001Welcome. Thank you for joining us today as we kick off planning for CCMR weighting considerations for the 2026-27 school year and future cohorts. Today's webinar is not about introducing an entirely new vision for student success because that vision already exists. Instead, this is about helping school systems understand how changes in CCMR accountability reinforce the importance of intentional, coherent college, career, and military preparation programming. As we move towards differential weighting of CCMR indicators, the question is no longer whether programming matters. It's how well our programming aligns to high-value readiness outcomes across student cohorts. And this session is designed to help you begin that planning with clarity and confidence. Before we dive in, I want to briefly introduce the team supporting today's webinar. I'm Valerie Landry, senior division director for college, career, and military preparation. I'm joined
002today by Marcette Kilgore, deputy director of career and technical education, Crystal Garza, deputy director of post-secondary preparation programs, and Katie Guber, principal director for performance reporting, policy, and communications. Together, we represent the policy, programming, and data perspectives that school systems must align to in order to support CCMR outcomes. A few quick logistics before we begin. Questions will be addressed through the Q&A widget of this Zoom webinar. Also, a note-catcher document is being dropped in the chat. Please feel free to use it throughout the webinar today. Also, a recording of today's session will be posted on the TEA website for anyone who is not able to join us or what if you want to view it again. Also, if you have questions specific to CCMR waiting, data, or methodology after today, please submit a help desk
003ticket to performance reporting. This session is best experienced as a cross-functional conversation. You're going to hear that a lot today. So, we encourage you to share this information with colleagues across academics, CTE, counseling, data support, and other leadership. Let's level set our objectives for today. By the end of this webinar, we want participants to walk away with four things. First, a clear understanding of how CCMR waiting will apply across student cohorts, particularly as we look ahead to the graduating class of 2030 and beyond. Second, greater clarity around planning priorities across academic readiness, CTE, dual credit, and advising systems. Not as siloed efforts, but as connected components of CCMR success. Third, we want to emphasize the critical importance of cross-functional coordination. CCMR outcomes are not owned by one department. They require shared ownership across the system.
004And finally, we'll introduce how today's session connects to the upcoming deep dive webinar series, which is designed to support local teams in moving from understanding to action. These deep dives are most effective when watched and discussed as groups. So, districts can walk away not just informed, but with a plan. As accountability systems evolve, it's natural for questions to arise about compliance and performance. But it's important to ground ourselves in this message. The core goal hasn't changed. Texas is committed to ensuring every student graduates opportunity ready. Prepared for college, career, or military service. What has shifted is how readiness is measured and differentiated within accountability. Over time, Texas has intentionally moved from a singular college for all mindset to a broader and more inclusive vision of career readiness for all. This does not diminish the importance
005of college. It elevates the expectation that every student leaves high school with a meaningful, viable next step aligned to their goals. Within this framework, college, career, and military readiness are equally intentional and measurable outcomes. Advanced academics, CTE, and advising systems all play a critical role in ensuring pathways are not just available, but coherent and high quality. Differential weighting reflects this vision by recognizing that not all readiness indicators carry the same value for post-secondary success. To support this work, we encourage districts to think about CCMR through a continuous planning cycle. Step one is planning for multiple readiness outcomes. This means designing pathways that allow students to access more than one meaningful milestone. Rather than relying on a single high-stakes outcome late in their high school journey. Step two is ongoing monitoring of progress and student access.
006CCMR data should be used to examine who is participating, who is completing, and where students may be falling out of pathways across campuses and student groups. And finally, step three is to adjust and sustain that work. The goal is not just accountability compliance, but improved student outcomes, stronger system alignment, and long-term sustainability. The CCMR changes ahead make this type of intentional planning not optional, but essential. This brings us to one of the most important messages in today's webinar. CCMR success begins with convening the right people at the table. No single role can develop CCMR outcomes alone. School boards, district leadership, finance teams, advanced academics, CTE, counseling, team staff, campus administrators, teachers, and even external partners all have distinct and shared responsibility in this work. Differential weighting amplifies the need for alignment across instruction, data quality,
007budgeting, scheduling, and student advising. As you participate in today's kickoff and the upcoming deep dive series, we encourage you to think intentionally about who needs to be learning together, planning together, and making decisions together in your system. This slide is a call to action. Bring the right stakeholders into the conversation now so that your system is positioned for success later. Before we transition into the accountability system itself, it's important to pause and anchor this work and state required strategic goals. Texas law requires school systems to adopt multi-year, measurable CCMR goals that are data-driven, campus-level, publicly monitored, and reviewed annually. This is not optional, and it's not just an accountability exercise. It's a governance and planning expectation. What's important to understand is that recent accountability changes don't replace these requirements. They actually intensify them. Districts are
008no longer able to look at CCMR as a single aggregate outcome. Instead, systems are expected to plan for, monitor, and improve outcomes across multiple indicators and readiness domains. This means academic readiness, CTE, dual credit, advising, and post-secondary partnerships all need to be aligned towards shared CCMR goals, rather than operating independently. The shift to differential weighting heightens the need for this coordination. It reinforces that every indicator matters, but not all indicators carry the same value in terms of post-secondary success. So, as we move forward today, I want you to keep this question in mind. Do we have clear goals? And do our systems actually support progress towards each CCMR indicator, not just overall CCMR? Up to this point, we focused on why CCMR matters, how the work is grounded in statute, and the importance of aligning
009programming and leadership around CCMR goals. The next few slides take us squarely into the accountability system itself. Specifically, how A-F is designed to drive continuous improvement, and how recent and upcoming changes affect timelines, waiting, and planning decisions. To walk us through the purpose of A-F accountability, the CCMR refresh timeline, and what districts should be planning for right now, I'm going to turn it over to Katie Judson from performance reporting. Good morning, everyone. I appreciate you being here today. So, as Valerie shared, our goal today is to support you in ensuring that your future graduates are opportunity ready, and that your systems are aligned to continuous improvement and progress. We also know that accountability ratings matter, and appreciate the opportunity to be here today to share with you all about how CCMR and upcoming changes to
010CCMR are reflected across the A-F system. So, aligned to state statute, the A-F system has three main purposes: to continuously improve student performance, to eliminate achievement gaps based on race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status, and to ensure that Texas is a national leader in preparing students for postsecondary success. Our focus today is really on that last bullet point. And And And this is measured ensuring that every Texas graduate is prepared for secondary success. And this is measured across all three accountability domains. So, in domains one and two, we're just evaluating your graduates. And then in domain three, both your graduates and your 12th graders who did not yet graduate. House Bill 8 really and clearly raises the bar for how postsecondary success is measured across the system. And this This legislation is driving some really exciting
011changes to CCMR. So, A-F is an accountability system, but our focus today is about how it's also a tool to both reflect strong systems and to drive continuous improvement across the state. So, let's dig into how differential weighting of CCMR, as Valerie mentioned, that is valuing indicators differently within the system, looks for upcoming cohorts. And I want to start with our current cohorts. So, CCMR data is lagging. So, when we talk about the class of 2025, we're discussing 2026 accountability. So, for the class of 2025 and 2026, that is 2026 and 2027 accountability, differential weighting is not yet applied. Any graduate that earns one of these indicators is CCMR or college, career, and military ready, and then we divide the total number of CCMR graduates by the total number of graduates. Within the accountability system,
012currently, each indicator is weighted evenly. Hopefully, each of these looks very familiar, but if you want to learn more about how CCMR is currently calculated for 2026 and 2027 accountability, you can review the 2026 or 2027 accountability manuals, both of which are available online and will also be dropped in the chat. So, House Bill 8, as as I said, raises the bar for how CCMR is reflected within the accountability system. And there were two components directly related to differential weighting within House Bill 8 that the agency has responded to and we're excited to talk more about today. So, the first was that the agency was required to conduct a study, really understanding the correlation between each individual CCMR indicator and the correlation to postsecondary outcomes for students, whether they entered an institute of higher education,
013joined the workforce, or enlisted in the military. The second part of House Bill 8 is that based on the results of that study, our accountability system needs to reflect those relative values or the correlation between the indicator and and the post secondary outcomes and the post secondary success we see for students. So we have conducted that research to better understand the correlation between indicators and post secondary success and have also leveraged external studies. So this research is really the driving force behind how indicators are weighted within the accountability system beginning with the 2028 refresh. In addition to the legislative requirements, we also heard loud and clear from stakeholders that beginning full scale differential weighting of CCMR in 2028 with the class of 2027 was insufficient time to make the pro necessary programmatic shifts that need
014to happen at the school and district level. As such, in the 2028 framework, which we're dropping in the chat, this framework for the 2028 refresh includes two distinct methodologies for CCMR. >> [snorts] >> So one that applies for 2028, 2029, and 2030 accountability and then a full scale implementation of differential weighting of CCMR beginning in 2031. So in 2028 and through 2030, there are two changes to be aware of. One, a new military enlistment indicator that requires completion of a JROTC program and a minimum score on the Armed Forces Qualifying Test. And two, a cap on tier three IBCs as those IBCs are assigned in list version four. And that cap is either 5% of graduates or uh five students, whichever is higher, uh earning CCMR through that tier three IBC. We'll also have updated
015cut scores in 2028, which are forthcoming. So, everything I just named for 2028 accountability, again, that's the class of 2027 reflected in 2028 accountability, stays the same for 2029 accountability. And then in 2030, the methodology is consistent, but we'll also have a new IBC list. However, if you have students that have already begun a program of study aligned to an IBC on list version four, they'll continue to be able to earn CCMR through list version four. Then, in 2031, we'll transition to the full-scale uh implementation of differential weighting of CCMR. So, this will largely impact students who enter high school this fall. So, while it's definitely a significant change, it's also one that we have to ample time to plan for. So, here's another view of how CCMR will be measured for the classes of
0162027, 2028, and 2029. Again, that's for 2028, uh 2029, and 2030 accountability with that one-year lag in data. The methodology stays largely the same to what we know today, um but we do start to see weighting of CCMR with that cap on tier three IBCs. Additionally, as I named it, we see the new military readiness indicator, which was also driven by House Bill 8. I want to reiterate that the decision to maintain this methodology of every student earning one CCMR point was driven by stakeholders. And as we look to the future, beginning with in 2031 with the class of 2030, we're leveraging the data collected, correlating postsecondary outcomes to each indicator. So, let's dive into some of the trends and conclusions that came out of those of that research. So, there are some pretty clear
017trends that emerged for college readiness indicators and career readiness indicators. So, it's really clear from the data that earning TSI through ACT, SAT, or TSIA is truly a different differentiator in terms of students who are experiencing success in institutes of higher education. Um so, students that earn TSI through one or combination of these assessments see stronger postsecondary outcomes both in terms of GPA and in their college persistence. We also saw that students who earn TSI through college prep courses show some of the lowest postsecondary performance. We also looked at students who have earned the potential for college credit. So, we use the word potential intentionally because of course it's up to the institute of higher education what credit is awarded for for which categories, etc. However, we know that students who have earned dual credit
018on ramps or met this criteria on EP or IB assessments show the potential to earn that college credit. And so, we see that there are positive outcomes for students that are engaging in that advanced and rigorous coursework while in high school. However, the subject area did not have a huge impact. So, we didn't see a large difference between students who earned you know, for example, an AP credit for math or reading versus those who earned in another subject. Again, where we really saw the difference maker was with TSI through the TSIA, ACT, or SAT and that was one of the strongest predictors in terms of college readiness. For career readiness indicators, we also saw some clear trends emerge. So, students who are graduates who are earning a level one or two certificate, as well as
019those who earn a tier one IBC, are most likely to see increased earnings after high school. We similarly saw, or or contrastly saw, that students who earned a tier three IBC experienced only marginally higher earnings after high school. We do want to note that for our graduates who were earning special education specific indicators, we saw a little bit of variance in that data, largely due both to sample size and then our control group and and who we're comparing those students with. And so we did see a little bit more variance in terms of those special education readiness indicators. For military readiness, of course, we're not yet collecting all of that data or just began collecting that data. And so while we were not able to look at the correlation, we do know that graduates who
020earn a higher AFQT score, so that's four assessments that come from the ASVAB, have increased career opportunities and job placement within the military. We also know that graduates who have earned at least three JROTC credits may enter the military at a higher rank, which impacts that service member's base pay and benefits. So this really this research really drove how indicators are weighted or valued more heavily within the accountability system. So let's take a look at the three postsecondary readiness levels. So within the three postsecondary readiness levels, we have foundational postsecondary readiness, demonstrated postsecondary readiness, and advanced postsecondary readiness. And as you can see, those indicators that had the highest correlation, positive correlation with postsecondary outcomes, are weighted more heavily within the system as advanced postsecondary readiness. Uh so, here you can see things like earning
021an associate's degree, meeting TSI, using SAT, ACT, TSIA, and uh and then also earning uh potential college credit. On the career side, we can see that level one and level two certificates, as well as being a CTE completer with an aligned tier one IBC are in that advanced postsecondary readiness. And we also see um of course military enlistment continues uh and then we also see JROTC completion uh and uh a uh higher ASVAB score at a 65. Uh so, within the accountability system, uh these indicators that are advanced postsecondary readiness, which are those that have the highest correlation to positive postsecondary outcomes for Texas graduates, are weighted more heavily within the accountability system. You also can see here the demonstrated postsecondary readiness, and then the foundational postsecondary readiness indicators. So, Crystal and Marcet are going
022to dig in more into each of these indicators, uh and I'm going to pass it over to Crystal, but I will be back towards the end of our time together today to share more about the calculation specifics of exactly how this weighting takes place within the accountability system beginning in 2031, as well as what data will be available to you to help guide your decision-making between now and 2031. Thanks, Crystal. Good morning, everyone. As we move toward differential weighting, we wanted to make sure to note that the core of CCMR indicators remains the same. The CCMR indicators on this slide are not new. They reflect courses, assessments, and programs, like Katie mentioned, that schools across Texas are already offering, whether it's advanced academics, dual credit, CTE programs of study, industry certifications, or military pathways. Um
023we know that school systems are doing this incredibly well across Texas. With the exception of the military readiness indicator shown in red, which takes effect beginning in 2028, these offerings have been established programs that many schools have built and are continuing to strengthen every day. Much of the foundation for future CCMR success is already in place. Differential weighting will give districts an opportunity to build on that foundation, to be intentional about alignment, sequencing, and student progression, so that these existing programs can more powerfully support the higher quality readiness outcomes over time that were mentioned on the the previous slide. So, next we're going to shift into how some of these weighting scenarios look in practice. Differential weighting is about intentional planning. Using those existing programs to better align pathways and programs, support student progression, and
024pivot toward higher quality readiness outcomes over time. The examples that follow will show what this will look like for real students across the CCMR readiness continuum and differential weighting. So, we're intentionally showing this slide again to establish the context for some of the student examples that will follow. It will show how these indicators are organized into foundational, demonstrated, and advanced postsecondary readiness levels, and with each level reflecting a stronger correlation to post positive postsecondary outcomes. And you'll definitely see some stacking and intentional planning throughout student examples where we look at how students can intentionally continue to build towards that advanced post-secondary readiness. It's incredibly important to look across these three levels and notice that the same indicators appear at multiple point points, including TSIA, dual credit, CTE completion, industry-based certifications, and JROTC. These indicators are
025not stand-alone or disconnected and we're hoping to clear that for you in the next couple of examples. They're designed to connect and build on one another over time as students move through high school. The focus is not on adding new indicators, but on how school systems intentionally can plan for student progression across these levels. The student examples that you'll see in the next coming slides are meant to bring this work to life and have applicability to foster these cross-functional discussions that we know you all will continue to have as the year progresses. We want to show how students earn these outcomes at different points in their journey and how you can take this intentional design to allow the indicators to connect with one another, reinforce, and how they apply to differential weighting. So, like I
026mentioned, this the following sections will focus on accountability, of course, and the student journey, but the next couple of slides we will focus on foundational post-secondary readiness and its role within CCMR. We'll look at how foundational post-secondary readiness connects to the broader CCMR weighting, the options students have to meet at this level, and key actions school systems should consider as they assess current offerings and plan for additional outcomes. The goal will be to show how existing programs can be intentionally leveraged so that students have early access to these viable programs and school systems are positioned to build from foundational readiness toward high-quality outcomes. So, on this slide we wanted to touch on foundational readiness and it being a critical point that represents which students can meaningfully demonstrate post-secondary preparation. We want to make sure that
027every student has access to at least one foundational pathway um and that this is a critical consideration as school systems begin to strategically um sequence and program for this differential weighting. On the left side of the slide, you'll see the way students can meet foundational readiness through college preparatory courses, potential college credit, aligned tier three industry certifications, or JROTC with qualifying AFQT scores. These options reflect multiple entry points, not a single prescribed path. On the right side of the slide, we will see a focus on what this could mean for school systems. First, districts should intentionally map how incoming ninth grade cohort students can reach foundational readiness. The goal is to ensure that no student is left without a viable route. Second, this requires planning master schedules around foundational readiness needs at a minimum. So,
028students who need college prep coursework, CTE sequences, or access to post-secondary credit can be placed in the right courses at the right time. Third, districts need to monitor progress throughout high school using tools like the TEAL student tracker and local dashboards in order to be prepared to adjust supports or pivot programming when students may fall off track and need additional guidance. And finally, a key planning consideration is to avoid over-reliance on a single indicator. Students should have multiple viable pathways and access to programs when it comes to CCMR. Together, these actions reflect intentional early planning that expands access for students, reduce risks, and position students to continue progressing toward higher quality outcomes. So, we'll take a look at some student examples. We'll start with student A, whose example shows straightforward pathway to foundational postsecondary readiness
029through college preparation assessments. In this example, student A meets the TSI criteria in math and reading language arts through an approved college prep course for CCMR. TSI criteria must be met in both math and reading language arts for CCMR. Because one of these requirements, English, was satisfied through a college preparatory course, student A's outcomes are classified as foundational postsecondary readiness. This example highlights how college prep courses can play an important role in providing students with a pathway to CCMR that may need additional academic supports while demonstrating readiness. The student has qualified for foundational postsecondary readiness and has achieved that milestone. But, we also wanted to provide student B's example that builds on how a student can earn multiple indicators but still be classified as a foundational level. So, like student A, student B has earned
030TSI criteria in reading language arts through an approved college prep course and met the TSI criteria in mathematics. In addition, the student has also earned potential college credit options such as AP IB exam, OnRamps or dual credit. Even though this student B has earned potential college credit and met TSI criteria in math, the student's outcome remains foundational not demonstrated due to the student achieving reading language arts through a college prep course. Therefore, the student is foundational. Next, we'll look at an example for career readiness. Thank you, Crystal. This slide will show two student examples that illustrate how foundational post secondary readiness can be earned through the CTE completer status along with an aligned tier three industry based certification for the class of 2030. So, starting at the top, we see student C. Across grades 9
031through 12, student C follows a coherent plumbing program of study beginning with the principles of construction in the ninth grade and progressing through plumbing technology levels two and three, and then completing a practicum course in the 12th grade. And as you can see here in the 11th grade, student C also earns an aligned tier three NCCER core industry based certification. As you can see here in 11th grade, the student C has also earned an aligned tier three NCCER core industry based certification, as Marcet mentioned. So, at graduation, this student has met CTE completer status with an aligned tier three IBC, which places them squarely in the foundational post secondary readiness category. The second example, student D, follows the same CTE course sequence and also earns the aligned tier three NCCER core certification, but in this
032instance, the student has also earned three hours of dual credit aligned to plumbing technology type courses. Under the CCMR for the class of 2030, tier three industry based certifications place students at the foundational level, and students can earn CCMR for only one level, even when multiple indicators may be earned within that same level. So again, in this instance, the student has earned both a Tier 3 certification and dual credit. Those indicators are do not stack into multiple CCMR levels, making the student foundational postsecondary readiness. We want to make sure that the key takeaway from this slide is that aligned Tier 3 industry-based certifications, when earned as a part of a program of study and CTE completer status, are a clear valid pathway to foundational postsecondary readiness, even when students earn additional indicators. And on the
033next couple of slides, we'll also look at how this opportunity might stack into foundational, demonstrated, and advanced. On this slide, we will highlight different pathway to foundational postsecondary readiness for the class of 2030 through military readiness with JROTC completion and qualifying Armed Forces Qualification Test or AFQT score on the ASVAB. At the top, we will see student E. Across grades 10 through 12, the student completes a sequence of JROTC courses, beginning with Level 1 in 10th grade and continuing through advanced JROTC coursework by their senior year. In 12th grade, student E takes the ASVAB and earns a score that qualifies for enlistment eligibility, meeting the AFQT score ranges of 31 to 49, depending on the requirements which branch of the military. When JROTC course completion is combined with a qualifying AFQT enlistment score on the
034ASVAB, the student meets the military readiness indicator for CCMR. For the class of 2030, this means that the indicator has placed the student at the foundational postsecondary level. This section at the bottom of the slide reinforces a critical clarification. JROTC is not a program of study under CCMR rules. It is classified as a military readiness program. The post secondary readiness credit earned is earned through that combination of JROTC participation and the qualifying ASVAB score, not coursework alone. We want to make sure to note that this military readiness pathway is valid and intentional within CCMR. Students who complete JROTC and demonstrate this readiness through ASVAB can meet foundational post secondary readiness even without earning dual credit or an industry-based certification. On these next slides, we will look more closely at demonstrated post secondary readiness effective for
035the class of 2030. We want to make sure to be intentional towards that progressive student journey um as we continue to talk through student examples and school actions for school systems that lead to eventually toward advanced post secondary preparation. The case studies we're about to talk about walk through the journey of demonstrated post secondary readiness looks like in practice. Each example will depict how students can meet demonstrated expectations through different intentional pathways, whether that's college, career, or military, while aligning to the updated CCMR framework and differentiated weighting structure. As we look at these examples, some key lenses to keep in mind is not just what indicators are earned, but how those indicators place students within the overall readiness differential weighting system for the class of 2030. We wanted to make sure to reinforce the purpose
036behind some of these updates to progressive post secondary readiness for the class of 2030 that strengthen academic and career readiness pathways so students graduate high school prepared for what comes next, whether that's college, workforce, or military service. The demonstrated postsecondary readiness level recognizes that students earn postsecondary readiness in different ways and at different points along their high school journey. These indicators are intentionally designed to validate meaningful preparation, not just participation. So, on the left-hand side, you'll see the ways that students can earn demonstrated readiness through a range of outcomes, such as aligned CTE completer status with IBCs, military readiness, or postsecondary assessments. Each pathway reflects a different student goal, but all are grounded in that progression that we've been mentioning throughout this series. On the right, the descriptors emphasize quality and alignment. Programs and indicators
037are expected to be intentional, sequenced, and connected to either workforce demand, postsecondary success, or military readiness. This is about ensuring students are not just exposed to options, but are completing experiences that are meaningfully preparing them for their next step. School systems should be intentionally sequencing courses to support students from grades 9 through 12, and that the systems that are building are able to be monitored by identifying early indicators that can help students demonstrate readiness over time. I will continue to move forward with some student examples um for college readiness. In this particular example, we will continue to talk about college readiness assessments, TSIA, SAT, or ACT, and how students might achieve the TSI criteria by meeting both math and reading language arts. We'll start with student F. In this example, this student meets TSIA criteria
038in English language arts through the meeting the TSIA, and subsequently meets TSI criteria in math through the TSIA, as well. Because both math and the reading language arts TSIA requirements are satisfied through these assessment scores, there is no and there is no potential college credit earned, student F's outcome is classified as demonstrated postsecondary readiness. This example shows a clear progression from initial preparation to validated academic readiness through these particular assessments to ensure that students can enter into postsecondary without the need for remediation. In our second example, student G shows a similar outcome through a combination of assessments. Student G has met TSIA criteria in reading language arts through the SAT and has also met TSIA criteria in math through the TSIA. TSIA criteria may be met using a combination of SAT, ACT, or TSIA scores
039as long as both math and reading language arts requirements are satisfied and no potential college credit is earned. Because student G meets both TSIA requirements through college readiness assessments, the student qualifies for demonstrated postsecondary readiness. In the next examples, we'll take a look at career and military readiness outcomes. Thank you, Crystal. What you see on this slide is a progression of readiness and not a single moment or a single indicator. So, as students move from 9th through 12th grade, they engage in intentional coursework and experiences that build toward validated postsecondary preparation. In this example, the student follows a a coherent pathway aligned to their postsecondary goals, and along the way the student earns a quali- qualifying indicators such as advanced coursework or aligned credentials of postsecondary experiences that together demonstrate readiness beyond foundational preparation. At
040graduation, the student meets the criteria for demonstrated postsecondary readiness because the student earned an aligned Tier 2 IBC and had previously completed a program of study which reflects a higher level of mastery and preparation within the CCMR framework. This level signals that the student is not only prepared to transition after high school, but has completed experiences that clearly align to postsecondary success. The takeaway here is that CCMR pathways are intentionally designed to be progressive. Students may begin with foundational indicators, but as they earn more rigorous and aligned outcomes, they can move into demonstrated readiness reflecting both depth and quality of their high school experience. As we continue through these examples, it's important to keep in mind that CCMR readiness levels are intentional and progressive. So, each level reflects increasing depth, rigor, and alignment to postsecondary
041expectations for students in the class of 2030. This slide shows how students can move beyond foundational preparation and reach demonstrated postsecondary readiness for military readiness. In this example, demonstrate demonstrated postsecondary readiness is earned through the combination of indicators such as JROTC 1, 2, and 3, as in previous examples, with an AFQT score of 50, which is the threshold for demonstrated, which is up from that foundational AFQT uh threshold of the score of 31. These indicators work together to show that the student is prepared for continued education, workforce training, or career entry without remediation. Again, this example shows the intentional, progressive nature of CCMR pathways in which the student begins with foundational indicators, but as they earn more rigorous and aligned outcomes, they move into demonstrated readiness reflecting both the depth and quality of their high
042school experiences. So, as we move forward, the student examples that will follow will show you what it looks like in practice on how school systems can design pathways that intentionally support students in reaching the advanced level of readiness. So, we've spoken a lot about the student's progression from foundational to demonstrated, and finally, in this last student example section, we will shift our focus to advanced postsecondary readiness. Up to this point, we've walked through examples of foundational and demonstrated. However, we will now look at the highest level of achievement within this new CCMR differential weighting. These outcomes represent students who have not only demonstrated readiness, but who have completed experiences that most strongly correlate with postsecondary success, such as earning an associate degree, high-value credentials, advanced postsecondary work, or military enlistment. So, we'll go ahead and
043take a look at some of our next examples and key actions on the next slides. This slide shifts us to system-level design and thinking for advanced postsecondary readiness. Advanced postsecondary readiness represents that highest-quality outcome in CCMR. Whether that's rigorous coursework, associate degree certificate, or industry-based certifications, these outcomes are strongly correlated with postsecondary success because they require intentional multiyear planning. On the left, you'll see what we have talked about qualifies as advanced postsecondary readiness, and on the right, we will focus on what school systems can do to support students as they reach these levels. First, we can look at data-driven optimization of programming, where we actively look at analyzing student progress toward high-value credentials using tools like Teal, degree audits, and credential tracking dashboards to identify where students accelerate into advanced readiness. Second, systems need to
044intentionally integrate high-quality credential and degree opportunities. This means that expansion into degrees, certificates, tier one IBCs requires thoughtful sequencing of coursework. And finally, a look at strong transition supports. Once those students achieve those milestones, what are the structures needed for advising, degree planning, and completion of coaching to persist towards um their goals, whether that's in college, career, or the military. So, what Next, we'll take a look at some specific student examples for college readiness paired with dual credit. At the advanced level, students must first meet TSIA criteria in both math and reading language arts through college ready assessments such as TSIA, SAT, or ACT, and then earn potential college credit in this example. We'll begin with student J. In this example, this student has met TSIA criteria in reading language arts through TSIA 2, as
045well as mathematics through TSIA 2. After meeting both TSIA requirements, the student has also earned 3 hours of dual credit through in this example, English 1301, composition 1. Because student J meets TSIA criteria in both subjects through assessments and earns potential college credit, the student has qualified for advanced postsecondary readiness. In our second example, student K highlights how students can continue to benefit from postsecondary coursework after already meeting advanced postsecondary readiness. In this instance, the student has met additional college credit hours beyond the CCMR requirement, totaling up to 30 13 college credit hours by graduation. At At point, the student has earned accountability credit based on the highest readiness level achieved. While additional coursework is not increasing the CCMR level past advanced postsecondary readiness, it is still an incredibly meaningful milestone for academic progress for
046the student. And on the next slides, we'll take a look at the progression for career readiness. We also wanted to make sure to note that while intentionally designing level one or two certificates and associate degrees, that intentional design and expectations are present for our districts and our partners, and that we should be having conversations at the forefront for how we intend to backwards plan level one or two certificates and associate degrees, dual credit that intentionally builds towards these outcomes, and treat these indicators as early progress markers in order to facilitate conversations of where our students are progressing towards their certificates or associate degrees. So, we really want to make sure to be intentional to use some of these indicators within our differential weighting as early milestones, not endpoints for where a student can can step
047to next. And now we'll look at career military readiness for advanced postsecondary. Thank you, Crystal. This slide brings together how students can achieve advanced postsecondary readiness through CTE programming and military readiness. Across the top of the slide, you'll see the students' progression through high school. Rather than relying on a single indicator, advanced readiness in this CTE example is reflected by the student achieving program of study completer status and a tier one IBC. Again, this combination of advanced coursework and aligned IBC outcomes so show depth, rigor, and a clear readiness for postsecondary success. As students move through the pathway, they may earn the higher value tiered IBCs that meet advanced readiness criteria. And these indicators validate mastery and readiness beyond the foundational and demonstrated levels. The green callout at the bottom reinforces that students earn one
048CCMR level, even when multiplying qualifying indicators are earned within that level. The focus is on the highest level of readiness demonstrated, not the number of indicators accumulated. On this slide, you'll see a student's progression through high school, which shows their readiness reflected through the military indicators. Students can enter pathways from different starting points, academic, career, or blended. What remains consistent is the expectation for depth, rigor, and alignment. So, each pathway intentionally builds towards outcomes that show a student is prepared for postsecondary success without remediation. Again, as students advance, they have the opportunity to earn higher value indicators such as this student in taking the ASVAB a second time to earn a higher AFQT score as a senior, which will give them additional occupational opportunities in the military. These indicators collectively signal demonstrated mastery rather than
049participation alone. And again, the key takeaway from this slide is that demonstrated postsecondary readiness reflects purposeful pathway design. The student took the ASVAB in the 11th grade, but intentionally retested on the ASVAB their senior year and earned a higher AFQT score. So, districts are encouraged to build systems where students intentionally progress toward advanced outcomes. I'm now going to turn the mic over to Katie Duber with performance reporting, who'll discuss data monitoring and internal coordination within school systems. Hi, thank you, Crystal and Marcet, for sharing more about the three postsecondary levels, how they are earned, as we all collectively prepare for the transition to differential weighting of CCMR indicators in 2031. I want to reiterate again that this change is not happening tomorrow, and there's time to prepare. So, the students that will largely be evaluated
050in 2031 are currently eighth graders. This framework has been shared five years before the 2031 ratings and includes that the cohort that is not yet started their high school career. Of course, I do want to name that CCMR measures individual graduates, and then in domain three, also your 12th graders who did not yet graduate graduate. So, it's possible that a current high school graduate current high school student who will graduate in 2030 would also be included with this differential weighting of CCMR. But, for the most part, these students are just now wrapping up middle school, and there is time to make the programmatic shifts that are necessary in order to really be strategic about the transition to differential weighting of CCMR. There's also going to be a lot of data available to you at the
051school and school system level. So, as is required by House Bill 8, two years of what if ratings will be provided prior to the 2028 refresh. So, that means in spring of 2027 and also in spring of 2028, TEA will provide schools data at the component domain and overall rating that is your what if score. So, essentially, we'll take your 2026 accountability data or 2027 accountability data and run that through the 2028 methodology. Essentially, answering the question, if the refresh was today, what would our results look like? Those results will be shared via TEAL and then will be included in the change over time on texasschools.gov once the 2028 ratings are issued in August of 2028. So, in addition to these two years of what if ratings, we also, and not required by House Bill
0528, but we definitely heard that it would be a helpful tool for districts, we'll be providing 2026 CCMR what if raw scores. So, we'll begin that in 2026, and then every year between 2026 and 2030, again, prior to the 2031 implementation of differential weighting of CCMR, you'll receive those raw score calculations. And so, we hope that with 5 years of raw score data, districts will not only be able to plan, but also make adjustments to the plans that you've already made in order to really progress. So, again, this gives districts 5 years worth of data to progress monitor prior to the 2031 implementation of differential weighting of CCMR. So, on this slide we can see actually how this CCMR raw score will be calculated, and this will be similar to the data that you'll receive
053beginning in 2026 all the way through 2030 prior to the 2031 implementation. And for those of you that are familiar with how statewide assessment, currently the STAR component is calculated within domain one, it's a very similar methodology. So, we'll take a look at the percentage of students that earned foundational postsecondary readiness or above. So, that foundational and above includes all of your students in foundational, demonstrated, and advanced. We'll then add that to the percentage of graduates that earned demonstrated and above, so demonstrated and advanced, and then add that to the percent that earned advanced postsecondary readiness. The sum of all three of those will then be divided by three, and that produces your CCMR raw score. So, if we take a look at this example, you can see that we have here a high school
054with 150 graduates. So, 58 of those graduates were at foundational or above, 47 of those graduates were at demonstrated or above, and were at demonstrated, and then 33 are at advanced. So, in the first the first equation is foundational and above. So, we'll add the 58 at foundational, the 47 at demonstrated, and the 33 at advanced, and that's 138. So, 138 of the graduates earned CCMR at foundational or above. We divide that by 150 is the total graduates, and that's 92% or 92 points earned. For demonstrated and above, we're going to add the 47 at demonstrated and the 33 at advanced. Again, we divide that by 150, which is 53%. Then, we take the advanced post-secondary readiness, the 33, we divide that by 150, and that's 22%. So, the 92 at foundational and above, the
05553 at demonstrated and above, and the 22 at advanced gives a raw score of 56. So, we add those three, we divide by three, and and that gives you a raw score of 56. So, of course, this 56 is purely hypothetical, but that's what in this instance beginning in spring of 2027, you'll receive your CCMR raw score based on 2026 accountability results. You'll receive that raw score beginning again in spring of 2027, so that you'll be able to understand where your district is currently falling in terms of raw score calculations for differential weighting of CCMR, and then again be able to plan and progress monitor and make adjustments in the next 5 years prior to the implementation of differential weighting of CCMR. So, again, um on the next slide, the framework for 2031 CCMR is
056available now. And our hope is that with 5 years uh notice on this change, and then 5 years worth of raw score reports, and 4 years of raw score reports, you'll be able to leverage that time strategically to make these adjustments. We know that you want strong postsecondary outcomes for every single student who's currently in your system, and we want that, too. So, we're excited to partner with you across the agency, with our ESCs, and directly with you all at the district and school level in order to make that happen. You all are doing the important work now of internalizing the system and learning about your potential options. In the coming months, uh with the support of uh CCA uh College Career Military Prep Division, um it's critical to begin making plans for these programmatic
057shifts, and then leverage the data that you have available to gauge the efficacy of those shifts. So, this work is incredibly important. We firmly believe that this is the right direction for kids and for Texas graduates uh who are building, you know, who are in our buildings now, and those who are enter our buildings in the future. So, thank you so much for being here and for dedicating the time today to make these critical first steps. Valerie, I'm going to pass it back over to you to close this out. Great. Thank you so much, Katie. As we bring today's session to a close, I want to shift our focus from information to action. Today was intentionally designed as a kickoff, not a deep dive. And our goal was to ensure that districts understand what is
058changing, why it matters, and why planning must begin now, especially for students who are entering high school this fall. The work ahead is not about reacting to accountability later. It's about intentionally designing systems now, so that students have access to high-value readiness pathways over time. The next step in this process is engaging with the CCMR deep dive webinar series, which is where the real design and planning work happens. This slide outlines all of the key components of CCMR programming, and these sessions are intentionally focused on implementation considerations, not just policy awareness. They're designed to help districts examine their current systems, identify gaps in access or alignment, and plan for incremental improvements across multiple years. We will close now with a clear call to action. CCMR depends on intentional collaboration. Differential weighting raises the stakes for
059how well our school systems align leadership, instruction, data, finance, and partners around shared readiness goals. We encourage you to use the deep dive sessions and the planning tools that will accompany them to honestly assess where you are, clarify where you're headed, and take concrete steps to expand student access to high-value post-secondary outcomes, ensuring that every student graduates with meaningful, viable next steps, and that your system is prepared to support that outcome over time. CCMR accountability is changing, and differential weighting sharpens the focus on quality, coherence, and intentional planning. The most successful systems will not wait for ratings to change. They will plan early, align programming across departments, and use data to continuously improve access to high-value ready readiness outcomes for every student. This webinar sets the foundation, but the real work happens next when the
060right people come together to engage in the deep dive sessions. Thank you for the work that you do every day to support the students of Texas and we look forward to continuing this important work with you. If you have any questions, feel free to reach out to us at the mailboxes below.