points below the federal accountability standard for the subject.
Indicator #2 (i-v) MIGRANT TAKS PASSING RATE
Indicator / Subject Test / Grade
Levels / State
Academically
Acceptable
Standard
2005 / MIGRANT
District
Rating
2005 / State
Academically
Acceptable
Standard
2006 / MIGRANT
District
Rating
2006 / State
Academically
Acceptable
Standard
2007 / MIGRANT
District
Rating
2007 / Indicator
Performance
Level
2 (i) / Mathematics / 3-11 / 35.0% / 56.6% / 40.0% / 61.0% / 45.0% / 65.7% / 0
2 (ii) / Reading/ELA / 3-11 / 50.0% / 69.8% / 60.0% / 76.8% / 65.0% / 76.2% / 0
2 (iii) / Science / 5,8,10,11 / 25.0% / 46.3% / 35.0% / 49.4% / 40.0% / 49.1% / 0
2 (iv) / Social Studies / 8,10,11 / 50.0% / 82.3% / 60.0% / 74.6% / 65.0% / 81.0% / 0
2(v) / Writing / 4,7 / 50.0% / 86.9% / 60.0% / 91.7% / 65.0% / 92.4% / 0
This indicator is the percent of migrant students passing the TAKS subject test (Mathematics, Reading/ELA, Science, Social Studies, Writing) as compared to the PBMAS standards for TAKS passing rate by subject, and performance levels are assigned as follows:
District Performance Level Criterion: District MIGRANT TAKS Passing Rate
Performance Level (PL) Assignments
Performance
Level = Not
Assigned / Performance
Level = 0/0SA
(met standard) / Performance
Level = 1/1SA / Performance
Level = 2/2SA / Performance
Level = 3/3SA
PL not equal to 0
and
special analysis
process** results
in the assignment of a
performance level of
Not Assigned / The district MIGRANT TAKS passing rate is
at or above the state
accountability standard
for the subject.
Minimum size requirements
not applicable
if PL=0. / The district MIGRANT TAKS passing rate is
0.1 to 5.0 percentage
points below the state accountability standard for the subject. / The district MIGRANT TAKS passing rate is
5.1 to 10.0 percentage points below the state accountability standard for the subject. / The district MIGRANT TAKS passing rate is
at least 10.1 percentage points below the state accountability standard for the subject.
** For the Migrant TAKS Passing Rate Indicator, professional judgment special analysis is not available for the Science, Social Studies, and Writing.
Indicator #3MIGRANT ANNUAL DROPOUT RATEIndicator / PBMAS
StateRate
2005 / Migrant
District Rate
2005 / PBMAS
StateRate
2006 / MIGRANT
DistrictRate
2006 / PBMAS
StateRate
2007 / MIGRANT
District Rate
2007 / Indicator
Performance
Level
3 / 2.0% / 2.7% / 2.0 % / 3.0% / 2.0% / 6.0% / 2
This indicator is the district’s percent of migrant students (Grades 7-12) who dropped out in 2005-2006 as compared to the PBMAS standard for the annual dropout rate, and performance levels are assigned as follows:
District Performance Level Criterion: District Migrant Annual Dropout Rate
Performance Level (PL) Assignments
Performance
Level = Special Analysis / Performance
Level =0 / 0SA
(met standard) / Performance
Level = 1 / 1SA / Performance
Level = 2 / 2SA / Performance
Level = 3 / 3SA
PL not equal to 0
andspecial analysis
processresults in
the assignment of
a performance level
of Not Assigned / The District Migrant
Dropout Rate is
2.0 % or lower.
Minimum size
requirements
not applicable if PL=0 / The district Migrant
Annual Dropout Rate
isbetween
2.1 % and 5.0 %. / The district Migrant
Annual Dropout Rate
is between
5.1 % to 8.0 % / The district Migrant Annual Dropout Rate is 8.1 % or higher.
NOTES
- Dropout data are for the 2005-2006 school year
- New! As required by the state law [ß39.051 (b) (2)], the annual dropout rate must be computed in accordance with the NationalCenter for Education Statistics (NCES) dropout definition.In the 20085-2006 school year, districts began collecting information according to the new definition and began submitting data using the new definition in the 2006-2007 school year. Students who dropped out during the 2005-2006 school year are reported in the 2007 PBMAS in accordance with the NCES dropout definitions.
NCLB Indicator #4 MIGRANT RHSP / DAP GRADUATION RATE
Indicator / PBMAS
StateRate
2005 / Migrant
DistrictRate
2005 / PBMAS
StateRate
2006 / MIGRANT
DistrictRate 2006 / PBMAS
StateRate
2007 / MIGRANT
District Rate
2007 / Indicator Performance Level
4 / 67.9% / 70.2% / 70.8% / 78.3% / 70.0% / 92.9% / 0
This indicator is the district’s percent of migrant students graduating with a RecommendedHigh School Program (RHSP) or Distinguished Achievement Program (DAP) diploma
District Performance Level Criterion: District Migrant Annual RHSP/DAP Graduation Rate
Performance Level (PL) Assignments
Performance
Level = Not Assigned / Performance
Level =0
(met standard)
(also include 0RI) / Performance
Level = 1 / Performance
Level = 2 / Performance
Level = 3 / 3SA
PL not equal to 0
and
District does not meet minimum size
requirements. / The District Migrant
RHSP/DAP diploma rte is
70% or higher
Minimum size
requirements
not applicable if PL=0 / The district Migrant
RHSP/DAP diploma rate is
isbetween
50.0 % and 69.9 % / The district Migrant
RHSP/DAP diploma rate is
isbetween
30.1 % and 49.9 % / The district Migrant
RHSP/DAP diploma
rate is
30.0 % or lower.
NOTES
- New!Performance levels will be assigned for this indicator in 2007
- New! Required improvement is available for this indicator.
- Graduation data are for the 2005-2006 school year
NCLB Indicator #5 MIGRANT GRADUATION RATE
Indicator / PBMAS /
State Rate
2005 / Migrant
DistrictRate
2005 / PBMAS /
State Rate
2006 / MIGRANT
DistrictRate 2006 / PBMAS /
State Rate
2007 / MIGRANT
District Rate
2007 / Indicator
Performance
Level
5 / 66.8% / 52.7 / Report Only
This indicator is the percent of migrant students who graduated with a high school diploma in four years.
NOTES
- New! This is a Report Only indicator for 2007. The district migrant graduation rate is reported for district information and planning purposes. No performance levels are assigned for this indicator in 2007.
- Graduation data are for the 2005-2006 school year.
NCLB Indicator # 6 ANNUAL MEASURABLE ACHIEVEMENT OBJECTIVE (AMAO) LEP PROGRESS RATE (Grades K-2)
Indicator / PBMAS
State Rate
2005 / LEP
Progress
DistrictRate
2005 / PBMAS
State Rate
2006 / LEP
ProgressDistrict Rate
2006 / PBMAS
State Rate
2007 / LEP
Progress
District Rate
2007 / Performance
Level
6 / 40.0% / 52.9% / 15.0 % / 49.2 % / 17.0% / 49.9% / Met
This indicator is the percent of current limited English proficient (LEP) students in Grades K-2 who progressed at least one proficiency level on the Texas English Language Proficiency Assessment System (TELPAS) Composite Rating from 2004-2005 to 2005-2006 as compared to the AMAO standards, and performance levels are assigned as follows:
District Performance level Criterion: Annual Measurable Achievement Objective (LEP Progress Grades K-2)
Performance Level (PL) Assignments
Performance
Level = NotAssigned / Performance
Level = Met / Performance
Level = Not Met
PL not equal to Met
and
district does not meet minimum size requirements. / The percent of current LEP students progressing by at least one proficiency
level a year on the TELPAS
Composite Rating is
at least 15.0%. / The percent of current LEP students progressing by at least one
proficiency level a year on the
TELPAS Composite Rating is
less than 15.0%.
NCLB Indicator #7 ANNUAL MEASURABLE ACHIEVEMENT OBJECTIVE (AMAO)LEP PROGRESS RATE (Grades 3-12)
Indicator / PBMAS
State Rate
2005 / LEP
Progress
DistrictRate
2005 / PBMAS
State Rate
2006 / LEP
Progress District Rate
2006 / PBMAS
State Rate
2007 / LEP
Progress
District Rate
2007 / Performance
Level
7 / 40.0% / 52.9% / 42.0 % / 54.1 % / 44.0% / 55.5% / Met
*LEP 1 year progress on RPTE
This indicator is the percent of current limited English proficient (LEP) students in Grades 3-12 who progressed at least one proficiency level on the Texas English Language Proficiency Assessment System (TELPAS) Composite Rating from 2004-2005 to 2005-2006 as compared to the AMAO standards, and performance levels are assigned as follows:District Performance level Criterion: Annual Measurable Achievement Objective (LEP Progress Grades 3-12)
Performance Level (PL) Assignments
Performance
Level = NotAssigned / Performance
Level = Met / Performance
Level = Not Met
PL not equal to Met
and
district does not meet minimum size requirements. / The percent of current LEP students progressing by at least one
proficiency level a year on the
TELPAS Composite Rating is
at least 42.0%. / The percent of current LEP students progressing by at least one
proficiency level a year on the
TELPASComposite Rating is
less than 42.0%.
NCLB Indicator #8 ANNUAL MEASURABLE ACHIEVEMENT OBJECTIVE (AMAO) LEP ATTAINMENT (Grades K-2)
Indicator / PBMAS
State Rate
2005 / LEP
Progress
DistrictRate
2005 / PBMAS
State Rate
2006 / LEP Progress District Rate
2006 / PBMAS
State Rate
2007 / LEP
Progress
District Rate
2007 / Performance
Level
8 / 1.5% / 5.0 % / 2.0 % / 9.3 % / 2.5% / 9.9% / Met
*LEP 1 year progress on RPTE
This indicator is the percent of current limited English proficient (LEP) students in Grades K-2 who reached the Advanced High level on the Texas English Language Proficiency Assessment System (TELPAS) Composite Rating in 2005-2006 as compared to the AMAO standards, and performance levels are assigned as follows:District Performance level Criterion: Annual Measurable Achievement Objective (LEP Attainment Grades K-2)
Performance Level (PL) Assignments
Performance
Level = NotAssigned / Performance
Level = Met / Performance
Level = Not Met
PL not equal to Met
and
district does not meet minimum size requirements. / The percent of current LEP students
who received a TELPAS Composite
Rating of Advanced High is
at least 2.0%. / The percent of current LEP students who received a TELPAS Composite Rating of Advanced High is
less than 2.0%.
NCLB Indicator #9 ANNUAL MEASURABLE ACHIEVEMENT OBJECTIVE (AMAO)LEP ATTAINMENT (Grades 3-12)
Method 1
Indicator / PBMASState Rate
2005 / LEP
Progress
DistrictRate
2005 / PBMAS
State Rate
2006 / LEP Progress District Rate
2006 / PBMAS
State Rate
2007 / LEP
Progress
District Rate
2007 / Performance
Level
9 / 25.0% / 32.0 % / 25.5 % / 32.2 % / 26.0% / 30.1% / Met
*LEP 1 year progress on RPTE
Method 2
Indicator / PBMASState Rate
2005 / LEP
Progress
District Rate
2005 / PBMAS
State Rate
2006 / LEP Progress District Rate
2006 / PBMAS
State Rate
2007 / LEP Progress
District Rate
2007 / Performance
Level
9 / 40.0% / 47.7% / 42.0 % / 50.6 % / 44.0% / 59.8% / Met
*LEP 1 year progress on RPTE
This indicator is the percent of limited English proficient (LEP) students in grades 3-12 who met the attainment goal for English language proficiency in 2005-2006 as compared to the AMAO standards, and performance levels are assigned as follows:District Performance level Criterion: Annual Measurable Achievement Objective (LEP Attainment Grades 3-12)
Performance Level (PL) Assignments
Performance
Level = NotAssigned / Performance
Level = Met / Performance
Level = Not Met
PL not equal to Met
anddistrict does not meet minimum size requirements. / The percent of current LEP students who received a TELPAS CompositeRating of Advanced High is at least 25.5%.
(Minimum size requirements not applicable
if PL = Met) / The percent of current LEP students who received a TELPAS Composite Rating of Advanced High is less than 25.5%.
Method 1
District Performance level Criterion: Annual Measurable Achievement Objective (LEP Attainment Grades 3-12)Performance Level (PL) Assignments
Performance
Level = NotAssigned / Performance
Level = Met / Performance
Level = Not Met
PL not equal to Met
and district does not meet minimum size requirements. / The percent of current LEP students
Demonstrating attainment based on years in U.S. schools and the percent of monitored LEP students demonstrating attainment is at least 42.0%. (Minimum size requirements
not applicable if PL = Met) / The percent of current LEP students demonstrating attainments based on years on U.S. schools and the percent of monitored LEP students demonstrating attainment is less than 42.0%.
Method 2
District Performance level Criterion: Annual Measurable Achievement Objective (LEP Attainment Grades K-2)Performance Level (PL) Assignments
Performance
Level = NotAssigned / Performance
Level = Met / Performance
Level = Not Met
District assigned PL = Not Assigned under both Method 1 and Method 2 or
a combination on the two methods of
PL = Not Assigned and
PL = Not Met. / District assigned a PL = Met under either Method 1 or Method 2. / District assigned a PL = Not Met under both Method 1 or Method 2.
Overall
NCLB Indicator #10 ANNUAL MEASURABLE ACHIEVEMENT OBJECTIVE (LEP AYP)Indicator / AYP
2005 / AYP
2006 / AYP
2007
10 / Met / Met / Met
This indicator measures the Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) of students with limited English proficiency (LEP) and performance levels assigned as follows:
District Performance level Criterion: Annual Measurable Achievement Objective (LEP AYP)
Performance Level (PL) Assignments
Performance
Level = NotAssigned / Performance
Level = Met / Performance
Level = Not Met
The district was Not Assigned an
AYP status for its LEP population.
(Refer to the 2006 AYP Guide for
more information.) / The district met AYP for its LEP
student population. / The district missed AYP for its
LEP student population.
BISD-NCLB Performance-Based Monitoring Analysis System 2007