001Welcome everyone. Uh we are thrilled to be here with you today as we launch our refresh road show for the 2028 A throughF preliminary framework. We really hope that today is informative and clear and I'm excited to engage with each of you in the coming months as we prepare for the 2028 A throughF refresh. My name is Katie Jubert and I am the director of policy and communications in the performance reporting division at TEA. I'm joined today by Katherine Beck, our division director for performance reporting, and Dr. Karen Mateton, who is the director of test administration within the assessment division. We're thrilled to have Karen with us today along with future refresh webinars, as we know there are many questions regarding assessment in the coming years. Our refresh road show generally is intended to raise
002stakeholder awareness about the refresh and the proposed content while getting meaningful public comment from which we can improve the preliminary framework. We also hope to be thought partners in supporting your effective planning for the proposed changes in 2028. We know that accountability is complex and changes to the accountability complex, I'm sorry, to the accountability system are even more complex. So, we have made this a four-part series and our goal today is to share more about the purpose and structure of the AF system and to give insight into the timeline and processes we follow here at the agency to draft and publish the preliminary framework that is available today. We also have new legislation in Texas, House Bill 8, which has large implications for the 2028 refresh. And that re legislation was signed after the preliminary
003framework was published. So we will be sharing more about new considerations and implications not in the preliminary framework that will be included in future iterations. Thank you for being here today and we hope you're subscribed to the performance reporting bulletin so you can access future webinar links. We also want to name that we will be on the ground across Texas throughout this fall and spring. So, please reach out to your ESC contacts if you would like to learn more about this face- toface in real life. During our call today, the Q&A feature is open. Please leverage that. We'll respond to what we can during our time together today and be sure to follow up with you um if we're unable to respond today. So, let's jump in. And first, we want to frame why we
004have an A throughFS system at all. We are all here and we're all educators because we believe that students can learn and achieve at high levels. Our ultimate goal is to prepare each and every student in Texas for life after their K12 education by ensuring that they have the tools they need to be successful in college, the career of their choice, or in the military. We know what it takes for students to cross the graduation stage as college, career, or military ready. We also know what the building blocks are starting in early childhood education for each student to get the tools that they need at each grade level and in every subject. The state board of education has defined these expectations through the Texas essential knowledge and skills or the TEACS. So, while third grade
005is a long time from high school graduation, we can see the progression of knowledge and skills across each student's prek through 12 career. Here we have an example of a third grade math teak. One of the things that our students must be able to know and do by the end of third grade. In order to ensure that students are gaining those knowledge and skills, we leverage the STAR assessment to determine to what extent students have mastered those skills. Let's take a look at the TEAK and the third grade STAR question that assesses mastery of that skill. This question lets us know whether or not the student has mastered this skill. We do not rely on what we think our students know or can do. We need concrete ways to measure their performance. This allows us
006to make decisions instructionally, whether it's leveraging a different curriculum, shifting teacher training, or providing targeted tutoring. And just as we want to know what our third graders know and can do by assessing their mastery of skills, we want to know how our schools are doing. Each of us on the call today has different experiences in school and different idea of what makes a school good for our children or for our communities. Regardless of our school models or preferences, there are universal truths that inform to what extent a school is meeting our goal of college, career, and military readiness. First, are students achieving? Second, are students growing? And third, are the most vulnerable students in the school community growing and achieving? We can quantify the answers to these three crucial questions. And we have through the
007A throughF accountability system. This system allows us to make informed decisions about how our schools are and how our districts are doing. And just as we have high expectations for our third grade mathematicians, we have high expectations for our schools and our districts. Research has been conducted and proven when schools are held accountable to results, students perform better, not just while they're in school, but they have better life outcomes. So while accountability can be uncomfortable, it sets a bar that drives all of us to get our students what they need and what they deserve. So to sum up, why do we have the A ref system? We have it to increase student performance, to eliminate achievement gaps, and to prepare Texas graduates for post-secary success. And these three things can only happen when all of
008the education leaders across the state work together to foster a culture of growth and continuous improvement. Regardless of where we are in our refresh cycle, there are key design commitments that remain unchanged in our A throughF system. Our ratings in Texas reflect the better of achievement or progress, both of which are evaluated through multiple valid measures. We have a defined criteria or cut scores that define each rating. It was so exciting to see the growth from 2024 to 2025 where over 30% of campuses increase their letter grades and that's only possible because of that defined criteria. And lastly, our system remains static in most years. So between refresh years, you'll see slight tweaks to make our system more clear, but major changes are held for refreshes. During a refresh, as always in the A3F system,
009we're balancing three big ideas. First, our system must be rigorous. This was more clearly codified by House Bill 8 as ensuring that Texas is a national leader on the National Assessment of Education Progress or NAPE exam and postsecary success. The legislature has charged all of us collectively to ensure that within 15 years, Texas performs in the top five states. We also strive for the system to be transparent and accessible for all stakeholders. And lastly, our system must be fair. It must be mathematically possible for all campuses and districts to earn an A. So let's dig into how ratings are calculated in the A throughF accountability framework. As we discussed, the system is built on key design commitments that ensure fairness, transparency, and alignment with long-term goals for students. Districts and campuses are evaluated across three
010key domains. Domain one or the student achievement domain measures academic success. Domain two or the school progress domain tracks improvement over time and domain three or the closing the gaps domain focuses on equity and support for underserved st student groups. Here's how the ratings are weighted. 70% of the rating reflects the better of the outcomes between student achievement and school progress. The remaining 30% comes from the closing the gap domain. This design ensures that high student achievement is recognized, the impact of highly effective educators is visible, and most importantly, we maintain a strong focus on students who need the most support. One of the most encouraging aspects of this approach is that our ratings highlight the growth and achievement happening across all campuses, including those serving economically diverse school communities. We had 361 schools across
011Texas who have more than 80% of their students identified as economically disadvantaged earn an A in 2025. So let's explore the data for domain one student achievement. This domain shows how well our students are performing academically and how prepared they are for life after high school. whether they opt towards college, join the uh join the career force or military service. Performance is measured through STAR CCMR or college career military readiness indicators and graduation rates. This ensures a comprehensive view of student success. For elementary and middle schools, STAR is the primary measure. For our high schools, we also look at readiness indicators such as AP exams, dual credit courses, and military enlistment. Domain 2 focuses on school progress. It includes academic growth and relative performance, helping us understand how students are improving year overyear. In domain
0122, we evaluate students learning over time. Not just where they are, but how far they've come. So in domain 2A or academic growth measures individual student progress year-over-year. It looks at how students move from one performance level to the next, like a student who moves from approaches to meets, and it rewards schools for accelerating learning, especially for those students who start farther behind or below the approaches bar. Relative performance compares a school's achievement to other schools with similar levels of economic disadvantage. This ensures fairness by recognizing schools that are outperforming peers in similar contexts. And last, but certainly not least, 30% of a rating comes from domain 3. And this domain evaluates how well your school community is supporting historically underserved student groups and ensuring all students have the opportunity to succeed. This domain aligns
013with federal requirements and evaluates 18 student groups across achievement, growth, graduation, and English language proficiency uh growth. Ratings are based on on four different groups to focus on those students with the highest needs. Let's dig deeper on domain three, which can be tricky. This is a high school or K12 example for those with a graduating class from the prior year. You can see there are four groups of students evaluated on four different components. Each school is rated on four components. Academic achievement, graduation rate, progress to English language proficiency, and school quality and student success. Your four groups are first all students in your school, second the lowest performing race or ethnic group from last year. The third group is your second lowest uh race or ethnic group from last year. And the fourth group is
014your high focus group, which includes students that are economically disadvantaged, those that are highly mobile, students with IEPs, and students that are emergent bilingual. For each component and each group, you can receive up to four points. Those points are earned based on how close you are to federal targets. So, if you don't show any growth towards your federal targets, you would earn zero points while you earn four points for meeting the next federal target. Domain 3 looks a little bit different for our elementary and middle schools and each here are each of the components and their weights. You can also you can see that the points available for each of those four student groups and those points again are calculated based on a school's progress towards targets. As you can see for a school that
015met the minimum size requirement for all student groups, they would have a total of 84 points possible to earn in domain 3. before we transition into the uh highlevel framework uh preliminary framework for 2028 which is not which sees some changes but the highle framework remains the same in 2028. I wanted to share a couple of uh uh invaluable tools and resources um uh as as you work uh to share accountability news with with your stakeholders. So texaschools.gov is a valuable resource for both the general public and educators. Here we can find the ratings for all schools and districts across the state, but also additional links to reports, analytics tools, and the school locators. How accountability works is also a great resource for further study on the A3S system or to help explain it to
016others. For those of you that are on the call today and will be responsible for turnkeying this information or uh turnkey information on accountability generally here you can find userfriendly infographics and one pagers that explain how those ratings are calculated. So the purpose and overall design of A3F is unchanged in the preliminary framework for the 2028 refresh. But let's talk about what proposed changes you will see and how each of those changes came to be. House Bill 8 recently codified that a refresh happens every 5 years. So we last saw a refresh in 2023. We're here to discuss 2028 and the next refresh will be in 2033. In between refreshes, cut scores and underlying methodology changes cannot be made. This allows our schools to demonstrate continuous growth and allows for better yearover-year comparisons. As we
017prepare for the 2028 refresh, House Bill 8 also codifies some invaluable resources to you. First off, we must communicate the refresh 2 years in advance of implementation. So, you might have seen that we previously anticipated sharing the 2028 accountability system manual in the fall of 2026. And now you will see that final manual in late summer of 2026. Additionally, TEA is required to share whatif scores for the two years preceding the refresh. What this means is that you'll receive scores in 2026 and 27. In addition to your 26 and 27 scores, we'll also apply data from that year to the 2028 methodology. In other words, you'll be explicitly able to answer the question, what what would happen if the refresh was happening right now? This data set and what if ratings will allow schools and
018districts to make adjustments and plan strategically to maximize ratings for 2028 and again you'll have those project uh progress checks both in 2026 and again in 2027. Many of us remember the 2023 refresh. So, let's talk about what we've been up to at the agency between now and then on the road to 2028. During and after a refresh, we get a lot of feedback and we read, process, and value every piece of feedback that we receive. Sometimes that feedback can be incorporated in between refresh years, like when we adjust a heading on a table to make a methodology more clear. Other times when it involves changing the methodology or scoring, we hold on to that while we gear up for the next refresh. With the big proposals, we conduct major research modeling so we can
019get really clear about the impact of any proposed changes. We also know that legislative requirements change, so our A throughs system must change to account for that. So, House Bill 8 is a big bill and there will be further changes to the preliminary framework to account for its mandates. And lastly, we work really closely with various advisory groups to get their feedback and insights as we prepare to release a preliminary framework. The first advisory group that I want to talk about is the Texas Accountability Advisory Group or TAG. TAG is a committee of 20 members who represent school districts, legislative offices, and community leaders. Its membership has been further delineated with House Bill 8. TAG's job is to review proposals and modeling and give recommendations to the con commissioner on the next refresh. The meeting
020minutes and materials are all publicly available and we meet with them most months in a refresh window. So you can see here we had meetings December 2024 through last month and will pick back up in November. In addition to TAG, we work closely with other advisory advisory groups that support the publication of a preliminary framework. Anytime we make changes to distinction designations, we must convene a distinction designation committee. And for the 2028 refresh, we have met and will continue to meet with a resultsdriven accountability or RDA integration task force. These are content area experts who can give us specific insights, feedback, and input. I also just want to give a quick shout out and gratitude to any of our advisory group members who are here on the call today. We know that you all have
021very busy schedules and we sincerely appreciate the time and dedication you have poured into the 2028 refresh. Our advisory groups at their core help us to balance our three objectives of rigor, transparency and fairness as we draft and publish a preliminary framework. So as I shared we get a lot of feedback um during and after a refresh and our first step in is to define the considerations. So here you can see the seven main considerations that we examined for the 2028 refresh framework considered for 2028 were target and cut scores updates using new baselines and now consideration uh those uh that consideration has been layered upon um as we also consider what is the path for Texas to be a top performer nationally. We also considered integration of RDA or resultsdriven accountability into the A
022throughF framework. We considered differential waiting of CCMR indicators and also considered variables for relative performance. We considered recognition of accelerated testers in both middle school and high school and revisions to distinction designations. And last, but certainly not least, there are considerations surrounding other reporting information such as programmatic offerings unique to a school or district community. You might be thinking, wait, I read the preliminary framework and I didn't see all of this. And that's true. So, let's talk about why that is. Once we collect and analyze that feedback and we and we define and formalize the consideration, we propose a methodology. This process was completed for each of the considerations you saw listed on the previous slide. Once we define how we would measure the consideration, we conduct extensive modeling to determine the impact. In short,
023does this system does this consideration make our system more rigorous, more transparent or more fair? We then take the consideration proposed methodology and the results of the modeling to tag and our other advisory groups. They analyze it and provide feedback. Sometimes they provide a recommendation to the commissioner. But often that steps three and four when we do the modeling and we share it with our advisory groups, that's a cycle and we come back to that multiple times and with multiple adjustments until a recommendation can be made. There are times that this whole process is completed and the recommendation is to not include that consideration in the preliminary framework. Other times the recommendation is to hold until the next refresh and sometimes the recommendation is to include the consideration as a proposed change in the refresh
024framework which is what you will see in our recently published document. So let's take a look at example of each of these three options. Option one, we recommend not to move forward with a consideration. Option two, recommendation to hold until the next refresh or future refreshes. And option three, recommendation to include that in the new methodology. And I want to start first with an idea that was considered and modeled and explored, but ultimately not included in the 2028 A throughF preliminary refresh framework. So every time we do a refresh, we reexamine domain 2B to ensure it reflects its intended goals. We consistently conduct process checks to further rigor, transparency, and fairness. So we look at multiple demographic factors and I want to zoom in on one of those. We have received feedback that domain 2B
025or the relative performance domain should reflect the comparative performance of schools with similar percentages of students that receive special education services. While this consideration had been explored previously, we are committed to consistently upgrading our system based on public feedback. So we defined how we would measure this and conducted modeling based on prior year data. What we found is that the vast majority of schools have a special education population that is close to the average of 15%. So there's not a wide range of variance between campuses. And for most campuses, their special education population is a relatively small portion of their overall student body. When we looked at star performance for these schools, special education rates accounted for less than 1% of star performance scores as compared to more than 50% accounted for by their economically
026disadvantaged rates. We also looked at schools that had higher rates of special education within their um student populations. In these cases um where the special education rate was 25% or higher um that special education rate accounts for about 2 and a.5% of their star performance while their egois or economically disadvantage rate accounts for more than 30%. So even in schools with large student populations of students with special education needs adding this factor only adds marginal value to the system. And lastly, we looked at schools that had the highest percent of students with special education. And in these schools, uh, one, many of these schools were very small, and frankly, the distribution was just too large in terms of their scores to make a meaningful comparison. So after defining the proposed methodology and modeling its impact,
027the recommendation was made to not include special education percentage as a factor in domain 2B. Ultimately, it made the system much more complicated or less transparent without giving much more insight into school performance. So when we look at consideration number four or potential changes to relative performance, you'll not see this reflected in the preliminary framework. We considered it, modeled it, and got feedback that it was not the right move. A decision that was made thoughtfully and strategically and with a large research base. Next, I want to look at the second option or when we press pause on a recommendation for the current refresh year and encourage it for future consideration. The feedback has been received that CCMR indicators should more accurately reflect the likelihood that it that a student will experience success after high school,
028whether they enroll in college, enlist in the armed forces, or join the workforce. Alongside that feedback, we have received feedback that those more rigorous CCMR indicators that lead to post-secondary success should be weighted more heavily in the accountability framework. To respond to this feedback, when we narrowed the consideration, we actually explored two different options. Waiting across indicators such as comparing the value of AP exams against the value of level one or level two certificates. And we also explored weighing within indicators such as the value of a student taking three AP exams versus taking five AP exams. We explored how those weights could be assigned but ultimately based on the feedback of our advisory groups determined the need to press pause on the proposal of waiting across indicators. This recommendation is based on a few things.
029First, we know that in many cases, school systems will need to examine and adjust programs and offerings. While 2 years to prepare for a refresh in most areas is ample time, that would mean making shifts for students who were already halfway done with high school. Instead, the recommendation was made and and and I'm sorry, 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 framework. Because we understand the weight of the shift, our goal is to share the proposed methodology alongside the 2028 accountability systems manual, meaning you will have all the information 2 years before the class of 2032 even starts high school, allowing time for programs and programs of studies to shift as needed. In between
030now and then, we also will be doing additional study and modeling to be able to have and share a strong research base and rationale for that methodology. So, we're pressing pause on differential waiting across indicators and more to come on that this summer. We also want to name that differential waiting across indicators is included in House Bill 8. I also want to clearly name that what is included in the preliminary framework is waiting within indicators. On our next webinar in just a few weeks, we'll be diving deep into the proposals for the industrybased certification or IBC caps which is one within indicator waiting tool that we will see in 2028. We encourage you to join us then and to learn more about the shifts to CCMR methodology in 2028. And last but certainly not least,
031when we go through this whole process, uh there are recommendations and lots of recommendations um for what should be included in the next preliminary framework and that's what you'll see in the 2020 A3F framework. Um, so once we've passed the rigorous uh rounds of modeling and going back to the drawing board and getting uh lots of stakeholder input, that's what you'll see in that framework. If you've not already had a chance to, you can find the preliminary framework on the accountability systems development page. Directly underneath the framework, you can find the link to submit comment on the framework. Again, everything you submit is read, processed, and considered. So, we appreciate your feedback and are committed to ongoing system design upgrades between now and when we publish that final manual in late summer 2026. And if
032you haven't had a chance to dig in, here is a list of all proposed changes in the preliminary framework. Each of these is from an initial consideration that was then modeled and analyzed and ultimately recommended. We will be diving into each of these in the coming weeks. So, please join us again on October 8th or 9th to explore propo proposals to the student achievement domain and distinction designations. Many of these will look familiar from our seven initial considerations included in the framework. You will see a proposal for bonus points for students in grades 5 through 8 that take and pass an end of course assessment as well as revised performance standards for those accelerated testers once they take the ACT or SAT in high school. You'll see a proposal for within indicator waiting through a
033cap on tier 3 industrybased certifications. Additionally, as that as has been outlined in prior accountability manuals, another example of within indicator waiting is um students who earn CCMR through college prep courses can only do so by using a course on the approved TEA list. As we discussed, there are no proposed changes to the school progress domain. However, the changes to both CCMR and accelerated testers applies to domain 2V or the relative performance domain. In closing the gaps, there are two changes for campuses and one for districts. For campuses, there's a methodology proposed for new campuses or those without prior year data. Additionally, a safe harbor provision allows for small dips in performance for a school that is on positive trajectory for their interim targets. The new performance level standards for SAT and ACT will also
034be reflected in domain 3. For districts, there is a proposal to integrate RDA or resultsdriven accountability into the A throughF framework proposed to be known as a domain 3B in an effort to streamline systems and more transparently share performance data for special populations. And lastly, you'll see proposes proposals related to distinction designations, adding indicators and post-secondary readiness distinction, a methodology for all for our alternative education campuses and dropout recovery schools to uh earn post-secary readiness distinctions. And lastly, the removal of the attendance rate from all academic achievement distinctions. Again, we'll be diving deep into each of these proposals in the coming weeks. For each, we will have time to share what feedback was received, what modeling was conducted, the impact of this proposal, and the ultimate recommendations. You can also expect to see updates to
035this framework when we release the finalized framework next spring, both due to your feedback and due to the new implications of House Bill 8. Before we dig into House Bill 8, I do want to name two things that are not in the preliminary framework, but are in House Bill 8. First, cut scores and domain uh and domain 3 student targets. This work is currently underway and will be shared in summer 2026. At the same time frame, we're currently researching other reporting categories to include self-reported data on programmatic components to include on texaschools.gov. So, let's jump into House Bill 8, which is a massive piece of legislation concerning education in Texas. We have shared many of the implications of House Bill 8 throughout our time together today. Here is a list of I'm not going to
036say complete list, but a complete list of our understanding as of today of all the accountability implications. I know the font is very tiny here and many of you want to dig in. So, we will be posting this deck to the accountability system development page following the conclusion of the first round of the refresh road show webinar. I'm going to touch on some of these now and also dig in more deeply to some of these momentarily. So, as I shared, um there are some uh process and and really codifying timelines for the Texas Education Agency. One of those is that we need to release the annual accountability manual prior to July 15th of each year and and that these refreshes can only happen every 5 years. There's also some additional oversight of AHF rulemaking and
037um any updates you see to the industrybased certification list in the future must align with the 5-year refresh cycle. We are also required to conduct analysis to establish comparable performance standards when the assessments change and we are required to establish a grant program to support school systems in developing and adopting local A throughs systems. I'll give you a minute to read over these and again this slide deck will be shared and we'll be digging into some of these more deeply in just a moment. All right. So again, I want to dig into these a little bit more deeply um to to share more about our current understanding and what we anticipate the impact to be on the 2028 A throughF refresh. So we've discussed cut scores and that cut scores must set us on a
038trajectory to be a top performer nationally within 15 years. These cut scores will be available next summer in the um uh initial draft of the accountability systems manual. Also, next summer, you can expect to see more information on optional reporting indicators. These don't have an impact on ratings, but definitely are of value to families and the community to learn more about programmatic offerings and things that really make your school and district community unique. We are also required to have a system by which new campuses without prior year data can be more fairly evaluated in domain 3. There are lots of considerations for CCMR. So, as we shared, we need to consider and study the correlation between CCMR indicators and long-term success. That work is currently underway and you can expect to see the results of
039that um by late summer of 2026 alongside the 2033 proposed methodology for CCMR across indicator waiting. In the 2028 refresh, so for CCMR for 2028, there will be additional CCMR indicators for military readiness. specifically that relates to the AB uh the uh armed services vocational aptitude battery test or ASVAB and um Junior Reserve Officer Training Corps programs or JOTC. And then lastly for CCMR, uh there must be a way as outlined in House Bill 8 for school districts to have a way to submit additional CCMR data from prior years. So that's something that we um will be seeking feedback on and really studying the best way for that to happen. In the blue box, I also want to highlight um uh the need uh for Texas Education Agency to study through your growth measures and
040presenting that to TAG. So currently our growth measure might be from third grade math to fourth grade math. And this provision outlines that we need to explore um what growth uh would look like from beginning of third grade to the end of third grade. And then for that last one, the STAR to SST, I'm going to pass it over to my teammate, Dr. Karen Mton from the assessment division. >> Awesome. Thank you, Katie. Um so as Katie perfect on the next slide. So on House Bill 8 has as she had mentioned earlier it has a lot of accountability implications and the other half of that is the assessment implications that you see here on the screen. So again the apologize for this font is a little bit small but I would do want to kind
041of highlight just a few things that you see here on this slide. So the last year that STAR will be administered was is going to be the 2627th school year. So I do want to make sure everyone knows this year. Nothing is changing. We still have STAR for the current school year we are in. Um and STAR is going to be replaced um with a new program that will be called the student success tool that will begin with the 2728 school year. So underneath that implication, you can see a wide variety of things that this also affects um including beginning of year, middle of year, and end of year assessments to kind of talk about monitoring that progress. Um there's a couple of things that you can kind of see here about the items being
042reviewed and approved by committees of Texas teachers and making sure that everything is evaluated to be written on grade level. The very last bullet that I did want to point out that the English 2 EOCC will be eliminated effective the 2728 school year. Now the IGC's will be available for students um who pass at least two of the remaining EOCC's. Now we will have additional information. I know on the next slide there's many questions that I imagine that people have um on this and so we are working on gathering all of the facts and all of the information and being able to share that within the coming months and so I think we've kind of um outlined that on the next slide um for this that additional information will be coming and so as soon
043as we have it we will be sharing it with all of our stakeholders. Perfect. Sorry, I uh lost the the unmute button there for a moment. Uh thank you. We appreciate you being here. Uh and again, our teammates from the assessment division will be joining uh the next two iterations of the refresh road show um to really lend um uh their expertise uh gather your feedback um and and share updates as they become available. So to sum all of that up again, here is a list of proposed changes for the for 2028 and then over in the orange, additional implications of House Bill 8 that you'll re see reflected in future iterations of the 2028 A throughF refresh framework. So what do we do now? Well, we encourage you to come back on October 8th
044or 9th to learn more about the proposed changes to domain 1 and distinction designations, which includes the CCMR indicate uh indicators. Registration links will be shared through our weekly bulletin and on the accountability system development page. As we shared, the assessment team will also be here to share updated information on the SST as we know that is both critical and ever evolving. On our next webinar, we'll also be joined by leaders from the college career and military preparation division who can speak um directly and answer questions about um updates and implications uh to within indicator CCMR shifts. We also encourage you to give feedback. If you're ready now, that stakeholder feedback form is open or you can wait until the conclusion of our webinar series or in-person events. Either way, we appreciate it and we
045will consider it as we work towards an updated framework next spring, a preliminary manual early next summer, and a final manual adoption late in summer of 2026. We sincerely appreciate your time and engagement today in learning how a refresh comes to be. We recognize that change can be uncomfortable, but we're thrilled to be starting this process now and be on track to share a final manual 2 years before the refresh, allowing all of us time and space to prepare and process. And lastly, we appreciate your feedback on our presentation today. This is just the start of the refresh road show journey and we would love to hear from you what worked and what didn't work as we prepare and adjust.