001here with session three of our four-part series on the refresh roads show fall webinar series. Um I'm here today to dive more deeply into the preliminary proposals for domain 3 closing the gaps um that are included in our 2028 A throughF preliminary framework that is posted to our performance reporting TEA website. Um I am Katherine Beck and I am the performance reporting division director. Um Katie Jubert is out sick today, so we wish her well. Um and so we're going to have our Q&A feature open and try our best to respond during the webinar. Um but if things slow down just a little bit, we've got a little short-handed uh group today, so hopefully give us some grace, but go ahead and use that Q&A um to get your questions in during the webinar. [snorts]
002I'm also going to name that this session is being recorded. Uh we will post a recording as well as the deck to our website um over the next few days uh and make sure that you all have access to this information outside of today's webinar. So our refresh road show is intended to raise stakeholder awareness about the refresh and our proposed changes while also getting meaningful public um [snorts] comment from you all that helps us adjust the preliminary framework. So we hope to be thought partners with you and support you effect to effectively plan um for these upcoming proposed changes for 2028 accountability. [snorts] We have made this a four-part series and this is part three. If you missed part one and part two, that's okay. You'll still be able to engage in our work
003today um as those materials and recording from session one are up on our accountability system page and part two will be up very soon. So today again we'll be diving into the proposed changes to domain 3 and this is the most complex of our three domains in the ADAF system. So we are going to dedicate some time today to building understanding of how domain 3 is evaluated so that we can more fully understand our proposed changes. So, thank you for being here today and we hope that you leave with some additional clarity surrounding our proposals for domain 3 and that you'll use the Q&A feature to help you answer uh and get your answers to even more of your questions. Right. [clears throat] So, we are very early in uh our 2028 refresh journey. As
004you can see in August the preliminary framework was released and we are here to discuss the proposals that are in that preliminary framework specifically today proposals related to domain 3 closing the gaps. So while we have shared a thorough methodology within the proposal um it's still just that a preliminary proposal. So throughout this journey from August to spring of next year we're collecting feedback. Our next spring 2026 update will reflect the feedback we gather during this process and will include new additions due to new legislative updates specific to House Bill 8. So whether this is your first time joining us in our fall refresh webinar series uh or you've been with us the whole time, just keep in mind that we're always balancing these three objectives. We're ensuring that the A tof accountability system is
005rigorous, transparent, and fair. One of our goals during our time together is to make domain 3 a little more transparent. We know that it's complicated, but also in balancing while making it more transparent, we also hope to show how these proposals, if they end up being reflected in the final accountability manual, could make the system more fair. So, our accountability system is designed to accurately assess the extent to which the following three questions can be answered. Are students achieving? Are students growing? And are our most vulnerable students growing and achieving? So, today is all about domain 3, closing the gaps for our students that have been most historically underserved. As you can see here, domain 3 accounts for 30% of an overall score. So let's dig into domain three. And because we know how tricky
006and nuanced this domain can be, we're going to dedicate this time today diving into our current methodology before we start uh going through and sharing some of the additions to this methodology that have been proposed to address very specific circumstances that we heard in public feedback. So domain 3 serves multiple purposes within our accountability framework. First, it allows us to measure the performance of specific student groups that have been historically underserved. We can think of domain 3 as the accountability embodiment of a rising tide lifts all boats. And when those students who have historically sat at the margins of the education system are growing and achieving, all students are growing and achieving. Many of the students reflected in domain 3 methodology are the students who need the most from us as educators. And by carefully
007evaluating their progress and achievement, we are ensuring that all kids are getting what they need. The methodology of domain 3 is specifically designed to ensure we have an accountability system that fulfills the requirements we have from the US Department of Education to evaluate and hold all Texas schools accountable to serving students needs. Domain 3 ensures that we are meeting federal mandates that truly every child is succeeding. So while school improvement is not the focus of our time today, I did want to highlight that the results in domain three and results from each student group measured in domain 3 are the basis for school improvement activities and supports in alignment with federal requirements. So in domain 3, each campus is evaluated on four student groups and we're going to dig into who is measured on domain
0083. But first, I want to share more on what is measured and how it is measured. So, here's what's measured on domain 3 for all elementary and middle schools or in a high school or K12 school without a 4-year federal graduation rate. So, for example, if you do not yet have a 12th grade in your high school, you might be a 9th 10th campus only. This is the list of components evaluated in domain three. These components are specifically required by ESSA and not among the proposed changes for the 2028 refresh. So let's look at each one of these components. The first is academic achievement and this accounts for 30% of a domain 3 score for schools without a 4-year federal graduation rate. In alignment with federal requirements, this academic achievement component only measures those students
009that are at meets grade level or above. You can see on the right the final assessment results for an elementary school in Texas, for example. In this component of domain 3, we are only looking at the percent meets and above and only in math and reading. We know that we'll have a new assessment in 2028. We also know that we will continue to measure end ofear results and that we will have equivalent performance bands on the new assessment, the student success tool or the SST. So while meeting grade level expectations might be called something different, we will still have an accurate measure of the percent of students that have met grade level expectations in math or reading on an endofear assessment. And that's what will be measured here. the percent of students meeting or exceeding
010grade level expectations in math and in reading. It's also important to know that the academic achievement component is where we measure and reflect the federal requirement that 95% of students are tested in each subject area assessment. >> [snorts] >> If the participation rate for the all students group or any student group falls below 95%. The denominator for the academic achievement component is adjusted and will include a necessary number of assessments to meet the 95% threshold. This is called the adjusted academic achievement performance. The academic achievement component evaluates STAR assessments for grades 3 through 12, STAR alternate 2 assessments, English language performance measure results, and SAT ACT results for accelerated testers. You'll recall that there were no changes to the SAT performance level standards for meets. We talked about that with updated changes to domain one
011last uh last webinar, [snorts] but there were changes to the ACT performance level standard for meats used for accelerated testers. These changes do apply to the domain 3 academic achievement component calculation. However, the bonus points for campuses with students taking and reaching approaches or higher on an EOC prior to grade 9, a change we talked about under domain one as well last webinar. Those changes do not apply to domain 3 due to federal ESSA methodology requirements. Our next component measured in domain 3 for schools without a graduation rate is growth. And this accounts for 50% of the domain 3 rating for these schools. For this component, we are measuring to what extent students are moving up in their performance bands on the math and reading star exams. On the y-axis you can see prior year
012performance bands and on the x-axis current year. Zero, half point or one point can be earned based on the starting point in the prior year and how many students have grown in the current year and how far they've grown. We take the total number of points earned and divide that by the total number of points eligible for growth points. And that percentage is used for domain 3 scoring. I do want to note again that these calculations are based off of endofear star to end of year star. And again, while we'll transition to the student success tool in 2028, we will continue to measure end of year to end of year for this and all other growth measures in the A tof system in 2028. Next, 10% of the domain 3 score comes from progress to
013English language proficiency for our students that are emergent bilingual. And we measure this based on performance of emergent bilingual on the TLP pass assessment for 2026. A student is considered to have made progress if they meet one of two criteria. The first is that the student has a composite proficiency rating of advanced high or basic fluency. The second possible way that a student could be considered as making progress is if the student advances at least one Telpass composite proficiency level from the most recent prior year to the current year. I do want to name that all students evaluated on Telpass are included in this calculation which includes students in grades kinder through 2 grade. This methodology will be the same methodology that will continue now that we've transitioned to composite level scoring back here again
014in 2026. Last but certainly certainly not least, 10% of the domain 3 score for a school without a federal graduation rate comes from student success. This is the average of all star performance scores like domain one. So in the example here you can see this example middle school's star performance results for RLA, math, social studies and science. We take the average of those three to measure the student success component. So in this school's case that's 42%. This is different than academic achievement component in domain three for two reasons. one student success we're measuring the average of approaches and above meets and above and masters rather than like in academic achievement the percentage just meets additionally now we're measuring all subjects rather than just math and reading the student success component again also evaluates star assessments
015for 3 through 12 star 2 elpm results and again those SAT and ACT results for accelerated testers again changes to the SAT and ACT performance level standards do apply to the domain 3 student success component calculation. So let's do a quick side-by-side comparison of how the components measured in domain 3 for schools without a graduation rate varies from those with a 4-year graduation rate which includes almost all schools that had a graduating class in the prior year. You can see that one component that is exactly the same that is 10% of the domain 3 score comes from progress to English language proficiency for all school types. The methodology for academic achievement is the same. But for schools with a 4-year graduation rate, this accounts for 50% of their domain 3 score. [snorts] We won't dig
016into the methodology for these two components as they are identical to what we just discussed. For schools with a four-year graduation rate, 10% of their domain 3 score comes from their four-year graduation rate. In domain one, we look at four, five, and six-year graduation rates. But here, only the 4-year ontime graduation rate is leveraged in domain 3. As domain 3 meets those federal ESSA requirements that requires campuses be measured on the 4-year rate. The four-year federal graduation rate follows a cohort of firsttime students in grade 9 through their expected graduation year. A cohort is defined as the group of students who began grade 9 in Texas public schools for the first time in the same school plus students who in the next three years enter the Texas public school system in the grade level expected
017for the cohort. And remember, this data lags by one year. So, your 2026 graduation component score is reflective of the class of 2025. Last but not least is school quality, which accounts for 30% of the domain 3 score for schools with a 4-year graduation rate. Like the graduation rate, this data also lags by one year. School quality measures college career and military readiness. Every annual graduate is eligible to earn one point by meeting one or more of the indicators for college career or military readiness, CCMR. These indicators include meeting a TSI or Texas Success Initiative criteria, enlisting in the military or being an industry-based certification course completer. We then take the total number of students that met at least one indicator and divide that by the number of graduates and the number of enrolled 12th
018graders. This is different from the domain one calculation of CCMR as all students including non-graduating 12th graders are required to be included in the school quality measure to meet federal ESSA requirements. In our last webinar, we discussed the 5% cap on tier 3 industrybased certifications. Please note that again in accordance with ESSA requirements, this cap will not apply to domain 3. And there you have it. all of the components that are measured in domain 3 for both schools with and without a 4-year graduation rate and how each of these components is weighted in domain 3. We're going to shift gears momentarily to talk about how each of these components are evaluated. And don't worry, all of these slides again will be available on our accountability system development web page uh shortly. So now that we
019know the what what components are in domain 3, we're going to shift next to discuss how each of these components are measured in domain 3. If you leave with nothing else today, and I hope you leave with a lot more, know this domain 3 methodology is all about targets and growth. We measure each of those components that we just referred referred to in terms of how much growth students are making towards targets. We have a predefined set of targets and a 0 to4 scoring model that measures growth towards those targets. So we'll first talk about the targets and then how growth towards them is measured. So this is a snip from the accountability manual and demonstrates the targets for academic achievement in math and reading for a middle school. Remember, academic achievement is one of
020the components measured in domain 3 for both schools without a 4-year graduation rate and accounts for 30% of the domain 3 score for this school group. You can see that there are different targets for different student groups. Let's discuss where the targets come from. Today, we're going to focus on the academic achievement targets and how they are formed. as this is one of two shared evaluation components for domain 3. These academic achievement targets, like all of our domain 3 targets, were developed in collaboration with our partners at the US Department of Education. For our example today, we're going to focus on the all students targets for academic achievement. If you want to learn about how all of the domain 3 targets are formed, that information is available for your review in our ESSA plan. I
021also want to note that domain cut scores and domain 3 targets will be published with the next update to the 2028 preliminary framework to be released this spring after consultation with our Texas Accountability Advisory Group or TAG. So these on our slides today are the current targets that were published with the 2023 refresh. Here we have zoomed in on the academic achievement and reading targets for all students at the middle school level. And this truly does mean all students. You can see that we have three currently published targets. The interim target, which is where we want all campuses across Texas to meet by the end of the 2627 school year. The next interim target, which is 53% of students scoring meets or above in reading, is our goal by 2032. And our long-term target, which
022we believe can be met by 2038, is 72% of middle school students in Texas meeting grade level expectations in reading by 2038. Now, we know these are audacious goals, but we also have proof points across the state, including in schools with high percentages of students that are economically disadvantaged meeting these targets. We also know that students have different starting points, which is why we have different targets for different groups. But as with any goal, we want to keep that northstar goal front of mind while we quite literally close gaps for marginalized student groups. So, you might be thinking, where did that goal of 72% even come from? So, let me tell you long-term targets such as this one, 72% of students in middle schools meeting grade level expectations in reading by 2038 were derived from
023baseline data for STAR. This is the 201617 school year. So, in order to get this number, we take our baseline which was 44%. This number also becomes our interim goal. Of course, our ultimate goal is for every single student or 100% meeting grade level expectations in reading. But we know for a goal to be meaningful, it must be ambitious but also feasible. So we take the ultimate goal of 100% and find the difference between that and the baseline. In this case, the difference was 56%. So there is a 56% difference between our baseline and where we ideally want to be with 100% of students reading at grade level. So, while we would love to see reading proficiency grow by 56% in 20 years, we know that probably is not a realistic goal to set. So,
024we find the midline between the baseline and 100%. 28%. So, 28% becomes our growth target. And lastly, we then add the baseline to that growth target, and that becomes our long-term target. To sum that up, we want to see 28 percentage points of growth in the percent of middle schoolers achieving at least meets in reading by the 2038 school year, which would be 72% of kids at meets or higher. But we also know that having a long-term goal without measuring milestones along the way will likely not get us to where we want to be. Setting a long-term target is critical but also insufficient to drive real results for kids. We're going to get into how growth towards these targets over time is scored and know that it focuses on long-term targets. Interim targets where we
025want to be 5 years after the baseline and the next interim targets or where we want to be 10 years after the target. The methodology for these interim targets is fairly straightforward. We know that our long-term goal is to close the gap by 1/3 with every target cycle. Our goal is 28% growth by the long-term target, which means each interim target should be 1/3 of that. 1/3 of 28 is 9.3. So, we have targets that are between 9 and 10 percentage points of growth with every target. You can see here that our interim target, where we want to be by 26 to 27, matches our baseline. 5 years later, our next interim target for 3132 is 9 points higher at 53%. In our ESSA plan, though not in the manual, we have a target for
02620 3637, which is another 9 points higher than our next interim target. And finally, our long-term target that we already discussed is 72%. So, we need to grow by about 9 to 10 percentage points for each target in order to meet our long-term targets. So when you look at these targets in the AC in the accountability manual for academic achievement for middle schools, that's where they come from. We replicate that same process of finding halfway from our baseline and 100% to set our long-term targets. Then we measure the total amount of growth needed and find a third of that distance to set interim targets. We also have academic achievement targets along with other targets published for 26 and 27 in the 26 system manual. All other targets for domain 3 are also published in the
027accountability system manual. And remember, you're able to find the methodology for calculating targets for each component in the ESSA plan if you're curious to learn more. So, let's jump in now to how progress to these targets is scored in domain 3. Because remember, domain 3 is all about targets and growth. Our scoring system aligns with ESSA requirements, including requirements to show achievement gaps between individual student groups and the interim goals. As you can read here, each state agency must include the measurements of interim progress towards meeting the long-term goals for academic achievement, graduation rates, and English language proficiency progress for all students and separately for each subgroup of students. Our scoring system allows us to do just that. Our scoring system uses the 0ero to4 scoring methodology to evaluate each student group's progress to their
028individualized targets. In addition to ensuring transparent, fair, and rigorous scoring of domain 3, this also allows us to meet an additional federal requirement that we have to have a way in which we're able to identify schools that are not meeting interim benchmark goals and that are not showing expected growth towards the interim target. So let's spend some time with the 0 to4 scoring which is measured for each component and each student group. Since we examined ex academic achievement in reading for the all student group, we're going to stay there to dig more deeply into the 0 to4 scoring methodology. Let's take a look at the components, their weights, and the points possible for each of the four different student groups. You can also see the criteria for the closing the gap scoring on the right
029hand side of the screen. We'll also refer to the targets we just discussed for an example in a moment. You can see that each student group can earn up to four points. And if you look at the scoring for academic achievement, you can see each group can earn up to four points for math and four points for reading for a total of eight points per group and 32 points total for academic achievement. And these points are based off of, you guessed it, growth towards an attainment of targets. To determine growth, we look at the prior year's data. Let's start with zero points. If a student group does not show minimal growth or regresses from the prior year, that student group would earn zero points. In other words, let's say that your school in 2023 had
03034% of middle school readers achieving meets or above on their star reading exam. But then the following year, that percentage dropped to 33%. They earned zero out of four points. But let's say your example student group of all students moved from 34% to 35%. That group earned one out of four possible points. They showed minimal growth, which is defined as at least one percentage point of growth. We'll come back to the two point scoring in just a moment. Hold that thought. But if your all student group met the interim target in academic achievement and reading, in our example, 44%, they would earn three points. If that group met the long-term target of 72%, they would earn four out of four possible points. As you can see, meeting the interim and long-term targets is hugely advantageous
031for domain 3 scoring. More importantly, if meeting targets across all student groups, a school is seeing their highest need students grow and achieve, ultimately proving what's possible for all kids. Now that we're all set with 0, 1, 3, and four point scoring, let's take it our take a look at our current methodology for twopoint scoring. This is how we measure whether or not a student group is making expected growth. We will look at a few examples. So, let's get ready to do some math. The twopoint scoring in domain 3 is based off of comparing the actual student group growth to expected growth. The expected growth is calculated by taking the next interim target minus that student group's prior year rate or performance and dividing by the number of years remaining until those next interim targets.
032In an example with 2023 as the prior year and 2024 as the current year, the denominator is five. If the actual student growth or growth from prior to current year is greater than or equal to the expected growth for that student group for that year, the student earns the student group earns two points. Here's our first example. In this case, the campus had 38% of students at meets or above this year and 36% of students at meets or above in the prior year. So, their actual student group growth is two points but 2%. When we look at the next interim target in this example 53% for all students in RLA and subtract that from the prior year rate which was 36 and divide that by 5 years the expected growth was 3.4. So does this
033campus earn two points in domain 3 for the student group? No. That's because 3.4% of expected growth is higher than the actual student growth at two. this school would not be eligible to earn those two points. But because they grew at least 1%, they would earn one point for this student group in reading academic achievement. Let's look at another example. Let's say that instead this school had 43% of students at meets or above in reading this year and 36% last year. That's a growth of seven. The expected growth is unchanged as the next interim target remains constant. How many points does this school earn? This time the school can earn those two points. They met or exceeded expected growth as 7% of the actual growth is greater than the expected 3.4% growth, but they did
034not meet the next interim target yet. So, they're not going to get three points just yet. So, let's do a little more practice to really seal this 0 to4 scoring in our brains. So, you have some reference materials on the left, the targets for middle school academic achievement and reading. Pay close attention to the next interim target for two-point scoring, interim target for three-point scoring, and long-term targets for four. You also have some sample results on the academic achievement component for reading. We're only looking at the percent of students at meets or above. In example one, let's look at a school that had 38% of students at meets or above in reading in 2023. If in the following year that school had 74% of students at meets or above in reading, how many points would
035they earn? They would earn four points. They met and exceeded the long-term target, 72%. What if that school had 38%. Next example. What if that school had 38% of kids meet grade level or above in 23 and in 24% of students met grade level? How many points would they earn? they would get three points. They met the next interim target. All right, example three. This time they had 38% at meets in 23 and 38% at meets again in 2024. How many points would they earn for the all student group? Zero points. They did not show any growth from prior to current year. Now, example four. The school had 42% at meets or above in reading in current year and had 38% in prior year. 42% does not meet the criteria for four points or three
036points because it is not meeting the next interim or long-term targets. They did make minimum growth at least. So I know they did not earn only zero points. So we need to figure out if this school earned one or two points. So for this one I need to do some math. So if they went from 38% to 42% that's four percentage points of growth. Their expected growth is calculated as 53 which is the next interim targetus 38 divided by 5 years to 2028 and that equals 3. Their actual student growth is four and their expected growth is three. So how many points did they get? They get two points because their actual student growth met or exceeded expected growth. And for the last one, example five. Now they have 40% of students meeting in reading
037in the current year. I know 48 minus 40, excuse me. I know 40 minus 38 is 2, which is their actual student growth. The expected growth is not changed from the prior example. So the expected growth is three. Do they earn those points in domain three? They only earn one point. their actual student group was not student group growth was not greater than or equal to their expected growth. So they did not meet the threshold for two points but they did show some minimal growth. So that leaves us with one last thing to consider in our current methodology who is measured in closing the gaps. In domain three we measure growth towards the specific indicators using the 0ero to4 scoring model on four different student groups. Let's dig into who those groups are. The first
038group of students evaluated is all students, which is the group we have mostly spoke of today. And this is all students who are included in your accountability subset for the 2526 school year. That fall snapshot date is coming right up on October 31st. It's important to note that a campus might have at least 10 must have excuse me must have at least 10 assessments in both math and 10 assessments in reading for the all students group to be evaluated. Additionally, the campus must meet minimum size for at least four indicators in the academic achievement components to be evaluated on the closing the gaps domain. The minimum size requirement in domain 3 is 10 students and small numbers analysis is applied in CCMR and federal graduation status data sets. Details on how small numbers analysis is
039applied in these two components is found in the 26 accountability system manual. The next two groups of students that are evaluated are the two lowest performing race ethnic groups from the prior year at that campus. And you can see all of the possible groups to be evaluated on the right hand side of the screen. Again, the school must have 10 assessments in both math and 10 assessments in reading to be evaluated for their lowest or second lowest performing racial or ethnic groups based on prior year identification. If two or more of the lowest performing groups that meet minimum size have the same performance rate, the lowest performing groups with the highest denominator are selected. If minimum size, 10 assessments in RLA, 10 assessments in math is only met for one of the lowest performing groups,
040only that group is evaluated. A campus must meet minimum size in the current and prior year to be evaluated for a racial ethnic group. In our current system, a new campus who does not have prior year data is evaluated using the states lowest performing groups. And we're going to talk about that in just a bit. For a moment, I do want to highlight a new addition on the closing the gaps report that was shared recently based on stakeholder feedback. We heard that it would be helpful for campuses to have a quick way to see their two lowest performing groups from the prior year. In this case, prior year is 2025. So, you can know which groups will be evaluated in 2026 accountability, assuming minimum size requirements are met. This new feature is now embedded in
041the domain 3 closing the gaps reports on both accountability reports um publicly available and within teal. Now the very top of your data tables show which groups were evaluated in 25 and which groups will be evaluated in 2026. In order to find this information you can visit the accountability reports. Select your campus name on your campus overview page at the top banner. Select closing the gaps and then within the closing the gaps drop-own menu will open a view with your data for domain 3 closing the gaps. On the example here you can see the groups evaluated in 2025 which are bolded with check marks for this campus. Those groups are all students of course for everyone African-American students Hispanic students and again for everybody the high focus group which we will dig into. In this
042example, we can see right above the groups evaluated in 2025 are the groups to be evaluated in 2026. And for this campus, there is a change which is based on their 25 accountability results. Rather than Hispanic students being one of their lowest performing groups, this campus will be evaluated on two or more races, which was one of their two lowest performing racial ethnic groups from 2025. So therefore, groups to be evaluated are all students, African-American students, students that identify with two or more races, and the high focus group. We hope that this new feature is helpful in your strategic planning and progress monitoring throughout the year. We have a special thank you to those stakeholders that raised this as a need and we are happy to have provided it. Okay, so our last group to
043be evaluated in domain three is the high focus group. This group consists of any students who are economically disadvantaged, emerging bilingual, current special education students, or students that are highly mobile, which means that they are homeless, migrants, or in foster care. It is important to note that this is an unduplicated count of those students. So, it's quite possible that one student at your campus meets two, three, or even four of those criteria. However, each student is only counted once in the group. And remember, domain 3 is all about growth towards the attainment of targets for each of the four specific groups. So I want to remind everyone that each of the four groups that you will be evaluated on has different targets and the targets for the 26 and 27 accountability years are in the
04426 accountability manual. The targets for 2028, as mentioned, will be forthcoming. Now that we've talked about what is evaluated in domain 3, which of the four components are looked at for both schools with and without a four-year graduation rate, and we examined how domain 3 is evaluated using the 0 to4 scoring, and who is evaluated through the four different student groups. Let's quickly touch base on how this all comes together. Here are all of the components of domain 3 in one place for a high school or K12 with a 4-year graduation rate. You can see in one place the components and their weights and the points possible for each student group. If a high school or K12 met the minimum size requirement for all student groups, they would have a total of 68 component points
045available. And they would need to earn 50 of those 68 component points for an A. Then they would need to multiply by the component weight to determine the total points earned and the total points to get to their raw score. we would need to use the scaling resources in the accountability manual to convert that raw score to a scaled score. This is easy to see on both txschools.gov and on accountability reports. So, let's take a look. Here's an example of a high school in their results for domain 3 from 2025. You can see in the purple they met the long-term or 2038 target in some places met the interim target in blue in others and did not make growth earning zero points for these three student groups across two components and this is in the
046orange color. This school did not show minimal growth scored a one or expected growth scored two for any of the student groups evaluated in 2025. And again, you can see that only one student group is evaluated for progress to English language proficiency, your emergent bilingual who are counted in the high focus group. Overall, this school earned a total of 23 out of 32 possible points in academic achievement, 6 out of 16 points for graduation rate, 13 out of 16 points for school quality, and four out of four points for English language proficiency. If you click on dig into the data, it will take you right to this school's accountability reports. You can see the same data demonstrated in another way and includes how the raw component points are multiplied by the component weights to get
047the total points which then are summed to get the closing the gaps raw score. Then by scrolling down within the accountability reports you can get a much more detailed view that includes which groups were evaluated and who will be evaluated next year. Below that you can see the targets for every group, the points earned for groups that were evaluated and actual performance. You will see in some places that data is not shared and instead of percentages there are codes. This is due to masking and indicates that the sample size was too small to share information on performance without compromising student confidentiality since the accountability reports are public reports. However, if you have teal access for this campus, that information would be available on a nearly identical report. These tools can support your strategic planning as
048you can easily see prior year performance right next to targets to determine the distance needed to reach the next interim and long-term targets for each student group. And if you wanted to dig into even more data for student groups, we encourage you to use the analytic tools which are easily accessible through txschools.gov to more deeply understand your data for all or specific groups of students. From txschools.gov, of you just need to click on tools and reports and then analytic tools. That will take you to a menu of options that have tremendous analytic tools to more clearly understand your performance. So in the data we just reviewed that campus earned three out of four points for three out of the four groups on school quality which is a measure of CCMR for our high schools and
049K12. So they might select CCMR to more fully understand the CCMR performance of specific student groups in order in order to set goals surrounding which groups might be able to reach the long-term targets this year and earn four out of four points. From the CCMR dashboard, leaders of this school could use report filters to more deeply understand which CCMR indicators were being met for specific student groups and look at performance over time on specific indicators. There are numerous filters available and data can be distilled down into specific CCMR data. If you're not currently using analytic tools in your practice, I encourage you to get in there and play around and I promise you cannot break it. There is a tremendous amount of data, easy to understand graphics, and it would save many of us a
050lot of time in doing different data cuts, data visualization, and setting goals for strategic planning. We hope it can be of benefit to you. Of course, all of these same data tools through TX schools are available for our elementary and middle schools as well. We're just not going to dig into those now, but they are available. So, now we've spent some time digging into domain 3. Hopefully, it makes just a little bit more sense. So, now we're going to transition and share those proposed changes to domain 3 that are embedded in the preliminary 2028 framework. There are two proposed changes for domain 3 that if included in the final manual would impact closing the gaps at the campus level. If adopted into rule, it could make the system more fair and give more schools an
051opportunity to earn additional points on domain 3. These stem directly from public comment received since the last refresh in 2023. The first relates to a scoring specific to new campuses. The second is a safe harbor provision that allows for a potential small dip in performance while maintaining the possibility of earning two points. We know that two of the four groups evaluated in domain three are the two lowest performing racial ethnic groups from the prior year at that campus. But what if a school is a new campus with a new CDCN and does not have prior year performance or a growing campus that has students in a tested grade level for the first time? In the current system, those campuses would be automatically evaluated based on the state's two lowest performing groups. In 2025, those were
052African-American and Hispanic students. If the campuses met minimum size requirements for both of those groups, both would be evaluated. If they met minimum size for just one of those groups, just one would be evaluated. And if they did not meet minimum size for either group, then no racial ethnic groups could be evaluated. We have received two pieces of feedback on this. First, stakeholders have said, "Wait a second, the state's two lowest performing groups aren't actually similar to my campus demographics. Secondly, I actually don't have the minimum size requirements for these two groups. So now I'm not even evaluated on domain 3." We know also that in order to earn one or two points in our current system, a school has to demonstrate growth from the prior year. And currently, if a school is new and
053doesn't have performance from the prior year, they can't demonstrate growth. So, a new school has to hit the next interim target to earn three points or already the long-term target to earn four points. If they can't already do that, they earn zero points. And we've received feedback that this is an unfair uh part of the system. To summarize, we have received feedback that this system does not best represent the performance of new campuses. There's no possibility of earning one or two points and the state's overall two lowest performing groups may not be representative of the campus demographics. It's possible that these groups are not the two lowest performing in their school community or they don't meet the minimum size requirements, so they don't even have the possibility of being evaluated. So, this first proposal is
054aimed at better reflecting the performance of new campuses. The 2028 framework for the A tof refresh includes two provisions specific to new campuses. First, change the source of lowest performing racial ethnic groups for new campuses. Rather than using the two lowest performing groups, my plug came undone. Excuse me. Here we go. Rather than using the state's two lowest performing uh racial or ethnic groups, the district's two lowest performing the district, excuse me, the district's two lowest performing racial or ethnic groups would be used. The intent here is that most districts have fairly consistent racial ethnic demographics across schools. So by leveraging the districts the district's two lowest performing groups, a new campus is evaluated on two groups that are more representative of their population and they are more likely to meet the minimum size requirement.
055However, this proposal does go a step further. If the new campus does not meet the minimum size requirements, they would be evaluated on their current year two lowest performing groups. So here's an example. Let's say that a new school opens in 2728. For their district, the two lowest performing racial ethnic groups from 2027 were African-American and American Indian students. However, at this new school, they do not meet the minimum size requirement for either of those groups. Rather than not be evaluated, this campus would be evaluated on their two lowest performing racial groups from the current 2728 school year. Additionally, if the school is a new school within a new district, the new campus's current year two lowest performing racial ethnic groups would be evaluated. The second half of this proposal is to create proxy year
056data in order to make it possible for new campuses to earn one or two points. The preliminary framework outlines this methodology as using the district's prior year data as a baseline. So, if the new school made at least one percentage point of growth from the district's prior year, the campuses could earn one point if they showed minimal growth or two points if they met expected growth. Of course, they could still earn three points or four points for meeting the next interim or the long-term target. In this case, for new campuses, the methodology for calculating 0 to four points would be unchanged. What would change is the possibility of earning one to two points using the district's data. Again, if the campus was a new campus in a new district, the campus's current year two lowest
057performing racial ethnic groups would be used and the state's average from the prior year would be used as the baseline, still allowing this new campus to have the opportunity to earn one or two points. When we modeled the impact of this potential shift with 2024 data, we saw positive results for some new campuses. By applying this new methodology for new campuses on 2024 data, we saw that 80 student groups would move from earning zero points to now earning an increasing up to one or two points across all components. The most striking data was in math academic achievement where there was a 12 percentage point gain in the number of groups earning one or two points. The second proposed change is to domain 3. The second proposed change to domain 3 relates to the zero to
058four scoring methodology and is applicable to all non-new campuses. We know from our earlier discussion that a campus in order to earn one or two points of growth for a specific student group must demonstrate minimal or expected growth to targets. If that campus performance drops by even one percentage point, half a point, 0.25 percentage points, that campus will earn zero points. We have received feedback that this scoring is a little too rigid and given how much domain 3 student groups can fluctuate year-over-year based on student enrollment that some amount of dip should be allowable so long as that campus is demonstrating a positive trajectory year-over-year to meet its targets. As such, the proposed 0 to4 scoring methodology allows for a slight decline in performance so long as they continue to demonstrate expected growth. This would
059impact twopoint scoring, which we know compares actual to expected growth targets. This methodology provides what we're calling a safe harbor, a mathematical range that defines an amount of tolerable dip in performance. This range of performance would be known and established in 2027 for the next 5 years of the refresh. And while this provision allows for a slight drop in performance, this still meets our ESSA requirements as the safe harbor range ensures the student group is on a longerterm trajectory of progress to targets. So here's an example of what it looks like currently. You can see that this school met the interim target in 2025 for this student group. No safe harbors needed for those 25 results. And this methodology would not be applied. They met the interim target and earned three points for the student
060group. But let's say this campus dropped just a few percentage points from 25 to 26. In our current system, this campus would earn zero points for this student group in 2026. They did not meet the interim or long-term target and did not show minimum or expected growth. However, under the proposed methodology for 2028 on the right hand side of the screen, that orange triangle represents the safe harbor. This is the school's since this school's trajectory is still on track towards the current target as evidenced by their 2026 data point. You can see that it is still in the orange triangle, though slightly lower than their 25 uh results. Because this school is still on track for expected growth over time, they would earn two points rather than zero for this tolerable dip in performance. So
061to be clear, first we would run the current methodology for all performance and then if we see some decline, we would then check if the campus meets these new safe harbor methodology. Let's talk about this orange triangle which represents the safe harbor. As we know, the current twopoint scoring is based on growth to the next interim target. The proposed methodology would leverage the interim target and the baseline year. For the 28 refresh, this would shift to 2027. So, if the current target minus the baseline divided by the years since 2027 is greater than or equal to the current target minus the 2027 baseline divided by 5, that campus is still making expected growth and would earn two points instead of zero points. It's important to note that this methodology allows for a tolerable dip. In
062this example, you can see that the school dropped out of their safe harbor. And in this case, under first the current methodology and then also in the safe harbor provision, the school earns zero points on this component for their specific student group. When we modeled this proposed methodology, we saw a 3 percentage point decrease in student groups earning zeros across all campuses. The largest decrease in zeros was in progress to achieving English language proficiency where there was a 9 percentage point decrease in campuses earning zero points. So to summarize our proposed shifts in domain three for campuses, first leverage different district data for new campuses and two a revised twopoint scoring for growth that allows for a tolerable dip in student performance. Our intent is to provide a fairer and more representative evaluation of new
063campuses and to recognize those campuses making long-term progress for historically underserved student groups. Both of these proposals are in response to public feedback that we received and we do recognize that this also makes domain 3 just a little bit more complex. So, we appreciate you all sticking it out with us to more deeply understand this incredibly important domain. So, what do we do now? Well, we hope that you have a clearer picture of domain 3 and potentially learned or reminded of some tools that you can leverage to drive your decision-making for this school year. And if you've been with us since the beginning of this refresh road show, you can check off almost all the proposals that were included in the preliminary framework that was released in August. We have discussed the contents of the
064preliminary framework as they relate to domains one, two, and three specific to campuses and distinction designations. And you know that there is more to come related to these proposals next spring as we incorporate public feedback and the implementation of House Bill 8. We also hope you'll continue to join us to learn about the 2028 ADF refresh in our last part of this fall series which focuses on the integration of the resultsdriven accountability system into the AO tof system. The last segment of our fall refresh road show is coming up on December 9th and 10th and it will be here before we know it. And don't worry if this is your first time joining us and you don't want to review prior dedex or recording from the fall series. The recording and deck from part one
065on getting to know the refresh process are up now on the accountability system development web page and the materials on proposed changes for domain one and distinction designations will be posted there soon. We encourage you to give feedback if you are ready now. This survey is open and we are in the process of reviewing feedback as it comes in. As you can see from our proposed changes to domain 3 today we consider every piece of feedback that is shared here is our timeline for the 2028 refresh. Again what we shared in August is a preliminary framework and our time during the series is to review the contents of the preliminary framework document that was shared. Next spring we'll release a framework update followed by the preliminary manual that will be released in early summer 2026.
066The final manual for the 2028 accountability system will be rel released late next summer. That's two full years prior to the 2028 accountability ratings being released. We know that October is a very busy month for you all and appreciate you carving out the time to be here with me today. We appreciate your feedback on the presentation as well and thank you for taking a few moments to let us know what works and how we can improve. We'll continue to stay on to make sure that we answered those questions through the Q&A feature. Uh, and if we were unable to answer you today, we will be sure to follow up. So, thank you again in advance for your feedback on today's session, and we look forward to seeing you again in December.