001Good morning everyone. Uh and welcome. It's 10:00 on my clock, so we'll go ahead and get started. Uh we appreciate you all being here as we learn together about differential weighting of CCMR for a 2031 implementation. I My name is Katie Judkins. I am the director of performance reporting policy and communications here at TEA. I'm also joined today by Catherine Beck, who is our senior division director for performance reporting, as well as Valerie Landry, who is the division director for our college, career, and military preparation division. We also have a number of teammates in the Q&A today, both from performance reporting and college career military prep. Uh so the Q&A is open should you have any questions. Um if you joined us in the fall edition of the refresh roadshow, you learned all about the
002preliminary framework that was released back in August for the 2028 refresh. We recently released the updated 2028 A-F refresh framework and are excited today to continue messaging and communication about the contents of that. So our agenda for today is really to dig into what does CCMR look like in the 2028 refresh. Valerie will share a little bit about overarching programmatic goals for college, career, and military readiness. We'll share the proposed framework for differential weighting, as well as the research that really correlates, excuse [clears throat] me, each of our CCMR indicators to postsecondary outcomes, and then finally close out with some next steps and additional learning opportunities. Our focus today is really on differential weighting of CCMR to be implemented in 2031. I will note that the entire framework is available now on the accountability system
003development webpage. So if you haven't checked that out, we definitely encourage you to do so um not only to answer any outstanding questions you may have about differential weighting of CCMR, but any of the other contents of the 2028 refresh as well. And then also just to note both the recording from today and the deck will be shared no later than the end of next week. So just to note the resources that we are using today will also be shared. So I want to talk just a little bit about the purpose of A-F. And really it comes down to we are all here, we are all educators because we believe that our students can both learn and achieve at high levels. And for those of us engaged in the K-12 system or pre-K-12 system, our
004goal is really to prepare students for college, career, and military readiness. We want to ensure that they leave our systems adequately prepared to make choices about how they want to spend the rest of their lives, and it's our job to really get them the tools, and knowledge, and resources that they need to do that effectively. We also have clear research that shows us that when we monitor performance with school ratings, it has long-term benefits for students. So when there is a pressure put on schools to avoid low performance ratings, we see that students in those schools not only perform better while they're in school, but they have stronger postsecondary outcomes both in terms of college graduation and higher earnings at 25. So today I don't want to really think about how do we avoid a
005low performance rating, but how do we really ensure that your system is set up for success in 2031 for the differential weighting of CCMR implementation to ensure that you are achieving the performance rating that that is really aligned with your system's goals. We also know that state law requires us and and really provides us the opportunity to ensure that A-F is a tool to drive continuous improvement for students. And so throughout A-F, we really have both the requirement and the goal to ensure that the system continuously improve student performance, eliminate achievement gaps, particularly those based on race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status, and then also that we ensure that Texas is a national leader in preparing students for postsecondary success. So our focus is really that last bullet in how are we preparing students for postsecondary
006success, and how are we measuring that both in 2028 and then in 2031 with the implementation of differential weighting of CCMR. We recognize this is a a big change. There's a lot to take in, and so today is really geared towards being an introduction. Start wrapping your head around it, learn about other tools and resources that are available to you now and in the coming months to ensure that you're really able to make the shifts that you might need to make at your system level to ensure that you are preparing students for postsecondary success and are again really achieving the performance rating that you want for your system. So wanted to name again back in August we released the preliminary framework. We since then have made adjustments to the framework both due to legislative updates,
007namely House Bill 8, which we'll discuss a little bit later today, and then also due to stakeholder feedback. And so our updates to the 2028 A-F accountability system framework really reflect both the legislative updates that we're required to make and the stakeholder feedback that we were able to make based on what you all shared with us through the stakeholder feedback form on the preliminary framework. So our hope today is that you're able to see one small snippet of the updates to the 2028 A-F accountability system framework, and really are able to start internalizing what what are the statutory requirements related to CCMR differential weighting of CCMR, and then how have we also incorporated stakeholder feedback to ensure that your needs are met. Before we kick off, I do want to name just where we see
008CCMR throughout the accountability system. So of course in the accountability system, the A-F system, we have three domains. Domain one is the student achievement domain. Domain two is the school progress domain, where we're really measuring school progress. And then domain three is the closing the gaps domain, where we look at both growth and achievement for specialized subgroups of students. CCMR is reflected in all three domains. And then of course, 70% of your overall score is going to come from the better of achievement or progress, so domain one or two, and then 30% comes again from the closing the gaps domain. This is unchanged in the updated framework. So this very high level how calculations are done is unchanged, and CCMR continues to be reflected in all three domains. So in the student achievement domain for
009high schools and K-12s that have a CCMR rating, CCMR accounts for 40% of their overall domain one student achievement score. Here you can see for the 2028 refresh each of the indicators. Again, don't worry, this slide will be shared with you, and they're grouped by college readiness, career readiness, and military readiness. And again in domain one, CCMR accounts for 40% of a high school or K-12's overall score. In domain two, we measure CCMR within domain two part B or relative performance. And so again, we look at your overall CCMR component score. That is compared to campuses with a similar percentage of economically disadvantaged students, and then that produces your domain two B relative performance score. And then last, but certainly not least, in domain three, we measure a number of components by four different specialized
010groups of students. So your first group of students is all students. The second two groups of students are your two lowest performing racial or ethnicity groups from the prior year. And then the fourth group of students that we look at is your high focus group. For again [clears throat] for high schools and K-12s, the school quality, which measures CCMR for both graduates and students that were reported in grade 12, that accounts for 30% of your overall domain three score. I'm now going to pass it over to Valerie, our CCMP division director, to talk a little bit about programmatic goals and intended outcomes for CCMR, kind of centering us in why all of this matters so much and why CCMR is reflected so heavily in the accountability system, as well as some of the updates that
011have been made in order to support CCMR in prior years. All right. Thanks, Katie. Good morning, everyone. I know that often when there are changes in accountability or in the system, that that often triggers questions about how school systems are going to rise up and meet or exceed those new standards. However, I want everyone to ground in the fact that programmatically our focus has not changed. Our goal is still to create opportunity ready students for the future that they decide. As our schools work to prepare students for this ever-changing workforce, there's been an intentional shift in college, career, and military readiness from that long-standing college for all students mindset to really a broader and more inclusive vision of career readiness for all students. This shift really recognizes that students pursue a wide range of postsecondary
012pathways and that success is no longer defined by a single destination, but really by readiness for meaningful and sustainable opportunities after high school. So, career readiness for all does not diminish the importance of college. Instead, it really elevates the expectation that every student graduates with a clear, viable next step aligned to their goals. Within this framework, college readiness, career readiness, and military readiness are treated as equal and intentional, valued outcomes in creating opportunity-ready students. So, this really reinforces the importance of offering multiple, high-quality pathways while maintaining the rigor and alignment across them. So, advanced academics and CTE leaders, you play an incredibly important role in making sure that these pathways are not just available to students, but they're really coherent and meaningful for students. And by centering on that career readiness for all mentality, we
013really establish a clear vision that honors student choice, it strengthens postsecondary outcomes, and it better prepares our graduates for the state's evolving workforce and higher education landscape. When we talk about career readiness we and college readiness, if we start with that college readiness um what really anchors us in college readiness, it is that TSI. So, within that broader vision, it's really important to be clear about what college readiness specifically means. See, in Texas, college readiness is not an aspiration or a signal of intent to enroll in college, but it's really rather this demonstrated standard. And a lot of the changes that have happened in college readiness um are really at that core. Ensuring that students are able to demonstrate and enter uh college being successful in their first credit-bearing college coursework without the need for
014remediation. And that is really where the Texas Success Initiative or TSI anchors us. It serves as the state's formal framework for defining and measuring that readiness. So, it's embedded in statute and that TSI outlines the skills and competencies that students must demonstrate prior to enrollment in college and that freshman-level coursework. And because it provides a common, statewide standard aligned to college-level expectation, TSI really remains the most reliable indicator of student success in their first college-level coursework. And you see that play out throughout the accountability system. That same level of clarity and intentionality also applies to our career and military readiness um continuum. We want to make sure that while college readiness is anchored in coursework without remediation, career and military readiness are anchored in successful transition beyond high school, no matter what that pathway might
015be. So, career and military pathways are designed to ensure that students graduate with validated, transferable skills that are aligned to real workforce and military expectation and that they carry value beyond the K-12 system. So, these pathways must be structured and connected in ways that link coursework, credentials, and applied learning so that students are prepared for what comes next after high school. This is where industry-based certification tiering becomes a critical design tool for districts. See, tiering differentiates certification based on depth, rigor, and postsecondary value, and it really helps districts to understand which credentials are most likely to support entry into high-skill, high-wage, or high-demand pathways for students. And that IBC tiering is not about limiting options, it's really about intentional design. It supports districts in aligning credentials to coursework, industry standard, and labor market demand and
016in building pathways that lead to increasingly valuable outcomes over time for our students. So, CCMR really prioritizes these student outcomes. And the accountability system and the changes to the tiering really don't change that. Our goal has always been to ensure that students are opportunity-ready upon graduation from high school. So, similar to how TSI anchors college readiness, career and military readiness measures a sig- measures signal a student's likelihood of success after graduation. And as we move towards the 2028 uh A through F refresh, building college, career, and military pathways that carry rigor, credibility, and accountability that ensure our students are on a pathway to postsecondary success are going to be ever more critical for districts as they look in adjusting to these expectations. Thanks, Katie. All right. So, let's dig in to uh the updated 2028
017framework um and specifically again just the CCMR proposals. And we do want to note um that uh if Valerie talked a little bit about some of the changes. Uh so, uh many of you are very familiar uh with the tiered IBC list uh and and honestly, despite these ongoing improvements to CCMR and increased CCMR attainment across the state, uh we are not yet in Texas a top performer nationally for postsecondary outcomes. And we know that our kids can be. So, we really see the 2028 refresh as an opportunity to align what we know Texas graduates are capable of with the accountability processes that evaluate that postsecondary readiness. House Bill 8, which was signed back in September, also provides really clear um definitions of of how CCMR needs to be measured within the accountability framework. And
018so, we want to call out two particular things that were included in House Bill 8 um that we responded to through the updated framework. Uh the first is that TEA was required to conduct a research study to really understand the correlation between postsecondary outcomes for students or graduates, rather, uh and and each individual CCMR indicator. Then, once that relationship or that correlation was really understood, uh we need to ensure that the accountability system really reflects that um with differential weighting of CCMR or assigning different values to CCMR indicators. As I shared, when preparing the updated framework, we both looked at legislative uh requirements and stakeholder feedback. And so, we heard from districts uh and and from many leaders across the state uh that a 2028 implementation of differential weighting uh would be really challenging for
019our schools and districts to be able to respond to, uh which is why in the 2020 framework, there are two distinct methodologies for CCMR. So, CCMR will be measured one way in 2028, 2029, and 2030. That's the accountability year, so that will reflect the the graduating classes of 2027, 2020 uh 2027, 2028, and 2029. Then, in 2031, we'll transition to differential weighting of CCMR. And the methodology that we'll spend a lot of time on today um will apply for 2031 accountability or the graduating class of 2030 and 2032 accountability. Then, in 2033, as we're required as for refresh every 5 years, um we will have the 2033 refresh happening that year. So, this slide is really intended and we'll dig more into kind of both both uh uh methodologies of CCMR, uh but this slide
020is really intended to provide a comprehensive picture of what you can expect from 2027 all the way into 2023. So, we do want to name for 2027 accountability um uh just that note that the completer status is required uh for industry-based certification. So, in order for a student to earn um a CCMR, they both need to earn uh the IBC and then also be a completer in a aligned program of study. That will carry through over into 2028 um uh where we will see um that IBC list version 4 applied with a 5% cap on tier 3 IBCs, a new military readiness indicator, which we'll talk about in just a moment. Um of course, the approved list uh requirement for college prep courses. Uh and then with the 2028 refresh, we will also see updated
021cut points for CCMR. So, again, that 2028 methodology will apply for 2028, 2029, and in 2030. Uh in 2030, uh we'll talk more about the IBC list updates in just a moment as well, uh but the only change for 2030 is uh a new IBC list version published. Again, in 2031 we'll shift to differential weighting of CCMR, which is what most of our time will be spent on today. Uh but wanted to just provide this comprehensive picture of uh all the things coming uh for CCMR in the A-F system uh over the next several years. So, we first want to talk a little bit about this new military readiness indicator for CCMR, uh which is also a requirement coming out of House Bill 8. So, there are two parts to this military readiness indicator. The
022first part is that a student must complete, pass, and receive credit for at least three JROTC courses. The second part is that they need to receive a qualifying score on what's called the AFQT or Armed Forces Qualifying Test. We'll talk about that in just a moment, but the AFQT is four tests out of the ASVAB, um uh and students will need to receive a qualifying score in combination with three at least three JROTC course credits in order to earn this military readiness indicator. You can see here that JROTC is not a program of study. It is a military readiness program. Uh so, we wanted to be sure to just name that. We know that there has been um some confusion and completing a program uh can sound a lot like being a completer in a
023program of study, but these are two distinct um entities. Uh and JROTC is a military readiness program. We also want to name that while JROTC is federally authorized, uh the National Defense Cadet Corps or NDCC programs can also fulfill this requirement. So, the ASVAB um House Bill 8 explicitly names the ASVAB. And so, the ASVAB, of course, is uh a number of assessments, a battery of assessments, um that really measures uh both academic readiness to join the military, and then also many, many specialized skills uh that can help inform uh career placement within the military. So, for our purposes, we're really going to be looking at what is called the AFQT or again, the Armed Forces Qualifying Test. Uh and that is four subtests uh that come from the complete battery of the ASVAB. You
024can see here uh that the minimum AFQT score for high school graduates is generally 31. Um uh that is aligned uh to a uh category 3B AFQT score, uh which is between a 31 and a 49. And those AFQT scores really are a signal to the military of what type of career opportunities uh might be best fitted uh best fit for the student uh or graduate who ultimately enlists in the military. So, um for us, we are looking at a in 2028, a minimum score of a 31, again, because that's what the military is looking at as the minimum score uh allowable in order for someone to enlist uh in most of the Armed Forces. We also just want to note that districts will be responsible for acquiring AFQT scores. So, that could be directly
025from the student um or through partnership with what are called Military Entrance Processing Stations or METs. Uh and this will be an upload through the PEIMS Summer Submission uh starting in the 2026-2027 school year. So, again, for 2028, 2029, and 2030, there are updates to the preliminary framework. Uh so, that new military readiness that we uh indicator that we just discussed, which is the combination of uh uh completing a JROTC program with at least three credits and receiving a minimum score of 31 on the AFQT. We also um have another new update uh to the framework um uh that was published uh a little bit earlier this month. And that is some uh specifications around increased reliability for IBC list updates. Uh so, this is both outlined um in in House Bill 8 and is
026something that we have heard from our stakeholders as well. And so, what this means is that the IBC list is to be updated every 5 years, uh and that will happen in conjunction with an accountability refresh. The other benefit is that students who have already started a program of study can benefit from that for three additional years. So, for example, if a student begins CTE coursework uh aligned to an IBC that is a Tier 2 on list version 4 as a ninth grader in this coming fall, when IBC list version 5 is published in 2028, let's say that IBC is no longer included on the list. But since that student has already begun coursework, they could still earn CCMR, of course, assuming they were a CTE completer and an IBC earner when they graduate in
0272030 or reflected on 2031 accountability with that Tier 2 IBC from list version 4. So, those three years of benefits would be 2030, 2031, and 2032. So, again, if a student has already begun coursework, they can continue to benefit from that coursework for three additional years. We also have included in both the preliminary framework and in the updated framework, so no changes here, the proposal for within indicator weighting of IBCs. And so, what that means is that a cap of whatever is greater between 5% or five students can earn CCMR through a Tier 3 IBC. And then the last item that was both reflected in the updated and preliminary framework is the requirement of college prep courses uh can only earn CCMR through an uh um uh a course that is on the agency approved
028list. So, uh for 2028, 2029, and 2030 accountability, again, just really want to highlight uh the two new um updates, the military readiness indicator and the increased reliability for IBC list updates. And then those two items that were also included in the preliminary framework that are unchanged, that is the within indicator weighting of IBCs and the college prep course requirement to be from an agency approved list. Here you can see um uh so, the IBC list will be refreshed uh on a more predictable cadence. Again, this increased reliability of the IBC list. Uh so, we anticipate a list version 5 being available in June of 2028. And then you can see that students um can continue to benefit from list version 4, those students that have already begun aligned coursework um in 2030 accountability, 2031
029accountability, and 2032 accountability. Then, when we transition to the 2033 refresh, we will also make a full transition to list version 5. Uh so, once again, wanted to just name these slides will be made available um uh so, uh I know there are many who want to study uh when these new um list versions of the IBC list are coming out, um but you can count on just that increased reliability and that extended benefit uh should an IBC come off the list or potentially if an IBC uh changed tiers from list version 5 4 to list version 5 or potentially list version 6. So, let's transition to talk about what CCMR will look like in 2031. And in 2031, differential weighting of CCMR uh methodology will be applied in all accountability calculations. So, we are
030excited that this framework is being shared more than 5 years before ratings will actually reflect differential weighting of CCMR. And we do want to note that for the most part, um students who will be rated under this new methodology will begin high school this coming fall. So, they are currently in eighth grade uh and in ninth grade uh ninth grade they'll start 2026-2027. They will graduate in 2029-2030 uh and then will be evaluated on 2031 accountability. Of course, uh in in domains 1 and 2B, uh we rate uh annual graduates rather than a particular cohort of students. So, there will be some exceptions to this. But most students who will be um evaluated under CCMR in 2031 will start high school this fall. So, at the beginning of this section, we talked about uh the
031requirement uh that TEA conducted uh a study to really understand the correlation between uh each individual CCMR indicator and their its correlation to positive postsecondary outcomes. And so, we did complete an internal study, and we also leveraged an external study. Um and while both of these studies measured slightly different things, we saw some pretty similar results. So, just to note, as you're kind of orienting yourselves to all the data that was collected, uh in the internal study, we looked at the value of college readiness indicators as measured by first-year college GPA and second-year persistence. And then for career readiness indicators, we really looked at first-year wages and how those who earned certain indicators differed from those who did not earn those indicators. The external study also um uh looked at the value of college readiness
032indicators. And that study looked at direct to college enrollment, persistence, and the need for developmental education. That study also studied the degree completion within 6 years of high school graduation. And then on the career readiness indicators looked at self-sustaining wage and family-sustaining wage a little bit longer term and looking at 6 years post high school graduation. So when the results were both of these were studied, we saw some really clear um results that some indicators are more valuable to graduates than others in both the short and in long term. So Valerie spoke a little bit about TSI, and the data was really clear that graduates who earned TSI through ACT, SAT, or TSIA achieved the highest outcomes in postsecondary learning institutions. We also saw that graduates who have earned the potential to gain college credit
033while in high school through either through dual credit pathways, AP, or IB assessments showed improved postsecondary performance. And that was really true irrespective of the number of potential college credit earned as well as the type of college credit earned. We also had really clear data that graduates who earned TSI through college prep courses showed the lowest postsecondary performance. So those were the really clear trends that we were able to gather from college readiness indicators and their correlation to postsecondary outcomes. For career readiness indicators, graduates who earned a level >> [clears throat] >> Excuse me, one or two certificate and those who earned a tier one IBC were most likely to see increased earnings after high school. We did see some variance for our indicators that are unique to students with special education. And then we
034also saw that students who are graduates who earned a tier three IBC earned only marginally higher income after after high school. For military readiness, of course, this is a new indicator for us both the opportunity to really report JROTC completion and we have not yet begun collecting AFQT scores. But we do know that graduates who earn higher AFQT scores have increased opportunities and job placement within the military. We also know that graduates who earned three or more credits in JROTC have the potential to enlist at a higher rank, which impacts both base pay and benefits. So when we looked at you know sort of holistically all the data and all the information that was collected, we then started to group indicators based on those that hold a higher value for students. Those also hold a
035higher value within the accountability framework. And really specifically based on that comparative value in postsecondary success, each indicator is proposed to be grouped into a postsecondary readiness level. So there are three postsecondary readiness levels outlined in the updated 2020 framework. Foundational postsecondary readiness, demonstrated postsecondary readiness, and advanced postsecondary readiness. And again, each of those are based on their positive correlation to postsecondary outcomes whether that's higher education outcomes, career outcomes, or military outcomes. Each graduate is proposed to receive one postsecondary readiness level either foundational, demonstrated, or advanced postsecondary postsecondary readiness dependent on the indicators that they achieved. So let's dig in a little bit to the data that really informed where each indicator is valued or placed in a postsecondary readiness level. And I want to orient you a little bit to the slide. The next
036couple of slides have a lot of data on them. So on the far left you can see the postsecondary readiness level whether that's advanced, demonstrated, or foundational. The next column you can see the indicators. And I will note that these indicators these are specific to college readiness indicators. And each of these is really ordered in terms of which of those had the highest positive postsecondary outcomes to which of those had the smallest correlation to positive postsecondary outcomes. Then you can see results from the internal study again where we're looking at average first-year GPA and the percent of students that persisted into their second year of of higher education. And then lastly, the last two columns demonstrate the results from the external study which really looked at both college enrollment and degree or credential completion. So
037as you can see the what had the highest correlation to positive positive postsecondary outcomes were the first row there is OnRamps and TSI. And so this indicates this is an indicator of students who earned at least three college credit hours in any subject via OnRamps. And also students who were TSI so had completed or had achieved TSI either through SAT, ACT, or TSIA in both math and reading. And you can see that their average first-year GPA was a 3.17 and 91% of those students persisted into their second year. Results are identical actually for students who met criterion on an AP or IB exam who were also TSI. Again, that is any subject exam also had that first-year GPA of 3.17 and 91% persistence into their second year. We also see dual credit listed in in
038the advanced postsecondary readiness level as well as an associate's degree. Demonstrated then is TSI math and reading. So of course to be TSI a student needs to meet in both math and reading. And this is specifically through ACT, SAT, or TSIA. And those students also demonstrate or or those indicators are also correlated to positive postsecondary outcomes. >> [snorts] >> Then in the foundational readiness level, we see OnRamps, AP, IB, and dual credit. Again, all of these are for any subject. We did not see strong data that really said it has to be math or reading or the number of credits. But students who participated in and earned credit either via OnRamps, AP, or AP, IB, or dual credit. The difference there between foundational and advanced is whether or not those students were TSI. And you
039can see a pretty big difference both in terms of first-year GPA and second-year persistence. The last college readiness indicator that had sort of the weakest correlation to positive postsecondary outcome is meeting TSI through college prep courses. So that is all of the data that has been collected both from our internal study and external study that really guided us and and helped us understand the value of each indicator on postsecondary success for Texas graduates. I also wanted note again if if you've been following really closely kind of the evolution of differential weighting of CCMR, we we initially thought that the number of credit hours would make a big difference or the type of credit hours would make a big difference. And again, it really is whether or not the student met TSI is the differentiator in
040terms of that student's or that graduate's graduate's postsecondary outcomes. So here is all the data that we collected on that front. A lot of available for dual credit. But for OnRamps we can see a pretty stark difference both in terms of GPA GPA and second-year persistence for those students who did not or did meet TSI. So for a student who earned three credits of OnRamps, if they were not TSI their average first-year GPA was a 2.65 versus a 3.17 for those students that did meet TSI requirements. And their second-year persistence for those who did not meet TSI was a 75% versus 91% for those students who did meet TSI. So again, TSI really appears to be sort of that linchpin that really lets us really signals a student's preparedness and really has the strongest correlation
041to postsecondary outcomes in terms of their success in institutes of higher education. Let's shift gears a little bit and look at the comparative value of career readiness indicators. So here in this slide is set up in exactly the same way. So you have the postsecondary readiness level, each individual each individual indicator, and then the results from the internal study where we looked at the average change in first-year wages, and then where available results from the external study uh where they looked at a self-sustaining wage 6 years after high school graduation, um a family-sustaining wage 6 years after high school graduation, and then the estimated difference in salary, um 6 years post high school graduation. So, here you can see that for Tier 1 IBCs, um for students who are also a CTE completer, um the
042average first-year wage for those students is close to $7,000 higher than students who did not earn a Tier 1 IBC. Uh and then for those that earned a Level 1 or Level 2 certificate, um it's about $5,700 higher in their first year um of earnings post high school graduation. In the demonstrated category, um we see uh Tier 2 IBCs with CTE completer, um sped advanced diploma, so those students who have received certain diploma types uh and are students of special education um services, and then of course our students who have earned a workforce ready IEP. Um and as I noted, we see a little bit um of variance with our special education specific indicators, largely due to just uh sample size of those students. Um but all three of those um are in the demonstrated
043category. And then for foundational, again, we see um marginally higher earnings for students who have earned Tier 3 IBCs. Lastly, let's look at our military readiness indicators. Uh and as I named, we don't yet have a wide range of data available for these indicators as we have not yet started collecting it. And so, what we did is we really took a look at other states uh who have um implemented differential weighting of CCMR and how military readiness requirements are uh really weighted within their systems. We also took a look at um the AFQT category. So, you may recall um uh that in order to be eligible to enlist at all, you need to earn a 31, which is a Category 3B AFQT score. Uh so, a 31 to 49 is a Category 3B AFQT score,
044where a 50 to 64 is a Category 3A AFQT score, and then 65 or above is a Category 2 AFQT score. Uh and you can see here that a number of states, Florida, Mississippi, Wyoming, and Virginia, as well as a few others, uh both have normed on uh the minimum requirement really being that 31, given that that is required for military enlistment. Uh and then higher scores, which again open up additional opportunities within the military, um are weighted more heavily. So, when we put all of that data together, um each indicator is valued based on its correlated value to positive postsecondary outcomes, and then again is grouped into one of these three postsecondary readiness levels, whether that's foundational, demonstrated, or advanced postsecondary readiness. So, um we'll spend a little bit of time here. I know
045there's a lot to take in on this slide. Uh and so, uh let's start with foundational postsecondary readiness. Again, as data indicated, um those foundational postsecondary readiness, um we see meet TSI using an improved college prep course. And that means either through math or reading. So, if a student earns um TSI through SAT math, um but then uh college prep course for reading, uh that student is in foundational postsecondary readiness. We also have three pathways by which a student has the potential to earn college credit. Those are AP/IB, meeting the criteria on an AP or IB exam, uh 3 hours of on-ramps, or 3 hours of dual credit. We do want to note that we've chosen to label this as the potential to earn college credit, because they certainly do have the potential to earn
046college credit in any one of these pathways. However, uh credit being awarded and how much credit is awarded is really dependent on the institution that that student um or graduate chooses to attend, um what their score was, um uh what degree they're pursuing, etc. And so, we, you know, can be very confident that we have queued them up for success and they have the potential to earn that college credit, um but uh eventually whether or not college credit is awarded uh is up to the institution of higher education. So, those are the college readiness indicators within foundational postsecondary readiness. And then our career indicator um is CTE completer with an aligned Tier 3 IBC. And then the military readiness indicator is JROTC completion and a score between 31 and 49 on the AFQT. Shifting over
047to the demonstrated postsecondary readiness category, um we see students um meeting TSI using SAT or ACT or TSIA, and it can also be a combination of those. So, if a student meets math through SAT and RLA through ACT, that is completely fine as long as uh both math and reading are through one of those three assessments. When we start to look at the career readiness indicators under demonstrated postsecondary readiness, we see CTE completer with an aligned Tier 2 IBC. Again, really driven by data on um uh uh earnings out of high school for students who earned a Tier 2 versus a Tier 1 being in foundational postsecondary readiness. I'm sorry, a Tier 3 being in foundational postsecondary readiness. Um we also have our two special education specific indicators, our sped advanced diploma and workforce ready
048IEP diploma. And then our military readiness indicator, which is JROTC completion and a score between a 50 and a 64, or those Category 3A scores on the AFQT. In advanced postsecondary readiness, um we see um associate's degree, which has uh strong outcomes both for college and career um uh indicators. Uh we also have meeting TSI using SAT or ACT or TSIA or a combination of those, as well as the potential for earning college credit through AP/IB, on-ramps, or dual credit. Um for career indicators, we see Level 1 or Level 2 certificates, or CTE completer with an aligned Tier 1 IBC. Um we also have military enlistment, so that is um uh in the advanced postsecondary readiness category. And then JROTC completion and a score of 65 or higher on the AFQT. Uh so, of course
049there are students who enlist without ever engaging with JROTC, they are in advanced postsecondary readiness. Or in this case, a student could complete their JROTC program and receive a 65 or higher um on the AFQT. Perhaps that student chooses not to enlist, they are also in advanced postsecondary readiness. So, I want to give a couple examples, uh more than a couple actually. I know there's a there's a a lot to process with all of this, so we wanted to provide ample examples. Uh and this first group are student examples of varying college readiness pathways. Uh and again, this is effective for the class of 2030. So, student A, you can see while they were an 11th grader, earns TSI RLA using the TSIA. And then as a 12th grade grader, earns TSI math, also using
050TSIA. So, that student falls into the demonstrated postsecondary readiness level, because they earned TSI through TSIA. Student B, you can see also earns TSI math uh using the TSIA. And as an 11th grader, also earned 3 hours of dual credit. It does not matter what um uh subject those are in, that student earned 3 hours of dual credit. Then as a senior, they earned TSI RLA using the ACT. So, again, we can combine across SAT, ACT, or TSIA. And in this case, the student um lands in advanced postsecondary readiness, because they earned TSIA through both TSI I'm sorry, they earned TSI through both TSIA and ACT, and then also earned 3 hours of dual credit. Student C, um uh meets uh TSI using math using TSIA, and then also earned 3 hours of dual credit.
051However, as a 12th grader, this student earns TSI RLA using college prep. So, because college prep um is uh now in the mix, that student is in the foundational postsecondary readiness level. So, again, in order to meet demonstrated or advanced, TSI needs to be met through TSIA, ACT, or SAT. In this case, student C, they earned TSI RLA using college prep, so they are in foundational postsecondary readiness. Um student D, as a ninth grader, they also could have earned it prior to ninth grade, um but as a ninth grader, earns a four on the AP Spanish language exam. Again, we're not really looking at what subject, but this student met criteria and actually exceeded criteria um on an AP or IB exam as a ninth grader. Then, as an 11th grader, the student earns TSI
052math using the SAT. This student did not meet criteria for TSI because they did not earn both RLA and math, and so this student is in foundational postsecondary readiness because they earned that potential for college credit by meeting criteria on an AP exam. Had this student also met TSI RLA using ACT, SAT, or TSIA, they would have been in advanced postsecondary readiness um because they did not meet uh TSI criteria in both math and reading, um uh they're at foundational postsecondary readiness. And then student E um uh uh took a number of different courses uh aligned at to to um definitely had an interest in business, which is great. We hope the student enjoyed all of those courses. Uh as an 11th grader, they also earned a TSI RLA using the SAT, and then as
053a 12th grader earned 3 hours of college credit. And so this student is at foundational postsecondary readiness uh because again of that potential for college credit um uh uh through dual credit. So they were not a completer, we don't see an IBC listed here. Uh they did not complete both RLA and math for TSI, but they did earn that 3 hours of dual credit, so they are at foundational postsecondary readiness. To take a look at um some career readiness pathways, um so student F uh you can see is a completer uh uh and also earned a tier three IBC. And so this student, because they're at a tier three, earned a tier three IBC and were and completed in an aligned program of study, that student is at foundational postsecondary readiness. Student G completed uh
054uh I'm sorry, earned a tier two IBC and then completed the aligned program of study, so they are at demonstrated postsecondary readiness. And then student H earned a tier one IBC and completed the aligned program of study, so they are in advanced postsecondary readiness. Of course, the other thing um really aligned to career readiness that could have earned advanced postsecondary readiness uh would have been that level one or level two certificate. And let's take a look also at some military readiness pathways. Uh so student I, um I'm sure did a lot of great things in high school, um but not all aligned to CCMR indicators. Um but following grade 12, uh that student enlisted in the US Marines. So that student is at advanced postsecondary readiness because they enlisted. Student J completed um uh four
055JROTC courses, so JROTC 1, 2, 3, and 4, and then had an AFQT score of 52. So because that's between a 50 and 64, and they completed that JROTC program, that student is at demonstrated postsecondary readiness. Student K also completed a JROTC program. Again, that's uh three credits is required for the military uh preparation program, so they uh earned credit for JROTC 1, 2, and 3, and then their AFQT score was at a 34. So uh score between a 31 and a 49, as well as completing the JROTC program, puts that student at foundational postsecondary readiness. And then student L, our last example, um almost did the exact same thing as student K. So you can see they completed JROTC 1, 2, and 3. They had an AFQT score of 34, but then the student
056enlisted in the US Army. So because they enlisted and earned um that advanced postsecondary readiness indicator, uh that student moved from foundational postsecondary readiness to advanced postsecondary readiness. Uh so an example of uh how JROTC and enlistment could potentially work together. So now that we've taken a look at all of the indicators and their placement, we wanted to share a little bit about how the CCMR calculation methodology will work. And if for those of you familiar with how STAR methodology is done, it's a very similar. So the CCMR raw score will be calculated as the percent of students at foundational and above, added to the percent of students at demonstrated postsecondary readiness and above, and then finally added to the percent of students who are at advanced postsecondary readiness, and we'll divide that by three.
057So in this example, we have an example of a high school with 150 graduates. Um 58 of those graduates earned a foundational postsecondary readiness indicator, 47 earned a an indicator within the demonstrated postsecondary readiness level, and then 33 earned an indicator within the advanced postsecondary readiness level. So to calculate foundational readiness or above, we're going to add all of the students at foundational plus demonstrated plus advanced. So when we add 58, 47, and 33, that is 138 students. So 138 students earned foundational or above, meaning they earned foundational, demonstrated, or advanced, and that's 92% of this graduating class. To look at demonstrated postsecondary readiness or above, we add the demonstrated, those students in demonstrated postsecondary readiness, to those students in advanced postsecondary readiness level. Uh and 47 and 33 is 80, so 53% of this
058graduating class uh earned demonstrated or above. And then finally, advanced postsecondary readiness was 33 students that earned an indicator within the advanced postsecondary readiness level, and so 33 over 150 is 22%. So when we add 92, 53, and 22, and then divide by three, that will be 56. Uh so for this school, their CCMR raw score is 56. So again, to do these calculations, you'll take all of the students who earned foundational postsecondary readiness, demonstrated, or advanced, divided by the total number of students, and that will give you um the points earned for foundational postsecondary readiness or above. For demonstrated postsecondary readiness or above, you add um uh demonstrated and advanced. And then finally, um for advanced postsecondary readiness, we take the number of students that earned an indicator within advanced postsecondary readiness uh divided
059by the total number of [clears throat] graduates. So just to stamp one more time before I pass it uh back over to Valerie to talk a little bit more about, okay, what do we do with all of this? I just want to really stamp that this full weighted methodology for CCMR uh will begin with the 2031 accountability ratings. Again, this is very clearly required by House Bill 8, uh and we wanted to balance that with the stakeholder feedback that we received, uh which is why we have a um a CCMR methodology for 28, 29, and 2030, and then we'll shift for 2031 and 2032. So each of in 2031, each of our CCMR indicators are weighted based on their positive correlation to postsecondary outcomes, and will be calculated as the average percent of students at
060foundational and above, demonstrated or above, and advanced postsecondary readiness. Uh and Valerie, I apologize, we're a little bit short on time. I wanted to make sure uh we really clearly explained all of those things, but I will pass it back over to you. No problem, Katie. We'll do this really quickly. Uh thank you. Several of you have already given great suggestions um about deep dives into CCMP programming, and that is exactly what the team is currently working on and planning. We will um we will kick this off in May, early May. We're going to let you get through uh STAR testing and a little bit of AP testing. And on May 12th and May 14th, we will kick off a college, career, and military programming uh webinar series that will deep dive into each of
061the indicators, kind of broken up by career and military readiness, advanced academics coursework, and college preparation courses and assessments. That will be happening over the course of the next year. Um any suggestions that you have or questions that you want us to deep dive into, we would welcome that feedback at CCMP. You can reach us through any of our uh mailboxes, and we will try to incorporate that information into these deep dives as we look at how do we uh system systematically improve our systems that deliver college, career, and military programming to enhance both student outcomes and accountability outcomes for districts. Katie, I think that covers it all. Thank you. And I do apologize, everyone. Um it looks like we are going to run just a few minutes over. Uh so certainly if you need
062to drop off right at 11, we appreciate you being here. Uh and we'll drop our exit ticket in the chat. Um so definitely appreciate you being here. Got feedback uh that our webinar last week uh felt a little bit too fast, so I wanted to slow down uh and I overcompensated a little bit for that. Uh so uh appreciate you being here if you do need to jump off. Uh, in addition, uh, to additional development available through the CCNP, uh, we also wanted to share with you all that data is going to be made available to school systems to really support you in planning and prioritizing and evaluating your preparedness for the shift to differential weighting of CCMR. So, next spring we'll release 2026 what if scores. So, that means we'll take your 2026 final
063accountability data, uh, and, uh, that will be applied to the 2028 methodology. Uh, and so, you'll be able to receive for the CCMR methodology for 2028 and 29 and 2030, um, both, uh, and and across the system, uh, your scaled scores and, uh, potential domain ratings, uh, as as what if. So, it does not impact your accountability. It is purely meant to be informational for you all. Uh, those will be released, uh, in TEAL, and then once overall ratings published in 2028, uh, those will also be published as part of your change over time. In addition to those 2026 what ifs that you'll also get in 20 for 2027 data, uh, we are also going to release what if differential weighting of CCMR scores. So, we're going to be able to use, um, current, whether
064that's 26, 27, 28, 29, or 2030 data, and then apply the 2031 differential weighting CCMR methodology to calculate your CCMR raw score. So, you will have that, uh, to be able to really understand where are students falling in terms of foundational, demonstrated, or advanced postsecondary readiness, uh, and then also be able to adjust course, again, over the next 5 years, uh, in order to really prepare for 2031 implementation. Again, those scores, uh, will only be released into TEAL, uh, and we will not be making those public from TEA. So, in thinking about what do we do from today to the 2031 implementation, um, we appreciate you being here today, um, to really you know, begin to, internalize indicator weights, um, think about your current offerings, um, against those indicator weights, uh, and begin the strategic
065planning process. Uh, as the class of 2030 enters high school this fall, uh, we encourage you to think about what are the systems you have in place, um, in order to ensure that students, um, are aware of, uh, the different postsecondary readiness levels and are really set up for success to achieve those, uh, and then over the next 5 years, really leveraging your data in order to make the programmatic shifts and shifts to your strategic plan that you need to. Uh, so, again, by providing this framework, um, you know, more than 4 years before implementation, coupled with 5 years of raw score data, um, our intent is to really support you in making those incremental programmatic shifts, uh, that not only will support your accountability rating, but more importantly will steer your students towards, um,
066those postsecondary indicators that we know, um, are more correlated to long-term success, uh, for the students, uh, who are currently sitting, uh, in your eighth grade classrooms. So, as we close out, um, again, just thank you for engaging. We know this is an incredibly busy time of year. TELPAS just wrapped up. STAAR is certainly gearing up very quickly. Uh, AP, uh, uh, is just around the corner. So, we appreciate you taking out the time, uh, to be here today and appreciate your grace in going a couple of minutes over. We do want to name again, um, that, uh, the accountability system framework was updated, uh, and made available on March 19th. So, that is available now. Um, so, if you have additional questions about CCMR or about other elements, um, we encourage you, uh, to
067take a look at that. Uh, and then you also have available to you a document that outlines all of the stakeholder feedback we received, uh, and and our response to that. So, what was adjusted, what we can't adjust, uh, you know, what will be considered in future refreshes, etc. We also just wanted to name that we have a number of, uh, upcoming, um, uh, webinars. Uh, so, your, uh, superintendent also received, uh, notification of this differential weighting of CCMR, um, on March 26th. So, last week, uh, um, so, perhaps you were on that call and you are a superintendent, um, but, uh, if not, hopefully your superintendent was there and you can begin engaging in this conversation. Um, we also recently released, um, uh, uh, just some accurate accountability, um, of of how you can
068really leverage a new student demographic listing in TEAL in order to support, um, accurate accountability ratings. For the refresh specific, we do have two webinars coming up on April 7th or April 9th, uh, to really understand all of the other elements of the updated framework. And then in May and July, um, we'll have a, uh, collaboration session with PEIMS, uh, to really prepare for the upcoming, uh, summer and extended year submissions. We also want to note, uh, because CCMR is obviously front of mind for all of us right now, that the CCMR part one tracker will be available on TEAL this Thursday, uh, and we will also have a video tour. There's some really new exciting updates, uh, in order to support your understanding of, um, uh, especially those career indicators, um, and so, we're
069excited to also release a video tour that we hope will help, uh, hope will help orient you to some new features on that CCMR tracker. So, as we close out, again, thank you so much for your feedback. We, uh, we read every comment. We appreciate, um, uh, you helping us get better, um, uh, responding to your questions helps us and let us know where do we need to be more clear, uh, for future presentations. So, uh, we do know this will be an ongoing process. Uh, we've we've got time. We have until 2031, uh, but certainly appreciate you being here today and your feedback, uh, in order to help us grow and to support, uh, future development opportunities. Thank you again so much, everyone. We hope you have, uh, a wonderful rest of your week,
070uh, and take care.