001Good morning. Um it's great to see you all this morning. Uh and welcome to the December 9th edition of the refresh road show uh webinar. Today we're going to be digging into uh the integration of resultsdriven accountability or RDA into the A throughF ratings. Um so my name is Katie Jubert. I am the principal director of the um of performance reporting policy and communications uh here at the Texas Education Agency. Um I'm joined today by Katherine Beck who is our senior division director for performance reporting. And then we're also joined today by Jeremy McKG who's the director of data strategy and reporting for the office of special populations and student supports. Um so Katherine and Jeremy are going to be in the Q&A feature. So the Q&A feature is open. Please use it. Ask questions
002as we go throughout our time today. Um and they'll do their very best to answer your questions live in real time. Um and we also just want to make a quick note that our webinar will be recorded today. We know December is a busy month and uh many of our teammates across the state may not have been able to make it. So, we'll record it and post it to the um uh accountability system development website here shortly. So, if you have been a part again, this is part four of a four-part series. Um if you've been along for the whole journey or uh today's your first time, welcome. We're glad to have you. Um and the goal of our refresh road show uh is is really three-fold. The first is that we just want to
003raise stakeholder awareness about the content of the preliminary 2028 A throughF refresh framework um and really support understanding of the content of that framework. Um we also want to begin the bit of process of uh supporting you all at the campus and district level um in in really starting the strategic planning process that we know always comes alongside a refresh. Um and then lastly, we want to make sure that we are getting ample stakeholder feedback on the content of that preliminary framework. Um as we will update that framework here in the coming months. Today we're really focused on the integration of RDA or resultsdriven accountability into the A3F framework. Uh so we're going to use our time today um first to just get a quick recap of domain three um uh the closing the gaps
004domain and how that shows up currently uh in the A throughF system specific to district ratings. We'll also talk a little bit about the current RDA framework um and what are the similarities and the differences between those two. Then we'll dive into what are some of the systems and structures that have been put into place since 2023 to begin the integration process of these two accountability systems um before we talk about um the proposal that it's included in that 2028 preliminary framework document. Finally, we'll close out with some next steps in a survey. Uh so again, uh if this is your first time joining us, welcome. We are so glad you're here. Um and if you would like to have access to our previous webinars, those are all available on the accountability system development web
005page. Um both a recording and then also the um uh slide decks are available as well. We also encourage you if you are not already to subscribe to the performance reporting bulletin. I suspect you're already subscribed and that's how you got here today. Um but if you're not um uh it it's delivered uh new delivery time at 9:00 a.m. on Fridays every single week. um and uh uh includes updates and information regarding performance reporting. Um and in the coming months, we'll also have additional learning opportunities. So the refresh is a big journey. Uh and so this is just a snapshot of a very small amount of time within the refresh journey. Um, but as you can see on August 28th of 2025, I almost said of last year, it's still 2025, but August 28th of
0062025, um, we released, uh, the preliminary 20, uh, 28 A throughF framework. Um, and that was based off of months and months and really years of gathering feedback, um, uh, taking a look at proposals, analysis, uh, and and data modeling um, uh, for the framework that you all are able to access today. Since August, we have um been in numerous ESC's, hosted our road show um really as an opportunity to get out and say, you know, here's what we're proposing. Tell us what you think. Uh so in the last several months, uh we have uh gathered lots of uh information and lots of feedback. Uh and then also taken a look at legislative updates specifically through House Bill 8. Next spring, we'll release a framework update. Um and so that is an opportunity uh to
007really reflect your feedback, reflect the necessary updates from House Bill 8. Um and kind of close the loop on um some of the uh questions that you might leave with here today. In early next summer, we'll release a preliminary manual u which will include cut points and then also targets. And then late next summer, you all will have uh the final manual adopted for the 2028 system. uh and you'll be able to download that and have that in hand. Uh we're really excited about this timeline uh that 2028 manual will be available two full years before um the 2028 ratings uh take place. And so we're excited um not just to be here today to share the content of the preliminary framework, but really this expedited timeline uh to ensure that you all at the
008district and the campus level um have the information you need as early as possible. uh in order to um make the plans that you want to make uh in order uh to adapt to the 2028 framework. Um anytime we talk about A throughF, we really keep these three big priorities in mind, including when we're thinking about the RDA uh integration into A throughF. So our first big priority is rigor. uh we want to ensure that we're setting an a a high bar um and really supporting uh statewide in driving towards that high bar of rigor. And that's true for students, that's true for schools, that's also true for our districts. We also want to ensure that our system is transparent. And we think about this in sort of two ways. The first is we want
009to ensure that uh it is transparent and that ratings are accessible. Uh so through texaschools.gov gov or the accountability downloads or um any of the other ways that you might access data and and ratings. We want to ensure that those are available to the public uh and easy to understand. The other part of transparency we often think about and talk about is we know uh that accountability systems can be complex and we want to ensure that our system uh is is able to be interpreted and understood um both by the general public and by those in schools who are trying to action plan um uh uh in order to ensure success on an accountability system. And last but certainly not least, we want to ensure that our system is fair. So here in Texas, uh,
010which is a little bit unique, uh, it is mathematically possible for every single school in our state to receive an A rating. Um, and that element of fairness is something that we always keep front of mind. So our accountability system is really um designed to answer three big questions. The first is are students achieving? The second is, are students growing? And then the third is are the most vulnerable students um within our student population whether that's at the school or the district or the state level are those students who have been historically underserved also growing and achieving? Um and so today we're really here to talk about that third question uh which is answered in domain three, the closing the gaps domain and that accounts for 30% of an overall score. So in domain three
011and we're going to talk first uh about just generally how domain 3 is scored and then specifically um how domain 3 is scored at the district level. So within domain three again we're attempting to answer the question are the most vulnerable students in our schools growing and achieving and the way that we do that is we measure the extent to which a campus is meeting or making progress towards predefined targets that are defined all the way through 2038. The way that we actually measure progress um is through four different components. So, this example is specific to high schools or K12 schools that have CCMR, meaning they had a graduating class last year in general. Um, and we measure four different components. So, for this example, at the campus level, we measure academic achievement, we measure
012the graduation rate, we measure progress to English language proficiency, and then we measure um uh school quality, which is CCMR. We look at four distinct student groups currently in domain three um which is all students the two lowest performing racial or ethnic groups from the previous year's data and then we look at the high focus group and the high focus group of course includes all students who are economically disadvantaged all students who are emergent bilingual all students who um are in special education and then all students who are highly mobile. So at the campus level um a a campus has the opportunity to earn points for again meeting or making progress towards those targets um for four groups across four domains and then um for for each component um have the opportunity to earn four
013points. So that's at the campus level in our current system for domain 3. Now at the district level domain 3 is calculated a little bit differently. Uh and this is actually true for domains 1 2 a 2b and domain 3. So at the campus level uh I'm sorry at the district level the district score is reflective of a proportional weight of the campus scores. So if we look at this example here campus 1 has 334 students enrolled in grades 3 through 12. their score. So when we looked at um all of those components and all of the groups and um uh and and their 0 to4 scoring, this campus earned 85 points. Because of their size, they are 13.8% of the overall district uh enrollment. And so we multiply 85 by 13.8 and they earn
01411.7 points at the district rating for this domain. I want to juxtapose that to campus 2 who you'll notice also earns 85 points. However, the big difference here is that campus 2 has 990 students and so they represent 41% of the total district enrollment um in grades 3 through 12. So this time we multiply 85 by 41% which results in 34.9 points. So you can see both campuses both campuses would receive their um their score of 85 which would be a B rating and then both campuses contribute to that overall district rating. However, because campus 2 is three times as large as campus 1, uh they carry a heavier weight in that district rating. From there we add up all those points and that becomes the district overall rating for that domain which then of
015course goes through the same process. We take the best of domain one or two that 70% of the overall score and then 30% of the overall score for the district rating comes from domain 3 closing the gaps. So that is how domain 3 is calculated. Uh and if you have questions about how domain 3 is calculated at the uh campus level, we do have our uh previous webinar that was really focused on closing the gaps at the campus level available online. Um we're also happy to answer any questions uh at the end of our webinar today. Uh we'll share our contact info as well. So that's closing the gaps uh which is domain three within the eighth rest system. Let's shift gears and talk a little bit now about RDA or resultsdriven accountability. So RDA
016and A throughF uh have very similar guiding principles. Um both are really designed to ensure uh that a high bar is set and that we are able to really uh transparently measure progress towards that. RDA does have um some uh additional guiding principles that are really designed to meet the um uh unique needs of the um specialized population and the unique student needs of those specialized populations. And so let's take a look um at how RDA is designed. Um so RDA uh measures results at the district level. So in A throughF um in our current system which was refreshed in 2023 we're measuring campus level and then we add up those campus levels at a proportional weight. RDA is different in that we're really looking at district performance as a whole. Another major difference between
017RDA and A throughF is that RDA is really designed to measure program efficacy. So within RDA, there are three distinct programs and program areas and each program area has defined principles and guidelines that outline the unique services and supports that that group of students needs. So the first program area within RDA are program areas for emergent bilingual students and English language learners. And you can see there, and I'm sure many of you have a lot of experience with this, there are variety of ways in which a uh school or district can opt to best serve the students in that program area. The next program area is um focused on students with disabilities. Um uh so students who um uh receive special education supports um really defined by that students individualized education plan. The last program
018area for RDA is focused on other specialized programs for atrisisk students. And this includes students who um uh are or have experienced homelessness. Um students who are uh engaged with the foster care system um and then students who are military connected um to support those students and families. So again um RDA and our office of special populations and student supports has a wide range of supports and services um to support you in supporting the unique needs of these students. And then we measure the efficacy or the effectiveness of those programs through three domains. The first is academic achievement. The second is postsecary readiness. I'm sorry my computer's glitching just a little bit here. Okay, I think we're back on track. Um and then the the last is disproportionate analysis which is really unique um towards
019our special education students. So RDA is um uh also evaluated differently than the A throughs system. So RDA is evaluated through performance levels or PLS which are um calculated based on RDA specific cut points. Um and one thing I just want to note is that a higher performance level um indicates a lower performance for that indicator. So generally the higher the performance level the more need we're seeing from that group of students on those indicators. So a a district could receive performance letter from zero to four. And then we also want to note that there are indicators within the RDA framework that are report only and then are not factored into the accountability. So I'm sure many of you have seen the RDA reports that are available. So you can see here they're grouped again
020by those three program areas. Um so program areas for our EBS and English learners. Um uh program areas for other SP special populations and then um program area for special education. And then those three domains, student achievement, post-secary success, and then for special education, um the disproportionate analysis, um are uh each have a number of indicators tied towards those. And then last but certainly not least, um we have uh the actual performance levels which are posted and publicly available. The masked versions of those uh meaning uh uh uh numbers are are masked to ensure that um student confidentiality is protected. Um so here we have an example of a special education graduation rate. Um, so you can see that for this district they had 181 graduates out of a class of 208, which means their
021graduation rate was 87%. The specific cut point for RDA for this indicator um is a performance level zero cut point is between 80 and 100. And so because they had 87% the performance level for this district on the sped graduation rate indicator uh is a zero. And again the lower the performance level um the uh uh the stronger things are performing uh for students within that indicator. We also want to note that performance levels could be NA or not applicable. And then you also may have um uh the um it may be notated as essay which refers to special analysis um which means that the minimum size requirement was not met and there were some different calculations at play. So you may have essay 1 or essay 4 um which just lets you know um
022a slightly different calculation method was used once um performance levels are defined. So those indicator specific performance levels those are what drive determination levels. So in order to find the determination level um first uh the mean of the uh performance level is calculated then um we establish percentilebased cut points and then assign determinations. So you can see in this example here that um a district that is above at or above the 99th percentile um is at a determin determination level four um and that uh indicates that uh substantial intervention is needed to support the students within that program area in this district. So those determination levels are really what drive um the level of support and intervention that a district would receive in their continuous improvement process to support um the uh specialized group of
023students um or groups of students that need the most support at that district. Excuse me. I'm getting over that like early December cold that I think everyone has right now. Okay. So, now that we've talked a little bit about A throughF, specifically domain three at the district rating and the RDA framework, let's talk about why we need to integrate these two and and really the need um to to bring these together. So, we talked a little bit about um the the guiding principles and and really the belief systems between the two frameworks. Um and there and there are a lot of similarities. Some other similarities that I would really highlight is that both of these include measures that fulfill federal requirements for special populations. Um and both are essential elements of our broader accountability framework.
024Um okay, I think I'm ready now. I'm so sorry. Uh and then of course both of these systems also have um monitoring and interventions that that go side by side both the AHS system and the RDA system. So with these really highlevel similarities there are also a lot of differences between RDA and the AHEF system. So I'll give you a moment to take a look at these but some things that I would really highlight is that the groups that are measured are different between the two systems. the methodology even if we're using the same assessment um oftentimes is different. Um there are different reporting timelines and then the intervention and monitoring is also different. So um at a very high level a lot of alignment between the two systems but then the the kind of
025intricacies of how each one works can look really different. And so it's not surprising uh when we look at this list of all of the differences uh that we also get different results from the two systems. Um so here we have an example of four districts. Uh and you can see that each of these districts received an acceptable rating or a rating that was higher than 70 or a C um in domain three. And so many of us would say like domain 3 is really challenging. They're at a 70. That's great. But then when you kind of go a little bit further and you look at their RDA reports, you can see that each of these districts also um needs intervention for um a program area or in some cases a couple of program areas.
026Um and then some of them actually also need substantial intervention. So we want to ensure that we're telling a cohesive story. Uh and so we shouldn't have the case that it's like, oh, everything looks great. They've got a B. But wait a second, we need intervention for our EB program area. So we really want to ensure that a co a cohesive story is being told between the two accountability systems and that's really the driver between the integration of RDA and A throughF. First and foremost, we want to ensure that we have an aligned accountability system um that allows for more streamlined efforts and reduces the redundancy that can come having two different systems. We also want to ensure that we have that comprehensive performance view. Um, and so anybody is really able to access and
027understand not just how, you know, overall how are the all students groups doing, but I'm really passionate about this specialized group of students. Um, and I want to understand how they're doing. The public and us should be able to do that in kind of a one-stop shop. Lastly, we want to ensure uh that we have consistency in policy and stakeholder transparency. Um I also know in my experience um you know we would get our A throughF ratings and uh and and would start the strategic planning process and then later get your RDA results and be like oh wait what what where do we focus where should our time be spent? Where should we really spend our efforts? And so we really want to ensure not just from a public perspective, but for those of you
028that are doing this work alongside kids and teachers and school leaders every day, that we no longer have um two stories or two different versions about how special populations are performing within your district. So since the 2023 refresh, um plans have been underway for this integration. And you can see here um that since 2023 adjustments have been made um to the accountability framework. Uh I know many of you out there read it with a fine tooth comb. Uh and so you've seen these um both in chapter 12 which is the RDA chapter uh and then also in appendix K. We of course also uh shifts have been made in the RDA framework itself. Uh and then of course we make adjustments both um performance reporting and OSPS make adjustments when new legislation comes through. Uh
029so for example after the passing of house bill 6 um discipline indicators were excluded from uh performance level means and determination level calculations. Um and so these are just examples of some of the changes that have been made uh to the accountability system uh as we work towards integrating these two systems. In addition um to shifts to the manual uh we have also shifted our reporting uh it it for a couple of reasons. One to make clear that RDA is part of the accountability system. So it's available on the accountability reports. Um and then two to make sure that uh you know whether you're accessing TPRS or your accountability downloads these things are easily accessible to you and any other stakeholders who may want that data for your um district. So here you can see
030starting in 2023 um RDA was added to the TPRS menu. Um under that other links um we also uh have RDA uh results available within teal. So those of you that are teal users and and have the district level access um those RDA reports are available to you right in teal. And then last but certainly not least in the ARFE public accountability reports um under closing the gaps um the results driven accountability reports are also available. So those are some of the moves that we've made since 2023. This has been a long journey for this integration. um but some of the um tweaks um and shifts that have been made uh to to really start to begin the marriage of these two systems which really brings us to where we are today. Um so if
031you were a part of our first webinar you know that um major changes to methodology or cut scores or anything like that um can only be done within a uh refresh cycle and that's something that we've historically done at TEA uh and then that was codified by House Bill 8. And so, uh, since 2023, we've been making these small changes, uh, clarifying language, making sure that it's transparent that, um, RDA is a power is a part of the accountability framework. Um, and in 2028 is really the opportunity to make that um, more major shift to ensure that these two systems um, are in fact fully integrated. So again, since 2023, um, uh, we at the agency have been partnering with a with a just stellar group of individuals. I hope some of you are out
032there today, um, known as the RDA task force. and the RDA task force are um district and uh school and ESC personnel who are really knowledgeable about both RDA and A throughF um and also really passionate about serving our specialized populations of students well. So the RDA framework uh task force was really called to incorporate areas of RDA within district level A throughF ratings and they've really supported um developing proposals that ultimately go to TAG which is the Texas ADI Accountability Advisory Group. Um and so uh since uh really since early uh 2024 uh RDA task force has supported um TEA in taking these proposals to TAG. And so here today we're here to talk about um those proposals that have already been discussed with TAG and that are already um included in the preliminary
033framework which again was released in August 2025. So at a really high level um our goal is to shift um our goal is to ensure that there is a is consistency and alignment and the way we envision doing that is through this proposal. So as we discussed in the current A throughF system domain three or the closing the gaps domain at the district level is a calculation of each campus's proportional weighted score. the the high high level proposal for the RDA integration um is that uh a portion of a district domain 3 rating will continue to come from that proportional rollup of campus scores and additionally a portion of that district um domain 3 score will come directly from um uh special populations monitoring or what we're calling domain 3B. So again, domain 3A, which
034is currently 100% of a district domain 3 score, is that campus rollup and domain 3B is um what uh we currently call RDA or resultsdriven accountability. And so our goal is to really um think through what are uh what are the right things to measures, what are the right student groups to measure, and then at what percent weight um should we measure domain 3A and domain 3B in district ratings. So if you look at the far right of your screen, the kind of last big uh piece of this is that weight. What percent comes from domain 3 A? What percent comes from domain 3B? Leading up to that, as you can imagine, there are a number of really critical decisions um uh to make to ensure that uh ratings are rigorous, ratings are transparent, and
035ratings are fair. So, the first sort of round of decisions that um uh have gone through the RDA task force, have been shared with TAG and are currently a part of the preliminary framework um are three big buckets. So uh the RDA and A3F reporting areas, the indicators to be measured within domain 3B, and then the methodology used to measure each indicator. So that's really the focus of our time together today. Um again, we're focused on um uh helping uh stakeholders access and really understand the the preliminary framework. Um and and those three areas are uh the content of the preliminary framework related to the RDA integration. In the coming months um uh we will be working alongside TAG who um uh really support the agency in in holding fast to those three priorities. Um
036and we'll be thinking about uh the targets for each indicator. um how each indicator will be scored and then finally the weight of domain 3A and domain 3B in district domain 3 ratings. Uh so definitely stay tuned uh much more information to come uh and and many of those updates will be reflected in an updated framework which will be available next spring. So with that in mind, let's talk about what is uh in the preliminary framework, what is coming out of the RDA task force, what has already been taken to tag or the Texas accountability advisory group. Um and the first major area of decision point was around um three areas of reporting. Um so uh question number one was like what is the impact on campus ratings? Uh question number two surrounded significant disproportionality
037or SD indicators. And then uh question number three was monitoring interventions and determination levels. And the big headline I want everyone to walk away with is that while campus data significant disproportionality and determination levels will be reported, they do not impact A throughF accountability ratings. So they'll be reported alongside A throughF ratings. They will be shared. Um, but none of these three things would impact the actual scoring behind A throughF ratings. Let's dig in a little bit. Um, and and I know a question that many have had is like, okay, well, what does RDA integration mean for campus ratings? Um, and and the answer is, uh, a little bit, but but not much to be honest with you. Uh, because RDA really is a measure of district performance um, and and the program efficacy at
038the district level. So uh it's it's right there in big bold print. Uh no impact to campus 3 closing the gap ratings. Um we do not propose any changes related to this integration um to campus level uh domain 3 ratings. Um and we uh uh do not anticipate an ESSA amendment needed because we are not making changes um to the uh calculations related um to campus level. Um so again there are no changes to A throughF closing the gap accountability groups reports for campuses um uh for or to school improvement identification processes. So let's take a little talk a little bit about what that looks like. Um so here you have an example of uh a campus level um uh domain 3 report. Um and for those of you that look at these all the
039time, you'll notice that there are no changes. So nothing about uh this proposal uh would make changes uh to to this report. Um so uh the groups are the same. So the groups would continue to be the all student groups, the two lowest performing racial ethnic groups from last year and then the high focus group. Uh which in of course there's some overlap between the high focus group and the groups currently evaluated in RDA, but no changes to the domain 3 report. Um also no report uh uh changes proposed at the campus level to star or how that is measured within domain three telpass or how that is measured in domain 3. Uh and then the graduation rate within domain 3 would continue to be that 4-year federal graduation rate. Um and then of course
040dropout rate is not currently measured uh in campus level uh A throughF calculations within domain 3. Well, we do propose um so so not changing the way calculations are made or what groups are assessed. Um however, we do propose adding two groups um uh under the additional group uh tables of accountability reports. So the two groups that we propose adding um are first uh EB monitored uh so that would be um uh reported but not calculated and then the same for our military connected students. Um, so here you see a mockup of what that would look like. Uh, you can see we even proposed doing it in a different color to really make that distinction clear of this is being reported but does not impact campus level ratings. And then we also want to highlight
041that the proposal does not impact the school improvement identifications or methodologies. So, federal school improvement um includes EBS, both current and monitored. Um special education, both current and former. Um and federal school improvement does not include um foster, homeless, migrant or military connected. And we do not propose any changes um to how uh uh school identification uh works, the methodology, the supports, uh the interventions, all of that we would anticipate um uh would stay the same. um or if there were changes, it at least would not be due to the RDA integration as these are uh really focused on campus level supports and um this proposal is really focused on district level shifts. Uh the next area uh so the first thing we talked about was the impact on campus ratings. The next thing to
042discuss is significant disproportionality. Um and so we propose that um significant disproportionality will not be integrated but would be reported alongside A throughF. Um so these measures of SD that were reported in um again in in RDA will not be integrated but certainly remain um uh critical federal requirements to meet. Um and then we do just want to uh highlight that two SD indicators from RDA are closely related uh to the state performance plan indicators um and are proposed to be reported under the framework. So again we're seeing uh those reports will all be accessible together uh the information will be readily available um but not integrating into the calculations or scoring. Um, last but certainly not least, um, monitoring interventions. So, similar to no no anticipated changes to school improvement processes, um, no changes
043anticipated, um, to, uh, the determination level monitoring interventions. Um, so those annually federally required determination level levels will utilize data that comes through the A throughF system. Um but the termination um for SPED will continue to do the FRRES and then our teammates like Jeremy and others at the um office of special education and student supports um would really continue to lead um the efforts uh the monitoring and the interventions uh when an area of need was identified unique to these specialized populations of students. Um one thing we do want to note about determination levels. So we talked at the very beginning that determination levels are really driven by performance levels. Um and so performance levels are not part of um the way we propose uh scoring uh domain 3B. So determination level methodology will
044be updated to move away from performance levels um to using A throughF scaled scores and results. Uh and then again of course uh those would be available um through the uh domain 3 reporting. um but again would not impact uh district ratings in domain 3B or domain 3 broadly. So again uh campus data significant disproportionality and det uh determination levels will be reported but they do not impact or are not proposed to impact afability ratings. Um so now that we've kind of like knocked that one off, let's talk about the program area student groups and components um that are proposed to be evaluated in domain 3B. Um so you'll probably recall from the beginning we talked that RDA is really driven um uh by the measuring the efficacy of program areas. um and and specifically
045program areas for our emergent bilingual and English language learners, program areas for uh students with disabilities, and then program areas for other students who are at risk. Um and so RDA currently has three program areas and we propose within domain 3B to shift that um to four program areas. So the first uh emergent bilingual program area students, special education program students, foster program students, and homeless program students. And so here you can see um each of the groups within those program areas that we propose to be evaluated as part of domain 3B. Um so under emergent bilingual um uh for academic achievement we propose uh evaluation for bilingual education students um students that are served through ESL or English as a second language programs alternative methods um and then emergent bilingual who are not served
046um as well as um uh EB uh both monitored and former so EB years after classific uh reclassification for academic achievement. We also propose for graduation evaluating um what we're calling ever EB. So that is a student who ever has been uh identified as an emergent bilingual in grades K through 12 for the graduation rate and then current emergent bilingual in grades 7 through 12 for the dropout rate. Within special education, uh we propose evaluating um both current sped and then students uh one year after exit for academic achievement. um students who have ever been in special education in grades 9 through 12 for the graduation rate and then students who are currently in special education um in grades 7 through 12 for the dropout rate for foster um program students. We propose current foster
047care evaluation for um academic achievement students who have been in foster care in grades 9 through 12 for the graduation rate and then current foster care students in grades 7 through 12 uh for the dropout rate. Um and then the um homeless program kind of mirrors uh the the foster care and that we propose looking at current students experiencing homelessness for academic achievement ever um in grades 9 through 12 for graduation and 7 through 12 for the dropout rate. Uh so those are the individual student groups or uh listed under their program areas that we propose evaluating as part of domain 3B. uh and one important note that I do want to highlight is that for each of these groups a minimum size of 10 is proposed. Uh so that is a shift from the
048current RDA framework. So we do propose in alignment with everything else and everywhere else in A throughF uh that the minimum size to be evaluated is 10 and of course uh this is a district measure of program efficacy. So 10 students across the district rather than 10 students within a specific campus. If you wanted to look at this a different way, uh there are kind of three bucket of indicators that we're looking at. So, academ across was a struggle. Academic achievement, uh graduation rate, and then the dropout rate. And you can see here uh that for um uh each of the program areas uh and and specific student groups listed. So, this is a little bit easier way to uh visualize that. Wanted to share that. Um and then this comes up to a total
049of 22 possible indicators that a district uh if they had the minimum size for all of these program areas would be evaluated um under this proposal for domain 3B. One thing that we did want to note is that um for star um uh three through eight and EOC combined um for our homeless and foster students. Um and that really gets down to um minimum size and how many uh districts would have a large enough population to separate 3 through 8 and EOC. So that is one place uh that we do propo propose a combined rating um across 3 through8 and um end of course exams. So once we have identified um the individual student groups and the indicators that will be evaluated for each individual group um the next kind of part of this journey
050is is okay so how are we going to calculate what is the methodology uh for for measuring academic achievement um for uh students in bilingual education programs. Um so a new calculation um uh for the star exam of course academic achievement is is currently measured through the star in 2028 that will be the SST um or the uh student success tool. Um and a new calculation is proposed. Uh so currently um in domain three we we actually measure the star in two different ways. Um so the academic achievement is the percent at meets plus in in math and reading and then um uh the student success is an average of approaches meets and masters um uh across all subject areas. Um so for domain 3b we actually propose uh a new way to measure star.
051Um the way that we propose doing this is an average um however a weighted average um uh in order to really credit districts for meets and masters performance. So you can see in the gray box the calculation that we proposed. So it's the percent at approaches um and then we'll add that to 1.1 times the percent at meetats and then add that to 1.2% times the percent at masters. Um uh and then divide that by three. So really weighting those students that landed at meetats and masters um a little bit higher to really credit that. Um so again this would be a different way um that um star uh or SST in 2028 is measured within the A3F uh accountability system really unique to domain 3B. Um and and we really hope uh credits um
052uh that meets and master's performance that that we understand is is hard to attain um and and really does require uh specialized supports uh for for all groups of students especially our most vulnerable students. Um and then again uh the minimum size uh proposal is 10 and that will be 10 students across the district. Our next academic achievement measure is Telpass. um and Telpass we actually propose using the same methodology that exists under the current uh RDA framework. So in the RDA framework and what we propose for domain 3B is that we're really looking at the performance of long-term English learners. And so these are students who have been in schools in the United States um for five or more years um and are currently enrolled in grades 5 through 12. And what we look
053at in RDA and what we propose to look at within domain 3B uh is those uh uh isolating that group of students who are longer longer term eelss and measure the percent of those students who have a to pass composite rating of beginning or intermediate. Um so of course in the star um component or the SST component when we're looking at the weighted averages of approaches meets masters we want to see that steadily go up. We want to see more kids at meets and masters. We want to see more kids at approaches year-over-year. For this top pass measure, this number is ideally going down, right? We want to see students who are enrolled in US schools for more than five years uh achieving higher than the composite ratings of beginning or intermediate on the TEPASS
054exam. Um again, of course, as all the way across the A throughF system, uh the proposed minimum size here is 10. Um and again this is really u mirroring the current RDA uh methodology proposed uh for domain 3B for the graduation rate. Um so currently in domain three uh 3A at campus ratings um we measured the uh 4year federal graduation rate. Um and the proposal here is to measure uh the six-year federal graduation rate without state exclusions within domain 3B. Um so graduation rate is calculated by taking the number of students in the cohort who graduated in this case within six years and then dividing that by the total number of students in the class. Uh and again minimum size proposed of 10 students. And last but certainly not least, um a a new indicator
055to the A throughF system. Uh nowhere else in the A throughF system, well uh I'm not going to say that in general uh uh we don't look at dropout rate in the A throughF system. Um uh but uh in in domain 3B, we do propose looking at uh the dropout rate. Um, and that would be measured as the number of students in grades 7 through 12 who dropped out um divided by the number of students in grades 7 through 12 enrolled through uh throughout the school year. Um, again really mim mimicking um the RDA um uh methodology here and again proposing a minimum size of 10. Okay. So, uh, some next steps coming out of this. Um, I just want to really quickly, um, uh, recap kind of where we've been over the last 49
056minutes or so. Um, and so, uh, the integration of RDA through the creation of domain 3B is really driven towards providing a holistic picture of district performance specific to the performance and the program efficacy of specialized programs. Um and so uh we hope that this clarifies the performance of special populations of students through integrated reporting. Um really establishing four program areas to be measured at the district level. Um and then uh uh evaluating 22 unique indicators uh within academic achievement, graduation rate and the dropout rate. Um this uh integration is really coming out of years and years and years and many of our own personal experience um that multiple reporting systems can create confusion. Um and at the district level it can be really difficult to know what to prioritize and who to prioritize um
057and and the two different systems can uh be a barrier to comprehensive strategic planning. And so our hope uh with this integration proposal is that there is uh fairer and more represent uh represent representative evaluation um of of district performance um and and that those um that knowing where to put your efforts, which groups of students need support um is more transparent both to you and then stakeholders who are interested in district performance uh within your community. Um so today we talked about the content of what's in the preliminary framework related to the RDA integration. Um and so the RDA and A3F reporting areas. Um we outlined uh the indicators and and which student groups will be evaluated on those indicators and then discuss the methodology for each indicator. In the coming months, um we'll
058be going to TAG and more information will be available um with our updated framework in uh spring of 2026 really related to uh the targets for each indicator um which will be in the manual um scoring for each indicator and then a proposed weight of domain 3 um B in domain 3 district ratings. Um and again uh just to just to stamp really clearly currently domain three is a district proportional rollup of uh the district domain three score is a campus the district domain three score is representative of campus proportional rollup. Um and in the 2028 methodology, we propose that a portion of the district domain 3 rating comes from that campus proportional rollup where a portion comes from domain 3B or the special populations monitoring score. Um if you have been with us through
059the whole journey of our refresh road show, uh you now can put a check mark next to every single element um that's included in the preliminary framework. Um so we have talked through uh proposed changes to the student achievement domain um uh uh the closing the gaps domain and distinction designations and then are really closing the gap today with that district only um domain uh 3B special populations monitoring. Um and so we do want to name again um all of these uh uh all of these decks are available on our accountability system development website. Um if you want to go back and reference them or if you missed a part of our webinar series, the recordings are also available. Um and then uh our recording from today will also be available uh either late this
060week um or early next week. We also just wanted to take the opportunity to invite you all to another um learning opportunity. So we have heard a lot um uh I'm saying the word marriage a lot but we're marrying RDA and A throughF. We also uh need to form a marriage between PEMS and accountability and we've heard that um you know both are really intricate systems both require a really high level of expertise um and uh and have heard you know we need some additional support in in uh figuring out what the balance between these two is and how we speak each other's languages. So, we're really excited that on January 7th at 9:30, we will be co-hosting a webinar um with our teammates at TSDS um entitled Best Practices for the Pee's Fall Resubmission.
061Um and so this is an opportunity uh to learn about your final verification um high impact corrections that you can prevent uh that you can make in order to prevent resubmission issues. Um, and then what are just some uh routines and systems that you might want to integrate um within your teams at the district level or the campus level um uh to really close any gaps in that last mile before resubmission. Um so we look forward to seeing you there uh if that's an area of need or you're just curious. Um and uh the registration links will be available in the performance reporting weekly bulletin. Um and last but certainly not least, we've talked a lot about this timeline over the last month and today. Um uh so we are kind of closing out um
062uh uh kind of chapter 1 um and continuing to develop a lot of feedback um sorry gather a lot of feedback um and and recommendations and your thoughts on um the preliminary framework. Um from there we take all of that we take the legislative updates through House Bill 8. Um, and next spring again, we'll have an updated framework. Um, uh, alongside with responses to public comment, um, early next summer, you can anticipate the preliminary manual in hand or on the website. Uh, and then late next summer, um, that final manual adopted. Um, making sure that you all have that accessible two full years before the 2028 ratings. Um, so we greatly appreciate your time today. Um, we know it is a busy month. Many of you are probably in the middle of uh uh I
063know for sure EOCC testing is going on. Lots of testing this time of year. Many val uh priorities to balance. So we sure do appreciate you taking the time out today. Um if you have feedback on the uh framework or the proposal that you heard today, uh please make sure that that goes into the stake uh holder feedback form. Um but if you have feedback, and we hope that you do on the presentation today, what worked, what didn't, how we can make adjustments for future webinars or refresh road shows. uh we do ask that you drop uh that feedback um uh either in the link in the chat or use the QR code. We also just want to name um that uh we are here to support you and to answer questions. Uh so if
064your question um didn't get answered in the chat today uh we'll be uh we'll try and close those out before we close out the webinar today. But I know sometimes uh you know five minutes after you leave all of a sudden you've got a whole list of questions. Uh feel free to email us uh it's on the screen or give us a call. uh we want to make sure that you're clear um and are able to what you to get what you need for the 2028 refresh. So I um will give a couple moments um for Katherine and Jeremy to close out uh any Q&A in the chat. Um and uh once Katherine says we're kind of all good, we'll close out the webinar. Uh but please do uh give us your feedback and thank
065you again for coming out today.