001Hello and welcome to a brief video providing an overview and guide to your 2024 2025 ASAP communications. My name is Mark Olifson and I am the executive director of educator data research and strategy. Our division is responsible for completing the calculations included in ASAP letters. This video is meant to be an aid in understanding the content of your letter. It is our hope that this video may address some of the questions that you may have about the structure and content of the letter. This year, our team has updated our formal communications so that we communicate the EP ASEP results and recommended status in one letter and the results for certification classes and categories in a separate letter. This is based on feedback from the field and is intended to simplify the content of each letter.
002Let's first take a look at a sample ASAP results letter. At the top of the letter, you will see the contact information for the legal authority for your preparation program. The first paragraph states that this status will be the recommended status presented to the state board for educator certification or ESPC on February 13, 2026. Highlighted on this letter is the recommended accreditation status. You can see for the sample preparation program that it is accredited probation. Other statuses may be accredited, credited warrant, or accredited no data. >> [snorts] >> If the program has a status of accredited probation, there is also a notation highlighted here that names how many consecutive years this program has had a status of probation. This is important because a program that is on probation for 3 years is moved to revocation.
003This letter goes on to talk about forthcoming processes and points to the attachments below which provide data about your status. This page of the letter ends with a value of the index score for your preparation program as outlined in 19 TAC229.4B. An index score greater than 85 leads to a recommended status of accredited. An index score from 80 to 84 leads to a recommended status of accredited warranted. And an index score below 80 leads to a recommended status of accredited probation. The main body of the letter concludes with information about the data that was used in this evaluation. We also describe a new secondary evaluation that is conducted when there was a small group evaluation that used two or three years of data that did not meet the standard. This is described in detail in
004the ASAP manual. Finally, we encourage you to res to share these results as you determine appropriate within your EP. Attachment one of the letter provides the calculated values at the all level and at the individual demographic group levels for all individual ASAP indicators. You can see in the top row that we have the column headers of the indicator, the total number of teachers or candidates who met the standard, the total number of teachers or candidates who were evaluated uh and the percentage. And the top row of each indicator shows the performance standard for that indicator. uh the years of data that were evaluated for the indicator or demographic group, a column for information about any applicable secondary evaluation, a column to flag if the result is subject to the miss by one rule, and the
005final evaluation outcome. Here I have highlighted a role row that has a value other than one in the years of data evaluated. As a reminder, when doing the small group aggregation, we evaluate the indicator once there are 10 or more candidates or once there are three years of nonzero data. You can see here that the small group aggregation procedure was performed for the other group and that once three years of data were brought together, there are more than 10 candidates. For an additional example, for indicator five, the small group aggregation was performed for the other demographic group and that three years of data were included. Um this indicator was evaluated this year uh since even though there were 10 or fewer candidates. As noted, if the small group aggregation were performed and the aggregated group
006were to not meet the standard, TEA performs a secondary evaluation using only the current year of data. The results from this secondary evaluation are noted in the secondary evaluation column. While this outcome does not override the aggregated evaluation, if the secondary evaluation meets the standard, the count of years that the indicator has not met the standard does not advance. In this example, even though the EVP did not meet the standard for the other group for the past two years since the secondary evaluation met the standard this year and the final eval the final evaluation does not advance to year three. Again, more information about this updated procedure is available in the ASEP manual. Please note that if your EP does not have any values in this column, it means that it was not applicable and
007that is the most common case. As a reminder, the miss by one procedure is also relatively new. Last year, we started including a flag for it if the rule was used in that evaluation and we continue that practice this year. For more information again, please see the ASEP manual. Attachment 2 provides the specific index calculations for your preparation program. We have streamlined this attachment this year to remove duplicative information based on feedback. Table A provides the results for each indicator and demographic group. Table B provides the points earned in each box. This is generated by multiplying the performance value by the ASET measure weight and the group weight. For example, this program met the standard which is a value of one for the student growth measure which has a weight of three for the all
008group which has a weight of 6. 1 * 3 * 6 is 18 as you see here. Alternatively, this program did not meet the standard for the third consecutive year a value of -1 for the principal survey. a weight of 1 for the African-American demographic group. A weight of 1. - 1 * 1 * 1 is negative - 1. You can see that here. Table C contains the total number of points possible based on the indicators and demographic groups that the preparation program had data for. We then total the points in table B, total the points in table C, and divide them to get the final index score. As a reminder, more information is available in the ASET manual. The final attachment is included only if your preparation program has the status has a status
009of accredited warrant or accredited probation. This attachment provides the procedures for filing an informal review. Highlighted here is the reminder that the informal review must follow the instructions that are provided in the Texas Administrative Code and that the preparation program must note the reason for the request. Finally, highlighted at the bottom is the informal review deadline of 5:00 p.m. on December 12th. Please note that if your preparation program does not receive attachment 3 on your letter, it means that you are not eligible per the administrative code to file for an informal review. Shifting now to the new certification class or category letter. This letter contains information about the results of analyses conducted under under TAC229.5. This letter provides notice of any certification class or category that did not meet the standard for this year for
010three years in a row which requires revocation as well as the overall pass rate evaluation results for all certifications. The first page provides notification if your EP has a certification class or category that has failed for three consecutive years. The results are provided in this data table here. The EP has failed to meet the standard for French EC12 for three years in a row. If there are no certification classes or categories subject to revocation, this table will read no data. This section of the letter concludes with notes about the data that were used. Attachment one of this letter provides the pass rate results for all of the certification classes or categories. This data table is similar to the former letter in that it provides the count of candidates that met the standard, the count evaluated,
011and the percentage result. There's then information about the number of years included, if a secondary evaluation was conducted, and the result, a flag for if the miss by one rule was effective, and the final evaluation outcome. Attachment two of the letter provides separate information for certification classes or categories where the EP failed to meet the standard, but is not yet year three. If your EP did not have any certification classes or categories failed this year, this data table will read no data. Finally, similar to the other letter, we provide informal review request information. Your letter will only contain this if the certification class or category is being revoked. We know that these letters contain a lot of information and it is our hope that this guide has provided a useful starting point and addressed many
012of your questions. If you have additional questions about this, your status or your next steps, we encourage you to reach out to your educator preparation program specialist using a help desk ticket. Thank you.