001This session is for the college prep courses evaluation methodology deep dive. So for those um participants about to join. Um we did have a session yesterday that was an overview deep dive and next steps. We will be going over some of those slides from yesterday but we did want to review some webinar logistics as we have more um participants entering from the waiting room. Um again emphasizing that this is a recorded session. Um please put your questions in the question and answer function. Um we while we will have that available throughout the presentation, we do recommend um putting in questions toward the latter end, we will be um addressing questions in the chat um if time permits towards the end of the session. So, please make sure um to locate that Q&A function, but also
002be aware that we won't be um going through the Q&A throughout the session. We'll be doing that through um at the end um and also looking at questions that might be relevant for a future question and answer for this program. Um good afternoon everyone. I'm Crystal Gar, the director of post-secary preparation programs. I have with me as well Josie Brunner who is our data strategist who will be going over the method methodology and evaluations um as well as some of my colleagues Taffne Nickerson post-secondary success coordinator as well as Valerie Laundry our senior director um for college career military preparation. So, we wanted to start off this conversation with some slides that our commissioner has presented to the superintendent um as well as various education service centers. And what we also went over in the
003deep dive yesterday to ground us in this work that we have produced a process for college preparatory courses based on expectations for um our college career and military readiness accountability system. And so as you'll see on the next slide, we're focusing in specifically on college readiness and the indicator regarding meeting TSIA criteria in reading language arts and mathematics. So on this slide, um we're we're take we want to continue to emphasize that the work being done in these college prep courses are in alignment with assessments like TSIA, SAT, and ACT since it is an option to meet this criteria in CCMR. Um but also um to ensure that we are promoting alignment between school districts, partnering institutions, facilitators that are facilitating um uh partnerships with those institutions um in accordance with statute, but making sure
004at the end of the day that these students are earning those TSIA exemptions. And Josie will go into more detail of how that relates to our evaluation methodology. Um, we also wanted to recall um our Texas Education Code just to to emphasize that these are college prep courses that districts shall be partnering with at least one institution um to provide um support for students at the 12th grade level with particular performance where they are not meeting college readiness standards and they're not ready to perform at that entry college level coursework. So wanted to ground us in the accountability side but also in that education code relevant to these college prep courses and that grade level. Um we also wanted to talk a little bit about timelining and mention that these college prep courses have grown
005in participation and the rate of which credit has been received not just for mathematics but in English as well almost doubling that increase in credit. On top of that um increase in the number of students that are participating with college prep courses, we've seen that correlation that the number of graduates who are exclusively meeting CCMR through college prep courses also rose significant significantly from that 2018 um uh school year there. And while that rise in participation has led to a lot of um outcomes for students, we want to focus in on the intention of these college prep courses, which are to get that TSIA exemption for the student, but ultimately be able to have the student be successful in their subsequent first college level courses. And what we were seeing is that for the class
006of 22 graduates, which Josie will speak in more detail later, um most of those graduates for 22 only um met college readiness through college prep courses did not earn a CER better um in those respective areas um without remediation. And so um while we looked closer at the the methodology, we wanted to give that highlevel glance at what we saw for the class of 22. So from our evaluation um we had um a set number of institutions that were approved um there you can see but we also have the official list on the website um and we will make sure to um list all of the institutions that are there. Um believe there's a slight typo. Brazport college is on the approved list. We apologize for that. Um but we will make sure that the
007slide deck reflects that and send out um the official list to all the participants on the call today. Um but from this um process and again Josie will go into the methodology um a little bit closer um we had five institutions be approved for English language arts and reading and um for mathematics um we do not have qualifying scores at this time but in the timeline um later we will discuss further options for um being added to the list for future I believe I'm passing it over to Josie. Perfect. Thank you, Crystal. So, what I'll be doing today is going through a deeper dive in the methodology so that we have three objectives that hopefully we can get through during this time. The first one is that we want to describe the analysis that was
008actually conducted for first college level course performance. So this was the primary indicator that was used to determine who made the CCMR list. Second, we want to make sure that we elaborate on our methodology decision points. Specifically, we're going to be transparent about what took place in the data and what decisions we did end up using and why we got to the methodology that we did. And then finally, we do want to explain why calculations might be different from what a provider might calculate. Um, again, in the spirit of transparency, we want to acknowledge that providers doing their own analysis most 100% will have different results than what the agency computed. So originally we had two different metrics for success that we were going to use for the college preparatory course uh review application process.
009Uh both of these metrics were grounded in statutory expectation. And so the first metric and the reason why we collected information on three cohorts is originally we were going to use the rate in which CPC students were receiving credit for CCMR. We based this measure on the understanding that one um because of statutory requirements for the college preparatory course as outlined in Texas Education Code 28.014 014 that the only students who would be in the course are those who did not demonstrate college readiness prior to course enrollment. The second assumption that we made to use this as a measure of success was that students would be coded with credit only if they met the criteria to meet under Texas Education Code 51.338, specifically the exemption that is used for the college preparatory course. In the
010end, we did not use this as a measure of success. Later on in this deep dive, I will explain further why we did not use this as a measure of success. The second measure that we originally planned to use for the evaluation was to look at the first college level course performance or all students who were enrolled and received credit for the course. With this, this measure was based on the statutory expectations for the course as outlined both in the education code for the college preparatory course and also what is outlined for CCMR. With this, we also assumed that only the students who did not enroll with the partner institution that they were the ones who possibly might need to take a course with remediation if they did not meet any other college readiness indicator.
011We also assumed that if a student did not enroll with the partner institution that according to Texas Education Code 51.33 that they would be required to take the Texas Success Initiative assessment. So in other words, even if they were not granted the college preparatory course waiver with a partner institution, they still had the opportunity to demonstrate college readiness. And in fact for CCMR we do include all assessments for TSI including those that are administered by institutions all the way through October the following um uh reporting year after graduation for CCMR credit. Ultimately, the threshold for this indicator was 60% of those students earning a C or better without remediation. The reason that we chose the 60% is essentially we wanted to make sure that the college preparatory course uh indicator for CCMR was aligned to
012the same standard of success as it is for other TSI exemptions. In other words, we wanted to make sure that those students who were being coded as college ready still had the same level of success in their first college level course as if they did take the SAT, TSIA2, or the ACT. Just as a point of reference, for all of these other exams, they actually demonstrate success in that first college level course at higher than 60%. However, we did not want to decrease this standard any lower. This is to account in case in those sampling of those uh studies for those other assessments if uh really that margin of error made it to where they had higher success. So that is how we came to the 60% threshold. For those that were lower than the
01360% threshold, we wanted to make sure that there was other evidence of quality for the course. And for this we made sure that we were using the faculty review um as sort of a secondary c uh source of quality for the course. We did not go lower than 50% mainly because we wanted to ensure that the students success rate was not a coin toss in terms of the data collection and the attribution of the students. How did we know what students took what course from what provider? During the application process, we did have the applicants submit to us the campuses and the districts in which they served for the college preparatory course by subject area. For some um we did receive data on 2022, 2023 in the 2024 school year. um the agency we did
014not receive any student level data directly from the provider. There were instances in which multiple applicants claimed the same campus uh for which they served. In these cases, we did attribute those students those students from those campuses to all of the providers that claimed them. This mainly impacted Texas College Bridge. 24% of the campuses in which they served were claimed by other applicant providers. Again, those students were attributed both to Texas College Bridge and to the other applicants. And finally, we did include evaluation for education service centers that did apply. They also provided list of campuses and districts they served and along with that in the application process they provided the names of the institutions in which they partnered. So who is included in the denominator of the first college level course? So first we
015start with the lens of accountability. Mainly students had to complete the college preparatory course and receive full credit in grade 12. This mirrors the requirement for Texas accountability CCMR indicator. So how do we look to see whether or not a student received full credit? We use the core sequence codes which a zero represents that they took the first semester of a one semester course. So in other words, full credit does not imply that they had to be in the course for a full academic year. Two represents the second semester of the two semester course. Five the third semester of a three semester course and a nine represents the fourth semester of a four semester course. We only included those records that had these codes. We recognized that there were some campuses that only reported a
016one first semester of a two semester course. These districts did not receive CCMR credit and therefore including in our evaluation they were not included. Also, the district had to use the course IDs for the course. We recognize that some districts do not use these course codes. And so if a provider selected a campus that did not use these course codes, they were not included in analysis. And then finally, the student did have to be in grade 12. Due to limitations in how data were collected, we did not know what campuses were served in reporting year 2021. What this means is that for repeated 12th grade students or those who might have taken a CPC course in the summer prior to the academic year in which they were a senior, they were not included in analysis.
017This does not necessarily reflect what will be used ultimately in accountability but was a limitation due to how we collected information. Next, the student had to actually receive credit for the college preparatory course and they needed to have graduated. So, we look at the fail passcode um 1 and 8. So one stands for students passing a course and receiving credit. An eight is actually a student did not pass the course but they also received credit for the course. In accountability we use both of these codes for CCMR. And then finally the student did have to graduate. For the purpose of the analysis, we attributed the student to the campus in which they took and completed the course, not where the student actually graduated. So, in other words, if a student completed in the fall, but
018they moved to another campus in the spring, they could still be included in analysis regardless of where the student graduated. We were then able to match those students to those who enrolled specifically into Texas public institutions mainly because this is how we are able to receive any information related to performance in the first college level course. For purpose of this analysis, we did use the exact same data set and matching as what is used for CCMR bonus. I want to note that college preparatory course does not lend itself to CCMR bonus. To meet CCMR bonus, you must meet TSI and this excludes college preparatory course. However, we wanted to make sure the data aligned with CCMR bonus in where we attributed students and their enrollment. And then finally, we did use information provided by the
019Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board based on what institutions reported as performance in those first college level courses based on one the Texas Common Core numbering system. So this is the numbering system mostly used by community colleges for courses um that are in the academic course guide manual. So undergraduate courses mainly the entry level courses. Further we did look at all of the courses that students enrolled for the full school year. So this included fall, spring and also summer. We also made sure that the course was coded by the institution as a college level course. In other words, for developmental education codes, it was a zero or a B. A B actually represents a college level course that is taken in the co-requisite model, meaning that they also received remediation. And then finally, we did look
020to see whether or not the student received a course grade. We included the A, B, C, D, and F, but we also included code seven, which is a drop. This is a customary practice in Texas at looking at success in a first college level course due to the Texas six drop rule. What this rule means is that in the whole career of uh students taking courses as an undergrad, they are only allowed six courses in which they can drop. If a student drops a course, this is not considered academic success. We did exclude other core uh course codes. So those that were incomplete or no credit, those classes were not included. This is very customary again for this analysis and was used for the predictive validity studies for the TSIA and for the star EOCC's.
021These are the college level courses that were used for this particular analysis. Uh generally we want to note that these are the courses that were used by Pearson for the star English 3 and algebra 2 EOC predictive validity study. These were also the courses used by the college board for the TSIA predictive validity study with the exception that we included two additional courses which you see in blue. These were the 4hour courses for mathematics in contemporary mathematics and mathematics for business and social science. Again, we used the Texas Common Core numbering system to determine whether or not a student took the course. Universities do not need to report based on the TCCNS, but they do provide a crosswalk for every year where they do link their courses with the TCCNS. And so even if a
022student went to an institution that does not use the same rubric, we are still able to identify the equivalent course. So how did we select the course for the outcome? So what you see here is mock data for a student. We are using this for illustrative purposes. I'll be walking you through how we would choose a course for a reading intensive first college level college level course evaluation. First we start with all students who received credit CCMR credit for English language arts. Based on that, we would then go see if they've enrolled at a Texas public education institution, and then we would see all of the courses that they took within that academic year. We would then isolate all of the courses that we deemed reading inensive, and we would also verify that it's a
023college level course. Next, we look to see whether or not those courses are represented and what is the first semester in which they took one of those courses. Next, we're going to check to make sure that they took the course for a grade. Again, 1 2 3 4 5 or seven, which is a drop. Finally, if there is more than one course represented, we randomly select a record. The reason we randomly select a record is because we were not able to do a causal analysis. So, we could not compute a probability. However, by randomly choosing one record, we are able to get some sense of probability of how well a student performed. We do not see that it is equivalent performance for a student who might have only received one C or better among five
024courses versus a student who received five C's or better in five different courses. Qualitatively these are different. And so by randomly selecting a course based on those eligible courses, we have then limited to only those again that are more closely related to the probability of earning that C or higher. So in this case we selected the course in which they did earn a C. So again this was a random selection. So based on the analysis um most uh this is including everybody in the state performance was much lower um than what we expected. So this is using every student who received credit for CCMR for the college preparatory course and their performance in the first college level course. For mathematics, onethird of students, again, using all students actually received a C or better without remediation.
025In writing, we did see lower than 50%, although reading intensive courses, we did see a little bit better performance. When we did look at the data again of all students um for these courses, reading and writing, you will see not too many institutions um and provider applicants actually met the 60% threshold. In other words, even if TEA were to include all students, very few would meet the threshold. When we look at mathematics again across all of the providers that we received, no provider using all students in the analysis reached the 60% threshold. Now we'll get back to again one of the original metrics that we had planned for analysis. So originally we were wanting to look at the rate in which CCMR was provided to students but based on closer inspection of the data there
026are two things that we observed. The first is I want you to notice that from 2022 to 2024 the scaling of the college preparatory course doubled. So we have twice as many students who are receiving and took the college preparatory course. The second observation is that from 2022 to 2024 we actually see the rate of students receiving credit for the course actually increasing. This is a very sort of unexpected finding mainly because with programs that are addressing performance of low performing students, most tend to start with serving students who are closer to meeting the standard. So in other words, those uh that are usually referred to bubble students. Usually as the program scales, they're scaling by getting more and more students who are lower performers. In most cases, you tend to expect that performance will
027slightly drop as the program scales. This is not the case that we see with college preparatory course. along with the performance that we do see in the first college level course. We had to re-evaluate how we would interpret those data. Mainly it you could have higher passing rates if in fact those higher passing rates are a reflection of lower or at least minimal different standards for college readiness. So what does this mean? It means that for this particular indicator, the standard that applicants would have to meet is they would need to have at least 98% of their students receiving credit. But what we also saw in the data is an inverse relationship of those who had higher rates of students performing well in a first college level course. They were also associated with lower credit
028rates, much lower credit rates than 98%. So what this means is that as a provider is able to have more students get a C or better without remediation, they usually did not meet this indicator. So we looked at two other pieces of evidence that this measure was actually reflecting lower standards. So the first piece of evidence actually came from institutions. So what we did is we looked at how institutions were coding college readiness among those students that TEA had coded as college ready. And what you will see is that over half of those students in both ELA and math actually were not recognized by institutions, their partner institutions as being college ready. So with the list that we now had in hand where we knew where students were being served, we know where they enrolled,
029we could look directly at the coding of those institutions and how they recognized college readiness. The second piece of evidence came from theou review. Essentially, we did findus that stated two different standards for college readiness. One was for the application of the college prep waiver and one was for CCMR. Usually in theseus, the CCMR indicator reflected a lower standard. So what does this mean? So instead of mock data here, I am going to go through an illustration of a real partnership between a district and one of the applicants. And so what you'll see on the screen is the number of students who received credit for the college preparatory course that is in blue. What you can hardly see in gray are the students who took the course their senior year and did not receive credit.
030For this particular district, the number of students who received credit in mathematics was over half of their graduates. For EL, this represented 38% of their graduates. When we look at the number of students who received credit for CCMR and enrolled with a partner institution, we see that this district partnership is actually doing what was intended by law. They partnered with an institution in which most of their students who are taking the college preparatory course actually enroll at the institution. All of the students who took the college preparatory course about 33% actually enrolled directly with the partner institution. However, when we look at the institutions coding of these students, what you'll see in gray, those are the students that the partner institution coded as not being college ready. If our assumptions were correct and statute was
031followed as we thought it would be applied, what you see in gray should be close to mostly orange. In other words, for the students who directly enroll with a partner institution and were college ready by the institution, they should have the college preparatory waiver. So, there's two things that might be happening. The first is that information um about whether or not a student qualified for the waiver was not provided by the student to the institution. However, we do assume that the institution would receive a transcript of the students course grades. Second, it could very well be that the student did not meet the institutions standard for a successful course completion. In other words, the student did not qualify for the waiver. Regardless of the reason, we ended up deciding not to use the first metric
032for success that we had planned. In other words, we had to drop the CCMR credit rate indicator as a measure of success to be used to evaluate the applicants. Mainly, we base this decision looking at Texas Education Code 39.053 053. Specifically, what constitutes the CCMR indicator for accountability? The full indicator is not that the student completes the course. Rather, the full indicator is that they've completed the course that indicates that a student is prepared to enroll and succeed without remediation in an entrylevel general education course. Ultimately, what we decided to best fit the intent of statute for the CCMR indicator, we would only use first college level course performance for evaluation. further. Um this is the reason that we had a delay in um evaluating and providing the CCMR list is because due to most
033of our assumptions being wrong, we had to reassess how we were going to evaluate all of the applications for CCMR credit. So this is again where we had to go back to our obligations within statute to determine how we would best be able to evaluate the applications. So I just want to note that THCB has the responsibility for evaluating the actual college preparatory course and its effectiveness. The agency was not intending to evaluate the course or its providers. Rather, we have the statutory obligation to evaluate our CCMR indicator. So what does that mean exactly? So there are three major implications to this. So the first implication is when we have a coding difference in what represents college readiness. So in other words, what the district reports and what the institution reports, whereas THCB would use
034what institutions report as college readiness. TEA has the obligation to use the data that was used to determine CCMR accountability, meaning we must use the information reported by districts. The second implication is that if the districts did not code information correctly, the agency cannot in retrospect change any of those miscodes. So even though we do know that there are some reporting issues from districts, we are again evaluating the indicator. So those students did not receive credit for CCMR and so therefore no supplementary information will change um again the students that were selected for evaluation. And then finally, and probably the most important piece, because we are evaluating the indicator and not the course, TEA is under no obligation to include all students who took the course in its evaluation of CCMR. Specifically, we made the
035decision based on the fact that the data and the measures that we originally planned were not reliable is to limit the denominator that was used to only include students who met college readiness through the CPC. Why would we do that? mainly because at this point we had to make sure that the college preparatory course indicator can be a standalone indicator for college readiness. Meaning when we interpret the performance of students, we have to ensure that that is not a representation of other college readiness indicators. Due to limitations, we could not perform a causal relationship analysis. And so by limiting the denominator to only those students who received credit for CCMR, in other words, were considered college ready. And no other indicator are we able to determine again whether or not that indicator in and of
036itself determines college readiness. So again to bring this into context um and to explain how there is a difference of not evaluating the course and evaluating the indicator. We want to recognize that providers will most certainly calculate their performance at much higher rates. The reason for this, so this is again a real example from a provider who did not make it onto the list. If they were to calculate the rate themselves based on their coding of college readiness, what you see is that even in mathematics, they would have 62% of those students getting a C or better without remediation in the first college level course. However, based on what we used for our indicator of college readiness, what was reported by districts, you will see an all gray bar. These students were also recognized as
037being college ready through CCMR. these additional students through our obligation of evaluating the indicator and not the course. These students are included in the denominator. This is what caused most applicants to not be approved for CCMR accountability purposes. Again, this is one example, but they are not alone. So what you see here are all of the applicants and what essentially they are coding students with the waiver or without what you see in the blue bars those would be the students that the institution recognizes with the waiver. So again in whatever interpretation they are looking at the criteria and they said these students met the criteria for the waiver. However, what you will see in orange are the additional students who are coded as being college ready by districts. And again, the obligation of the agency
038is to include these students in analyses, but we did try to see what the results would look like if we did factor in the CPC waiver from institutions. Again, this does not coincide with expectations for statute, but we did want to see what results would look like. One of the things to note, and this is the information for English language arts, is you'll notice that most applicants did not even have sufficient data for us to evaluate. Those missing bars are institutions that did not even have five students in the denominator. For mathematics, we also see the results. Again, no applicant even when we consider the waiver and the institution's reporting based again on only keeping students who only met college readiness through the CPC. You'll notice that most institutions did not recognize these students. So
039again, we have a lot of missing data. We did try to expand the denominator. So, we did look to see what data would look like if we did include every single student back um into that denominator and they received the CPC. Again, you see very spotty data where most institutions are still not recognizing those students as college ready. And you see this with mathematics as well. Finally, we did consider one last indicator as an alternative to what is student success. So, we looked at the rate in which students were able to demonstrate TSI on the SAT, ACT, or the TSIA. One of the things to note is that there were no applicants that over about a third of those students demonstrating TSI um through another exemption. Ultimately, we did not use this as an indicator
040of success. Mainly, for one, this did not benefit students. Students who could meet another college readiness indicator for the exemption, they don't need the college prep waiver exemption. The second reason is those students by meeting these other indicators they already receive CCMR credit for their district. Mainly we did not decide to use this indicator because what it would do is essentially provide college readiness to students nearly 100%. Again, if you think about who is receiving credit for these courses, so nearly 100% would be receiving college readiness credit for the demonstration of fewer than a third of the students. But we do want to acknowledge again the other purposes for the college preparatory course as a CCMR indicator. Maybe not, but these courses might still prepare students for meeting the other college readiness indicators. So, what
041you do see on the screen are standout um providers who did have students meeting other college readiness indicators, mainly the TSI exemption. Um, we did want to be able to recognize that just because an institution is not on the CCMR list does not mean that the course is again evaluated poorly. So the key takeaways is one the agency evaluated and approved the use of the college preparatory course for uh certain providers for CCMR accountability purposes only. For successful completion of the course to be granted status as a college readiness indicator, it must demonstrate that students succeed in a first college level course at to close the same performance level as demonstrated by other college readiness indicators. No math course, at least at this point, demonstrated performance levels that met this expectation. Second, the agency did
042not implement an approval process for the use of the college preparatory course by any provider. Districts may continue to use providers not on the CCMR list as courses may serve several purposes including supporting students in meeting other college readiness indicators. And finally, the agency will continue to evaluate the college preparatory course and ELA and math to add uh to the approval list, but we will continue to use the first college level course performance of graduates who only met college readiness through the CPC. This way it ensures that that indicator for CCMR can be a standalone indicator for college readiness. In other words, the performance was not influenced by other college readiness indicators. Crystal is now going to go into a little bit more detail about the timeline for this evaluation. So if you go to
043the next slide, Josie. Um so um for the college prep course timeline, um many of the folks on the call have been historically um participating in these college prep courses since 2014 um or as of recent years. But we did want to focus on what the timeline is for the upcoming um school years, what that means for our secondary schools. So for this immediate 2526 school year, we have had a postponement of this um evaluation proposed list and we'll have some slides further to to talk about that a little bit more in detail. for 2627. Um that will be the official year where the approved list um will be used to implement for the first time with 12th grade students. And again of note, the 2728 school year will be that release of 2028 A
044throughF accountability ratings. So, particularly of note if you are a partner, this is um this is where a lot of the the school districts will often um mention um that CCMR rating and that lag of of when those results come out. So on the next slide, um again wanted to emphasize that there was a to the administrator address sent um from our agency um to secondary schools to make sure that they were aware of the postponement for the approved uh for an approved list which again means that this upcoming year if you were not approved you can work with um any college prep course you're or consistent with your college prep Of course, I think that's what we would recommend is to continue those partnerships moving forward. Um, so wanted to to make sure that
045this was one of the key takeaways that you take not just from this methodology but from the overall communications is that for this upcoming year um you can continue to work with your partners for English and math. On the next slide, we have an overall timeline. Um and again this will be really important for um just the understanding of when our approved lists will be available online and what annual graduates impact what accountability years in particular. And again, we know we have a lot of provider partners on the call um that might be higher ed institutions and wanted to make sure that there's a uh comprehensive um timeline through 2033 of what what our expectations are as an agency. So again emphasizing um for this past year that occurred any course meeting the requirements aligned
046between districts and partners um was applicable towards the class of 25 accountability year um 26 um the postponement of the approved list for this upcoming year and then on the next couple of slides we'll talk through next steps um for um the the rest of the here. So, if you go to the next slide, um for 2526, um want to keep emphasizing that districts can continue to offer locally developed um college prep courses in partnership with your IHE partners, your education service centers um or any other uh partnerships that did apply for the class of 2026. Um so you may continue to use that but we do want to emphasize especially after walking through the methodology um that PE's reporting is particularly important um to our future evaluations. So beginning in the 2526 school year's
047reporting will be required for college prep course participation. Um and again those courses um will be included for the accountability years and we will only be looking at courses that are completed by 12th grade students being eligible for college career military readiness credit for the 2027 accountability. On the next slide, um we will see the college prep course implementation timeline. So um beginning in this year, um relevant to the 2028 A throughF refresh, um we continue to ask for PES reporting to be done only for those 12th grade students eligible for college career military readiness credit related to those approved providers. Um currently those five um that you will have seen listed um we will be opening the application annually um to add more providers to the list as we continue to have more data
048made available to us particularly for 2627. Um we do want to mention that you can still work with college prep courses not approved for CCMR credit. Um, however, they will not count for CCMR, but they can absolutely still count for that TSIA exemption and high school graduation requirements. On the next slide, we will see um some additional opportunities to have college prep course providers be added to the version 1.0 list, which applies to the class of 2627. Um and and um the timeline will be in the fall. Um we will be opening an application in September, closing in November. And also um um on the lookout for faculty uh recruitment to invite to continue having that process to um continue to look at um uh instructional materials and how um school districts are being advised
049um to best support college readiness for these courses. In the spring of 26, we will conduct faculty reviews and evaluate the first college level course data um in June 2025. In the summer, we will provide additional college prep course providers for that version 1.0 to take effect in the 2627 school year. So, there will be another opportunity if you are a provider um on the call currently to um have the agency take a look at your class of 2024 data for consideration for additional providers in English or math. On the next slide, um we will talk about the next couple of years from uh the class of 28 to 31 a as a cluster because we we want to emphasize that um after this 1.0 list, the agency will be providing the list every fall
050um exactly one year prior to that academic year. So you will have the information of who is approved one year prior to serving your students um for the the lists spanning 1.1 and 1.4. I also want to emphasize that if you are an approved provider um you do not um need to apply until the version 2.0 on the next slide when we talk about that. But just wanted to emphasize that the list will be additive and will not be um removing campuses from uh that list for 203132. Like I mentioned, we will open up the application in fall 2029 where we will um do another evaluation on all providers. Um, again, and and can't mention this enough, with the PE's course codes being specific, um, moving forward to the providers that applied, um, we want
051to make sure that we're enabling school districts to report to these courses correctly with the institutions that we're hoping continue to to work in the partnership so we can have um, the most specific data that we can when we do future evaluations. On the next slide, um, we wanted to do a summary of the school year for next steps. And so, um, we are encouraging school districts did and did yesterday and will continue to do so moving forward to secure their partnerships between 2526. We know that there are quite a few differentou cadences for 5 years, 2 years, yearly. And so, um, we have, uh, alerted school districts that they should definitely be on the lookout for any subsequent amendments, um, or renewals of their, um, as they currently stand, knowing that we're in a
052little bit of a transition for 25, 26, 26, 27. Um, we want to make sure and emphasize that course enrollment will be incredibly important. So we will continue to have office hours, webinars um so that our our secondary campuses can make sure to identify PE's course coding as best they can. Um as well as uh uh rethinking that master schedule for 2627 and making sure that campuses are thinking as early as possible of how to continue to work with their partners. um or look for a partner that is um um respective to your region that would benefit the student in the long run. Um on the next slide, we wanted to just summarize the two um course options for 2627, which would be to continue to work with an approved provider um that that has
053been approved by the agency, continue to support the students by taking um that course, continue to code the students performance, and if a district decides to continue to not to work with a provider that's not approved at this time, they can continue to do so um after the 2627 school year, but it will not garner CCMR credit. But we still encourage those courses to meet those requirements of those partnerships and contemplate whether offering a college readiness assessment to demonstrate performance if those um if those um students are um um being prepared through this college prep course um to take those assessments. So that is our final slide and I'm going to pause here um because I I think we're just about at time but we will take a look at the questions and see if
054there's any that we can um answer for the methodology. energy. I think we have answered quite a few in the chat but I do want to make one last um plug for sharing with participants after this session. The slides and recordings will be available on the college prep course website. And so wanted to um continue to um encourage people to look at our website particularly on those dates um for um for um folks to keep updated on their um uh application opening and their the Q&A. So, um like I mentioned throughout the the session, we will be taking these questions and looking for common themes um to produce a an FAQ. So again would like to highly encourage folks to um go to our tea website for more questions on this process. We will be
055closing out this session um with more information, office hours um and uh webinars to come at a future date. Thank you.