001Right, I'm going to go ahead and get us started. Good morning everyone. Happy Tuesday. Uh and we are here today to talk about the updated 2028 A-F refresh framework. My name is Katie Juber and I am the principal director of performance reporting policy and communications here at the Texas Education Agency. I'm also joined today by Katherine Beck who is our senior division director for the performance reporting division. Uh we have a number of other teammates online today who are able to answer questions in the Q&A. So that feature is open. Please be sure to use it and we will also be dropping links that we're sharing today in the chat. We are going to go ahead and share our deck for today now as we know many stakeholders like to follow along, take notes in
002the PDF, etc. So we'll go ahead and share that link and also just want to note that our webinar today will be recorded. So if somebody was not able to make it, this recording will be available by the end of next week and provided to stakeholders through our performance reporting bulletin if you'd like to refer back to it or share it with someone else. So I suspect many of you joined our fall refresh roadshow and might have even joined us a couple of weeks back and last week for the kickoff of our spring 2026 refresh roadshow where we dug into CCMR. If you're brand new, welcome and our goals during the refresh roadshow are to raise stakeholder awareness, support you all at the campus and district level in effective planning for the 2028 refresh, and
003then eventually garner some additional meaningful public feedback. Our agenda today, we're going to very quickly touch on the purpose of A through F, we'll revisit the refresh process, we'll look at elements from the updated framework by domain in domains 1, 2, and 3, share some additional information included in the 2028 framework, and then share next steps and feedback. If you did join us for the fall roadshow, um or you might have referred to the materials after the fact, um back in the fall we did a four-part and four-hour series on the contents of the preliminary framework. This series provides a really deep dive into the initial proposals, many of which, most of which, almost all of which actually were carried over into the updated framework. Um so, some of those proposals we're going to move
004pretty quickly through today, but on your slide deck, uh we have referenced the fall webinar number that you can refer back to if you want additional information, um or leverage those for additional explanations or context. So, just wanted to note, um today we're going to move through proposals pretty quickly if they were already shared in the preliminary framework, but resources are available. Um of course, we also encourage you, probably how you got signed up for this webinar, but in case you haven't, uh we encourage you to sign up for the performance reporting bulletin that we send out weekly. Uh there we'll share updates for future learning opportunities. Uh you can also always contact your ESCs to learn more about um interactive and in-person opportunities. So, let's touch briefly on why we have the A through
005F system. And at the end of the day, we have the A through F system because we believe that all students can learn and achieve at high levels. And our job in the pre-K through 12 space is to ensure that students are leaving high school ready for college, career, and the military, whatever the path they choose. And we have evidence that this system works. So, research has been done on the Texas A-F system, and the evidence is really clear that when pressure is put on schools to avoid a low performance rating, students in those schools not only perform better while they're in school, but also have better outcomes in terms of college graduation and earnings up to the age of 25. So, our goals within the A-F system are likely very similar to the goals
006that you have at your school or district. We want to ensure that we are continuously improving student performance. We want to eliminate achievement gaps based on race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status. And we want to ensure that Texas is a national leader in preparing students for postsecondary success. And we can only do that when we foster a culture that supports growth. So, we appreciate you being here today and engaging in that critical task of learning to prepare for the 2028 refresh. And of course, anytime we're talking about updates to the accountability system, internally, we keep three big goals in mind. We want to ensure that the system is rigorous. We want to ensure that the system is transparent, and we want to ensure that the system is fair. And so, many of our updates today all
007tie back directly to those three goals, how we believe this makes the system more rigorous, transparent, or fair. So, let's talk a little bit about how a refresh happens and the refresh process. So, House Bill 8 codified that a refresh happens every 5 years. So, there was a refresh back in 2023. There will be another refresh in 2028. Back in August of 2025, we released the preliminary framework. And again, we had a 4-hour series really digging into the content of that framework. Since then, House Bill 8 was signed, so there were some legislative updates, and we also received feedback from hundreds of stakeholders across the state. So, the updated framework that we're going to discuss today reflects both updates to state rules and uh updates based on stakeholder feedback. And you can rest assured knowing
008that the contents of the updated framework reflects um what will be the proposed rule or the accountability manual that will be shared later this year. If you attended our fall road show or any of our in-person events at ESCs or various conferences throughout the school year, this slide likely looks very familiar and demonstrates all of the changes proposed in the preliminary framework back in August. Again, we're going to touch on many of these briefly, but those deep dives are available. So, if we start digging into something and you have questions, on this slide, we'll reference directly which fall road show webinar you can take a look at um in order to really understand more about the preliminary proposal that then has been carried through into the updated proposal. So, this slide is organized all of
009the has organized all of the updates by domain. So, you can see domain one, student achievement, domain two, school progress, domain three, closing the gaps, and then of course distinction designations. This is also how we're going to uh organize our time today to look at those updates by domain. As I shared, we get a lot of feedback and need to update the preliminary framework to the updated framework based on any legislative updates. So, during a refresh process, we work really closely with a number of advisory groups. And one of those advisory groups is the Texas Accountability Advisory Group or TAG. So, TAG is a committee who represents school districts, legislative offices, and communities leaders, and then its membership was also further codified by House Bill 8. So, our job is to take the feedback and
010the legislative updates and create a proposal about how could this be measured and what would be the impact on the accountability system. TAG's job then is to review those proposals and the potential impact of the proposal and give recommendations to the commissioner. So, again, if you joined us for fall webinar one, this slide will look familiar and you heard a lot about how this refresh process works in terms of TEA's engagement with TAG. So, we get all of that feedback or legislative updates, we formalize that into consideration, we model what that consideration would look like and get really clear about how this would fit into the accountability system. TAG then reviews that methodology and modeling and sometimes they are ready right away to give a recommendation to the commissioner. More often than not, what actually
011happens is we go back to the drawing board. We get feedback, we make slight adjustments, and we go back to TAG. And often times that can happen multiple times as we get closer to a final recommendation. So, there are sort of three ways that these recommendations can go. The first is that TAG recommends to not adopt a new methodology into the updated refresh framework. The second is that TAG might say, "This is a great idea and maybe not for 2028. Let's look at it for a future refresh." That can happen either because of legislative updates or because of stakeholder feedback. And then really where our focus today is going to be on those instances that TAG recommends to include that new methodology in the updated refresh framework. If you want to learn more about recommendations
012that didn't move into the updated framework, we also wanted to quickly share that there's a document that provides insight into all of the feedback we received and our responses. So, that is the 2028 A-F refresh stakeholder feedback and adjustments document. And here you'll be able to find more information again on those considerations that are not in the updated framework. We also want to note that updated cut scores are part of any refresh. So, proposed cut scores for 2028 and the proposed methodology for setting cut scores in 2028 and beyond is forthcoming. As those are released, we will schedule additional learning opportunities to be shared alongside the cut score proposed cut score release. And again, of course, we'll be sure to share those in the performance reporting bulletin. So, let's go ahead and dig into the
013updated 2028 A-F framework and we'll start with domain one. Very quickly, just a review of how overall results are calculated within the A-F system. So, we have three domains. Domain one is the student achievement domain where we measure what students know and are able to do. We also have domain two or the school progress domain and the better of domain one or domain two accounts for 70% of your overall rating. Of course, we also have domain three, closing the gaps, where we look at both growth and achievement for specific groups of students. We'll talk more about domains two and three in a little bit, but let's start again with domain one. So, domain one is the student achievement domain and this domain demonstrates how well students are performing academically, to what extent they are prepared
014for college, career, or the military. And what percentage of students are graduating? And in domain one, we look at the best of the four, five, or six-year graduation rate. So, domain one really provides a comprehensive view of student achievement and how students are prepared academically. The first change that we wanted to talk through that absolutely impacts domain one and then also is carried through in other domains uh that is an update to add to our statewide assessment. So, House Bill 8 introduced some pretty significant changes to the Texas assessment program. And that includes replacing the STAR exam uh with a new instructionally supportive assessment program. Uh what is named in House Bill 8 as the student success tool. So, the first update you'll see in the uh updated framework is a shift in language uh
015from STAR to statewide assessment program. Uh so, if you were uh you know, control finding STAR in the updated framework, you won't find it, but you will find statewide assessment program. Again, a shift that was made from the preliminary framework to the updated framework based on those legislative updates. We also just wanted to quickly name that House Bill 8 really states uh very clearly that the commissioner needs to ensure that the performance levels on the new assessment are set at levels consistent with performance levels set for previous school years on the STAR exam. And so, what that means for us is that we do not anticipate any domain calculations for statewide assessment results changing. We anticipate still that if you're in elementary school or middle school, domain one will reflect approaches and above added to
016uh meets and above and added to masters divided by three, the exact same calculation we use now, but rather than STAR assessment results, we'll be using the SST results again because those performance levels have to remain consistent. The other thing we wanted to name very clearly is that there is no pause in accountability for 2028 ratings. Also in domain one is a proposal for accelerated testers. And I want to refer you back if you have questions or want to see what these actual numbers look like or the impact, refer you back to fall webinar two, which is available on the 2028 accountability system development website, where we dug very deeply into this initial proposal. Today, I'll be really focused on the update. So, accelerated testers are students who pass an EOC prior to grade nine.
017Prior to 2027-2028, that will include algebra one, English two, and biology. So, those students who took those exams prior to grade nine. For 2027-2028 and beyond, this includes algebra one, English one, and biology. So, federal requirements mandate that those students who pass in uh uh pass at approaches or above, um are then required while in high school to test one time in each subject area, whether that's math, RLA, and science. So, if they've already taken algebra one in middle school, in high school, then they're required to take the SAT or ACT scores, and those are included in the accountability calculations once those students are in 12th grade. So, that proposal stands, or the proposal related to accelerated testers stands, but what we wanted to highlight is a language update that was really based off of
018stakeholder feedback and questions that we got. So, we now are kind of talking about these groups of students in two slightly different ways. So, accelerated pathways testers are those students who pass at approaches that are above any EOC prior to grade nine. And proposed for the 2028 refresh, accelerated pathways testers are awarded a one bonus point in domain one um in that statewide assessment methodology. And that applies to students who pass again at approaches or above uh Algebra 1, English 1, US History, or Biology. On the other side of this coin are the uh accelerated testers. And so, those are students who are in grade 12 who are required to take the SAT or ACT. And I want to name very clearly, they don't have to take that in grade 12, they just need to
019take it prior to grade 12 or prior to graduating. So, by the time they end grade 12. Um and that is required in math, RLA, or science if that EOC was passed prior to grade nine. So, results of their SAT and ACT scores are included in the achievement methodology across all three domains. Uh and then proposed for the 2028 refresh are updated performance level cut scores. Again, that is all included in fall webinar two. So, to really highlight the change here, it is just an update to really specify those students who are prior to grade nine who pass an EOC at approaches or above are accelerated pathways testers where the accelerated testers are the high school students. And the reason for that um is because for accelerated testers, that is inclusive of only math, RLA,
020and science. While accelerated pathways testers also includes US History. The next set of changes in uh the updated framework are really related to CCMR. So, if you've had a chance to uh review the updated framework or you joined us last week, uh you will see that within the updated framework, there are It includes two distinct methodologies for CCMR. So, for 2028, that methodology includes an IBC list version four with a 5% cap on tier three IBCs. It also includes a new military readiness indicator, which is the AFQT or the Armed Forces Qualifying Test, which is four subtests from uh the ASVAB, um as well as completing a JROTC uh military program. It also includes an approved list requirement for college prep courses in grade 12, and then, of course, we'll have updated cut scores, which
021are forthcoming. So, that methodology will apply for 2028, 2029, and 2030 accountability. And then, in 2031, uh we will uh shift to differential weighting of CCMR, in which uh different CCMR indicators are weighted or valued differently in the accountability system based on their correlation to positive outcomes for uh students once they are in postsecondary life. So, this really does reflect both a response to updated legislation. House Bill 8 was very clear about the need for differential weighting of CCMR, as well as stakeholder feedback in that uh the new methodology will apply to students who will by and large generally start high school in the 26-27 school year. Within that 2028 methodology, the preliminary um framework included the IBC list version four with a 5% cap on tier three IBCs. It also inclu- included the approved
022list requirement for college prep courses. A shift um based on House Bill is that new military readiness indicator. Excuse me. So, of course, CCMR is a very complex, and in a 1-hour webinar, uh, with all things that we need to cover for the updated framework, we're not going to spend the time today to dig into, um, the 2028 methodology that applies to 2028-2029-2030, or the published methodology that is also, uh, included in the 2028 framework that will apply in 2031 and 2032. We do want to share, though, that just last week and the week before that, we were able to record a webinar focused on CCMR within the updated framework. So, that includes methodology for 2028-2029-2030, and then a lot of information on 2031 and 2032. So, if you have not yet had a chance
023to access those materials, um, they're linked here. We have both a recording of the webinar and the slide deck for you to be able to review. The last item that we wanted to talk about within domain one is English two. So, in response to legislative updates, uh, House Bill 8 eliminates the administration of the English two EOC exam effective in the 2027-2028 school year. So, many stakeholders have sought clarification on how English two will and will not be reflected in accountability calculations. And the short answer of this is that after the June 2027 or summer 2027 administration of English two, it will not be reflected in accountability calculations. However, that summer 2027 administration, which is part of the 2026-2027 school year, where we still have English two, will be included in 2028 accountability calculations. So,
024we have received the question, will that summer 2027 English two impact domains 1A and 2B? Um of course, the achievement and then also thinking about um uh uh relative performance in domain two. Uh and the answer to that is yes, the results of English two will be counted in both domains one and two. We have also received the question, will summer 2027 English two impact domain 2A or individual student growth? And the answer to that is yes, if the student is a first-time tester, their academic progress will be reflected. This will also be reflected in domain 3A or student group performance, the campus-level domain three ratings, and then we'll talk more later about domain 3B or special populations program outcomes, uh where English two will also be reflected. So, again, just to summarize that June
0252027 or summer 2027 administration will be um uh included in 2028 accountability results. Since it the English two assessment will not be administered after that 2027 administration, uh then English two will not be reflected in accountability results. Of course, we can't include data that we don't have. So, to provide a summary, uh and again, uh if you joined us for the fall webinar, you'll recognize some of these, and then there are some updates. Those updates are in orange. Um updates uh to the accountability system that are proposed for 2028 uh within the student achievement domain, um English two will not be administered nor reflected in accountability ratings starting in the 2027-28 school year. The exception to that is the uh summer 2027 administration. For accelerated testers, we propose bonus points for students that pass end
026of course assessments prior to grade nine, and then those updated performance level standards for the accelerated testers once they are in high school and are taking the SAT or ACT. For CCMR for 2028, 2029, and 2030, we have students earning CCMR only from tier three industry-based certifications is capped at 5% or five students, whichever is higher. And then the college prep courses must be from the approved TEA list. Also, for 2028, 2029, and 2030 is a new military readiness indicator. So, the completion of a military readiness program plus the minimum ASVAB or AFQT score. And then in 2031, we transition to an implementation of differential weighting of CCMR. So, that is everything proposed for domain one. Again, if you need to refer back, you can either look at fall webinar two or the CCMR specific
027webinars that were released back last week in order to dig in more. So, let's jump into domain two. We've covered the updates to domain one. Domain two also has a better of methodology built in. So, your domain two score is going to be reflective of the better performance between academic growth, where we look at end of year to end of year results for individual students, and what percentage of students made at least one year's worth of progress. And then we also look at relative performance. So, your campus's achievement relative to other campuses with a similar percentage of students who are economically disadvantaged. And then again, between domains one and two, whichever of those is higher performing based on your accountability results, the better of that performance is reflects 70% of your overall rating. So we
028discussed the transition from the star to a new instructionally responsive statewide assessment that will begin in the 2027-2028 school year. And part of House Bill 8 and requirements for this new statewide assessment is a requirement that there is a beginning of year and middle of year assessment, of course end of year as well, but a new beginning and middle of year assessment required for grades 3 through 8 and then optional for students that are enrolled in end in that will be taking end of course assessments. So with that change, we have received a lot of feedback and and questions honestly indicating interest of how those through year growth measures can be or will be used in the accountability system. So of course in domain 2A, we're looking at end of year to end of year
029performance and if the student made one year of growth, for example, how did a student perform at the end of third grade math and then how did that student perform at the end of fourth grade math? Or potentially they skipped a grade, how did that student perform at the end of third grade and how did they perform at the end of fifth grade? A through year measure then would look at performance through that school year. So the beginning of third grade to the end of third grade. And it makes sense that we've received a lot of this question. The headline here is that for 2028, there are no proposed changes for 2028 through 2032 calculations. The growth table that you see here is not proposed to change and we will continue to look at end-of-year
030performance to end-of-year performance. Our teammates over in the assessment division will be producing a report to the legislature by 2031 with a study of three-year growth results statewide. So we will certainly begin using the data collected and the insights from that study and and consider a three-year growth measure as part of the 2033 refresh. But for 2028, there are no proposed changes to how growth is calculated in domain two So just to recap any updates to the school progress domain or domain two. So there are no changes proposed for domain two methodology. However, the domain one methodology, which is used again in those relative performance calculations, where there are proposed changes to domain one methodologies, that is also then applied in domain two. So English two will not be reflected in domain two A calculations.
031That's the one change for domain two A with again that exception of that summer 2027 administration. If you have first-time testers in that summer administration, just for that one time, after that, we will not see English two in growth calculations. Within domain two B, the all of the domain one methodology applies. So the tier three IBC cap, the elimination of English two, and then the bonus point in SAT score changes for accelerated testers also apply in domain 2B. So, let's begin to domain three now, which at the campus level and at the district level accounts for 30% of a of overall score. And within domain three, it's all about specific student groups and how those specific student groups are making progress towards or achieving targets. So, each campus is rated on four distinct groups. And
032again, the extent to which that group of students is making progress towards or meeting current, next interim, or long-term targets. So, a campus can receive between zero to four points for each student group and on each measure of performance within domain three. So, our first proposal is related to prior year data and how that prior year data is gathered for new campuses. So, in fall webinar three, we spent a lot of time discussing that zero to four scoring. One point, of course, is that the campus or the student group within that campus is making some progress or minimum progress towards target. And then, two points indicates that that student group is making expected So, for new campuses that don't have prior year data, we didn't have a really strong source to be able to say
033what was last year's progress. And in our current system, we use the statewide data. And so, in the preliminary framework, we have sort of a two-pronged approach to remedy this. And the first is to change the source of the lowest performing race or ethnicity group. So, for new campuses, they are currently rated on the state's two lowest performing race or ethnicity groups. And we are proposing changing that to the district's two lowest performing groups. Or if it's a new campus within a brand new district, looking at the campuses current year two lowest performing groups. The other side of this is then creating proxy prior year data. So, again, if the campus didn't have data, they weren't earning those one to two points. And so, this proposal outlines using the district's prior year data as a
034baseline to have an opportunity to earn one or two points. So, just to name very clearly, a new campus is a campus that has a new CDC number or a campus that it's in in its very first year of statewide testing and was most likely previously a paired campus. So, House Bill 8 requires the agency to use appropriate alternative prior year data for new campuses in domain three. So, what we proposed in the preliminary framework, again, shifting from using the state's lowest performing group and not having data for those one to two points calculations, to using the district's lowest performing groups and the district's data for the one to two points meets this requirement that was in House Bill 8. So, there are not changes as far as legislative requirements to the proposal related to
035new campus scoring that was in the preliminary framework. Where we do have an update proposed in the updated framework for this proposal is really specifically related to new alternative education campuses or AECs. So, we received the feedback that using the district data or if it was a new campus within a new district using the state overall data and and questions really of whether for an alternative education campus if that data was appropriate to measure the performance of a new AEC. And you can hear see here on the screen of course our alternate alternative education campuses meet a very specific need within the state and support a very vulnerable population and we do see very stark differences in academic achievement rates in both math and reading between overall state averages and the AEC average. So, an
036update within the updated framework is really specific to how do we apply the new campus methodology to new AECs. And so, this is if a DRS or dropout recov- dropout recovery school, I apologize, or AEC does not have prior year data, so a new campus, the state average of DRS campuses prior year data will be used as the campus prior year data, again that proxy data, to create an opportunity for those campuses to earn one or two points. So, we do hope that this new methodology proposed for all new campuses and then a slightly nuanced version of that for dropout recovery schools does make the system more fair and it's also transparent. They'll be able to access whether it's district or statewide data in order to understand their baseline performance by which they'll have to
037either make minimum or expected growth in order to earn those one or two points within domain three. One thing I do want to name is that uh we included this proposal specific to dropout recovery schools in uh the updated framework, um but we also need additional confirmation uh from the US Department of Education to ensure that this is allowable under ESSA. Uh so just wanted to name uh it's included in the framework and uh we are still seeking approval on this proposal. The next topic that we want to talk to uh talk through is the revised two-point scoring for not new campuses or non-new campuses. So again, we explored this in depth during uh fall webinar number three, uh and we discussed this safe harbor provision that really expands two-point scoring. So essentially this means
038that um when we're looking at did a student group make expected growth, in our current methodology, we're looking at expected growth towards the next interim target. And this proposal um is looking at expected growth towards the current target. So this really does two things. It allows for some tolerable dips in performance uh for and um also allows for two points potentially for a school um that has made more than minimum growth, but is not quite reaching those current targets in order to earn a three. So one really common question that we got related to this proposal, again that was explored in the preliminary framework, and you can refer to webinar three to dig more into that two-point scoring proposal, but many stakeholders have raised questions on how this expanded two-point scoring will impact school improvement
039or SI identification at the federal level. So of course, in federal school improvement calculations, both overall domain three performance and performance of individual student groups is considered. So, while this expanded two-point scoring is proposed to apply through A through F and certainly meets state requirements, the impact on federal school improvement um and and what is the impact is frankly that there is more information coming. So, we are currently seeking approval again from the US Department of Education to see if we can leverage this expanded two-point scoring in federal SI calculations and identification. If that is not approved, what will happen in 2028 is that each campus will receive two closing the gaps reports. So, there will be a federal closing the gap report that does not leverage this expanded um two-point scoring that's proposed and
040that will be used in federal school improvement designations. Each school will then also receive a closing the gap report that does leverage the expanded two-point scoring. That will be used in both campus and district A through F accountability calculations and that will also be used in calculating consecutive counts. So, that's what happens if this is not approved by the US Department of Ed is each campus will have two closing the gaps report, a federal closing the gap report, and a closing the gaps report. If this is approved, then each campus will have the opportunity to earn additional points in domain three uh through this expanded two-point scoring and then that expanded scoring will be applied when it's beneficial and used both in A through F accountability calculations and school improvement designations. Uh so, definitely more
041information to come here uh as uh we get more information um from uh the federal Department of Education. The The thing we want to talk about, um, for campus level domain three calculations, is specific to those campuses who are evaluating evaluated using small numbers analysis. So, small numbers analysis can be applied for campuses that don't meet the minimum size requirement, which is 10 across A-F. So, this methodology, uh, with it, uh, applies to both graduation rate and CCMR calculations in domains one and three, but this proposal is specific to domain three. So, to very quickly summarize how small numbers analysis works, we look at the average performance over the last three years. So, for example, in CCMR, we look at the average number in domain three of grads and non-grads that earned a CCMR indicator,
042and then we divide that by the average by the previous three years, um, uh, total of graduates and non-graduates. So, within our current methodology, um, if, of course, if the campus did not meet minimum size in the year prior, uh, then they are evaluated using small numbers analysis, um, the and that campus is not considered to have prior year data. So, if small numbers analysis were used in the prior year's accountability results, uh, then they are not able to earn those one or two points out of the four points possible. So, we received stakeholder feedback that that current methodology is not fair and does not really promote our, um, our goal of fairness, and that, uh, schools that are evaluated using small numbers analysis should have a pathway in order to earn those one or
043two points again for minimum or expected growth. So, within the updated framework, um, uh, is a new proposal, and that is if a campus did not meet minimum size in the prior year and required small numbers analysis, the results under small numbers analysis in the prior year will be used. So, very tangibly, if small numbers analysis was used in 2027, in 2028, we would use the results of that small numbers analysis as the prior year baseline data by which we can calculate growth, either minimum or expected growth in domain three for 2028 accountability results. The last item that we want to dig into in domain three is domain three B, which is a new domain or special populations program monitoring. And I do want to name that this domain only applies to district ratings. So,
044for campus leaders, there is no domain three B within your accountability system. For district leaders, domain three B applies and really is evaluating a district subset of students. So, in our current methodology, we all know that domain three accounts for 30% of overall scores. So, in the preliminary framework, we named that at the district level, a portion would come from domain three A, named student group performance, and a portion from domain three B or special populations program outcomes. In the updated framework, we have more clearly specified that for district domain three ratings, 70% comes from domain three A or student group performance, which is the proportional roll up of campuses domain three scores. And then the remaining 30% comes from domain three B or special populations programs outcomes scores. For So, for districts, domain three
045in total still accounts for 30% of overall ratings, but that domain three is now split or proposed to be split in 2028 with 70% coming from the campus roll up and 30% coming from domain 3B or special populations programs outcome score. We dug into a lot of this proposal to which is integrating results-driven accountability into the A through F system as domain 3B, but wanted to revisit this and also name that fall webinar for includes 1 hour full of information just on this integration. So in the 2028 proposed A through F framework, domain 3B consists of four measures to evaluate special populations program efficacy. So the first one is renamed but is special populations student success. And that's where we're looking at overall statewide assessment performance so across all content areas and it is a
046weighted average. So the percent at approaches and above added to 1.1 times the percent at meets or above added to 1.2% times the percent Sorry, 1.2 times the percent at masters that are above. And so this really rewards that meets and masters performance within domain 3B. The next measure that we look at is English language proficiency for students in US schools multiple years. So this is the percent of emergent bilingual or EB students in US schools for five or more years who received a TELPAS composite rating of beginning or intermediate. The next measure we look at is graduation rate and that will be the six-year graduation rate within domain 3B. And then the last measure is the dropout rate and so that's looking at students within a specified program group in grade 7 through 12
047who dropped out during the school year. Also named in the preliminary framework, but want to highlight again, uh, is that a minimum size of 10 is proposed, uh, to be based on this district subset of students. And then we also have received questions and wanted to just name again, uh, that federally required elements are not going away. So those will continue to be monitored. Uh, however, those FRYs are not incorporated into the A-F system. While performance levels, uh, will be a thing of the past in 2028, so, uh, districts will no longer receive PLs. Instead, you'll receive the data through the A-F system in domain 3B. However, determination levels will be calculated, um, using both A-F performance in domain 3B, and then again those FRYs. So additional information about the specifics of how determination levels
048is, uh, still forthcoming. Uh, but just know that determination levels will not be based on performance levels. Instead, they'll be based on domain 3B performance. Again, many of these items were covered in, uh, in the fall webinar number four, um, but also wanted to just highlight that, uh, domain 3B is looking at program efficacy for four different student, uh, groups. So bilingual program students, students that are, uh, enrolled in bilingual programs, special education program students, foster program students, and homeless program students. And you can see they're listed, uh, within that group specifically, what are we, what are we, uh, measuring. Uh, so when we combine the student group and the measurement, that's an indicator. So for example, the very last one on this screen is current homeless 7-12 for dropout. So, this student group are
049as students in grades 7 through 12 who are currently homeless and the measurement is the dropout rate. So, then the indicator becomes current homeless 7 through 12 for dropout. So, each of these indicators, uh similar to how things operate in domain 3A, will have a current interim, a next interim, and then a long-term target. And the methodology for how those are calculated uh is really modeled after domain 3A or student group performance, which is approved through our SA plan. We also want to name that each indicator will be scored on a zero to four scoring that mirrors domain 3A methodology. So, if you're really comfortable with how domain 3A works, many elements of domain 3B will feel familiar in terms of uh each indicator has those targets and we use the same zero to four
050scoring in order to calculate progress or achievement of those targets. So, if the minimum size is met for all measurements and student groups, a district could be evaluated on up to 22 indicators. So, here you can see those indicators uh really listed um uh very clearly. I know that the 22 it seems like a lot. Um however, uh again, you're only indicating uh evaluated 22 if you meet the minimum size for every single student group. Um and just want to name that that very first one under STAR 3-8 uh is actually four separate indicators. Um so, for example, um it's EB students uh in STARs 3-8 is one indicator uh uh where AM STAR 3-8 is a separate indicator. So, uh just wanted to make sure that you all had easy access to what all
051are what are all of the 22 indicators that will be evaluated under domain 3B. So, the really new part and what I think is really exciting just in terms of one being able to integrate two somewhat currently disparate accountability systems, make sure that district leaders have one comprehensive picture. I think it's also really an opportunity as to elevate both the strengths and needs of different programs within a district uh designed to support vulnerable student populations is really how will this be calculated. So, in the updated framework, we outline and of course I'll talk through today. Within that updated framework, 22 indicators are scored and those indicators are grouped into four different program areas. So, bilingual program area which has 10 indicators or up to 10 indicators, special education program area which has six indicators, homeless
052program area which has three indicators, and the foster program area which also has three indicators. A district will receive a score for each of those. So, the bilingual score, the sped score, the homeless score, and the foster score. Then, we're going to group those into components which are weighted. So, your bilingual score will translate into the bilingual component and that accounts for 33% of the district's domain 3B score. Same for the sped program score. So, the sped score translates into the sped component and that accounts for 33% of the domain 3B score. And then homeless and foster are combined into a homeless and foster component which also account for 33% of the domain 3B score. And the reason that those two are combined really comes out of stakeholder feedback. One just recognizing that in most
053districts the homeless and foster population is significantly smaller than bilingual or sped populations. And then also looking at just the number of indicators with each only have three indicators. It It just made more sense for us, but look forward to your to your feedback if you feel differently in terms of grouping those six indicators together as a combined homeless and foster component. One question we have received that I just wanted to answer is so what happens if a district does not meet minimum size for any indicators within a component. So for example, it is possible in a small district to add that you do not meet minimum size for any of the indicators either in homeless or foster. If that is the case, then the weight of the other components will be adjusted. So again,
054if you did not have any indicator scored for homeless or foster, then the bilingual component would become 50% of the domain 3B score split evenly with the sped component, which would become 50% of the domain 3B score. So updates to the framework in domain three include some additional pathways for campuses to earn points. Lots of information today on that two-point scoring one and two-point scoring both for new campuses and non-new campuses. And then we're really excited about integrating RDA into the A-F system for a cohesive and really streamlined picture of district performance as domain 3B. So again, just to highlight the blue text within the preliminary framework, the orange text just to summarize again uh is uh an update to sense the preliminary framework that's included in the updated framework. Uh and so the first
055item is new campus scoring, so that district proxy for prior year data for one or two points. And then the update is for AECs leveraging the AEC average rather than the district or state average within domain three scoring. Again, that is pending US Department of Education. The safe harbor provision, um again expands that two-point scoring to be used in domain three eight calculations. Uh and as of now, we that is not applied to federal school improvement identifications. However, that is something that we are seeking, so definitely stay tuned. A brand new addition is the results of small numbers analysis included as as prior year data for one or two points. So again, if you were evaluated in the prior year using small numbers analysis, the results of that being used as your prior year data
056for that one or two point scoring within domain three. And then for districts only, the addition of part B special populations program outcomes, which is the integration of RDA to account for 30% of domain three ratings for districts. So domain three is still 30%, but split 70% domain 3A or campus proportional roll up and domain 3B special populations programs outcomes. In our last few minutes, we also wanted to touch briefly on a few additional pieces of information that are within the updated framework. So the first is really related to distinction designations. And again, we had four hours in the fall for each of these and today just want to provide the updates. So if you have questions about distinction designations, either how they work generally or what are the contents of the preliminary framework related
057to distinction designations, we encourage you to take a look at fall webinar two. But the update for the updated framework is the addition of on-ramps. Um, in the advanced dual credit course completion indicator within academic achievement distinction designations. So we received feedback that on-ramps is a dual credit pathway, but it is not recognized within the advanced dual credit course completion. So in the updated framework, it it is added and so it incorporates on-ramps into that existing indicator and really recognizes on-ramps on-ramps as a dual credit pathway, which of course it is. And then the data that will be used is via PEIMS. So really looking at was high school credit earned in the same way we look at high school credit earned for AP or other dual credit pathways within this advanced dual credit course
058completion indicator. So in addition to the proposed method method I can really can't say that word, methodological changes, the updated framework contains additional legislative updates that will be implemented prior to 2028. So again, these are included in the updated framework, but we just wanted to flag that some of these also apply prior to 2028. So an example of this is opportunities for LEAs to correct prior year CCMR PEIMS errors as part of the CCMR verifier process. So we do have a guidance document that was released back in February and that applies to 2026 or post 2026 does not have a thing, but starting in 2026 accountability calculations. Uh, another update uh, that applies prior to 2028 is that adult education high school charter programs are to be evaluated using uh, a um, uh, performance framework
059specific to those programs. Uh, and then there are two updates related to uh, CDC numbers. Uh, so one uh, is that that timeline is moved a bit earlier from September 1st to May 31st. Uh, that is in the 2027 manual and then applies to the 2027-28 school year. Uh, and then the last is that when a campus is closed, uh, the rating history and consecutive counts may be linked to other campuses within the LEA to which students are reassigned. Uh, and so if you are looking at um, uh, you know, reconfiguring uh, existing campuses, uh, opening uh, new campuses, we definitely encourage you to reach out to the AS TED team uh, to really understand any implications. The last item that we just wanted to highlight uh, was that in uh, House Bill 8 it
060outlined um, uh, that the agency needed to pursue a waiver um, specific to schools uh, in which 90% or more of the students served at that school have significant cognitive disabilities. Uh, so we have put that waiver request in uh, and then any requirements that are granted um, uh, will will be applied in 2028. Um, so again uh, more information forthcoming. Two other big pieces of feedback that we've received um, uh, grouped uh, uh, is that first um, stakeholders have shared feedback on other information uh, that they want to be considered as part of A-F. Um, an example of that would be early literacy assessments or extracurricular offerings and engagement. Um so that also is included in House Bill 8 uh that the agency is required uh to have an optional way for districts uh
061to submit um specific information. Those are two examples. Uh and then that information uh is to be displayed um on texasschools.gov. So not impacting accountability ratings and it is optional for districts um uh but displayed on texasschools.gov uh and really an opportunity for you to show off all of the things uh that you are really proud of uh within your uh school or district community. Uh so we are currently working on that. Um as it does not impact accountability ratings, that information uh will be made available after the adoption of um the 2028 accountability rating system manual. Uh so again, definitely stay tuned. Uh the last piece of feedback uh that we've heard from stakeholders uh that we wanted to talk about today is that some stakeholders have shared a desire for additional local priorities
062to be reflected in accountability systems. Um so House Bill 8 outlines a required grant for local accountability systems. Uh and so if that is something you are interested in pursuing, uh definitely stay tuned. Uh more information is coming uh very soon from across the agency uh to ensure that if that is something you want to pursue, uh there are grants available uh and the processes will be outlined um for you to understand how to do that. So as we close out today, I wanted to put all of it together. Um again, in August we released everything that was in the blue text, those preliminary um proposals uh that were outlined in the fall refresh road show. Uh and then the orange text indicates new updates that we had jumped into today uh to the framework
063either based on House Bill 8 or other legislative updates or feedback from you all. So, one, if you submitted feedback, thank you. We greatly appreciate that and and and just appreciate your ongoing engagement. We also know this is an incredibly busy time of year for you all and so appreciate you taking the time out to be here today to join us. As we close out, we wanted to name some additional resources. We know this was only 1 hour, so again, 4 hours worth of content on the preliminary framework are available to you on the accountability system development webpage. In addition to that, we also have made available TAG meeting decks and minutes that you can review. You also, of course, have access to the 2028 system framework where everything we talked about today is written
064out and then again, that stakeholder feedback and adjustment form. The last thing that we wanted to share is one-pager slides which are included in your slide deck for today, which include a one-sentence summary of each proposal, data on the anticipated impact, and then why that change was made. So, if you're responsible for turning in this information or just someone who likes to have a one-pager, we made those available to you as well. And then on those slides, a star indicates an update from the preliminary framework. So again, thank you for taking the time out to be here with us today. We're going to drop the feedback form in the chat. I promise you I read every single comment. We'll be repeating this webinar on today's Tuesday, on Thursday, and so appreciate you all helping me
065get better, and appreciate you being here today. So, please take a moment to fill out your exit ticket or feedback form. This webinar will be posted again uh, by by the end of next week at the latest, hopefully even sooner than that. Uh, and just appreciate you being here today. Um, have a great rest of your week.