001that are included in the 2028 A throughF preliminary framework. My name is Katie Dubert and I am the director of performance reporting policy and communications here at TEA. I'm joined today by Valerie Laundry, our division director for college career and military preparation. Also in our division and Katherine Beck, our performance reporting division director. Both are here to answer questions as they come in. Please use the Q&A feature and we will be interacting that way throughout the webinar. We also want to name that this webinar is being recorded and will be posted to the performance reporting websites following our call. Our refresh road show generally is intended to raise stakeholder aware awareness, support campus and districts in effective planning for the 2028 refresh and perhaps most importantly garner meaningful public feedback as we work uh to
002revise our framework in the coming months. We know that accountability is complex and changes can be hard to navigate. So, we've made this a four-part series and this is the second part in that series. If you miss the first one, uh you'll still be able to learn and engage today, but we do encourage you to review the slide deck or recording from session one, which is available on the accountability system development web page for TEA. You are probably already subscribed to our weekly performance reporting bulletin, but if not, please sign up for the performance reporting bulletin uh to get links for future webinars and to stay informed on all things performance reporting. Today dur for our agenda we'll be diving into proposed changes to domain one which include proposals for accelerated testers at both the
003middle and high school level. We will also be discussing proposed changes for within indicator waiting with for CCMR along along with a deep dive into the intent and purpose of both the latest version of the industrybased certification list and college prep courses. Lastly, we'll be digging into proposed changes for distinction designations. Thank you for being here today. We hope you leave with additional clarity surrounding our proposals for domain one and distinction designations. Again, that Q&A feature is open and we encourage you to use this feature to get your questions answered in real time. Before we dive in, let's do a quick recap of where we are in the refresh process. So, in every decision we make surrounding the A throughF system, we have three big ideas that we always hold front and center. First, the
004system must be rigorous. Secondly, it must be transparent. And third, it must be fair. House Bill 8 codified that a refresh happens every 5 years. So, we last saw a refresh in 2023. We are here to discuss the 2028 refresh and then the refresh after that will happen in 2033. The proposals we are discussing today for the most part fall into the 2028 A throughF refresh year. The preliminary framework was released in August and we're currently collecting public feedback on the preliminary proposed methodology. You can expect a final accountability system manual that will be released late next summer. Prior to that, we'll have an updated framework and of course a preliminary manual with a public comment period. But again, by end of summer 2026, you'll have that final accountability system manual 2 years before the
005refresh happens. Here is a list of all the proposed changes that are included in the preliminary framework. Today, we'll be digging into the student achievement domain and distinction designations. We do encourage you to come back later this month and in December for additional deep dives into the closing the gaps domain. So here, let's dive into domain one, the student achievement domain. When we look at the data that is collected and used for our domain one uh methodology uh we uh all of this measures to what extent um students are mastering grade level content and are prepared for life after high school. This domain shows how well our students are performing academically and how prepared they are for life in college career or military service. per performance is measured through the star CCMR or college career
006military readiness indicators and graduation rates. This ensures a comprehensive view of student success for elementary and middle school. STAR is the primary measure currently, but that will be the student success tool or SST in 2028. In 2028, we will continue to measure endofear SST calculations for domain 1. And while the performance bands may have different names, we will have comparable performance bands that will continue to be the basis for endofear assessment scoring for high schools in addition to the star or SST exam. Um 40% will come from that. Uh 20% comes from graduation rates and then 40% of scores in domain one at the high school level or K12 level um are based on CCMR indicators. So, let's dig in to how um these things show up uh or I'm sorry, how domain one shows
007up in our proposed uh refresh for 2028. Our first um across the state, the most common end of course exam taken and passed by students in grades 5 through 8 is the algebra 1 exam. Senate Bill 2124 from the 88th legislature outlines the need for each school district and open enrollment charter school to establish a middle school advanced math program. This statute outlines that 40% of the fifth grade sorry students that perform in the top 40% at the end of year fifth grade exam currently the star or on another local assessment measure are to be automatically enrolled in an advanced mathematics course that ultimately enables those students to enroll in 8th grade uh into algebra 1. Those students then become accelerated testers. Students who have taken an end of course exam prior to grade nine.
008And research shows us that this is a good thing for students. As you can see excuse me as you can see students who completed an API or dual math credit are significantly more likely to enroll, persist in and complete higher education. In fact, 59% of students who completed an advanced math course while in high school had completed their higher education course of study 6 years later. Without accelerating their mathematics education, many of these students would not have had the chance for advanced mathematics coursework while um in high school. And while completion of higher education is not the only option for students and may not align to their personal goals, we certainly want it to be an option for students. By screening those students in fifth grade, we are able to support their long-term achievement by
009setting them up on the path that allows them for additional and advanced mathematics coursework in high school. Um, and so these students are those students that complete algebra 1 prior to grade 9 and become accelerated testers in our domain one calculations. So let's jump back to 2028 refresh. We know that schools are mandated to provide advanced math pathways for middle schoolers and many educators philosophically agree with this. If a student zone of proximal proximal development is aligned with advanced coursework, we should do everything in our power to open more opportunities for students. At the same time, we heard that providing these advanced pathways were potentially disincentivized in the A throughs system as those students accelerated testers who are taking an end of course exam prior to grade 9 um may score um uh lower on
010that end of course exam and may lower overall achievement scores. So let's talk very briefly about our current methodology and where this feedback stems from. So on the current STAR test, students are grouped on their overall score into one of four performance bands. Did not meet grade level, approaches grade level, meets grade level, or master's grade level. Of course, in 2028, we will have the SST, and these performance bands may have new names, but we will have comparable performance bands, which will be the basis for domain one calculations for schools that serve students in grades K through 8. When measuring performance on domain one, we look at the total number of students at each performance band for all assessments in math, reading, science, and social studies. In a middle school example, traditional 6th through eight
011middle school example, an eighth grader would be counted four times in this overall look for math, reading, science, and social studies, while their seventh grade counterparts generally would just be reflected in math and reading. It's important to note that we look at the content, not the actual assessment taken. So whether a student takes eighth grade RLA or English 1, they are counted once for the RLA assessment regardless of the course taken. In this example, you can see that 36 of the students across assessments um did not meet grade level um performance. 144 counted in the approaches level, which is 80%. And that includes all students who were at the approaches grade level, the meat's grade level, and the master's grade level. So we call that approaches or above. 108 of the students are counted in
012meets grade level which is all students in meets and masters and 36 students were in the master's grade level. Below you can see the percent of students at approaches and above meets and above and masters. To calculate the domain score of a middle school, we find the sum of the percent of students at each performance level and then divide that by three. This gives us a domain one score of 53. And under our current cut scores, um that 53 would be scaled to a domain one star component score of 84, which is a B. You can find our current scaling um uh resources uh online and in the 2026 manual. But please do note that those cut scores will be updated for the 2028 refresh and more information is forthcoming next summer. So as you
013can see in our current methodology, a student who is in the master's grade level performance band is effectively counted three times in this methodology. Once in the approaches and above, once in the meets and above, and then once at master's grade level, it is presumed that a student who is scoring well enough to be put on an advanced pathway would score at the high end of their essential uh would score at the high end of that assessment, potentially even in the master's performance level. However, when taking a high school level course, that student may not perform as well and might land in meets or in approaches. So, while offering that accelerated course and assessment is in the best interest of this student, we have heard that it could be a disadvantage to the school's overall
014accountability rating. And that's a conflict we simply do not want to exist. We want our accountability rating to positively reflect schools who are successfully making the right moves on behalf of kids and who are preparing students for life after high school which our advanced pathway programs do. So here on the left you can see the feedback we've been discussing and then on the right our proposal to remedy this conflict that is reflected in the 2028 refresh. In short, we're proposing awarding a bonus point for every student that takes and passes an end of course exam prior to grade 9. And our hope is that this mitigates the impact of those students who might drop a performance level due to taking a high school level course prior to grade 9 and supports remove the disincentive of
015potentially enrolling students in advanced pathways. If you think back to that slide of how each consideration is modeled and taken to tag from webinar one, I do want to note that we modeled this looking uh at awarding the bonus point both for approaches and above or meets and above. Ultimately, it did not have a huge impact and the decision was made to award the performance band to the approaches level for that bonus point for increased consistency and transparency. Here's an example in which the proposed methodology is accounted for students who take EOCC's in RLA, math, and social studies, which is a total of 34 students in this example or 5% of all assessments taken at this school. And again, that 5% is reflective of students who scored at approaches and above. Please note that while
016these students are also counted in the performance band that they achieved whether that was approaches and above meets and above or masters. So each of these accelerated testers that took a high school EOC course prior to grade 9 and met the approaches or above level is effectively counted twice in the numerator of the proposed methodology for domain 2. In this example, the addition of just 34 students who passed the NEOC out of 625 total assessments um uh impacted very positively the domain star component score and moved that from a 70 to 72. Considering the best of domain one or two accounts for 70% of an overall rating, this could lead to a major shift in a school's overall rating. We also want to note that this bonus point methodology would positively impact likely domain 2B
017scores in which star component domain scores compared to other schools with a similar percentage of students that are economically disadvantaged. When we examine the impact of this proposal across all schools that have students that took EOCC's prior to grade nine, the results were positive. In 49% of these schools across the state, when we applied this methodology to 2024 performance, we saw um an increase in at least 49 I'm sorry, we saw an increase of at least 1% in 49% of schools. Before we venture into the next proposal, I want to name a few things. First, the bonus point is applied only when a student scores approaches or above. So, in most cases, it probably would not be the best move to enroll more and more kids or every kid um into high school level courses
018if they're not yet demonstrating that academic readiness. Secondly, the shift is not intended to incentivize advanced pathways. Our goal is to remove a potential disincentive for the work you're already doing. We certainly know and celebrate the kids that are ready for this path. And we want to make sure that you all are not feeling a pull or a conflict between what is the best move for your advanced students and your accountability rating. Of course, we know these accelerated testers, students that take an EOC prior to grade nine, um are also factored into the accountability ratings once they reach high school. So for a student who takes algebra 1 or any EOCC prior to grade 9, we track that student as an accelerated tester through high school and ultimately that student's SAT or ACT score is
019factored into the high school's domain one score. By design, the SAT and ACT are rigorous college entrance exams, and we received feedback that the performance bands for the SAT and SAT could be disincentivizing school systems from moving students towards those advanced pathways while in middle school. Again, we don't want there to be a conflict between what is in the long-term benefit of the children at your schools and the AF system. So, I do want to talk through a proposed change for the 2028 refresh that responds to this feedback. But first, I want to dig in a little bit into how those accelerated testers can impact high school accountability. And again, I want to name this shift is applicable to all schools that serve students in grades 9 through 12, regardless of your school's specific configuration.
020So, here you can see a snip from the performance on the summer 2024, fall 2024, and spring 2025 from a high school in Texas on the algebra 1 EOCC. Uh this is a large school uh and this is pulled from the research portal. Um so if you were to add these all up um because the summer 2024, fall 2024, and spring 2025 would all be factored into this school's um calculations for 2025 accountability. Um you could see that there were 463 total assessments. Um so before we move on, I want to just give uh a lot of shout out to the testing coordinator at this school. uh 463 is a lot of algebra 1 exams. Uh and we know that is a small portion of all the testing that goes on in a high school.
021But of these 463 uh total students that took algebra 1, 72% met approaches or above, 38% mets or above, and 21% um met masters. This is pulled from the research portal. So this is going to be reflective of all students that took an assessment, not necessarily those that are in the accountability subset. So some of these students might have enrolled past snapshot date. Some of them might be new students to the country. And so we would actually anticipate if we were only looking at algebra 1 for this high school's um accountability uh in math, we would actually anticipate this number to go down uh in their final accountability rating calculations. But what we actually see if we pull up their teal report is this same school has 747 students with tests in math for their
022final accountability rating and 89% of those students where it approaches or above. But we just looked at the research portal and this school only had 463 students take algebra 1 and 72% where it approaches or above. So oh I'm so sorry. All right. So, federal legislation requires that each student is tested one time in each subject while in grades 9 through 12 in math and reading. Since accelerated testers have taken algebra 1 prior to grade 9, we leveraged their ACT or SAT score for accountability purposes. So, when we dug into this data for this school, we saw that they had over 300 accelerated testers or students that took algebra 1 EOCC prior to grade 9. And many of these students did very well on the SAT or ACT, which helps their school's overall domain one
023rating. But we also recognize that there are challenges um for the accelerated testers on the SAT and ACT. And we what we don't want is school systems to shy away from the advanced pathways programs um because of those SAT and ACT scores. So, we took a look at these performance bands and are proposing some revisions to the cut scores based on our research. You'll notice that on the um proposed uh performance level bands uh what counts as meets grade level or above for SAT is unchanged in the 2028 proposal as those remain anchored in the T uh SAT TSI College Readiness uh benchmarks which are established by the Texas Higher Education Educa Education Coordinating Board or the THECB. The ACT meets was updated to match this anchor. The cut scores are a result of a
024standard deviation modeling very similar uh to how uh we do star standard setting and this based uh data is based off of 2023 2024 SAT and ACT data. When we applied these revised um cut score performance bands to the 2024 data, we saw an increase in the approaches level by 12% and 27% at the mast's level. So if we jump back to how approaches, meets and masters are weighted in domain one calculations, that 27% will undoubtedly have a positive impact on domain one scores for high schools. Again, we want to recognize school systems enrolling students in advanced pathways and remove that disincentive um that we heard exists. So to sum up the feedback we and the responsive proposal, we heard that the cut scores for SAT and ACT once they are in grades 9 through
02512 for our accelerated testers could be a disincentive to placing students prior to grade 9 into accelerated pathways. So we're proposing revised scores for SAT and ACT based on standard deviation modeling. And before we move to the next set of proposals, I want to tie a little bow on our proposals for accelerated testers, those students who take um an EOCC prior to grade 9, regardless of their school configuration in the 2028 A throughF preliminary refresh. We're proposing bonus points awarded for those students prior to grade nine who take and pass at the approaches level or above um any uh uh any EOCC course in any content. Handinhand with that we are um proposing updated uh SAT and ACT cut scores for those accelerated testers once they reach high school. This is response to the feedback
026that we need to better recognize advanced academic pathways and ensure college readiness benchmarks are current. Um, and our goal in this proposal is that the combination of these two proposals removes a a potential disadvantage or disincentive for advanced coursework and ensures fairer recognition of accelerated students achievements. Our next group of propo proposals for updates to domain one are related to CCMR or college career and military readiness. But before we dig into the proposed accountability updates, we want to turn it over to the director of the college career and military preparation division here at the agency uh uh Valerie Laundry. Um, Valerie is going to be able to provide some programmatic framing and updates related to both industrybased certifications and college prep courses. So, Valerie, I'm going to turn it over to you to lead this
027portion. Thanks, Katie. Good morning, everyone. As Katie said, before performance reporting dives into the accountability updates associated with CCMR, I want to take a moment to frame the conversation with some important context around college career and military preparation programming changes. Specifically, I'll share updates related to the industry-based certifications and college preparatory courses, two areas that have seen significant shifts in recent years. Let's begin by looking at one of the most visible shifts, the growth in industry-based certifications. This chart shows a remarkable trend. Since 2018, both the number of IBC's earned and the number of students earning them have increased significantly. In 2018, just over 20,000 certifications were earned by about 16,500 students. Fast forward to 2024 and we are reporting nearly 200,000 certifications earned by more than 130,000 students. This growth reflects the incredible work
028that is happening in districts across the state to expand access to career aligned learning. But it also raises some important questions. Are all of these certifications providing students the most meaningful pathways to high wage, high demand careers? That's the heart of the programmatic updates we're going to explore today, ensuring that our accountability system reflects not just the volume, but the value for students. While we've seen a major increase in the number of IBC's awarded, which is definitely something to celebrate, not all certifications are aligned to high wage, high-skll or high demand industries. On the left, this chart shows the top 90% of IBC's that were earned by volume in 2023. While on the right, by contrast, it shows the bottom 10% of IBC's earned. While many of the most commonly earned certifications are in areas
029like Microsoft Word and Floral Design, the less common certifications, though fewer in number, often align more closely with high demand industries like engineering and IT. So as we transition from the 2022 2025 IBC list, that was version three, to the new 2025 2030 IBC list, version 4. We realized that we needed to make some significant shifts in the way we identified industry-based certifications to ensure that districts had the information they needed in order to provide the most beneficial opportunities leading to strong post-secary outcomes for the students that they serve. To address this, TEA has adopted a tiering system for IBC's. Tier one represents certifications that are in demand and directly align to highwage occupations and they don't require you to purchase curriculum in order for students to take those exams. This means you could look
030in local job postings and see these certifications listed as required for the job. In contrast, tier 2 includes certifications that are commonly linked to occupations that are either in demand and high wage or high skill. And again, they don't require any curriculum. But this means that the certification is not necessarily required for the job, but it would definitely speak to the candidates's qualifications for the job. And finally, tier three certifications are those that don't meet either of the uh of the criteria listed in tier 1 and tier 2, or they require specific curriculum in order to take those certification exams, which means districts will have to purchase a specific curriculum that prepares students for a specific test. This taring system is intended to give districts a clearer lens to evaluate which certifications offer the greatest
031value for students futures. When reviewing the preliminary 2025 2030 IBC list, it was important that every program of study offer a mixed tiered certifications. For example, you can see here the vast majority of IBC's fall into the tier 2 category with this sample of programs of studies represented. We know that Texas is a big and diverse state. So, this structure empowers districts to make choices that reflect their local workforce needs and their students interests. There are many things for a district to consider when building out programs of study and and choosing the aligned IBC's that they will offer to students. Here are examples from four programs of study. Within these programs of study, you'll notice that each one includes certifications across a variety of tiers. uh when we recognize that those credentials a tier three
032certification is recognized within the field. However, there may be other certifications that provide students more impact and maximize student outcomes. In October, the Texas Workforce Commission Industrybased Certification Advisory Council will review the Commissioner of Education referrals for review and adjustments of tiers and we anticipate that that final list will be published after the IBC advisory council's decisions and pending determination of implications from the recently passed House Bill 8. TEA will release to PS the updated unique IDs for these IBC's in February so that schools are ready to report those with the summer 2026 submissions. Now shifting to college preparatory courses. We've also seen tremendous growth in college prep course participation since 2018. And these courses create one option for students to meet TSI criteria and demonstrate college readiness. However, successful completion must align with expectations
033from the partnering institution of higher education and result in the intended outcomes for students. Let's start by reviewing the ways that you can meet TSI criteria through the college prep courses. There are a variety of ways students can meet college readiness indicator in CCMR. And one of those ways is to meet the student success initiative criteria in RLA and mathematics. And this can happen through various pathways including college readiness uh demonstrated through SAT, ACT, TSIA 1 and two or successful completion of a college prep course. Successful completion of a college prep course though was intended in the resulting in a student earning the TSI exemption from the partnering IIChe. It's not just about passing the course, but it's about meeting the criteria that truly signals college readiness. And that alignment is critical. From 2018 to
0342013, the number of graduates who met CCMR exclusively through pol college college prep courses rose significantly. It was through this rise in number of students obtaining CCMR through college prep courses that caused us to implement this system of review. See, in 2018, only 16% of graduates who met CCMR did so exclusively through the college prep course. However, by 2023, it had risen to 45% of college prep course graduates earning college readiness through the college prep course and not meeting any other indicator of CCMR. This underscores the importance of ensuring that college prep courses are rigorous and that they're aligned to post-secary expectations. Students who are coded as successfully completing a college prep course should signify that the student met the passing criteria for both the district and the ICE partner, thus earning them a TSIA
035exemption and allowing them to bypass a developmental course in that subject area. TSI exemptions from college prep courses are valid for 24 months postgraduation. Students must enroll in that first college level course in the exempted subject within their first year because if they don't, it may expire before it actually benefits them. Unfortunately, when the data for college prep course was reviewed, not only did we find that many students were not receiving the TSI exemption when enrolling with the partner institution, but we also found that those who did receive the exemption were not as well prepared and were being mostly unsuccessful in their first college level course. We found that college prep courses outcomes aren't currently aligned with the other college readiness indicators within the CCMR system. The results for the class of 2022 graduates who
036only met college readiness through college prep courses shows that the majority of students did not earn a C or better in their first college level course or they were required to take a remedial course even though they completed the college prep course. This misalignment is why we're redefining how college prep courses are used in accountability to ensure that they truly reflect college readiness. While we continue to collect data from each graduating cohort moving forward, TA is implementing a phased review cycle for college prep courses to build the version one list. As you can see in the chart below, this will allow us to add to the number of recognized partners on the list each year. As results come into alignment with other indicators of college readiness, these partners will be added to the list for
037CCMR accountability. This summer, we will have the results from the class of 2024. This data still res represents students who participated in college prep courses prior to discussions around course improvements. Therefore, we do not anticipate that this will yield significantly different results than the previous review. However, if any additional providers are identified through this review, they will be added to the list available for the class of 2027 and beyond. This phased approach allows us to build a stronger evidence-based list that evolves with student success. Some may ask, why keep using CPCs if the district cannot earn CCMR credit through them? And the answer is this. College prep courses still serve multiple purposes. They support graduation requirements for some students and they could be used as a source of TSIA preparation. This is in addition to
038accountability. To be clear, districts may continue to partner with any ICE or other provider they choose regardless of whether they are on the approved list or not. Students will still receive the benefit upon successful completion of the course. However, districts can only earn the CCMR credit for college preparatory courses if they are an approved provider. Regardless, in order to be effective, courses must be rigorous, aligned, and result in successful college level performance. Finally, the application cycle for college prep courses used in CCMR accountability is now open. Providers must submit an interest form by October 17th and final applications by November 7th. Together, we are working to strengthen college and career readiness pathways in order to ensure that every student is prepared for success beyond high school. Katie, that's it for all of our updates programmatically.
039I'll turn it back over to you. Thank you so much for that context and framing, Valerie. Our accountability system, as I said, is designed to be rigorous, transparent, and fair. And we're so grateful for you for providing additional insights into the programmatic updates that are driving the proposed accountability updates. as we want our accountability system to reflect what is in the best interests of students in preK through 12 and also as they venture into the college into the co into the workforce college or the military. In addition to the programmatic shifts which Valerie just outlined, we have received feedback that CCMR indicators should more accurately reflect that the likelihood that a student will experience success after high school, whether they enroll in college, enlist in the armed forces, or join the workforce. Alongside that feedback,
040we've received feedback that those rigorous CCMR indicators that lead to post-secary success should be weighted differently in the framework. To respond to this feedback, we explored two options. Waiting across indicators such as comparing the long-term value of AP exams, passing AP exams against the value of level one or level two certificates. And we also explored waiting within indicators such as exploring the long-term value for a student who passes three AP exams versus a student who passes five AP exams. We explored how those weights could be assigned but ultimately based on the feedback of our advisory groups determined a need to press pause on the proposal of that waiting across indicators. This recommendation is based on a few things. First, we know that in many cases school systems will need to examine and adjust programs and
041offerings. While two years is ample time to prepare for most aspects of a refresh, uh this would mean making shift shifts for students who are already halfway done with high school. Instead, the recommendation was made and adjusted to shift this proposal to the 2033 refresh, meaning that the class of 2032 will be the first class evaluated under this weighted accountability framework for CCMR. Because we deeply understand the weight of this shift, our goal is to share the proposed methodology for this across indicator waiting CCMR in fall of 2026. Meaning you will all have this information 2 years before the class of 2032 starts high school, allowing time for programs and programs of study to shift as needed. In between now and then, we'll be doing additional study and modeling so that we are able to
042have and share a strong research base and rationale for that methodology. And again, that was stamped in House Bill 8 that that across indicator waiting um must appear in the 2033 refresh. So that's 2033 and you'll have much more information in uh fall of 2026. But let's talk about what is proposed in the 2028 A throughF refresh preliminary framework um for uh for 2028. So the CCMR proposed changes reflected in the 2028 framework are limited to two indicators. Both are more closely aligned within indicator waiting of CCMR indicators. First, we want IBC's in the CCMR framework to serve as meaningful indicators of students readiness for post-secary success. As such, the preliminary framework reflects a proposal of a 5% cap or five graduates, whichever is higher in your context, to receive CCMR through a tier 3
043IBC. Again, as Valerie shared, a tier 3 certification meets the criteria to remain on the tier on the IBC list, but is not in demand or directly aligned with one of our more high wage uh occupations or potentially requires a curriculum. As we want our accountability system to reflect rigorous outcomes for students, this cap on tier three IBC's allows for a small percentage of students to be CCMR through a tier 3 certification while also incentivizing and recognizing those certifications that better prepare students to enter into careers that are more directly aligned um with career paths that are in demand or high wage. I do want to note that in the 2028 proposed system, all IC's are weighted equally as CCMR indicators. So from a CCMR perspective, there's no difference in scoring for students that earn
044a tier 1 or tier 2 certification. Tier three certifications are also equally weighted up to 5% of graduates or five students uh whichever is higher after which CCMR will not be awarded uh to any more students beyond that 5%. Again that weighted scoring will be outlined for the 2023 refresh and shared next summer. But for now, IBC's are all weighted equally up to that 5% cap for our tier 3 IBC's. Of course, before including this as a proposal on the preliminary refresh, we examined the potential impact of this 5% cap on schools across Texas. This modeling is based off the preliminary turing of the version three of the IVC list which was from 2022 to 2025 and is applied to class of 2023 data. This is not based off of the preliminary version 4 IBC
045list which is applicable for 25 to 2030. That final list and the tiered status as Valerie shared of each IBC on the list is forthcoming. When we applied the third version of the IBC list, what we found is that across the state, less than 1% of students that graduated in 2023 and were reflected on 2024 accountability met CCMR requirements exclusively through a tier 3 certification. In other words, 99% of students who met CCMR requirements for 2024 accountability were able to do so through some other indicator. Additionally, across the state, only 67 campuses had more than 5% of graduates earn CCMR through exclusively through a tier 3 IBC. At these schools, based on modeling, we would see an average drop of about 4% on their CCMR component score, but the vast majority of Texas high schools
046would be unimpacted by this 5% cap. The second proposed change to the CCMR methodology, which Valerie just spoke through, has been previously published, but is also reflected in the 2028 preliminary framework. that is to ensure that college preparatory courses align with standards consistent across other indicators of college readiness. College prep courses may only be taken in grade 12 and only um through an agency reviewed and approved college preparatory course in order to to to meet TSI college readiness standards for CCMR. We again want to highlight that this has been messaged since the 2024 accountability updates. At that time, the 2024 manual stated this transition for college prep courses would be for 2027 accountability. However, in the 2026 manual, this was pushed back one year to allow for school systems to align TSI indicators to current
047offerings. So, here you can see a gradual process of more closely aligning CCMR accountability with programmatic goals and expectations. And starting with the class of 2027, only approved college prep courses that are taken in 12th grade will meet TSI indicators for college uh TSI indicators for accountability purposes. So to sum up the proposed changes for CCMR, we received feedback that applying differentiated waiting ensures their value the value of C CCMR indicators more accurately aligns with post-secondary outcomes. And we want to be sure that the 2028 A throughs system encourages districts to prioritize more rigorous and meaningful post-secary pathways improving alignment with workforce and college readiness. As such, there are just two proposed changes to the 2028 A throughF system. First, a 5% cap or five students total if that is greater meeting CCMR through a
048tier 3 IBC. And again, not new to the 2028 A throughF preliminary framework, but messaging um but uh again sharing that messaging that college prep courses must be agency approved and only taken in grade 12 to meet TSI criteria for CCMR. So that sums that up for domain one. We could say check a check and take that off our list. I also want to name that while there are no proposed changes to the school progress domain methodology, the proposed changes related both to CCMR and accelerated testers would impact domain 2B where student achievement outcomes are compared to other campuses with similar economic uh socioeconomic profiles. And speaking of schools with similar profiles, let's go ahead and dig into distinction designations. our last big topic for our time together today. As you know, A throughF ratings
049are a big part of the accountability system, but not the only part. Also included are other performance uh information and distinction designations. And to align with the goal of transparency, all of these are reported on texaschools.gov and within the Texas Performance Reporting System or TPRS. Today we're going to dig into distinction designations, which are available in seven different areas. And you can see on the bottom how those icons appear on texaschools.gov. This is one way through the accountability system that we can honor schools that are doing great things for kids, such as those with the highest number of students at masters and those that consistently enroll students in AP courses, which is shown to have a positive impact on co um on college persistence. distinction designations um come from campus comparison groups. So campus comparison
050groups are a set of 40 campuses from anywhere in Texas that are most similar across eight categories. So first we take a look at camp at school type. Then we look at demographic information such as campus size, the grade levels offered, the percent of students that are economically disadvantaged, so on and so forth. Once we have a similar set of schools, we apply a distance formula and those campuses that are most similar become a campus comparison group. We have three proposed changes related to distinction designation. So let's dive into the first the postsecary readiness distinction designation. The first batch of feedback we received related to distinction designations was that post-secondary readiness distinct post-secary readiness distinction designation indicators should include indicators more focused on college enrollment and graduation or long-term outcomes for kids. As such, we're
051proposing four additional indicators within the postsecary readiness distinction designation. college enrollment within six years, continued college enrollment two years after high school graduation, an associates or two-year degree earned within six years, and a bachelor's or four-year degree earned within six years. For this methodology, we'll follow the six-year cohort, six-year rate for a single cohort. And it's important to note that the percent of indicators in the top quartortile required to earn that distinction designation is unchanged. So currently a school must be in the top 25% of their campus comparison group on 33% of indicators which currently is three out of eight. A school in 2028 will is proposed to continue to need to be in the top 25% within their campus comparison group on 33% of indicators. But in 2028 that would shift to four out
052of 12 in order to earn the post-secary readiness distinction designation. And we considered multiple methods of calculations uh for to measure these four additional indicators u but felt ultimately and received feedback ultimately that it was most consistent to follow the six-year cohort rate. So the students that will be considered in this six-year rate for 2028 accountability are graduates from the class of 2021. The next proposed change for distinction designation relates to the attendance rate as an indicator within academic achievement distinction designations. We have received feedback that the attendance rate should be removed from the four academic achievement distinction designations. While attendance is certainly important and is reflected on texaschools.gov, gov. It is ultimately an not an it ultimately is an input, not an outcome and is not a direct reflection of the academic achievement of
053a campus. Under the current system, the attendance rate appears in all four of the academic achievement distinction designations in math, reading, science, and social studies. Again, only schools that are rated as an A, B, or C can receive these distinction designations. And it's important to note that currently a campus cannot earn a distinction based solely on the attendance rate, but could earn a distinction based solely on another indicator. This might be a case for an elementary school uh in the science distinction is they would likely only have data for the star at master's level and attendance rate and could earn a distinction for being in the top 25% of fifth grade science masters only but not earn a distinction for being in the top quartortile for attendance rate only. The percent of indicators earned to
054receive a distinction in academic achievement are outlined in statute. For a high school or K12, they must be in the top 25% of their campus comparison group on 33% of indicators, while elementary and middle schools must be in the top 25% for 50% of their indicators. So, here you can see all of the current indicators for reading and math academic achievement distinction designations with the proposal to remove the attendance rate in 2028. Again, the percentage of indicators earned, the percentage of indicators that must be earned to to earn the distinction is unchanged. I'm not going to go through each of these indicators, but this deck will be posted. And feel free to reach out to us with any questions on how these indicators are measured or what they mean. And again, the percentage of indicators
055earned for school types is unchanged as those are explicitly named in state statute. We have a similar visual here for science and social studies. And it's worth noting here that the removal of the attendance rate would mean that most elementary and middle schools would only be eligible for one indicator within the science uh academic achievement distinction designation and potentially for depending on school configuration. But a school that did not serve up to grade 8 um would be would continue to be ineligible for the academic achievement distinction designation in social studies. When we modeled the impact of removing the attendance rate from all academic achievement designations, we found the following. First, more campuses would earn a distinction than lose them. So about 2% of campuses across the state would lose a distinction based on removing the
056attendance rate indicator, but about 9% of campuses would now earn a distinction. We also found that in general, the campuses gaining distinction designations have higher percentages of students that are economically disadvantaged than those that lose them. And campuses that lose designations do not demonstrate lower performance than those that gain them. Overall, this modeling demonstrates that by removing a uh the attendance rate from acade the list of indicators on academic achievement distinction designation were more able to focus on their intent to reward outcomes for students and outcomes for student performance rather than weighing in attendance. Our last proposal related to distinction designations focuses on uh those uh campuses um that are alternative education campuses or dropout recovery schools under our current system. These schools are not eligible to receive any distinction designations. We heard that these
057campuses and of course play an important role and deserve the recogn recognition that come with distinction designations. We modeled different types of forming campus comparison groups that are essential to distinction designations. And when we looked at several different methodologies, we found that actually the same methodology for which all campus comparison groups makes the most sense for these AEA campuses. Through this process, we were able to form campus comparison groups for high schools that are rated under the A.E.A. accountability. So these high schools are proposed to have campus comparison groups in the 2028 methodology. When we tried to replicate this process and several other methodologies to form campus comparison groups for our Aea middle schools or K12 campuses, the number of campuses was just too small and the demographic distance between these campuses was just too
058great. As such, um, uh, Aeas that are middle school campuses or K12 campuses will continue to be ineligible for distinction designations. In the preliminary framework, you will see that Aeas are proposed to be eligible only for the post-secary readiness indicator with the same list of indicators proposed for other high schools and K12s in order to earn the post-secary readiness distinction designation. So to sum up our proposed shift to distinction designations, we want to broaden recognition for schools excelling in post-secary outcomes and and ensure distinctions are academically meaningful in terms of long-term outcomes for students and keeping the focus on academics. In order to do this, we're proposing adding four post-secary readiness indicators, creating AEA or DRS campus groups, and removing the attendance rate from all academic achievement distinction designation indicator lists. And that concludes all
059of the proposals we'll be exploring today. So, what do we do now? We encourage you to give us feedback if you're ready now. The survey is open or you can wait until the conclusion of our webinar series or in-person events. Either way, we appreciate it and we'll consider it as we work towards an updated framework next spring, a preliminary manual early next summer, and a final manual adoption late in the summer of 2026. We sincerely appreciate your time and engagement today and learning how um uh domain one and distinction designation shifts are reflected in our preliminary framework document. And we're thrilled to be starting this process now and be on track to sharing a final manual 2 years before the refresh, allowing all of us time to process and prepare. We also hope that you'll
060continue to join us and learn more about the 2028 A throughF refresh. Our next session scheduled for October 21st or 22nd will have identical content not to today but identical contact to each other uh content to each other and those will be focused on domain three closing the gaps and proposed shifts for campus levels. The recording and presentation deck from our first webinar sessions are available now and are available on the accountability system development web page where today's recording and deck will also be shared. If you had blocked out time for our originally scheduled November webinar, first off, thank you. And secondly, please note a change of date for this series to conclude on December 9th and 10th. We're excited to leverage this time to provide you with the most up-to-date information on the proposed
061integration of resultsdriven accountability into the A throughF system. Registration links for both of our upcoming webinar series will be available through our weekly pro performance reporting bulletin and on the accountability system development web page. Lastly, I personally and we all sincerely appreciate your feedback on our presentation today. I we know uh even a couple extra minutes uh is is cutting into other things, but I sincerely appreciate you taking those few moments to let us know what worked and how we can improve for our next webinar. We will be staying on um to try and answer as many questions in the Q&A feature as possible. Um but if we are unable to answer your question today, we will follow up with you. So thank you in advance for your feedback on today's session. And again, if
062you would like to um uh provide feedback, that is available on the perform uh performance reporting website for accountability system development. We look forward to seeing you again in just a few short weeks.